Talk:Lu Sheng-yen

Archives

 * /Archive 1

Living Buddha
Can anybody here find one single quote where Master Lu says "Dalai Lama has endorsed me!"? This is rediculous. Master Lu has never said this! Where is the information where Master Lu said those exact words? About the claim that Master Lu has taught several thousand monks in India: would it help clear anyones doubts if i provided the pictures of Master Lu giving the teaching to the monks? Would it help if I had a picture of Master Lu's picture being honored at a Tibetan temple in India? I know Master Lu very personally and I know he doesnt drive a Rolls Royce, so where is this information coming from? Master Lu is also not married. Just look at his ring finger. He doesnt live with his former wife but his former wife is his main disciple/assistant/confidant. If these Tibetan monks are so concerned over Master Lu than why did the Dalai Lama's secretary come to the Redmond temple to meet and enjoy each others company several months ago? If you dont believe that one just go to www.tbsseattle.org and the whole story and pictures are there. Why do people waist so much time on hurting a man's reputation when they could be using that same energy to be practicing dharma. Isnt that sick and disgusting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.255.242 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Although most of this article remains neutral, the statement of Lu being denied by the Dalai Lama is untrue, according to its own reference:

(I originally inserted the text from the article, but i don't know if it violates copyright, so please read it yourself, it basically states that Phuri which is only a former official of the Dalai Lama, expressed his own opinion.) reference point 10.

This does not qualify as a Lu being "criticised by the Dalai Lama" by any means. Phuri's own opinion also does not qualify as a "statement" release by Dalai Lama's staff. First of all, the article clearly states that Phuri is a "former official" and doesn't clarify he still has ties or represents the Dalai Lama's group. Secondly, Phuri never mentioned that his own words and opinion reflected that of the Dalai Lama, which not many people dare claim they speak for the Dalai Lama.

Therefore, the sentence: "[Dalai Lama's] staff released a statement "People should not say, `I am a living Buddha'"." is not supported by its own reference.

With that said, the sentence should either be taken out, or changed to a quote solely from Phuri, and not reflecting the Dalai Lama's position.ALfromSF 23:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've checked the reference and you are correct. I've modified the text to correspond to the reference. Also, coincidently I'd just come across an article that demonstrates that it's just a Chinese term for Rinpoche or perhaps more accurately Tulku and has been applied to the Dalai Lama. No real issue here, just an interlingual communication breakdown... GlassFET 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Added by Mahadragon on April 1, 2010:

This article is NOT neutral. Of the 4 sections currently in this Wiki: his basic profile, Life, Teachings, and Controversies. 2 of those sections attempt to put Lu in a very negative light. You absolutely must understand the first line of the Wiki which accurately states that the True Buddha School is a new Buddhist sect. This means a new school which has a different way of thinking that is consistent with the way people live their lives today (not hundreds or thousands of years ago). The True Buddha school has indeed been criticized by many traditional and conservative organizations for not conforming to orthodox teachings. Of course the word orthodox means "to conform to established doctrine". Being a new school, the True Buddha school will not conform to any established doctrines since it is blazing it's own trail so to speak.

There are a lot problems associated with orthodox teachings. Orthodox teachings are outdated. Why can't we have female pastors? Orthodoxy. It's ridiculous. But this is going down a whole other route and is a totally different discussion. If you want to know the answer you have to look into it yourself and form your own opinion. Don't buy into the hype, it's too easy. Look at the message, not the messenger. The message is sound. If we knew all of Jesus Christ's foibles they would make him look as bad as Lu Sheng-Yen if not worse. Problem is, they didn't have CNN 24 hour news, or Wikipedia back in year 0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahadragon (talk • contribs) 05:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Lawyer from Seattle
I am a lawyer in Seattle. The quote in the article from the appellate case cited is taken out of context to the point of libel. The decision involved a case where the temple had moved for summary judgment against SHC. When a court decides a summary judgment motion, it assumes the facts asserted by the nonmoving party (SHC) to be true (whether they are or not). The temple argued, allong with many other arguments, that even if you take SCH's asserted facts to be true, you still just have consensual sex between two adults. Claims against the temple should be dismissed, the temple argued, because two adults having consensual sex does not mean the temple did anything illegal or actionable. There is a big difference between a defendant making a legal argument that the claimed conduct wasn't illegal in any case, and conceeding as a matter of fact that the conduct happened. The appellate court, in the case cited, concluded the judge was right to dismiss the SHC's claims against the temple. -Roger in Seattle


 * Seattle lawyer has a point here. Interpreting legal documents is not something an amateur should attempt. Also, when I tried to verify the assertions, I was redirected to a FindLaw login page. Aren't we supposed to avoid linking to sites which require login? GlassFET 15:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Glass. Legal documents should be left for law professionals. I read the case myself and I believe the edit is inaccurate. Whereas the sentence of consensual sex does appear in the document, the content surrounding it can be open for interpretation, again probably not for amateurs. In fact the document even states that the appeals court doesn't need to resolve the factual or legal issues that the temple raises.


 * On the other hand, the second part of the sentence seems entirely inaccurate. No where in the legal document does it state that the Judge (appeals court judge) dismissed the case because it was consensual sex. That was not stated as the REASON of dismissal. In fact, it wasn't dismissal, since it was appeals court, it was just affirmation of the trial court's decision. The appeals court simply affirmed the trial court's granting of summary judgement that dismissed all claims against the temple. Also, the reference point for the statement that the judge dismissed the charges because it was consensual sex refers to the Seattle Weekly article, and the words 'consensual sex' doesn't even appear on the page. So it is also an error in referencing.


 * Therefore I will edit the article to only reflect that the trial court granted the summary judgement and the trial court's decision was affirmed by the appeals court. That way, not too much of the legal content is brought into the article. I believe that will leave the article neutral and free from personal interpretations of the legal matters. Tell me what you guys think about the edit. Could GlassFET also point out where it talks about policy on login pages as references? ALfromSF 07:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * After the edit discussed above, I also propose to take out the line about King County Superior Court Judge Kathleen Learned, since the sentences below give a much clearer picture and pretty much make it unneccessary and redundant. Also, the article does seem slightly subjective in its wording. If there are no objections, I will do so.ALfromSF 08:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Consentual sex? Who wrote this nonsense? This is pretty clever of someone trying to slander indirectly. This is obviously designed by some one who wants to show other people that a monk is still having sex so that it still looks bad to other people. What a terrible thing to do. What kind of person would do this? The temple never said that any sex had happened at all! I am more than willing to give anybody on here the Seattle temple's telephone number so you can verify yourselves!Dont take my word for it. Who ever wrote that come out of hiding and tell me who you are and who you represent, you coward.

Please read the Reference SHC VS SHENG-YEN LU It CLEARLY states that "The Temple also argues that the conduct in this case was distinguishable because it was merely consensual sex between adults, not intentionally tortious activity." This is a public and a reliable source. No one can argue with this.

Yes it just was argued by a lawyer and nothing was done about it. Why dont you reveal the real source behind the tibetan buddhism slanders. They came from the SHC website, and you know it. How the hell can you use this as a resource? As a matter of fact Sheng Yen Lu never said that his meeting with the Dalai Lama was anything other than ordinary. I know the whole story and what happened was an organization from Taiwan called the offices of the Tibetan Monastaries and said that this Sheng Yen Lu person is claiming that the Dalai Lama was endorsing him and saying that all the monks know that he is a living buddha and that Rinpoches are converting. This was all a lie. Of course the monks will probably respond negatively! They are not psychics! They are still human, what do you expect! As far as Sheng Yen Lu's claim that he taught at the monastary infront of thousands of monks; I have the proof if you are willing to open your mind to positive information about Master Lu! Dont take my word for it, go look up the Chinese book titled Grandmaster Lu's Holy Trip to India. There are pictures of him with a microphone teaching in front of a thousand monks. What more evidence do you need? There is also a picture of Master Lu's photo being honored with other rinpoches photos at different monastaries as well. Look it up yourself! Stop digging for slander, without looking at both sides of the story. You are so biased! So a ordinary monk says that you should not call yourself a "living Buddha" so what makes him the authority over that? Did Shakymuni Siddharta Gautama not call himself a Buddha? Rolls Royce? Do you even know what he drives right now? I do. Ill give you a hint, its not a rolls royce. Stop saying stuff you dont know. The reason I call you a coward is because you never have the guts to actually debate with me. You should be ashamed of yourself. Why dont reveal your identity? What are you scared of? That you will lose the debate? Dont be so silly. If I was a gambling man (im not because Im a buddhist) I would bet that you are actually affiliated with either Siew Har Chong (SHC) or Henry Chia and the E-Sangha forum. Am I right? My name is Lucas King you can email me at lukeking3@hotmail.com. Ive got nothing to hide. So come on out, and stop being so slanderous and then hiding behind a computer with no back argument. Coward! -Lucas

Avoiding constant disputes
How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues? The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides.

Lucas
 * "I am one of the "devoted followers" and I want to say that this new edit is very fair. Thank you for your even mindedness, I really appriciate your respect because this is very important. The recent is article is balanced and I wish not to see anyone change it back. Thank you for your courtesy!


 * In order to avoid disputes, please refer to Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. Verifiability is upheld by citing reliable published sources.  Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages.  Typing four tildes after your comment ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.  --A Y Arktos\talk 01:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Living people
Another thing to note is Wikipedia's policies on living people. Only the most reliable references may be used for things like the sexual accusations I have removed. That means that if it hasn't been published in a book or a peer-reviewed journal, it can't be mentioned in the article at all. Web-only references are not considered reliable in general, and can not be used at all for controversial criticism of a living person. This is not a personal bias of mine, but strict Wikipedia policy. &mdash;Hanuman Das 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
Please note that all criticism must be sourced and cited. It is not appropriate for a Wikipedia editor to make a judgement about a subject. It is only appropriate to report the judgements of others. To ensure that such judgements are third-party judgements and not the opinions of the editor, the source of the critical comparison must be cited. As I just said to Hanuman Das:


 * I've done my best to help out with the defusing some of the inappropriate criticism. First, I don't see any definitive statement that he took monk's vows, from whom he took them, and whether or not he later abandoned them, nor dates for any of these events if they even occurred. Second, vegetarianism in Buddhism is the exception rather than the rule, as noted in Vegetarianism in Buddhism, so the fact that he does not prohibit eating meat is in no way unusual and thus not a valid criticism. In general, it is necessary to establish the facts or lay out the actual teachings with citations before presenting criticism of those teachings. One must also cite who has made the criticism. If the criticism cannot be cited to an actual person or organization, then it is original research and not permitted. The field of Buddhism is very large, with significant differences of doctrine between schools. It just won't do to have amateurs criticising a teacher of one type of Buddhism based on the rules of another!

If these guidelines are kept in mind, then the article will be much improved. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Monk issue
I dont understand this sentence, "at one point he claimed to be a monk." This sentence is trying to hint something dismissive or fake without any point. Master Lu became a monk, I think on his 30's and he is still a monk to this date. Also under the heading of CONTROVERSY, if the allegations of sexual misconduct were proven to be groundless in the court of law due to the lack of evidence,  should these allegations still be considered as Controversies? I hope the page moderator(s) to consider these points. (19,November,2006)


 * The problem is verifiability. So far, the only info on his monkhood which has been provided is a mention in a lecture which says something to the effect "at this time, I am a monk". What we need is a source which says when he became a monk, who ordained him, and that he still is a monk, since of course one can give back vows and go back to being a layperson.


 * On the controversy issue, since there are reliable third-party sources that indicate that the controversy occured, I don't see what the problem is. Stating the facts in the media and citing them is the best way to keep further unveriable allegations out of the article. &mdash;Hanuman Das 16:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think if you demand such stringent sort of documentation in regards to who ordained Master Lu and if he is still a monk, then to be fair why these demands are not required on citing for all other entries on Buddhist teachers cited in Wikipedia ? To give you an example on the page of Kalu Rinpoche, does not mention who has ordained him, yet we all know he IS a Buddhist monk. Certainly I can also provide with list of buddhist/Taoist teachers who Master Lu considers as his teachers, how can you verify if im not lying ? There are also photograhps from Leading authorities(monks)from the Tibetan lineage with Master Lu in traditional Buddhist ceremonies, by the way they wouldnt be there if he was fake, right? There are photos of Master Lu with Dalai lama also during his visit to India, but if i put it on WIKIPEDIA, i can assure you within 1 day it will be edited out by people less honorable(i dont mean you Hanuman das)

what you are asking is fair enough, but dont you think the influence of the people who are so against Master Lu is abit over the  top?

In regards to the controvercy issue, can you cite who is this credible third party source that gives some sort of the credibility over these sexual misconduct allegations ? im sure you will struggle to find a third party with a neutral views. My main concern is there are plenty of people who are set in discrediting this monk at all possible means. I dont have a problem at people stating the facts in the media, but as you say mentioning yourself-FACTS, these allegations are not facts although reported by the media. Thus the title of controversies i think is disputable.

I respect your views (Haunuman das) i think i can provide you with all the info you want,but as you can see within days this page will get vandalised, all the information will be twisted just to ridicule this monk name.


 * Please read WP:V. Facts do not need to be true on Wikipedia. There just has to be a citation as to where the information came from. If the source can be considered reliable by WP:RS then the fact can be reported. If not, it can't. I personally am uncertain as to whether Master Lu is still a monk. All I know is that he was at one time a monk. If you can find the details, great. While you are at it, get the years for his marriage and birth of his children so you can show that he took his monks vows after they were born. As for vandalism, that is standard on Wikipedia, no way to avoid it. However, there are several people watching the article and revert information added in violation of the rules about biographies of living people. My suggestion is that you create an account so that you also can put the article on your watchlist and make sure that all information added to the article has a source and is not just the personal opinion of another editor. I do this myself on several controversial articles, it woould be good to have more help on this one. &mdash;Hanuman Das 14:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, guidelines are guidelines no argument about that. Your scepticism about Master Lu monkhood, im sure is derived from reasons or information you have read or heard, i wont argue about this point, after all it is your personal opinion. Meanwhile i will search the information that you are requesting, hopefuly it clears the doubt on this particular point.

By the way, certain lineages within the trantic Buddhist lineage, the practice of celibacy is not required to the menbers of the shanga,(im NOT hinting they can practice free sex with anyone) for instance the Nyingmapa lineage of tantric buddhist sect, masters can have wives also, and many do so- I did not make this up. I guess this is why so many people are slandering Master Lu, as they dont understand, the differences between Mahayana shanga rules, as those of Tantric buddhist lineages.

Thanks for your suggestion, but my computer skills are rather simplistic...but i will put a word out to perhaps alliviating some of the headaches on this page.(Z)


 * Well, just to set you straight, I am sure that he was a monk at one time. I am not sure whether or not that is still his status. I'm also aware of the lay lamas in the Nyingma lineage, so I know that the devil is in the details. Things are phrased the way they are to force those who want to say that "OMG he is a monk AND he is married" to find the sources for dates and details of both his monk's vows and his marriage. It's my understanding that he was married and had children before taking vows of celibacy, and accepted full responsibilty for continuing to support his wife and family after taking whatever vows he took. That is, I think, to his credit and belongs in the article as long as a clear source for the details can be found. &mdash;Hanuman Das 13:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I know Master Lu personally and this is the best I can do with the sources I have. He is still a monk, and there is no doubt about it. You can look up his recent pictures if you dont believe me. He said and is documented in his books that he was ordained in 1986. He has two children whom one is in her 30s and the son is married with children in his late 20s. So that in itself proves that he became a monk after his children are born. His wife, before he became a monk, is still apart of the scene. She is almost like a personal assitant. I will not deny this but he is completely celebate. They dont even sleep in the same room or anything like this. I have seen his sleeping quarters and there is no room for two. I can understand the other critics (alittle) because they are doing what they think is preserving the "orthodoxness" of their faith. Jesus said dont hate his persecuters for they know not what they do. I happend to have personally met SHC and I wish you would too because you would know that she is just a sick person. Shes crazy and anyone who would know her would agree that she is "alittle out there". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.176.113 (talk • contribs)


 * If you could provide links to online sources, I'd be happy to update the article for you... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Ekajati and Hanuman Das, I'll try to find the only sources for the proof's, will respond in one week from now (Z).

im running extremelly late pls give me mroe time (Z)


 * No problem. I've simply taken out the monk sentence, as it is not essential to the article. Details on his ordination(s) and status can be added any time a source can be provided. &mdash;Hanuman Das 15:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What is a controversy?
I find some problems with the controversy section. First, it does not seem to be correct to simply cite the subject's words which might possibly be seen as controversial by some people. I think that it is necessary to cite a third-party source which portrays them as controversial or which reports on controversy which has been caused by the writings.

Second, the information from Tibetan Review seems suspect. For example, I don't believe that there are any other sources confirming that Lu has a Rolls Royce. I don't in fact believe that he does. Since the Tibetan Review clearly appears to be critical of Lu, I think we need citation of the facts as well as the response from Tibetan Review. I also note that there is no attribution of authorship for this cited critique. Is it an article? editorial? opinion piece? I'd like to see quotes, actually. GlassFET 15:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, going through the history, I see the two paragraphs using only Lu's writings as sources were added by an IP, User:75.47.154.36. I am probably going to remove them, but will continue going through the history to try to determine whether this might be seen as a controversial edit. GlassFET 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, finished going through the history and see these paragraphs have not been challenged or removed before, so I'm removing them now. What we need to see here for both NPOV and BLP purposes is evidence that these writings have given rise to some third-party documented controversy. Otherwise they are only opinions of a Wikipedia editor based on their own interpretation of the intent and meaning of the writings. GlassFET 16:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The political contributions and . . . the Rolls
I happened to be in the middle of the controversy over contributions to Gary Locke, the former governor of Washington, and I thought you might like some inside history. The whole thing was rather comical.

For those not familiar with Chinese culture, gift giving carries with it certain rules. The gift is always accepted without comment and it would be a major insult for it to be returned. Typically gifts are given without expectation of a return. Money is given in a red envelope, usually with a lucky script on the cover.

So, Gary Locke was invited to speak at a temple gathering (the temple is not directly associated with Grand Master Lu by the way), and after the talk Master Lu handed Gary a red envelope. Gary knew he had to accept it, but as soon as he felt the envelope, he knew there was a problem, it was too thick! Personal contributions are limited to $1,000 each. As soon as he could, Gary and his manager opened the envelope, and found that it contained 50 $100 bills. Oops. Of course, Master Lu knew nothing of US campaign laws, but now Gary had to solve a tricky puzzle, how to give $4,000 back to Master Lu without insulting him.

Through his contacts in the community Gary connected with a family close to Master Lu, the Chen's. He contacted one of the Chen brothers, explained the problem, and asked for their help. The brother took the extra money back to Master Lu and explained the whole situation, but now it was Master Lu who had a problem, he had given $5,000 and that somehow had to be made whole. His attitude is quite amusing considering that Master Lu has a fine mind and surely understood why it wasn't necessary, but living Buddha or not, he's still Chinese apparently!

So, to close the circle, various members of Master Lu's family and one of the Chen family daughters agreed to contribute $1,000 each, and they did. Honor and form was maintained. But due to all the press about the L.A. temple gifts to the Gore campaign, the press did some digging up here and discovered the transaction from Gary's campaign, who duly recorded the whole thing, and the local paper made a big stink about it, like the other 4 $1,000 contributions were an attempt to do an end-run around the rules. The reporter even dropped sinister hints that one of the contributors, Heidi Chen, couldn't be found and might not even exist. The reporter might have done a little research, because Heidi was married and listed under her husband's name. When I read that in the paper I had to laugh, having been on the phone with Heidi a few minutes earlier.

Of course the press was right to some extent, but it was harmless, the small contributions were gladly given by the other individuals, all of whom firmly exist, and didn't mind at all giving a little money to a Chinese candidate for governor. Big scandal, eh?

Now, I also have to talk about his Rolls. Master Lu has many disciples all over the world, and they give him many gifts. It seems that one of the disciples who took refuge in him, a Japanese I believe, wanted to buy Master Lu a fine car, and offered him the choice between a top of the line Mercedes and a Rolls. Master Lu called me and related this story, only his command of English was not great at the time, and all I could gather from him was whether he should choose. . . beans or rice?? After a few seconds I realized what he was saying, reversed names in Chinese of course, he was saying "Benz" or "Royce"! Well, considering the bad publicity at the time involving the Bhagwan, naturally I instantly said "Benz". But he took the Royce instead. In any case, it's not like he extracted money from devotees and marched down to the dealership to buy an extravagant car, it was a gift, and he only has one (if it's still around), not a fleet.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorro6204 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment added by Mahadragon April 1, 2010

Master Lu currently has a Bentley in his garage in the Redmond home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahadragon (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Master Lu has now moved back to live in Taiwan again. He is currently in Autralia holding ceremonies. Added by Min 23/10/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.111.37 (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's any doubt as to whether or not True Buddha School is a cult there's a simple thing you can look at. Our daily practice of visualization and chanting is extremely similar to the Tibetan method of daily cultivation (specifically the Yellow Hat sect). Our chants are similar, the visualizaations similar, even the way the monks dress and the implements we use, like vajra bell and staff are very similar. You can call True Buddha School a cult, but then you have to call the Tibetan schools cults too because they do the same thing. And if the Tibetan schools are cults, then the Dalai Lama is a farce as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.57.154 (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lu Sheng-yen. 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/20050811234038/http://www.tbsn.org/ to http://www.tbsn.org/

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) 02:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Text removed from main article:- "The True Buddha School has been criticized in 2007 by six Buddhist organizations in Malaysia. The True Buddha School has attempted to counter the criticisms made by the organizations. The Tzu Chi Foundation backed out from the group of seven organizations making such claims. [citation needed]" Reason; there are no supporting sources, the organizations are not identified & claimed sources were dead links. 03:38 16th February 2021 (GMT) Iamwilloc (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

COI tag (November 2023)
See Special:Contributions/Gajones76. SparklyNights (t) 16:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)