Talk:Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2024
In Legality section of article, change "citation needed" to:

Diplomatic premises, like homes and schools, are considered "civilian objects" under international law, and they are not permissible as targets unless they are used for a military purpose. Diplomatic buildings are entitled to further protections from attack or other interference by the host country under international customary law, codified in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations, but in this case these do not apply to Israel. Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is an appropriate source. A source specific to this strike would be appropriate; otherwise, this is original research. Zanahary (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Unrefined Gasoline. @Zanahary Here a link about the actual stryke regarding this matter: where International Right Expert affirm that: "“So attacks on diplomatic compounds carry particular weight, both in law and in the popular imagination. But in this case, experts say, Israel can likely argue that its actions did not violate international law’s protections for diplomatic missions. Here’s why. The embassy complex was not on Israeli soil.."
 * and
 * "“ Israel is a third state and is not bound by the law of diplomatic relations with regard to Iran’s Embassy in Syria, ” said Aurel Sari, a professor of international law at Exeter University in the United Kingdom."
 * This make a legal difference if compared with the Iran hostage crisis where Iran was the “receiving State” of the US Embassy in Teheran and violeted the Vienna Convention. Nicola Romani (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of all the legal experts in the world, of all the think tanks, they've only managed to quote a (Jewish?) associate professor at a second-league UK university, additionally one who argues that military necessity overrides the legal requirement of protecting civilians in an armed conflict? And now a global encyclopaedia is to be built on his opinion? — kashmīrī  TALK  09:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've struck out the query as to whether the author of that piece is Jewish or not, which is immaterial, and (offensively insinuating). But the source from the NYTs is patently mediocre, a whitewash job mugged up within a day of the strike, with no broad consulting of legal and political science authorities. The two opinions cited are from a specialist in the defence world (predictable) and the Israeli legal scholar. There is no attempt whatsoever to caste the net broader, though it would have been simple even by that date to show that a good many scholars and authorities of greater notability questioned the legality of what Israel did. The standard view was that Israel bombed an embassy compound in Syria, that embassy compounds are under particular protection and must not be attacked.
 * The cherrypicked argument by the pro-Israeli scholar was that in so far as the convention deals with the relations between a receiving state (Syria) and a state whose presence is received on its soil (Iran), Israel as a third state is not affected by the convention. (the Ukraine could bomb the Russian embassies in Byelorussia or anywhere else in the world because, the (il)logic runs, the Convention only protects Russian property in such countries from any attack by the receiving states, but not from countries in conflict with Russia)
 * That view is eccentric to the mainstream. If the Convention is read that way, it would mean that any embassy in any country could be struck by a missile from any third party if the third party regarded that embassy as hostile to its own state. That simply empties the Conventions of the meaning they have always been taken to bear, since it entails the proposition that embassies are not intrinsically inviolable. Which is absurd. Article 22 states that embassies are 'inviolable', no equivocation. Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reading "Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961", it appears that Article 22 only applies to the receiving state:
 * "Diplomatic Law : Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations" says something similar:
 * Less focused works, such as "Diplomatic Asylum", do the same.
 * I don't believe this is absurd. The protections under the Vienna Convention function because there is a recourse for the receiving state for the misuse of the premises by the sending state; the revocation of the permit of use. A third state does not have this recourse, and under your interpretation would have no recourse. To take your hypothetical to its logical extreme, your interpretation would forbid Ukraine from striking a munitions factory that Russia opened in its embassy in Belarus for the purpose of supplying their forces in Ukraine, and would forbid Ukraine from striking a Russian military headquarters in Belgorod if Russia and North Korea both claimed that the Russian military headquarters were the North Korean embassy.
 * I've also added a second source which says the same thing as the New York Times article. BilledMammal (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Every embassy in the world has military attachés. Here's Israel's in its Washington Embassy. You know that, the world knows that. Answer the points below about your very strong POV pushing which uses wikivoice to assert essentially an Israeli POV. Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The presence of a military attaché isn't sufficient to establish that a site is being used for military purposes. In addition, I feel you missed the point of my comment, which was that reliable sources appear to support the position that inviolability only applies to the receiving state, and not to third states. BilledMammal (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep. Besides, the concept of inviolability of diplomatic premises (and personnel) has been an integral part of customary international law for millennia as far as I know, even if the Vienna Convention only codifies the obligations of the receiving state.
 * Worth noting that the Convention deliberately does not offer exceptions from inviolability for the host state. — kashmīrī  TALK  16:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep. Besides, the concept of inviolability of diplomatic premises (and personnel) has been an integral part of customary international law for millennia as far as I know, even if the Vienna Convention only codifies the obligations of the receiving state.
 * Worth noting that the Convention deliberately does not offer exceptions from inviolability for the host state. — kashmīrī  TALK  16:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Kashmiri, what?? Zanahary (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What what? Yes, the author writes: [A]n attack is not disproportionate where the attacker anticipates civilian harm and deliberately proceeds with the attack in the expectation or knowledge that the anticipated civilian harm will materialise, provided that this harm is not excessive. [...] The bottom line is, contrary to what the Special Rapporteur suggests, that LOAC [Law of Armed Conflict] does not preclude causing civilian harm intentionally and as a first order effect in the context of an attack directed against a military objective, provided that such harm is not excessive in relation to the military advantage expected and all feasible measures are taken to avoid or in any event minimize it. Going by this logic, a mere expectation of military advantage would suffice to make targeting civilians lawful, which I hope all agree would be highly questionable (because the attacker will always argue that any chance of eliminating enemy combatants is a sufficient reason to target civilians, and that it, the attacker, has of course taken "all precautions" but unfortunately...). In all this legal nitpicking the author seem to forget the larger picture; the intent; the why the Geneva Conventions came to exist in the first place – which was to protect all those remaining hors de combat precisely against such attacks. Anyhow, this is not the place to argue with the author. Just enough that I don't believe this lone view would give justice to the rather complex matter of the applicability of various provisions of international law to the Damascus attack. — kashmīrī  TALK  17:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Kashmiri, I am talking about your raising that the author might be Jewish. What is up with that? Zanahary (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you shed any light @Kashmiri? Zanahary (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I shouldn't make such explicit suggestions, but I always wonder how media select "experts" to comment on their articles. — kashmīrī  TALK  14:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you bring up that she may be Jewish? Please be clear. Zanahary (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Source falsification
However, these obligations do not apply to third parties, such as Israel in the case of an Iranian embassy in Syria.

The source states: "There are exceptions to inviolability under international law, too. The Vienna Convention only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attack. Also, under the laws of armed conflict, embassies lose their protections if they are used for military purposes. That may mean that the recent strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus was legal; a spokesperson for the Israel Defence Forces called the annexe that was destroyed a “military building [...] disguised as a civilian building”. Iran may try to claim, falsely, that the same is true of Israeli embassies, and that attacks on them would be similarly justified.(Why are embassies supposed to be inviolable? The Economist 9 April 2024)"

This looks to me like a palmary case of source falsification. Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(2) We had:- "The US State Department states that 'An attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents'." The source for this was "U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, as well as foreign countries’ embassies and consulates in the United States, have a special status. While the host government is responsible for the security of U.S. diplomats and the area around an embassy, the embassy itself belongs to the country it represents. Representatives of the host country cannot enter an embassy without permission. An attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents. is a U.S. Embassy? US State Department" This was removed by Billed Mammal as WP:Synth.

I.e. a direct verbatim citation from the source is expunged as the combination of two separate sources (synthesis), which is impossible here.Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding (1), you've bolded the wrong part of the Economist quote:
 * The New York Times, the second source there, says the same thing:
 * I believe the two sources are more than sufficient to support the line However, these obligations do not apply to third parties, such as Israel in the case of an Iranian embassy in Syria.
 * Regarding (2), it's WP:SYNTH because it implies a conclusion not stated by the source, that the US has stated that this is considered an attack on Iran. BilledMammal (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding 2 you are wrong. It does not imply a conclusion, but states a principle. That principle was in, precisely, the very source you introduced, the Economist, which stated:
 * "America’s State Department considers an attack on one of its embassies to be an attack on America itself."
 * So, having read the Economist, fully aware that it paraphrases what the State Department article states, you removed the State Department version. So that is a deliberate expunging of a statement you cannot but know existed in the source you yourself use, on the spurious grounds that it implies something. Factual statement do not imply conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It does both. It states a principle, and because of the context ("Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus") also implies a conclusion.
 * The Economist article doesn't imply that conclusion; the statements about the airstrike and the US embassies are in different contexts. BilledMammal (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is waffle. You cannot show where in either source we can find support to assert the combination as a fact (wikivoice) that '(a) these obligations do not apply to third parties, (bh) such as Israel in the case of an Iranian embassy in Syria].' That is an Israeli/pro-Israeli POV. not a fact, easily shown to be a POV by any number of other sources eg.
 * "Of the two recent incidents, the Iranian embassy bombing is the more serious, as it involved the loss of life and resulted in warnings of retaliatory attacks. Yet, Western countries, leaders of which often voice concern over upholding the so-called “rules-based order,” have been reluctant to condemn the act. It was notable that the three liberal democracies on the U.N. Security Council – the United States, the United Kingdom and France – all refused to condemn the strike on Iran’s embassy when the issue came up before them. Israel, while not officially acknowledging responsibility, argued that the Iranian ambassador’s residence was not really a diplomatic venue but “a military building … disguised as a civilian building.” As such, to Israel it was a perfectly legitimate target. But by this logic, nearly all embassies would be seen as fair game. Almost by definition, the vast majority of embassies – particularly of the larger countries – are populated with significant numbers of military and intelligence personnel. To suggest that for that reason embassies should lose their diplomatic immunity and become legitimate targets for armed attacks would bring the whole edifice of the Vienna Convention crashing down. And with it would come the structure on which worldwide formal diplomatic interactions are based.' Jorge Heine Are embassies off-limits? Ecuadorian and Israeli actions suggest otherwise − and that sets a dangerous diplomatic precedent The Conversation 9 April 2024"
 * You are taken pro-Israeli defenses of the attack as factual, in short, and eliminating from the article evidence that suggests the contrary. Source distortion, in short.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think do not apply to third parties is a reasonable paraphrasing of only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attack and refer to the responsibilities of the “receiving State” and say nothing about attacks by a third state on foreign territory.
 * However, to address your concerns I've aligned the wording more closely with the sources; the meaning is unchanged, but it should be clearer now that the article is saying the same thing as the sources. [[User:BilledMammal|
 * I think do not apply to third parties is a reasonable paraphrasing of only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attack and refer to the responsibilities of the “receiving State” and say nothing about attacks by a third state on foreign territory.
 * However, to address your concerns I've aligned the wording more closely with the sources; the meaning is unchanged, but it should be clearer now that the article is saying the same thing as the sources. [[User:BilledMammal|

BilledMammal]] (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No you haven't addressed my concerns at all, but sidestepped them. You engaged in a WP:Synth abuse (while decrying the same in a sentence that is not a synthesis) by uniting two separate opinions from the NYTs and the Economist to assert in wiki's voice that an opinion is a fact. There is no remedy for that kind of sequential distortion other than a revert to the text before you edited it.Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The two sources say the same thing - I can't see why you believe it's WP:SYNTH. In addition, neither of them are opinion articles. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like you're conflating two issues,
 * whether international laws relating to consular protections apply to third-party states
 * whether consular buildings can become legitimate targets based on military use
 * I thought we were discussing (1), but your quote from The Conversation seems to be about (2)?
 * I'm also not clear on what you mean by source falsification or distortion. That sounds like a claim that the text doesn't faithfully match the source? But you didn't really explain why, and later you seem to argue that the source itself is biased. Overall I'm unclear on what your argument is. XDanielx (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the State Department quote, it's not cut-and-dry, but I do think it goes against WP:SYNTH, which says "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source".
 * The question becomes whether our use of the quote implies a conclusion about the legality of the strike (or the US' position thereon). I would say it does, based on the context in which it's included. At the very least, we're implying that there's some kind of applicability to the topic at hand, which the source doesn't do.
 * One could argue that the conclusion is so obvious that it's a trivial case of OR, but I don't think it is. For one thing, the quote says "embassy", raising questions about whether it applies to this building. The quote also seems like informal web content, not attributed to any particular official or spokesperson, and not dated, so it's not entirely obvious whether it closely reflects an official position of the current administration.
 * Has the US taken any explicit position on the legality of this particular strike? If so, that would seem much more appropriate to include here. XDanielx (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 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: Opened move review. See discussion at WP:RMTR, where there is a consensus that a new RM before we resolve the question of what the status quo with only muddy the waters, and that a move review is more appropriate - I will open that shortly. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus → Israeli airstrike on Iranian consulate in Damascus – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Galamore (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus → Israeli airstrike on Iranian consulate in Damascus – The usage of consulate is more WP:PRECISE, and better follows various sources that use the same or similar phrasing. Galamore (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * NPR: "Iran said Monday that Israel killed two of its generals and several others in an airstrike on the Iranian consulate in the Syrian capital Damascus"
 * AP News: "Israeli strike on Iran’s consulate in Syria killed 2 generals and 5 other officers, Iran says"
 * The Guardian: "Why Israel’s attack on Iranian consulate in Syria was a gamechanger"
 * CNN: "Iran vows revenge as it accuses Israel of deadly airstrike on Syria consulate in deepening Middle East crisis."
 * BBC: "Iran's Revolutionary Guards say seven officers have been killed in an Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate building in Syria's capital, Damascus."
 * Jerusalem Post: "Bloomberg reported Israel's attack on Iran's consulate in Syria, killing Revolutionary Guards' command, prompting Iran to suspect Syria's involvement in previous assassinations."
 * Al Jazeera: "How will Iran respond to Israel’s attack on its Damascus consulate?"

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why the title is bombing of Iranian embassy and not consulate?
I think the title confuses the reader, and should be changed. 46.121.27.53 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Because it was not a consulate. — kashmīrī  TALK  22:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * False, the building destroyed was the Counsulate as everyone can check by their own . The current title is wrong and misleading moreover failing to comply with WP:PRECISE. Nicola Romani (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Consulate = formally, the consular section of an embassy irrespective of its location; more commonly, consulate = consular office away from the main embassy. Here, the attack was on the diplomatic complex housing the embassy with all its sections. — kashmīrī  TALK  12:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Move review under way
So, BilledMammal, unhappy with the outcome of the recent move discussion, has requested a move review here:

Move_review/Log/2024_April

Interested editors are welcome to comment. — kashmīrī  TALK  00:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk page archive
This page is being archived. Surely there should be a link from this page to the archive, but I can't find it. Nurg (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * with Template:Talk header. SilverLocust 💬 05:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Auto-archiving period was too short IMO – 5 days. Given the lengthy discussions editors have here, ones that span multiple sections, I've unarchived the two most recent threads and increased the auto-archive period to 1 month. — kashmīrī  TALK  21:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Image deletion request
FYI: --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 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. (non-admin closure) Toadette Edit! 14:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus → Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus – The current title could be interpreted as either an airstrike by Iran or on Iran; the proposed title makes the topic clearer. It is also widely reported and WP:DUE to include the fact that Israel launched the airstrike. BilledMammal (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment: As I mentioned in the previous RM, the form " of/on the  in " is consistent with the format of United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which unless I am mistaken was the only other state-on-state attack with its own article in the List of attacks on diplomatic missions prior to the 2024 raid on the Mexican embassy in Ecuador (which occurred only 4 days after this attack, and is currently in an RM to move to this title format as well). Note that the US bombing uses the word of instead of on as this proposal suggests, though imo it is more grammatically correct to use "on" if "airstrike" is used rather than "bombing". --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 2024 Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, we should add the year which wasn't restored after the overturn of the previous RM with the year, per WP:NCWWW and the Consistency WP:CRITERIA. My second choice is BilledMammal's proposed option (consistency WP:CRITERIA). Beyond the [[WP:NCWWW ]] that states we should have a "when" in the title in the majority of cases for events, I think we also ought to have the year because Israeli strikes on Iranian or Iranian-linked targets in Syria have been numerous: see Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war, but also the more recent 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel and 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran which feature the year. Pilaz (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Those feature the year because strikes between those countries have happened in other years and/or are likely to do so in the future as well, whereas state-on-state attacks on diplomatic missions are all but unheard of --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There was at least one other, and indeed it doesn't need a year: United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  22:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Besides which, it was already moved to the current title because a consensus was found to remove the year, so that's not really something we're supposed to relitigate for a while anyway --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason why United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade doesn't have a year is because it was a historically significant event in Sino-American relations, which is the only reason why WP:NOYEAR applies. But I'm really eager to learn how much historical perspective we can get from an event from a few months ago, if you're happy to provide it to me. List of embassy attacks mostly features the year, and correctly so, since it's following WP:NCWWW. Pilaz (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Move to alternative title Israeli airstrike on the Iranian diplomatic mission in Damascus, given the lack of consensus whether this was an embassy or consulate (see earlier discussions). — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  21:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would prefer keeping "consulate", as that is how reliable sources tend to describe the location, per my evidence in the first RM and Galamore's evidence in the second RM. BilledMammal (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, there was explicitly no consensus to have the article at "consulate" – the recent rename was on a technicality, not consensus. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  08:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The new name would give more information without getting too much longer. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed title. Instead I propose Israeli bombing of the Iranian diplomatic mission in Damascus. This is consistent with United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, as mentioned by Gimmethegepgun above. We don't appear to have consensus on whether this was an embassy or consulate.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, per the rationale given by the proposer. However, I would prefer to omit 'the', i.e. I would prefer Israeli airstrike on Iranian consulate in Damascus. This is because a country can have more than one consulate in the same country, or even in the same city (although I'm not aware of cases of the latter). Also, it is a little more concise. Other articles about attacks on consulates vary on whether they include 'the'. Ones that omit 'the' include 2013 attack on U.S. consulate in Herat, 2013 bombing of Indian consulate in Jalalabad, 2014 attack on Indian consulate in Herat and Bombing of French consulate in West Berlin. As to the alternative suggestions of including the year, using 'bombing' instead of 'airstrike', or 'diplomatic mission' instead of 'consulate', these can be pursued in a subsequent move request, if desired. Nurg (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Valid point – actually Iran has several consulates in Syria. However, there are significant doubts on whether the building in Damascus was a consulate at all (see earlier discussions) – it's certainly not listed as such by the Syrian MFA. Hence I've proposed to use the term diplomatic mission instead. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  20:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support move to: Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus as per WP:PRECISE. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Even if there is no consensus on whether it's consulate or embassy (which I don't see here), that's not a valid reason to use neither. Our mandate is to follow usage in RS, as best as we can. That means when it's close sometimes we inadvertently go with the 2nd most common instead of the most common; that's okay. But I agree with that Israeli airstrike on Iranian consulate in Damascus, omitting the "the", is even better: just as PRECISE and more CONCISE. --В²C ☎ 03:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove extra word
"Israel told the U.S. that if a retaliatory attack by Iran would prompt a robust response from Israel". 200.12.168.26 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . Thank you for raising. Nurg (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)