User talk:Ekpyros

Welcome

Hello, Ekpyros, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Mr. Stradivarius Happy editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Minor edit

In what sense is this a minor edit? Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry—I'm pretty new to all this, and I guess I didn't fully understand the distinction. I mistakenly thought that by including more specific information from the previously cited source, it would be considered minor. Is there something I should do to remedy that? Elle Kpyros (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverts

I have just reverted a number of your edits, across several articles. All of the reverted edits seemed to engage in questionable use of sources and heavy insertion of your personal point of view into Wikipedia's voice. Per WP:BRD, you are welcome to begin a discussion on any of the talk pages of the articles in question in order for a consensus to emerge about whether the content should be included in some form. If you do so, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). --JBL (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion at Talk:Race and intelligence

As I'm sure you're aware, Wikipedia is built around reliable sources, not the opinions of its editors. Your repeated argument that there are differences in intelligence between races is not based on a reliable source and does not summarize any part of Race and intelligence, so in the eyes of the Wikipedia community it is nothing more than your personal point of view. Please limit your talk page contributions to comments that are supported by our Policies and Guidelines, not your personal opinion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I just glanced at your comments, like [1]. Seems like your stating positions based on what reliable sources say, and not your opinion. That's the correct way to do it. It's a controversial subject, so we always need to stick to what academia and whatnot say. Plus the editors here are kinda fighting like cats and dogs on this subject, so try and be one of the people who deescalates. More flys with honey, something, something, I got los of flys. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Scribd

Scribd is not a reliable source, especially for WP:BLP content.[2] - - MrX 🖋 11:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: Scribd is not the source, it's the host of the file. Snopes, which is an RS, is the source, and there are others. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If the source is Snopes, why in the world would you cite a self-published source like Scribd? You can't use Scribd any more than you can use Facebook or 191.186.98.122. - MrX 🖋 20:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@MrX:No problem, would you kindly update it to Snopes? Thanks so much! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

OK. - MrX 🖋 20:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: Appreciated, and thanks for setting me straight!Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

References

re: request for civility

There was no need to refer to me as "Perry Mason" and accuse me of "weasel wording"

Given that you were employing pseudo-legal justifications to introduce weasel-wording -- and not for the first time -- I'd say it was perfectly justified. If you don't like being informed that you're employing weasel words, you could always stop employing weasel words. --Calton | Talk 07:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone out there appreciates your efforts

Truly.

@2600:6C40:767F:FB97:D0A8:B464:5A7C:8FDA: Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

TBC talk edit mass deleted comments.

Hello. I reverted your edit to the TBC talk page as it deleted many earlier comments. I would have pasted a copy of your comment back in after undoing the deletions, but it was not clear where to put it with the deleted material back in place. Just a notice so that you know your comment is "missing" and if you want to repost it you will have to copy it back in again. Sesquivalent (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sesquivalent: entirely accidental, and no idea how I managed to screw that up. I apologize and very much appreciate you reverting it and alerting me. Will try to be more careful in the future! Elle Kpyros (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass deletion at Talk:The Bell Curve

Can you explain this edit [3] in which you deleted not only your own long comment but several others including those of folks disagreeing with you? Was this simply a slip of the typing finger? Generalrelative (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: it was completely accidental, and I have no idea how it happened—my apologies to everyone! I assure you my intent was simply to add to the discussion and not to delete anyone's edit. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Elle Kpyros (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Ahmaud Arbery

There is nothing "contested" here - Ahmaud Arbery committed neither burglary nor theft and was murdered. The "defense attorneys" have no say here - the jury convicted their clients, the end - and what the murderers "believed" about Arbery is not evidence of anything. The cited sources are clear that there is no evidence Arbery committed either burglary or theft. Should you again falsely suggest, imply, or state that there is evidence Arbery committed either burglary or theft, I will request that you be topic-banned from this page under the Biographies of Living Persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Caffeine as a diuretic

As a food scientist I welcome this addition. however, I think

"Caffeine, the most widely used psychoactive substance in the world, can have a diuretic effect in extremely high doses, but normal consumption does not produce significant excess urine compared to water. Despite the myth having been thoroughly debunked, many medical experts continue to claim that "coffee is dehydrating", misinformation that may have begun with a 1928 study."

is unnecessary as the entry should really only have the true statement and none of this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachotacl (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I moved the discussion to the Talk page and followed your excellent suggestion. Appreciatively, ElleTheBelle 20:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Mischaracterizing a source

in your recent edit of scottsboro boys, you changed altercation to assault. the source that you cite describes the altercation beginning when the sheriff's deputy hit Powell in the head. here is what the source says: "February of 1936, after testifying at Haywood Patterson's fourth trial, Powell was loaded into a car with Clarence Norris and Roy Wright. The three were handcuffed together in the backseat, while a sherrif and his deputy rode in front. Powell and the deputy got into an argument. The deputy hit Powell on his head. With his one free hand, Powell took a pen knife that had escaped detection during a search out of his pants and slashed the deputy's throat, wounding him. The sheriff stopped the car, got out, and fired a bullet at Powell (who, along with the others, had his hands in the air) which lodged in his brain. (The sheriff and deputy described the incident as an escape attempt). Powell survived, but suffered permanent brain damage. He had trouble speaking and hearing, memory loss, and weakness in his right leg and arm. On the operating table Powell told his mother, "I done give up...cause everybody in Alabama is down on me and is mad at me.""

Powell pleaded guilty to assault, a lesser charge than rape. but this is different from how your edit characterizes it. your source says that the deputy escalated an argument by assaulting the handcuffed Powell. Powell in turn attacked the deputy with a knife. the deputy in turn shot Powell in the face, permanently disabling him.

by framing it as Powell assaulting the deputy, you introduce error into the encyclopedia. your edit as it now stands should be reverted. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, just some casual chat regarding the Monkeypox outbreak article

Hey, I was going to write this on the articles talk page, but then realised its a little too "chatty", so thought I'd talk to you here:

Personally, I think the ECDC is overemphasing the sexual transmission / MSM aspect (or they know a lot more than is public knowledge - which I would highly doubt :P ).

I mean - they may be right, and transmission by other routes than sexual contacts may be quite rare (and thus, without hosts/ infected people with rapidly changing sexual partners, the outbreak would quickly die out). But they may also be wrong. And constantly harping on about "MSM" is going to have the effect that other people don't reckon they need to pay attention to this (I think the WHO does a better job at this in their assesment, where they point out that transmission in other communities is possible also).

Anyway, I can understand your sentiment in wanting to get relevant info out there (so as to avoid harm) - I feel the same way I guess (and yeah, can be frustrating :/ ). All the best, and hope the article shapes up in a way that seems acceptable to you :) !

Regards Sean Heron (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Sean! I don't know more than I've read about it, but that has led me to understand that a virus—which is typically fairly hard to transmit and while endemic to Central-West Africa, rarely crosses international lines—has suddenly been popping up in clusters all over the world because of sexual practices, to the degree that it's now for the first time considered "sexually transmitted" (if not technically an STI). That seems worth noting—but you're probably better informed than I, and I trust that time will tell and that, as usual, patience will produce the best article! There has undoubtably been an enormous amount of media hype, most of which is unhelpful in encyclopedia-building. But if the estimated 1% fatality rate (for this far "milder" strain) were to end up being accurate, it would be more than twice as deadly as HIV in the US (0.47% as of 2017 and likely less today). But certainly it's important to include that it's in no way exclusively being spread amongst MSM. In any case, I really appreciate you reaching out! Warm thanks, ElleTheBelle 15:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit-warring, AGF violations, apparent tag-teaming by Alexbrn. Thank you. I mentioned your name not intended as any form of criticism but as you were the only other editor who substantially contributed to the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

NPA

Whilst "idiotic reasons" may not violate wp:npa and is tacking very close to it.

Also, per WP:ONUS it is down to you to get consensus for inclusion, not down to others to get for exclusion.

If you want to build wp:consensus, using language like "idiotic and incoherent "reasons"" will not achieve it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: it seems my blunt phrasing hurt your feelings, and for that, I very sincerely apologize.

And while I admit my diction could have been more temperate and sensitive, I don't see how there's anything remotely personal about opining that a reason for a reversion is incoherent and/or idiotic. In what possible way does that "tack very close" to a WP:NPA violation? Given that I in no way criticized or disparaged you—and indeed, didn't even include your user name—it's hard for me to understand how you could consider my less-than-perfect phrasing a "personal attack". I'm quite sure I was following the maxim "comment on content, not on the contributor"—and am having a hard time fathoming how what I wrote could be construed as meeting any of the definitions in WP:WIAPA. Based on my understanding of everyday English, asserting that an argument is weak is entirely different from calling its proponent a weakling. But I'm more than happy to reconsider, should you care to enlighten me as to precisely what provision you claim I "very nearly" violated.

While on the subject of guidance—at least as I understand it, the first principle of Wikipedia reversion couldn't be clearer: "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits." Given that, I'd encourage you to consider that wholesale reverting a good-faith edit, which came nowhere near meeting that criteria, with no more explanation than an utterly irrelevant tautology—in this instance, pointing out that a President's record-low approval numbers "might rise again"—not only doesn't help build an encyclopedia, but actively frustrates the constructive editing process.

What's more, I had politely and specifically requested that my edit not be wholesale reverted, and that any reversion please be preceded, or at the very least accompanied by discussion on the Talk page. I even helpfully cited the Wikipedia guidance that obliged any reverting editor to do so.

Perhaps, as a far more experienced editor than I, you can help answer three questions I have:

1. Why did you willfully ignore the polite request in my edit summary to, at the very least, discuss any reversion on the Talk page?
2. It appears that while reverting me, you failed to make even the most rudimentary attempt to follow the guidance in WP:REV, WP:REVEXP, and WP:REVONLY—why?
3. Lastly, given the guidance to "comment on content, not the contributor", I would note that you've come to my personal Talk page to complain about a supposed near-violation of AP:NPA and to lecture me on WP:ONUS. Yet, despite my obvious willingness to discuss the actual article on its Talk page—indeed, I was forced to initiate it—you have yet to write a single, solitary word about the article's content since reverting my edit with a 4-word summary. Why is that?

Thanks kindly and look forward to your response! ElleTheBelle 21:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

We also have [wp:brd]], and WP:ONUS, both of which a clear, yo make a bold edit, and if it disagreed with it is reverted. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I asked you three questions, yet you didn't bother to respond to a single one. Instead, you're trying to justify your making this personal by citing Wiki guidance. Yes, WP:BRD is an important part of the editing cycle. It also cautions that: "BRD does not encourage reverting," that "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page," and, despite what you seem to be implying, "BRD is never a reason for reverting." The guidance is primarily descriptive, not prescriptive—and you're failing to participate in the last leg of the cycle, D(iscussion).

I see no effort on your part to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Why don't you substantively engage in the discussion on the actual Talk page, rather than making spurious claims about "personal attacks" on my page? So far you've written nothing other than two sentences, neither of which moves the discussion forward at all. In the first, you completely failed to address my detailed response to your reversion, and instead repeated the same claim, thus revealing that you either hadn't read or were unable to comprehend what I'd taken pains to explain. In the second, you abandoned your first argument in favor of the equally nonsensical claim that "other polls give different figures"—again, showing that you still don't understand the edit I made, and haven't even taken the time to read the articles I've cited.

Please, please, please—try to work with me to improve the article. And in any case, stop wasting my time with this nonsense.

ElleTheBelle 18:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Hello, I'm Kire1975. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This was obviously a bogus charge—my edit summaries described their changes precisely. The editor making the accusation has not responded. ElleTheBelle 15:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Signature

It took me a while to connect your username to your signature. Please consider being more transparent. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@ElleTheBelle, I agree with Drmies above. Please add a link to your user page, talk page, or user contributions per WP:SIGLINK. Combefere ★ Talk 06:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having some username problems and don't think I'm understanding correctly. When I hover over my signature, I see my user name—and when I click on it, I'm taken straight to my user page. But maybe it's different for me, since I'm the user in question—do you not see the same when you hover or click? Thanks for the help! ElleThatBelle 16:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I figured out what you meant—adding a direct link to my Talk page in parenthesis? Testing to see if this works! ElleThatBelle ([[4]]) 17:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops. I think I have it now? Sorry for all the testing—since I've been blocked, I'm unable to use the Sandbox! ElleThatBelle (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Please let me know if that isn't correct. I can see that my signature now says "ElleThatBelle (talk)" — but the "talk" isn't showing as a clickable link. Maybe that's because it leads back to the page I'm already on? Again, since I'm unable to post anywhere else, I'm not able to test further. ElleThatBelle (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

New Y0rk demography

Hi,

See my (positive) response to your comments at Talk:Demographics_of_New_York_City#Need_for_updated_demographics.

Happy New Year! —— Shakescene (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, your signature is a violation of WP:SIGFORGE as there is an actual user account User:Ellethebelle. Please change your signature. nableezy - 23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

As you have refused to correct this issue, I will be raising it at ANI. nableezy - 16:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see ANI thread. nableezy - 16:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If you change your signature, you will be unblocked. GiantSnowman 18:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe I've changed my signature—and my intent certainly wasn't to "forge" anyone else's or to otherwise be "disruptive". I looked here, here, and here but was unable to find anyone with that username. I'm equally unable to find anyone with my new signature, but am sure someone will let me know if I've erred again! ElleThatBelle 16:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: Sorry for all the experimentation above—I've never tried to change my signature before. Thanks! ElleThatBelle (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: thanks! Any idea how long it takes to be unblocked? Also, now that I'm learning about signatures, I like how yours includes both your user page and talk page in your username. I might try the same, although I seem to be, as usual, a little technically challenged! Appreciatively, ElleThatBelle (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

{unblock|reason=Fixed issue with signature. Apologies to all! ElleThatBelle (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)}} ElleThatBelle (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ekpyros (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Fixed issue with signature. I was directed to add this to the bottom of my page—hope I'm doing it correctly! Apologies to all! ElleThatBelle (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Sig is fixed. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ElleThatBelle (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Your signature is still showing as 'ElleThatBelle' - that is too close to the previous, confusing name. Please change it to your username. GiantSnowman 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I'm mystified, since I certainly don't mean to confuse or "forge" anything, yet I'm unable to find any user named ElleTheBelle. That said, I have done as you suggested. I hope I've gotten it right, finally, and thanks so much for your help and patience! User:Ekpyros (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, except now it says "User:Ekpyros". Trying again! BTW, is there some way to check if one's signature is too close to another user's? Thanks again! Ekpyros (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

When someone posts "Please see ANI thread" on your talk page, it would be highly desirable to click the given link and examine what is there. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Capital in the Twenty-First Century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cassidy. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Beccaynr (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on Gaza strip famine comment

Hi Ekpyros, thanks for your comment on the independent source in the Gaza strip famine page I appreciated it; I would support your comment there but I don't have extended confirmation yet so oh well (much of that Talk page is very disturbing). However, I did want to bring up a caveat that should probably be more prominently acknowledged in your reply about food truck counts pre-war. Pre-war a good chunk (debated how much) of food production was domestic, whereas this is now substantially less. There's disagreement over exactly how many trucks are needed and it's certainly nowhere near 500 (my guess from hunger statistics is around 120-150 which was satisfied since January except for February), but probably best to clarify this in your comment. I know you mention it briefly but probably more balanced/makes it easier to discuss if you emphasize it a little more. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Scienceturtle1: thanks so much—I very much appreciate your thoughtful response!

I haven't seen any data on the number of trucks required to avert famine, only comparisons to the prior number, along with some disgraceful misinformation such as being propagated on the Talk page. That said, I can only imagine the daily caloric requirements to stave off deaths is significantly lower than the total daily calories available prewar (the combined domestic production plus foreign aid)—but have no way to know whether the drop in domestic production, coupled with the increase in food trucks, was greater than the reduction from prewar numbers to those needed to avoid famine.

I would be curious to read any data on it—and would only note that this recent paper asserts that from Jan-May 2024, total aid deliveries alone have not only been more than enough to prevent famine, but have resulted in a surplus beyond what's needed to sustain a healthy caloric intake on a per-capita basis (emphasis mine):

::"Data from January-April 2024 show[s]... [t]he crude mean per capita per day energy supplied was 3,374 kcal, protein was 101 gr (12.1% of energy), fat was 80.6 gr (21.5% of energy), and iron was 25.2 mg. Energy, protein, and fat amounts exceed Sphere recommendations… During [May]… the daily per capita supply of energy was 4,198 kcal, protein was 124 gr (11.8% of energy), fat was 71.6 gr (15.4% of energy), and iron was 30.3 mg."

Do you have any numbers which would contradict those—or help shed light on the issue more broadly? Again, warm thanks for reaching out! Ekpyros (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think even conservative estimates using only UN-counted trucks (albeit still much more reasonable in April than May) have found that there was a surplus of total calories then - see https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/documents/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_FEWS_NET_Gaza_4June2024.pdf - see table on page 10. In fact, this document even tracks specifically trucks that reached North Gaza, where the food shortage was the worst until late April/May. The paper you cited likely uses fuller numbers, but might not reflect food that's realistically distributed and also there is an out-of-proportion revulsion to citing Israeli research on that page.

Further, hunger has declined continuously since a peak in December, with deaths seeming to have a delayed tragic peak of 37 (media-reported) deaths in March before falling off since then to near 0. Since January though there have been well over 100 trucks/day entering Gaza, and by March/April/May this number was well over 200 trucks/day when one uses even third party estimates of commercial trucks entering Gaza. This is just to say, there is a convergence of evidence that enough food is crossing Gaza's border to prevent famine since January (perhaps excepting February). Whether or not complete food distribution is being made possible is of course another question. But calling that study fringe is just wrong so I'm glad you are saying something. On the other hand, it's unfortunate its analysis hasn't been published which I think is a more valid reason to treat it cautiously and more like a POV than a finding. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)