Talk:Israeli invasion of Syria (2024–present)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 19 December 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Andre Farfan (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

---

2024 Israeli invasion of Syria → 2024 Israeli incursions into Syria – Adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, which mean we can't claim a country has invaded another unless reliable sources say so. As per usual Wikipedia policy, remember that results are determined by consensus of reliable sources, not by votes or numbers. Please provide reliable sources to support your arguments. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. APThe Associated Press^{corrected link} have explicitly contradicted claims of an "Israeli invasion of Syria", quoting experts as saying "Israel isn't currently trying to change the border or prepare for an invasion into Syria". I'd also note that Wikipedia's misuse of the term "invasion" has helped spread misinformation on social media (e.g. unsubstantiated claims that "Israel is moving on Damascus"). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone at a "Tel Aviv think-tank" founded by a former IDF Military Intelligence Chief saying not an invasion does not equal "AP has explicitly contradicted" invasion. Also, would even the think tank person say the same thing today after all the events on the ground and statements by Israeli spokesmen and others that have transpired since then. The current title does not imply anyone is or was "moving on Damascus" any more than the recent invasion of Lebanon implied someone was moving on Beirut.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. It may not be perfect or the final page title in 15 years, but it's a more accurate title today. Though I might nitpick and suggest it should be 2024 Israeli Defense Forces incursions into Syria or 2024 Israeli military incursions into Syria to be more WP:PRECISE about who is doing what. I still prefer 2024 Israeli military operation in Syria over either one as while it may seem a little bland it's open enough in time and scope to cover the ground, air, and information domain actions that might otherwise be covered separately, and even if they are it works as a parent article if we spin off individual articles for each of those things over time; it works regardless of whether the Israeli name for the operation becomes common usage or not; and it works regardless of whether Israel's presence is temporary or not. But I think at least the RM is a step in the right direction towards that, hence my support ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Basically agree with everything said above—I suggested "incursion" because it seemed to have more support in the last RM than 2024 Israeli military operations in Syria. If nobody objects to that title we can use it instead. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester: 2024 Israeli Defense Forces incursions into Syria is such a funny wording. Per definition, "defence forces" are supposed to be standing on their sovereign land, not to be illegally standing on sovereign land belonging to other four different countries. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that "Israeli Defense Forces" is an English translation of an acronym that more directly translates to "Army for the Defense of Israel" and that all armies quite frequently conduct actions outside of their own borders to support the defense of their country, we're not debating the naming choices of the IDF here, so please stick to the topic at hand. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you not see how having "Israeli Defense" in the title of an article about a military operation that is objectively offensive looks like subjective spin?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd submit that's a pretty nonsensical interpretation, given that "Israeli Defense Forces" is the common name of the entity (and used in the same manner as the Japan Self-Defense Forces which routinely engage in non-defensive operations in the Middle East including establishment of *permanent* military basing on foreign sovereign territory), and there's no clear consensus that the operation is "objectively offensive" in nature. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The case for using a belligerent state's preferred euphemism only follows when you frame the issue like you do. This is like saying 2003 invasion of Iraq should be retitled Operation Iraqi Freedom because that is the common name that the U.S. government uses for its military action.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You mean when it's framed the way a typical person would think of it? Perish the thought. You're arguing that the IDF cannot be called the IDF. That does not seem like a good faith argument to me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No I am not. I am saying there are no grounds for putting IDF into the title of this article.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

In most cases I would agree with you, which is why I didn't suggest it for the versions that don't need to explicitly specify this for precision (in the case of "invasion" or "military operation" as those already imply the IDF) and why I specifically did suggest it for "incursion", which does not carry such an implication (as there can be non-military incursions). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Non-standard title, "incursion" is not used for military/conflict-related articles on enwiki, neither is including military operation neutral (there is a reason Russian invasion of Ukraine is titled the way it is). When a sovereign state conducts an incursion into another [and temporarily occupies its area] invasion is what we call it, moreover we have a precedent for this in the Arab–Israeli conflict: Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (disambiguation), Israeli invasion of Lebanon (2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon), Israeli invasion of Syria, and I see no reason to deviate from our existing norm. Gotitbro (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  And the AP report cited in the nom vote, does not contradict claims of an invasion, it explicitly states that Israeli forces are now occupying the Syrian buffer zone of the Golan Heights and have 'incurred' into it (the term merely being a synonym of invasion (see Incursion (disambiguation))). Further calling standardized application of enwiki's MOS:MIL titles 'misuse' and claiming that this has contributed to misinfo elsewhere [social media] is entirely unfounded (the same AP report simply states this "Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, an Israeli military spokesperson, said "reports circulating in the media about the alleged advancement of Israeli tanks towards Damascus are false." He said Israeli troops are stationed within the buffer zone in order to protect Israel."). Gotitbro (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I inserted the wrong link—the relevant section is here, under the heading "Is Israel invading Syria?". AP quotes experts as saying Israel isn't currently trying to change the border or prepare for an invasion into Syria. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia uses "incursion" to describe incursions and "invasion" to refer to invasions. Examples include the 2023 Jenin incursion, the Hamad City incursion, and outside of the Arab-Israeli conflict we have titles like 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq or 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Of the examples provided: Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page that leads to only one out of five articles with "invasion" in the title, from the current conflict (and whose title is disputed and was not originally "invasion" but "ground operation"). Israeli_invasion_of_Lebanon is the same scenario -- a disambiguation of 6 articles and 4 see-alsos, only one of which uses "invasion", and once again a disputed title from the current conflict. The third link is the aforementioned Lebanon article. And finally, Israeli invasion of Syria is again the same scenario -- a disambiguation page with only a single "invasion" usage, referring to this page. Every single one of those examples is a recent post-2023 change initiated after the 10/7 conflict began; let's not pretend there's any kind of long-standing consensus in favor of using "invasion" in this manner. Statistically, the overwhelming consensus is otherwise -- almost every single disambiguation link *except* the disputed ones uses verbiage other than "invasion." ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support For reasons outlined by the nomination. My slight preference would be for 2024 Israeli military operations in Syria. The current title does not accurately reflect how this incursion is being described and gives a misleading impression as to its scale. Rafts of Calm (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I initially was on the fence on the first days, I opposed the initial RM as it seemed to be more than just a limited raid.

Israeli forces have lingered in Syria for over two weeks now and are expanding their operations with no sign of stopping, many population centres have fallen under their control and let's not forget the intense air bombardment campaign. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Source? What major population center has "fallen" in the past week? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The most recent population centre to fall was Mar’iyya, whose residents protested the Israeli occupation and were shot at as a result

https://www.aljazeera.net/amp/news/2024/12/20/إصابة-شاب-سوري-برصاص-الجيش-الإسرائيلي The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Ma'ariya is not a major population center, or any kind of population center, it's a small village of about 1,000 people. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Is that not a population center? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the definition. Under the U.S. legal definition, no -- that term requires both a certain minimum population level and a certain minimum population density -- Ma'ariyah is just on the cusp of the former and likely below the latter. I have no idea what the Syrian definition is. It's certainly not a "major" population center, and does not fit the common military understanding of the term, fwiw. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Clear invasion (parallel to "Russian incursions into Ukraine"), we already saw that on the Golan Heights. Israeli ministers and MPs even recently claimed they 'conquered' Mount Hermon. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Support as it clearly isn't a full-scale invasion and as per gotitbro. Oppose 2024 Israeli military operations in Syria as it would be misleading and downplaying the incursions and temporary seizure of the buffer zone and beyond. Theofunny (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, Israel has violated a ceasefire line and invaded further into Syrian territory, occupied more lands, depopulated villages and shown no signs of withdrawing. Its clearly an invasion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Once again, source? I have 4 opposes and zero sources for their claims. What lands have been occupied in the past week? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Two additional villages occupied today:[1]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:AAPOLITICS—AA is Turkish state-owned media, and considered generally unreliable for controversial or political issues. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition to what Closed Limelike Curves mentioned about the reliability of AA, the source does not make the claim of "depopulated villages" either, (nor does it explain the source for its conclusion that the villages were "occupied" or "seized").⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as sources such as Middle East Eye unequivocally call it an invasion. More to the point, the title should reflect and summarize the content of the article. On that point, besides the obviously relevant fact that Israeli leadership has rejected the 1974 ceasefire and border agreement, if not already in the article I note that a NY Times headline is "Israel Says Its Troops Will Stay in Seized Territory for Now," a Times of Israel story is titled "One hurt after IDF opens fire at group protesting Israeli presence in south Syria" and AP has a story titled Syrian villagers near the Golan Heights say Israeli forces are banning them from their fields that quotes locals calling it an "occupation" that followed a "penetration". These events and their descriptions vary but they are are all consistent with a particular phenomenon having occurred: an invasion! The called for move here strikes me as like taking an article that says "the subject walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck" in its body and saying it ought to be titled something other than "Duck"--Brian Dell (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

such as implies Middle East Eye isn't the only source—could you provide those other sources? I've never heard of it before now, and the article on it is raising some major red flags about the source's reliability. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Such as reporting by the Tehran Times meaning sources you would of course think too closely associated with Israel's enemies but how does that make sources associated with Israel's friends the final word? For what it is worth, HRW, Amnesty International, NYT, WaPo, Deutsche Welle have all referenced MEE’s articles. This source counting is not central to the point I make above anyway.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't care if the sources are Israel's "friends" or "enemies"; I care if they satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for reliability. Ye shall know them by their sources; if your second example of a reliable source after MEE is the Tehran Times, I don't think I can really trust your judgment on MEE. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

A lecture about careful sourcing from the person who opened this discussion by trying to pass off a claim from someone with Israel's leading security think tank as an Associated Press claim. The NYT and WaPo also regularly cite the Tehran Times but it is your source assessment we should defer to? Al Jazeera is analogous to the Tehran Times except Doha controlled instead of Tehran controlled and Al Jazeera is RS.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm just a guy who read the clickbaity title for this article, was initially shocked by it, and am now very annoyed that the article text doesn't back it up. (For the record, I'm skeptical that Israel's actions here are actually necessary for their security, as they claim. That doesn't matter. We still need to uphold WP:NPOV and stick to the sources.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Incursion is euphemistic language, and Israel's actions meet the definition of an invasion. The minimum level of evidence required here should not be reliable sources using the word invasion, which they may have political or financial incentives not to do. Rather, we should look at whether sources are reporting facts that satisfy the definition of an invasion. For example, CNN said that Israel seized territory in Syria. When a country sends its army to seize the territory of another sovereign nation, that's an invasion. It always has been and always will be, even if every invader in history has said that in their case, it isn't so. As editors we must retain our license to call a spade a spade, or else the encyclopedia will reflect whatever bias is held by our society. We'll have an encyclopedia of Russian invasions and Israeli or American incursions, special operations, etc. That's unreliable and undesirable. Unbandito (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

There are two issues with argument. (1) I don’t think the comparison with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is fair or accurate given the vastly different scale and aims (initially) of the Russian leadership. I don’t agree with your suggestion that there is bias or double standards. (2) Regardless of whether or not we like the terminology being used, our role is to reflect accurately what sources are saying - not seek to define this ourselves. Rafts of Calm (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Sources don't seem to agree what to call this military operation. However, since this appears to be a land grab, I think "invasion" is the appropriate term. If this had just been operations like the destruction of the Syrian navy, this would be different. Cortador (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per others. Not a standard name + a conflicting name. We cannot just rely on a single source, many other sources also saying this invasion. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

If this is true, please provide one. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose It is a clear invasion. They have literally bombed their entire air force and dont plan to leave. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment A lot of original research here. Reminder that it's not for us to determine whether or not this is an invasion or an incurison etc, but to determine what the best sources call it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Support: Way too many people here are saying "it should be 'invasion' because it is one" or "I don't like the proposed title"; sources overwhelmingly do not use the term "invasion", so neither should we; "incursion" [2] [3] and "offensive" [4] are both terms used by reliable sources, and I would support both the proposed title or "2024 Israeli offensive into Syria". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

As per @Flemmish Nietzsche, I'd support Offensive Waleed (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

My initial instinct was to oppose, but I think it would indeed be better to support "Offensive" per @Flemmish Nietzsche's reasoning Thereppy (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Do sources overwhelmingly use "offensive"? You are not making a strong case by naming one source that uses the term once. Cortador (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources don't agree if it is an offensive or an incursion either. A lot of them have been using the term "seizing land," does that mean we should name this page "2024 Israeli Land Seizures in Syria"? This operation simply has no standard name among sources, and we shouldn't make one up. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Do reliable sources actually argue that it is not an invasion? The majority of Western sources have used weasel words like "crossed into" (NYT) or "seizing positions" (BBC). Mondoweiss, Middle East Eye, and The New Arab all argue it is an invasion and use the term- of course this doesn't establish that "invasion" is used by RS as these are all perennial sources, but neither do the preceding seriously argues that it isn't an invasion.

The only source I could find that tries to argue it isn't is from Israel itself, a Tel-Aviv based think tank, and at that point we might as well take Russian institutions at face value when they say that the invasion of Ukraine is a "special military operation." Really, although I concede that the term "invasion" isn't used by most RS, there also aren't any terms that they consistently use any other term besides euphemisms of crossing a border with an armed military, which is what the word "invasion" means. Using the word "incursion" is therefore also unsupported by RS, prioritizing a word used by some outlets for arbitrary reasons over others, and we should retain the current title until RS reliably uses a proper term. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, As I said in the previous move requests, "this article is about a country's invasion of another sovereign country's territory through military practices. Airstrikes or other attacks are part of this military occupation." What are the reliable sources? Haaretz? The Jerusalem Post, The Times Israel..?? Attempts to soften with words are not appropriate. Per WP:NPOVTITLE - Adem (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What would be a "neutral point of view title" is determined by what sources say, not what you think; right now, based off usage in reliable sources (however "correct" they may be), using the term 'invasion' in the title is actually not neutral. "we should call it an invasion because it is one" is not a valid reason unless supported by reliable sources. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per nomination.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@Andre Farfan: -- you neglected to provide an explanation for your non-admin closure of the above discussion. Simply closing as "no consensus" without any explanation of how you came to that conclusion is unacceptable. Please do so immediately, to prevent the need to revert the closure or open up a noticeboard discussion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this was probably a complex closure that's not a good candidate for NAC. No offense meant to @Andre Farfan—making mistakes is how non-admins learn, and usually RfM is a good place for NACs!  :) The issue is there's a huge disconnect between replies that:

1. Do/don't provide sources.
2. Do/don't cite or conform to Wikipedia policy.
3. Come from more vs. less-experienced editors.
4. Come from editors heavily involved in this topic area vs. not (see Wikipedia:PIA5).

So in this case, an admin will probably have to weigh these against each other. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2024 Kursk offensive which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Map

@Ecrusized, The map below is based on information from media sources as well as showcasing the confirmed advances as per the ISW, so wouldn't it be better and more accurate than the current map employing Liveuamap as a source (which itself relies almost solely on reports from X) Waleed (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized, if there's no objection, I'd change the map in infobox Waleed (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized, the map clearly sources ISW, the confirmed advances are per the ISW's released map and the lighter color indicates the advances not yet confirmed by ISW Waleed (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized, I know you've pinned me on commons, I'd love to partake in the discussion there but unfortunately commons is banned here in Pakistan and henceforth I'm unable to access it Waleed (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Objecting to this map as it incorrectly displays the Golan Heights as Israeli territory rather than Israeli-occupied; this must be fixed. "Non-confirmed advances" also reads like original research. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Map

@M Waleed: The commons discussion is irrelevant to WP. Please self-revert to remove the recently-added non-neutral map. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I know that this map is non-neutral and would support it's removal definitely if there's a suitable accurate alternative map available, which clearly isn't at the time being, yes Golan is internationally recognized as Syria which the map doesn't reflect but it's the most accurate one we've as of now, if there's another map accurate to the level of this one (the former used Liveuamap which isn't a reliable source) then I'd myself remove this one Waleed (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that it shows the GH as "Israel" is inaccurate enough to not have it. It can not be used in its current state. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason for me putting it in the map was it being more accurate than the current one, if there's anyone who can make a similar map without Golan, that'd be best Waleed (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request - Casualties and Losses

In the casualties and losses section of the infobox it states that 7 syrians have been killed but the source linked only mentions 1. Please change the Syrian deaths to 1 or alternatively link a source that says 7 have been killed. Fyukfy5 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Now a new source has been added that ups the total toll to 18 civilians (11 from the new, 7 from the old) but along with the old source not actually mentioning 7 civilians, the interpretation of the new source has 2 issues:

1. It says it's either 11 or 6, there are differing reports in that 1 source itself.

2. It says that the casualties are mostly civilians, which means that even taking the highest estimates and the 7 civilians which the first source doesn't mention, it still would be 18 civilians total.

I implore a confirmed editor to fix the infobox because the number if casualties is an extremely important details and right now it's a complete mess. Fyukfy5 (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

1 additional thing, the original 1 person from the first source likely wasn't a civilian. He was armed and reportedly worked for a militia per that same source.

With all these factors, my suggestion is to change the infobox casualty count from 18 *civilians* to 7-12 *people* as well changing "taken prisoner" to "arrested" which is more accurate and the language the source itself uses. Fyukfy5 (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2024

remove Qatana from infobox, they never entered the city itself! per provided source 2003:100:3700:AA00:6966:FF25:813A:4A9A (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

First Israeli occupation of Syria in over 50 years

Hasn't Israel continuously occupied the Golan Heights during this period? It is very odd to say it is the first occupation in 50 years when they have been continuously occupying part of the country for decades. Requesting removal of this meaningless statement. 178.134.183.87 (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Better yet: "marked the first enlargement of the Israeli occupation of Syria In 50 years..." 178.134.183.87 (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed it since the statement is indeed dubious and wasn't backed up by the source cited. Cortador (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request

The last paragraph of the current events tab says that at least 11 syrians were killed in an airstrike. The source for that mentions 2 different sources, one says at least 11 the other says 6. The sentence should be changed to reflect that it's not known, either "multiple people" or something along the lines of "at least 6" Fyukfy5 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Al-Mayadeen, the second of two different sources cited and the one which said 6, ended up raising the number to 11. However, I removed the term "at least" before 11, given 11 is the highest figure we have, and both SOHR or Al-Mayadeen never used the term "at least" in reference to the 11 figure anyway. UncleBourbon (talk)