Talk:Battle of Goose Green

POV
The article is written with a slight bias toward the UK side. laddiebuck 01:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest there is a POV problem in that the article tends towards hagiography in its treatment of H Jones. I will put a ref to "Not Mentioned in Dispatches" which "pretty much argues that the British were only victorious at Goose Green in 1982 because Colonel Jones managed to get himself killed"(!) [] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Springnuts (talk • contribs) 21:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Definitely a British POV - and also it reads too much like it's been written by British military men, together with military jargon and slang. The jury's still out on Jones - was he stupid and foolhardy, or was he setting a brave example to his men? --MacRusgail 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Inspired by their commanding officer's sacrifice" This is a tired old canard from 1982 propaganda. There is no evidence that Jones' death had this result. His previous exhortations to A Company may have helped shake them out of the inertia created by the weight of fire coming from the Argentine positions on Darwin Hill. The immediate effect of Jones intervention, however, was the death of two senior officers and a section leader. Interviews of 2 Para survivors indicate (a) a slight depression that descend on those who first heard the news that the CO was a casualty, and (b) resistance to the idea that Jones' death was seen as a 'sacrifice' or as inspirational. True, he had trained a battalion that proved able to persist in the face of difficult circumstances and win, but his plan of attack was over-complicated and his style of command inflexible. Arguably, the most fortunate of effect of Jones' death was to remove him from the picture and allow his 2 i/c Major Keeble to collaborate with the company commanders and achieve a more flexible and realistic- if slighty chaotic- resumption of the advance to take Goose Green.JF42 (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been trying to correct this - and working through section by section. Please comment / edit where necessary!  Farawayman (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Military blunder
Military Blunders: The How and Why of Military Failure by Saul David has Goose Green as an example of a failure due to outside meddling - a battle that was not absolutely necessary to be fought (and was also poorly executed). There is criticism of "H". GraemeLeggett 12:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting point - there is a line saying that it "could not be ignored" in the article. Surely there was an argument for saying West Falkland "could not be ignored" at the time, but it was. The British were lucky in that the islands were treeless, and there was only one "major" settlement in the islands. Goose Green was the second town of the islands (but had under a hundred inhabitants), and Darwin was nearby, but there were few tactical objectives in Lafonia or the far south of East Falkland. --MacRusgail 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ewen Southby-Tailyour says in his book "Reasons in Writing" that the move to Darwin was political not military. He says Darwin was not important and could have been left to "wither on the vine". He says the "None of us wanted to go anywhere near Darwin" and "Battle for Goose Green was the result of backseat driving by [...] diplomats and politicians". Canalwalker (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * " ... the result of backseat driving by [...] diplomats and politicians" - perhaps the critics are unaware of the dictum "War is the continuation of politics by other means".


 * The whole point of the troops being there - on both sides - was political. That's what the British troops were there for, to carry out the policies of the democratically-elected government. Leaving the forces in Darwin to "wither on the vine" would have left Argentinian troops still 'occupying' part of the Falklands. This would not have been politically acceptable in Whitehall and would have had possible repercussion on the UK and in its foreign relations worldwide.


 * Darwin may not have been important to the troops involved - places seldom are - but they were there to do a job. The politicians decide the job. The job was to get the Argentinians off of the Falklands. Leaving some of them in Darwin would not have accomplished that.


 * The critics are looking at the situation from the comparatively narrow point of view of soldiers - as of course they would - but they are not responsible for strategy. The government decides that, as only the government - via the CSC - is in possession of all the relevant facts, i.e., the Big Picture.


 * The campaign was carried out from the UK POV with limited resources with the impending forthcoming of the South Atlantic winter. They therefore had a time limit in-which to get the Argentinians off of the Falklands and therefore needed to end the conflict quickly. This they did.


 * ... and one suspects that to the inhabitants, Goose Green and Darwin were fairly important. Presumably they did not exactly enjoy having armed foreign strangers capable of shooting them living in close proximity. Part of that "Big Picture" see - something most of the critics didn't have to live-with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

POV?
"as it was a significant Argentinian position and close to the beachhead at San Carlos, it could not be ignored."

I suggest that this is probably the case, in my view, but that it is arguable. There are those who think it was a costly worthless battle, and that they could have taken Stanley without it. Another school of thought says that it was a propaganda victory, not necessarily of much strategic value, but a big blow to Argentine morale, since it was one of the largest massings of Argentines outside Stanley, together with the base on Pebble Island.

There is an argument to say that they should have invaded West Falkland, but this never came about - like Goose Green, there are strategic arguments for a mass scale invasion of the second biggest island, but it would have been extremely costly. --MacRusgail 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

number of Argentinean POWS
According to the article "Colonel ‘H’ Jones won a posthumous VC but his bravery did not undermine the defenders" by British historian Lawrence Freedman (in the links section) the number of Argentinean POWs was 961. In the second last paragraph of the article printed on TIMESONLINE Freedman has written "A total of 961 prisoners was accounted for and about 50 Argentine bodies were found and buried." Max Hastings got a number of figures regarding the Argentineans wrong. It was he who wrote that an entire Argentinean battalion defended Mount Longdon when in fact it was just a reinforced company

Pucara aircrafts
Several IA-58 Pucara planes of the FAA had a very active role in this battle, taking off from Darwin to support ground troops. No mention of this is done in the article, and it's something that should be included.

DagosNavy 03:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The book "Falklands: The air war" by Rodney Burden (1986), asserts that the Pucará aircraft supporting Argentina's ground troops in this battle took off from Stanley airstrip. The only Pucaras remaining in Darwin were destroyed the previously weeks by British aerial and naval bombardment, although some of them continued to operate from that base until May 22 or so. One Pucará was shot down by a paratrooper with a Stinger missile, while another was lost in bad weather. The first pilot ejected and became POW, the other died in the accident. The latter was part of an air patrol that achieved the only Argentine air-to-air kill of the war, when one of the planes shoot down a Royal Marine's Scout over Darwin hill.


 * Teniete Gimenez in a Pucara shot down a Scout helicopter on a Casualty Evacuation mission. Gimenez crashed on the flight back to Port Stanley & his body wasn't recovered until until 1986. His burial was attended by his family, the first Argentine relatives to visit the Falklands since the end of the war. He is buried in Argentine Military Cemetery close to his Air to Air Kill.


 * Another Pucara was shot down by small arms fire during the battle, the pilot Teniente Cruzado ejected safely & his flying helmet is presereved in the Imperial War Museum Lambeth London, with a photograph here.


 * On the 21st May a Pucara was shot down by one of two Stingers SAM's fired bt D Squadren SAS, this Pilot Benitez, also ejected safley.

--Steve Bowen (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Argentine orbat
There is not mention about how B Coy RI 12 arrived late to the battle, via every helo available (including 2 FAA chinooks) on may 28 night. --Jor70 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added this Company to the ORBAT Farawayman (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Numbers in the infobox doesn't match.
Infobox:
 * Strength:
 * 790 army, 202 airforce personnel (992 men)
 * Casualties and losses:
 * 47 killed, 145 wounded, 961 captured (1008 men if the wounded were POW too, 1153 men if they weren't)
 * The strength number should be higher than or equal to the casualties number. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Military Necessity or A Waste of Lives
I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipaedia, so please excuse if this seems a bit disjointed.

At the beginning..., there is mention that the original military planning was to bypass Goose Green, because as an isolated outpost it had no strategic significance. And it only became a target for assault when political considerations became involved.

Later in the part of the entry entitled "BBC Incident" there is mention that the BBC announced on radio that Goose Green was about to be attacked.

The combination of the 2 items above rather tend towards the conclusion that it was political interests which leaked the plans to the BBC. And that ultimately it was a sacrifice of lives for the good of politicians and/or purely propagandist purposes.

There would appear to be merit in the creation of a new section which examines this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myfriendogri (talk • contribs) 22:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Myfriendogri, thank you for your comments. To address your point, the attack on Goose Green was not leaked to the BBC as you put it, rather the BBC had reporters on the ground in with the troops who reported back regarding the attack. Consequently unless you have a source showing it was leaked then it is merely supposition and can't be included. For the record, the Paras were furious with the BBC for the advanced warning they gave the Argentines, and you don't want to be near a furious Para who is about to go into battle. Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  07:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And apart from anything else, that is WP:OR and not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not allow original research but reflects other sources.  BTW the MoD briefed the BBC on the assault on Goose Green, the BBC reported it faithfully, it was the MoD's cock up not the BBC's.  Wee Curry Monster talk 08:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Julian Thompson makes this clear in 'No Picnic', and Sandy Woodward says more or less the same thing. james gibbon  18:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Air support
There is a statement in the article that reads: ''Throughout 27 May, Royal Air Force Harriers were active over Goose Green. One of them, responding to a call for help from 2 Para, was lost to 35mm fire while attacking Darwin Ridge.[24][25][26]'' Although it has three citations, is this date correct? Surely they were over the battlefield on the 28th May (i.e. the day of the attack). Views? Farawayman (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing
I have been doing quite a lot of editing on this page. I have tried to address comments listed here on the talk page and also been trying to use more applicable and current sources (as opposed to primary sources or those published in the months after the battle before there had been time to do some thinking and analysis and to permit debate). I have not touched the section titled "Battle" - thats a job for a rainy day. Any volunteers to assist? Farawayman (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference to individuals
I recommend that we remove all references to individuals, save for commanders of Companies and higher. In my opinion, a page dedicated to the course and outcome of a battle is not improved by continued references to individuals, except if they played a notable leadership role, or if their individual actions significantly altered the outcome of the battle. Any objections? Farawayman (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Battle of Goose Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sama82.org.uk/news/june13a.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407054559/http://www.cescem.org.ar:80/informacion/noticias/pag09_057.html to http://www.cescem.org.ar/informacion/noticias/pag09_057.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikifiddling
I've just reverted a series of changes added to the article. The main reason, as I gave in my edit summary, was wikifiddling. The editor responsible has inflated British casualties through original research by adding in unrelated casualties, such as a Gurkha who was killed in EOD clearance and a Sea Harrier pilot shot down in early May. The second reason was it added a number of extraneous and unnecessary detail eg the names of soldiers involved in minor actions and apparently the proud warrior status of some indigenous peoples. WCM email 08:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How can the 2016 meeting between former commanders (Keeble) amd (Frontera) be "wikifiddling". How can improving the airfield fighting section be considered "wikkifiddling" when I am elaborating on the role of the Air Force Anti Aircraft Battery involved that lost two 25mm guns to British fire as well as three anti-aircraft gunners? Why is it such a sin to reveal the names of the fallen AAA gunners when I am using an Argentine Air Force source? I think the information I am adding would be greatly appreciated by skeptics and military historians that would appreciate the details.(Marylandmangrove (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)).
 * You added that material after I posted to talk, so your complaint is fatuous. I clearly make the distinction that comment is related to your inflation of British casualties.  And again the level of detail you're adding isn't appropriate to an article of this size but the 2016 mtg is about the only thing you've added that could arguably belong in the article.  See above, reference to individuals isn't appropriate except in limited circumstance.  Wikipedia doesn't exist to right WP:GREATWRONGS, if that is what you're here for, you will have a short and unhappy stay. WCM email 10:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Goose Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029202548/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/David/Goosegreen.htm to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/David/Goosegreen.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Missing word?
Although the British attackers did not succeed in capturing Goose Green, they sought to prevent civilian casualties and therefore did use to its full extent the fire support (artillery and close air support) at their disposal.
 * Are you sure it wasn't 'did not use'? Valetude (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thoroughly odd sentence, the British definitely captured Goose Green. I've removed it. WCM email 20:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Excessive footnotes
I have cleaned up and standardised the citations and footnotes. The article has a huge number of footnotes that are based on either (a.) Spanish text stating the Argentinian point of view or amplifying the statement by adding Argentinian argument - note the many of these do have supporting citations and (b.) text that personalises incidents or events (i.e. explaining how individual soldiers were injured or killed or specific acts carried out by them). I recommend we treat this superfluous text by: Agree? Farawayman (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Removing footnotes (and some citations) that are written in Spanish, these should be used on the Spanish Wiki for the Battle of Goose Green, or translated into English and then posted here;
 * 2) Removing all personalised text unless the person being referred to is considered notable and has their own page on Wikipedia.  In that case, we keep the footnote and add a wiki link to the page of the person concerned.
 * Regarding the footnotes, perhaps the question should be: are there any of them that are worth keeping? I think that Footnotes 22 and 24 should be moved to citations. In both cases the Spanish language text appears to be a quotation from a source that justifies the text.


 * Policy is that if an article quotes a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote.


 * Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. Given that the battle had two sides, we need to have citations to Argentine sources (which tend to be in Spanish). -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * For Footnotes 22 and 24 (and maybe some more similar one's), I will keep them as a footnote but add the reference in the footnote as a citation (examples are footnotes 1 and 2);
 * I cant do the translations (even using Google translate - too time intensive), I recommend we comment them out (using < ! --- >) as opposed to deleting them, including a comment that they need to be translated before being reinstated into the text.
 * As for named individuals (acts and incidents), I still believe they need to be removed, article is already extremely cumbersome.
 * Farawayman (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I would leave in as much detail as possible, unless it absolutely misrepresents the action it attempts to illustrate. The article something over 6000 words, which should include the quotes and footnotes. That isn't excessively long. As far as some of the references being in Spanish, I would leave them. Many English Wikipedia articles are sourced largely to foreign texts, which are easy enough to get the gist of by using Google Translate. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Version 2

 * I was working on this when you moved it to TALK, I think this version is more correct:

Below data is from Adkin, Goose Green: a Battle to be fought to be won unless specifically indicated by additional citations. Numbers in parenthesis indicate the approximate strength of that entity on 28th May 1982. Farawayman (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments
O.C: Vice Commodore Pedrosa was more senior than Lt Col Piaggi. He was not a subordinate of Piaggi. Resolved: See V2

The mixing up of parts of 8IR, 12IR and 25IR is confusing. Resolved: See V2

The "Fire Support Company" is nonsense and is not explicitly supported by Adkin p273. The artillery support came from four organisations: Resolved: See V2
 * Army
 * GAA 4 half battery, Lt Chanampa [45] 3 x 105mm howitzers. Moro says 4x 105mm (pg 257, do we use 3 or 4?
 * GADA 601 battery, Sub-Lt Braghini [33] Skyguard radar and 2 x twin 35mm.
 * Air Force
 * [45] Elta radar. 6 x twin 20mm.
 * [57] Lt Esteban, 2 x 81mm mortars, 1 HMG, 4 MG, 1 Pucara rocket pod converted for ground firing.

By the way, it is Lt Esteban, not "Estoban" (Adkin spells the name wrongly) - see La Gaceta Malvinense - Año XI - No 40 - Marzo de 2012 Resolved: See V2 -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Further comments / questions
I think the above issues have been resolved - refer V2. PS: Toddy1, we have different editions of Adkin (I have Cassell 2003), thats why the page numbers differ!
 * 8, 12 and 25IR seems to be clear now - refer V2.
 * 1) Were Army formations under Piaggi / TF Mercedes command?
 * 2) 105mm... were there 3 or 4?  Moro says 4x.  I have also seen reference to 106mm recoilless being present.  Any advice?
 * 3) Who was Grupo 1 de Artillería Antiaérea de la Fuerza Aérea Argentina (G1AA)?  Was this the Airforce 20mm AA group?  See main page footnote 18.
 * 4) What was the unit lead by Morales [30]?

Farawayman (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * In the context of artillery "Grupo" is roughly the equivalent of a British Army artillery regiment. For example Grupo de Artilleria Aereotransportado 4 (GA Aerot 4 or GAA 4) had three batteries, each with four M56 105mm pack howitzers. (p22 van der Bijl, Nick, Argentine Forces in the Falklands, pub Osprey, 1992)


 * So Grupo 1 de Artillería Antiaérea de la Fuerza Aérea Argentina (G1AA) would have more than one battery. Fuerza Aérea Argentina means Argentine Air Force (FAA). The 20mm guns may well have been a battery of G1AA - it would be useful to have a source that says so explicitly.
 * See GADA 601 - they were the Airforce group added to GADA 601


 * Regarding 105mm M56 howitzers, the battery at Goose Green was A Battery GAA 4. "In early May [1982] A/GA Aerot 4 were deployed to Goose Green to support Task Force Mercedes. On 21 May two guns were loaded on board the Prefectura Naval Argentina (PNA) cutter Rio Iguaza, but after being attacked by two Sea Harriers in Choiseul Sound, the captain beached his damaged vessel at Buttons Bay, where helicopters air-lifted the guns and their crews to Goose Green. One M56 had been badly damaged.  The two remaining guns were flown in later."  (p23 van der Bijl, Nick, Argentine Forces in the Falklands, pub Osprey, 1992)


 * Note that an artillery regiment has other stuff besides guns and crews, such as a headquarters, a survey troop, and logistics.


 * p12 van der Bijl, Nick, Argentine Forces in the Falklands, pub Osprey, 1992, says that TF Mercedes consisted of:
 * "RI 12 (-)
 * C/TI 25
 * Platoon RI 8
 * A/GA Aerot 4 (3 x M56 out of 4 operational)
 * 3/B/GADA 601 (GDF-002)"
 * Hugh Bicheno Razor's Edge p162 said that the 35mm guns were from a battery of GADA 601. Argentine Forces in the Falklands implies that only part of a battery of GADA 601 was present: In British terminology - the part that was present was 3 Troop B Battery GADA 601. I do no know what "(GDF-002)" indicates


 * Regarding infantry weapons:
 * Adkin p41 says that Piaggi said that out of an establishment of 10 81mm and 4 120mm mortars, 13 105mm recoilless guns and 25 light machine guns, his force had only 2 81mm and 1 120mm mortars, 1 105mm recoilless gun (the latter lacking a gunsight) and less than half the establishment of light machine guns. The source Adkin quotes for this is Middlebrook (Adkin footnote 7 on p281) In footnote 7 Adkin says "These claims to be seriously deficient in heavy weapons were made some five years after the event to Martin Middlebrook when he interviewed Piaggi in Argentina. They should, I believe, be treated with caution as they do not match up with the number of such weapons captured by 2 Para after the battle."
 * In Version 2 of your table you claim that the air force troops had 1 120mm mortar and 2 81 mm mortars. This is wrong.
 * Bicheno says that the air force troops had 2 81 mm mortars.
 * Piaggi says that TF Mercedes had 2 81mm and 1 120mm mortars.
 * Combat Team Solari (B Company 12 IR) was ordered to fly to Goose Green at 1300 on 28 May [I am not sure if that is Argentine time or Zulu time]. Combat Team Solari consisted of 173 people.  Of these 132 flew to Goose Green (5 officers, 21 NCOs and 106 soldiers) with 1 105mm recoilless gun and 1 81mm mortar (without a sight).  (p169-170, Fitz-Gibbon, Spencer, Not Mentioned in Despatches: The History and Mythology of the Battle of Goose Green)
 * So you can see that the total heavy weapons captured by 2 Para would be more than Piaggi said, because Piaggi was, apparently, only talking about what 12 IR had at the start of the battle. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Another good source for the air force troops having 4 7.62 machine guns (dismounted from a Pucará) 1 12.7mm machine gun (from the Monsunen), a rocket launcher (from a Pucará) mounted on a tractor with an electrical firing circuit, and 2 81mm mortars is paragraph 10 on page 80 Conflicto Malvinas Tomo I Desarrollo de los Acontecimientos (1983).


 * Regarding TF Mercedes, paragraph 2 including bullet points (a)-(e) on page 79 Conflicto Malvinas Tomo I Desarrollo de los Acontecimientos says that it had:
 * 2 81mm mortars with 126 rounds per mortar
 * 1 120mm mortar (with the base plate welded to the tube)
 * 2 more arrived at Goose Green [Darwin] late on 28 May from Port Stanley [Puerto Argentino] and did not participate in the battle
 * 1 105mm recoilless guns (without a sight)
 * 10 MAG machineguns
 * 1 12.7mm machinegun mounted on a jeep
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * page 78 Conflicto Malvinas Tomo I Desarrollo de los Acontecimientos
 * Number of effectives at Goose Green at 0730 28 May 1982
 * 12 IR - 439
 * C Coy 25 IR - 78
 * Gpo Ing/Ca Ing [engineers] - 11
 * A Battery GA Aerot 4 - 45
 * Troop/GADA 601 - 33
 * Platoon 8 IR - 37
 * Total - 687


 * Number of effectives at Goose Green on 29 May 1982 (ignoring casualties)
 * 12 IR - 501
 * C Coy 25 IR - 122
 * Gpo Ing/Ca Ing [engineers] - 11
 * A Battery GA Aerot 4 - 45
 * Troop/GADA 601 - 33
 * Platoon 8 IR - 37
 * Combat team Solari - 132
 * Total - 881
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Version 3
I recommend we create a table of comparative strengths and map 2 Para to these elements showing strengths. It's too difficult to get the numbers to reconcile when we break it down to this level.

RED data needs supporting sources / review.

Below data is from Adkin, Goose Green: a Battle to be fought to be won unless specifically indicated by additional citations.

White flag incident
Undid revision by Wee Curry Monster because Private Carter clearly states Corporal Sullivan didn't venture forward to parley with Argentine platoon commander like rest of paragraph would imply--Vanberkel (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You still haven't learned we are trying to write an encyclopedia here and insist on these large tracts of personal commentary that other editors are having to strip out and tidy up after you. Please stop and I am asking you to self-revert. WCM email 21:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)