Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 33

Acupuncture page dispute
I recently filed for dispute resolution regarding the acupuncture page. I am requesting neutrality and an unbiased editor to ascertain the credibility of sources used to make claims regarding acupuncture's classification as quackery and pseudoscientific. Thus far, I have been silenced on the acupuncture talk page by editors who do not respond to my concerns or attempt to silence me by deleting my content and blocking me.

I am requesting review of the sources used on the acupuncture page provided as evidence for the supposed consensus that acupuncture is not medically effective. As they stand currently, the citations are sourced from: blogs, articles that vaguely mention acupuncture, or an OpEd with a thesis counter to the claim being supported. I would like to point out that these sources are low quality and do not adhere to the standards of MEDRS

The most recent citation being discussed on this talk page by @Hob Gadling (citation 17 on acupuncture page) is a literature review published on a blog co-founded by David Gorski, rather than published in an academic journal. Sharing anything self-published by David Gorski on his personal website or published on his blog is biased, not credible and has a conflict of interest, given he is outspoken against complementary medicine. This blog is the only source used to justify the claim on the acupuncture page that states: "The conclusions of trials and systematic reviews of acupuncture generally provide no good evidence of benefit, which suggests that it is not an effective method of healthcare."

Conversely, on the acupuncture talk page, I shared two meta-analyses from the last 10 years that demonstrate high confidence that acupuncture is beneficial to the treatment of headaches, migraines and chronic pain. I also shared a 50 page evidence map published by the VA in 2014 that similarly concludes acupuncture benefits a number of medical conditions. The editors who discounted these sources used this same blog as their counter evidence.

Further, I am requesting review and removal of citations 4-8 on the acupuncture page, which are the sources used as evidence for the claim that acupuncture is classifiable as quackery or pseudoscientific. These sources are blogs, vaguely mention acupuncture or have a thesis counter to the claim that acupuncture is pseudoscience. None of these sources comply with Wikipedia:MEDRS.

Source 7 (Wang SM et al 2013) clearly states "Although >40 disorders have been recognized by the World Health Organization as conditions that can benefit from acupuncture treatment, many within the field of science view acupuncture as “quackery” and “pseudoscience,” and its effect as “theatrical placebo.” It seems somewhat naive to totally condemn the practice of acupuncture, while accepting orthodox medicine as the basis for treating all medical conditions. Herein, we describe evidence supporting the thesis that acupuncture, as part of anesthesia practice, can provide clinically meaningful benefits for patients." This clearly cannot be cited as evidence that supports the claim that acupuncture is quackery or pseudoscientific.

On the acupuncture talk page, I cited sources from the VA, NIH, 2 recent meta-analyses in reputable scientific journals, landing pages from major US hospitals including John Hopkins, the Cleveland Clinic, who discuss with scientific confidence that acupuncture is of medical benefit. Most US hospitals offer acupuncture for integrative cancer care, such as at Mass General Hospital. It does not get more "mainstream medicine" than the sources I am sharing.

The editors on the acupuncture page took issue with all of my sources. What alarmed me is that their responses either comprised biased judgments (such as @Bon courage stating " the VA has long been recognized as a locus of quackery.") and the only citations they use to back their counterarguments come from blogs written by David Gorski himself or published on the blog he co-founded.

I also suggested that a more neutral perspective would be to acknowledge that the literature needs further research, but to call it pseudoscientific or classifiable as quackery is entirely false. I stated on the talk page: " I am not advocating that this Wikipedia page states that acupuncture cures depression, or that this entry state that acupuncture is proven to cure anything for that matter. I am requesting that this page is updated to reflect that mainstream medicine and scientific literature have concluded that acupuncture has been shown to be effective for pain conditions. The page can also reflect that overall, the research is inconclusive and that more quality research needs to be done. To say that acupuncture is of no benefit, is characterized as quackery or is a pseudoscience, is blatantly false misinformation, and that is what I am trying to have modified."

Medicare now covers acupuncture for low back pain. Most health insurance companies now cover acupuncture. MDs and DOs train in acupuncture and have an American Academy of Medical Acupuncture.

I am here as a proponent for cleaning this page up from bias, misinformation, misclassification and the use of inferior sources as references. Please share guidance on how this can be navigated. 76.171.132.146 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Acupuncture and generally speaking TCM are a cynical hoax perpetrated by Comrade Mao upon the Chinese people, because China lacked the money for Western-style anesthetics and Western-style medicines. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Science-Based Medicine is recognized as a reliable source: WP:SBM.
 * has a conflict of interest, given he is outspoken against complementary medicine is not how conflict of interest works. At most, WP:BIASED applies, but Gorski has simply a bias for science and against pseudoscience, just like Wikipedia itself. The IP confuses "neutral" in the sense of WP:FALSEBALANCE with "neutral" as used in Wikipedia - WP:NPOV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hob Gadling Per WP:SBM, Science-Based Medicine is "not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant." You may argue that it is a "reliable source", but it cannot be referenced as a meta-analysis or as the only source to make a claim that invalidates a body of scientific literature. You also can argue that Gorski is WP:Biased because as an oncologist, he also has a financial bias against complementary care, which is commonly sought out for patients with cancer. Per Wikipedia, Science-Based Medicine is "owned and operated by the New England Skeptical society", so when using these blogs, in-text attribution would also be appropriate, given these sources are not published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Jvsthere (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You say that because you don't understand our WP:RULES. WP:PSCI is website policy and you have been warned of discretionary sanctions if you want to fight against it. WP:PARITY is a well-founded content guideline. WP:FRINGE is what we say it is fringe, not what you cherrypick. And learn that the Wikipedia Community widely disagrees that Gorski has a COI. In short: the Wikipedia Community has power of definition upon how Wikipedians use certain terms. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

See the top of this page, where it says -

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution noticeboard page." Somebody close this. Thanks. -Roxy the dog 17:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Deadlock on proposal to merge Iškuza and Scythia into Scythians
I've been editing the articles relating to the Scythians over the course of several months, and since most editors tend to favour splitting pages after they reach a certain size, I split two further pages, Iškuza and Scythia, covering the phases of Scythian history respectively in West Asia and in Europe, out of the main page covering the Scythians.

However, trying to split it has resulted into three articles, with both Iškuza and Scythia requiring large amounts of material regarding the role of the prior and subsequent histories of the Scythians in the creation and destruction of those states copied from each other and from the Scythians page to exist since they are both about immediately preceding/succeeding states created by the same continuous population group. And because Iškuza and Scythia both cover immediately preceding/succeeding but also partially overlapping parts of the history of the Scythians, multiple sections and sub-sections of each page covering the culture, population, external relations, etc of these states also had to be copied from the Scythians page (e.g. the "Background" sub-section and "Society" section in Scythia, and the "Origins," "Impact," and "Legacy" sections of Iškuza). Moreover, the Scythia page as it exists now also functions as a WP:Semi-duplicate, given that most of the information relating to this polity also is also the same basic information that is required on the Scythians page.

Given this resulting situation, I have started a merger proposal to resolve this issue, per WP:MERGEREASON: Overlap, Context, not because I support a merger for the sake of merging itself, which I do not favour, but because Iškuza and Scythia require too much context and the information on these pages is too intertwined with each other.

The problem is that, despite months having passed, the discussion for the merger proposal is still at a deadlock due to the bad faith of one user who has consistently opposed the merger on the basis of verifiably untrue accusations while other opponents to the merger have refused to engage in further discussion even when the issues they had have since been addressed or corrected. Due to this, we have three users opposed to the merger, and three users (including myself) in favour of it, while the other supporters of the merger have been telling me to resort to WP:BOLD and implement the merger.

In this situation, I am bringing this issue to Wikipedia's dispute resolution noticeboard and to WP:RFC with the hope of being able to resolve this deadlock. Antiquistik (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Evaluate my dispute resolution technique?
Hey all, a week and a half ago or so I saw an issue from two users on Template talk:2022–23 Top 14 Table bubble up on to ANI. It didn't get a whole lot of comment, but the comments it did get seemed like it was heading for block territory if it came up again. I'm not entirely sure why but I decided to adopt the dispute and shepherd it to more community input via an RfC to calm down the talkpage and make it less personal. That RfC started a few hours ago and consequently my personal involvement in resolving the dispute ended. It's been well over 10 years since I've done anything similar and I want to make sure that I acted appropriately as well as solicit feedback for ways to improve in dispute resolution. If anyone would mind reading the talkpage linked and evaluating me I'd appreciate it. --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"Skip to current disputes" button doesn't work any more
... I'm not sure why? It might be related to the new skin, because it skips to #TOC, which I assume is the table of contents, which of course has now moved. Elemimele (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Burning of Smyrna
The would be moderator for this subject has left for almost a week now, recusing themselves on account of questions I asked to ensure no bias. Apparently we are waiting either for a new moderator willing to jump into the fire or for the Dispute to be closed. I will not be asking the same questions of a new moderator, as the questions are already there for all to see. This is therefore an appeal for a new volunteer for a moderator, and, if none appears, then a question as to how and when the Dispute will be closed for lack of a moderator, so I can move on to the next step for a resolution. Thank you. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you seem inclined to interrogate moderators about their religion and ethnicity, and insist on excluding volunteers on that basis, it should not be suprising that another volunteer would be uninterested in getting involved in such unpleasant and inappropriate interactions. Cullen328 (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 70.164.212.36, Per, nothing said to you by User talk:Cullen328 above would be considered bitey behavior. You do not want dispute resolution, you want to win your content dispute by appealing to what you consider to be a higher authority. IN the process you are rapidly taxing the patience of the other volunteers here with your WP:POV WP:IDHT WP:BATTLE WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS mentality. Every edit you have made so far is in the furtherance of your ethnic POV pushing. Dropping this DR and getting onto productive editing would be in your best interest. (Preferably in an area not under Discretionary Santions) Because if you force other editors to comb through your conversations here so far and present your actual statments in a DR or an WP:ANI, the likely result will be that you are the one sanctioned.  He  iro  07:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Statute Law Revision Act 1893 discussion
The content dispute on the dispute resolution noticeboard was closed because, as the moderator mentioned: "There almost certainly is a content dispute here, but it is concealed in the conduct dispute, …" Therefore I am taking this opportunity to make further comments to the summary of dispute by the other editors.

First regarding @James500 summary:

• @James500 believes my and @Mjp1976 accounts are sockpuppet accounts being operated by one person. Let him therefore file a sockpuppet complaint. I quote the moderator of this dispute: "The allegation of sockpuppetry is a serious matter, and should be either made at sockpuppet investigations or not made at all." And when @James500 is proved wrong, will he issue an apology and will he be censured for bad conduct?

• @James500 exaggerates and strawman's my and @Mjp1976's statements regarding the effect of repealing the enacting clause of the BNA Act 1867. If there is no effect, why bother to repeal it? Clearly it was intended for some purpose, and that purpose needs to be examined. The Interpretation Act 1889, section 38, paragraph 2 partly specifies the effects of repeal in future acts. But what does it mean to repeal the enactment clause of legislation currently in force? The Interpretation Act 1889 is unclear on this point as it depends on whether additional provisions are enacted. There is some additional clarity much later in the Interpretation Act 1978 section 17. Some people interpret this as Canada ceased to have a properly functioning Constitution as of 1893, and that re-enactment of the BNA Act was required before Canada could achieve complete legislative independence (as was sought in 1982).

• Why did Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau "patriate" and enact – subject to certain provisions laid out in Schedule B – the Canada Act, 1982 which contained in Schedule B the Constitution Act 1982 (formerly the BNA Act), with a proclamation, and signing ceremony by Queen Elizabeth II, if Canada already had a properly functioning independent Constitution? Obviously, Canada's Constitution was, at the very least, not independent of the UK, and so Canada was not an autonomous country.

• Why, in 1931 did Canada choose not exercise its full autonomy as provided for under the Statute of Westminster 1931? Could it be because Canada did not have a properly functioning Constitution due to the repeal of 1893? Was the BNA Act re-enacted anytime between 1893 and 1931? Was the BNA Act re-enacted anytime between 1931 and 1982? There is nothing wrong with asking questions.

• @James500 disingenuously speaks of "previous hoaxes" including inventing imaginary Acts. We discussed this on Talk:Statute Law Revision Act 1893 and this had to do with confusion that the Canadian Justice website named these specific changes/repeals in the Statute Law Revision Act 1893 uniquely but only for internal purposes. It is dishonest for @James500 to call this a "hoax".

• Reference to the First Report of the Constitutional Commission, Australia vol. 1 in which @James500 states these kind of repeals (of enacting clauses) have no effect is patently false. The text of the Commission states that they recommended to repeal the enacting clause of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, BECAUSE Australia had already become legislatively independent of the UK through the Statute of Westminster 1931 and subsequent enactments. In other words, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900 became moot (spent). Not so for Canada. Canada did not seek to achieve complete legislative autonomy from the UK until 1982. When the enacting clause of the British North America Act was repealed in 1893, Canada was not legislatively independent. Canada STILL did not become legislatively independent through the Statute of Westminster even in 1931 when other Dominions began to do so (e.g. Australia). Huge difference which @James500 overlooks in order to support his narrative.

• Confusing gibberish about me trying to delete all references to the repeal of the Schedule of the 1893 Act from the article. After attempting some edits regarding this problematic paragraph, @James500 was unhappy with the result, indicating it was factually inaccurate as edited, and so I sought to achieve consensus on the talk page instead. @James500 attributes edits which attempted to address the problem, but fell short, to nefarious or malicious intention instead of assuming other editors were operating in good-faith. My objective was to make the Statute Law Revision Act 1908 repeals concerning portions of the SLRA 1893 Schedule CLEAR, in that they DID NOT APPLY to the dominions for which they were in force (namely, Canada). It was @James500 that seemed to want to obfuscate the effect of these repeals. Happily, as of writing, he appears to have accepted that his original paragraph was in fact confusing, and has since edited and separated it, satisfactorily addressing one of my concerns regarding the intelligibility of this paragraph.

• Continued slander of my efforts as advancing hoaxes, instead of presuming good-faith. This editor is indeed hostile and paranoid, which makes it impossible for him to presume good-faith, as evidenced from his repeated allegations of sockpuppetry, sleeper accounts, hoaxes, etc.

• More gibberish concerning previous warnings from disagreements with editors from 12-13 years ago on a different article, because they held a POV different from another group of editors. Even @James500 admitted that he thought I was an editor "in disguise" that he got into an edit war with some years ago. Further evidence of paranoia.

• Blanking user talk pages. Last I checked, user talk page activity, including deleting old discussions that are no longer pertinent is at the discretion of the user. @James500 has also blanked his talk page. One set of rules for me, and another for thee? Hypocrisy.

• @James500 attempts to defend his actions of blanking the ARTICLE talk page where discussions are taking place regarding disputed areas of the article. Who does this? That's the purpose of article talk pages.

• More falsehoods concerning the edit cycle. The Wikipedia guidelines regarding this is clearly labelled OPTIONAL, and that there are other alternatives for the edit cycle which may work better depending on the situation. WP:BRB

• In short, a mass of false, confusing, and paranoid statements, with little or no basis in reality. One thing is clear, @James500 does not work well with others. I have over and over again sought to ignore his personal attacks and bad behaviour, and engage on content rather than conduct. But I had to reply, at least for the public record, to this wall of nonsense and chicanery.

Second regarding @Mjp1976 comments:

• @Mjp1976 is a casual editor, and clearly sought to improve what he perceived as inaccuracy in the article as originally laid out with no references to the effects of SLRA 1893 on other countries in the Commonwealth, for which there are several. His criticism of the article earned him initially only contemptuous silence from the main editor. And later, personal attacks.

• It is unfortunate that @Mjp1976 was attacked for simply voicing his concerns regarding the content and layout of the article. Whatever happened to Wikipedia guideline WP:BITE? I quote: "Do not call newcomers unkind names such as 'sockpuppet' or 'meatpuppet'."

• @Mjp1976 is correct on the effect of SLRA 1893 (see references on both Statute Law Revision Act 1893 and Statute Law Revision Act 1893 (Canada). The enacting clause for the BNA Act 1867 was in fact repealed. What this actually means in terms of legislative process and its effects, is a legitimate question for a broader debate.

References:

Interpretation Act 1889 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1889/63/pdfs/ukpga_18890063_en.pdf

Interpretation Act 1978 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/enacted

Statute of Westminster 1931 https://www.canada.ca/en/intergovernmental-affairs/services/federation/statute-westminster.html

First Report of the Constitutional Commission, Australia. Constitutional Commission. Vol. 1. pp. 144, 165 https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-2518055092/view?partId=nla.obj-2520172532#page/n188/mode/1up Arkenstrone (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 *  Wikipedia is supposed to be an exercise in creating the best curated and documented library of information. 
 * I only ever get involved in editing a topic or an article on this site when I am 100% certain of my information, and have done all the requisite research required before proposing a change. For the record, I posted this note in the talk page, as per Proper Wikipedia procedure, before arbitrarily making changes 2 years ago and received silence, and was ignored. And then this turned into a gong show because of one person. I had forgotten that I had even posted this until @Arkenstrone took it up as a question.
 * Harassment and other nonsense by James500
 * The Harassment, name calling, and berating from @James500, is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies. There is no ambiguity on the matter. I have no idea why this person become unhinged and unglued with wild conspiracies that had nothing to do with the edits and the questions at hand is beyond me, however it seems that this has shown that this individual has acted like they own this particular page, among other pages. This is how you drive away people who want to come and contribute.
 * Furthermore, this individual has made nonsensical arguments on the interpretation of the section that is standard in both 1893 and 1908:
 * "and this Act shall not extend to repeal any enactment so far as the same may be in force in any part of His Majesty's dominions out of the United Kingdom, except where otherwise expressed in the said schedule."
 * 1908: https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1908/act/49/enacted/en/print.html
 * 1893: https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1893/act/54/enacted/en/print.html
 * This is a standard text used. Therefore James500's contention is ludicrous and deliberate obfuscation of the words being used to further some sort of agenda. If this is a standard in every Statute Law there is no ambiguity. The only ambiguity is in the fact that James500 does not understand how to read legalese in it's true form and understand the construct of the sentence quoted above.
 * With the deliberate obfuscations of this sentence by this individual, they are not only at odds with the primary design and goal of Wikipedia, but then further allows for the miseducation and ignorance of those that visit this page for accurate information.
 * Final thoughts:
 * I think this entire Wikipedia article needs to be rewritten and simplified as it can be expanded to include a section with regards to the effects on each colony. This article has been sporadically edited and information added that serves no purpose to be on the page, is generalized commentary, or is poorly laid out. I will be moving forward on the Article's Talk page to discuss a complete rewrite of this article.
 * Mjp1976 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Open RFCs and DRN Requests
In the past 48 hours I have closed two DRN requests when there were already Requests for Comments on the talk page of the article. I will probably be editing the wording of the front matter on the DRN project page to clarify that we don't accept a case if there is already an open RFC on the talk page of the article (even if the RFC and the DRN are about different parts of the article or different subtopics). Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * For a given dispute, how should I decide if DRN or RfC is more appropriate? Thank you. JBradleyChen (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * it is surprising to me that the mere existence of an open RfC on the talk page means that a DRN will be declined, even if there is no overlap in the content of the dispute and/or the participants. Is this really the established practice, and if so; why? VQuakr (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be an RfC that is connected to the dispute, not just any RfC. Whether an ongoing RfC is connected to the dispute is something that the responding DRN volunteer should have a special power to decide as part of their "Control of mediation" capacity.—Alalch E. 17:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Archiving
I recently turned off indexing of this page by legobot, and am leaving a comment here as requested. My explanation is the same as the one I left in the edit summary: turn off automagic indexing – the archives are far too big to be indexed by legobot. Legobot can handle up to 2000KB, which is 10 archives of this page. This page has 231 archives. HouseBlastertalk 23:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Elections in Cuba
Has somehow been appended to the end of "Iran and_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine discussion", I did not start it (so have no idea what the filer did). Can someone make it a seperate dr? Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

DRN is content focused
@Jagmanst this has ref to your recent filing of Sengol content dispute to this board. With all due respect. For DRN one is supposed to explain disagreement is over which content.

WP:DRN is supposed to be content focused venue - and not personal complaint venue - (personal complaints go to WP:ANI and WP:ARE but even going before there one is supposed to strive in non-personalized manner.

May be you study handling of previous content disputes at DRN archives. That may help you better. I hope you would not mind my friendly advice.

Happy editing and cheers &#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've re-written it to make it more content focused. But I find this hard because the issue is the blanket reversal of many edits, because of their objection to a handful of edits. Their preferred edits, one by one, I don't have much issues, though I have written my objections regarding them here . I didn't have space to put it in the DRN. If you have other ideas on how to present this dispute in more appropriate manner, please let me know! Jagmanst (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Ainsley Earhardt birth date, age, and year
Hi everyone, I wanted to start off by saying I’m really sry to those I made upset 😔 and mad 😠. I didn’t know any reliable sources for Ainsley Earhardt’s birthday and age, and I tried to put a reliable source but couldn’t find any. Wikipedia used to have her birthday, and age along with her name on her infobox. Plz put her birthday, and age on her infobox. Her birth date is September 20, 1976 and her age is now 47 as her birthday is today. I wasn’t trying to be mean to her article, and was trying to fix her infobox. U guys used to have her birth date, and age without a reliable source. Plz accept my apology, and as I’m new to the WP:RS stuff. I joined Wikipedia, and now no one wants to help me find a reliable source for Ainsley Earhardt’s birthday, and age. I feel really bad 😔, and stupid. Wikipedia should have kept her name on the infobox, her birth date, and her age before but now they took it off. Thank u 🙏🏻 to every person who has tried to help me find a reliable source for Ainsley Earhardt, and I’m really sry for editing her Wikipedia. I will let u guys decide, and put in her birth date and age and birth year as I have confirmed it with other reliable sources. They are not accepting every reliable source that I find bc it doesn’t have the birth year, and or it isn’t reliable which I fact checked each article. I made sure it had the correct birth date, and age and birth year. I’m really sry, and plz help me figure this out once and for all so Wikipedia doesn’t take off her birth date, and age. It used to have her birth date, and age and birth year before but now I don’t know why they took it off. It made me really sad 😔 when I found out, and bc I was trying to help get it back on Ainsley Earhardt’s infobox. I read all the articles of the WP:RS, and the verifiability. It verified her birth date, and age, and birth year. Dandielayla (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback proposal
There is a discussion at Village pump (proposals) that may be of your interest. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Notifications
The notifications of a DRN discussion which I have just received (which I assume is transcluded from a template) User_talk:Nigel_Ish doesn't actually give a link to DRN at all, just to a generic noticeboard.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just fixed that. I sent the notification with a broken link. Sorry for that. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)