It is requested that an image or photograph of 13 May incident be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Malaysia and
Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
removing POV tag with no active discussion per
Template:POV
No no
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at
Template:POV:
This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! --
Khazar2 (
talk)
00:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)reply
I just removed the flags of parties/coalitions whose role was not explicitly explained in the article. I also restored the Gerakan logo, since a fair use rationale seems to have been provided. But on second thought, I'm going to remove the logos altogether, because it really isn't at all clear that it is appropriate to portray the parties themselves as "combatants".
Dowcet (
talk)
07:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Requested move 23 September 2015
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 12 August 2018
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose The article title has been moved so many times it is getting ridiculous, and although I don't mind it being changed again to a more widely used title, we'd need to establish first what that title should be. Google Trends shows that the upper case is more common –
[1]. Google Books yields different results, but if we are using the Google Books argument, you'd find that it gives more hits for "may 13 incident" (2960)
[2] than "13 may incident" (1860). Choosing only those where Google Books highlighted the words, then you'd find the following –
May 13th riots – 20
[9] (I stopped searching for variants after this, but you'd get the idea).
It's just a quick count, and a different person may find different numbers, but it does show that there is no clear preference for any particular single title. If you want to play around further with the title search, try Google Scholar –
[10][11][12][13], JSTOR –
[14][15], etc. (all of which again show that May 13 is more common than 13 May). Trying to change the title without establishing which is the more common one will only lead to endless change.
Hzh (
talk)
07:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)reply
I agree with these observations. It's clear that there's no "proper name" for this event, so let's fix the caps and use any one of these common names. I agree the year is not typically used.
Dicklyon (
talk)
15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Still seem a bit arbitrary though. Perhaps first go through the different sources in Google Books and Google Scholar thoroughly and see.
Hzh (
talk)
11:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm OK with any reasonably common descriptive phrase for the incident. The objection is to the current pretense that it has a proper name. If you have a preferred alternative, propose it.
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per nom, per the MOS, but note what a terrible title it is. It completely fails to describe the topic. The current title does not feature as title for the event in the first references of the current article. "13 May" is no more than an in-context, close-perspective shorthand reference. A better title would be "
Malaysia race riots of 13 May 1969. The main incoming link, from
Malaysian general election, 1969, is sourced to reference 3, which is titled "The tragedy of May 13, 1969 (part 2)". Whether it is "Tragedy" or "Race riots" is not the point, just that some actual descriptive word for the event is necessary. "Malaysia" was already firmly in context for the reference, the publisher being the newspaper "Malaysia Today". --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
03:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the support. I say let's go ahead and close this case-fix discussion, and then entertain a proposal from whoever has a better title to propose based on all this discussion. I agree that almost any somewhat more precise title would be a good idea, though I know there are those who would prefer to stick to the more concise ambiguous title, too.
Dicklyon (
talk)
03:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
On first sight of the title, "13 May Incident", I thought: either a quite inept title decision probably by a one-time contributor, or it is a composition title, a poem or a song or a play, where the author deliberately intended to have a peculiar title, possibly obliquely named after something real. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
We shouldn't really be inventing title ourselves. It is commonly referred to as "May 13 [something]" (sometimes just "May 13"), and everyone in Malaysia would know what it refers to. There isn't really any other significant riots on May 13 around the world, therefore per
WP:CRITERIA for title, a concise recognisable name is preferred. Previous discussion moved the title
13 May incident (Malaysia) to
13 May Incident (see above), it's just going to go back and forth endlessly.
Hzh (
talk)
11:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
The mere "May 13" is a common shorthand frequently used within close sources, such as newspapers of the time. It was repeated a lot that year and in the following years that no source from the period gave a true introduction, the context was of common knowledge of the event. These 1969-1970 newspaper sources are not quality sources. Look to quality sources, reliable sources taking a distant perspective, and how these sources introduce the topic. They use "Malayasia" (if not a Malaysian document), "riots" and "1969". Often "race" is used. Trawling the current references, many of them are not so good sources as they are sourcing very specific things. Ref 10 "May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969" is a good example of a whole-topic reference from many years later. I am not seeing any two general references of quality and distant perspective using the same construction to title the event, so it does make a descriptive title more challenging. The current title is quite inadequate for introduction to an international audience. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
05:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Sure, I agree. "Thirteen May 1969" by Graham Brash, 2001, included. This "incident", a funny word for deadly riots that changed Malaysia forever, is so deeply entrenched in the national psyche that it lives by the familiar shorthand. I don't think a viable title can leave out a variation "13 May". I think a longer more descriptive title is needed. 13 May 1955 was also a day of riots in Singapore. At
Hock_Lee_bus_riots#Student_Movement we have the prose "This eventually led to the May 13 incident in 1954", in reference to an unrelated 13 May incident, the
1954_National_Service_riots. The current title fails WP:PRECISE. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)reply
This is like arguing that
September 11 attacks should be renamed because there were other attacks on September 11, e.g.
2012 Benghazi attack. Only one event is important for which the date is known by. The idea that someone who haven't heard of the May 13 event would be confused by the lack of precision simply does not make sense, they would not be looking for it in the first place. I would agree however that the word "incident" obscures what the event is about (the majority of sources would have the word "riots" in there), although I believe that is close to the official title in Malay.
Hzh (
talk)
09:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Nonsense. The Malaysian May 13 1969 race riots do not compare at all with the international significance of the September 11 2001 attacks. There is basically nothing about this “May 13 incident” that is not already couched in a Malaysian context. There are other May 13 incidents in other years in other countries. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
22:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Seems like you are ignoring the point made. Being internationally significant has got nothing to with title. Only specialists would known about
May 4 Movement or
February 28 incident (or indeed hundreds of other events) outside of the countries where they happened, that does not they need to have the countries specified. Give other May 13 incidents you are claiming to have happened that are known by that name.
Hzh (
talk)
22:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Seems like you do not appreciate the purpose of a title, for the reader, to recognizably and precisely define the content of the article, and are thinking that a title need only be technically unique among existing article? The are many people like that in RM discussions, and none have ever yet given a reader-based reason for not using a meaningful title. Just across the straight, the neighbors have a different May 13 incident in their collective memory. Readers should not be expect to know, when selecting a title of an article for downloading, whether it is possible that similar incidents are under the same name or some other name. Why should a Malaysian have to know that the Singaporeans call their May 13 incident a "bus riot"? And similarly for every other "incident" listed at
May 13. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The purpose of the title is very clear, as already given in the link above (giving reader a recognisable title that is precise, concise, natural and consistent). The
Hock Lee bus riots happened on May 12, why you bring that up I don't know, I don't think you read the article properly, and that riot is not called the May 13 incident in Singapore (and the other event on May 13 is titled
1954 National Service riots). It is irrelevant anyway, google "May 13 incident", and it's mostly about the Malaysian event, that is before you google "May 13 riots" (which is the more common choice), and I don't see any links to other events until the seventh page, therefore that is the primary topic per
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Hzh (
talk)
08:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The
Hock Lee bus riots were a series of riots that ran for days, and there were several specific riots, or "incidents", on May 13. Sure, google "mostly" returns Malaysian 1969 hits, but note the proportion of the hits that are embedded in the context of Malaysia or under a heading containing "Malaysia" or "Malaysian". "Malaysia" or "Malaysian" is part of the introduction to the topic, which means it belongs in the title. In contrast, "September 11 Attacks" do not pre-establish a context of the United States. There are too many incidents listed at
May 13.
September 11 attacks is not unique, others are listed at
September 11 attacks (disambiguation), but one has international long term significance dominating all others. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
08:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)reply
A couple of those appear to be uniformly capped in sources; I move the ones that are not. I believe these are now pretty consistent with the guidance of
WP:MOS.
Dicklyon (
talk)
17:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
I believe for such an important incident in Malaysian history, a riot which effected nearly 40 years of Malaysian politics, it should be a top-importance article for WikiProjects Malaysia (It's instead just a mid-importance article here). Any thoughts?
PenangLion (
talk)
10:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)reply
The funeral before the election has no particular significance on the riot, it is therefore largely irrelevant to this article and does not warrant an entire paragraph. It is already mentioned in a sentence as one of the events preceding the election, and in reality only the election itself and events after the election is important for this article. Don't use this article to attack any particular group.
Hzh (
talk)
15:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)reply
It is requested that an image or photograph of 13 May incident be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Malaysia and
Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
removing POV tag with no active discussion per
Template:POV
No no
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at
Template:POV:
This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! --
Khazar2 (
talk)
00:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)reply
I just removed the flags of parties/coalitions whose role was not explicitly explained in the article. I also restored the Gerakan logo, since a fair use rationale seems to have been provided. But on second thought, I'm going to remove the logos altogether, because it really isn't at all clear that it is appropriate to portray the parties themselves as "combatants".
Dowcet (
talk)
07:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Requested move 23 September 2015
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 12 August 2018
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose The article title has been moved so many times it is getting ridiculous, and although I don't mind it being changed again to a more widely used title, we'd need to establish first what that title should be. Google Trends shows that the upper case is more common –
[1]. Google Books yields different results, but if we are using the Google Books argument, you'd find that it gives more hits for "may 13 incident" (2960)
[2] than "13 may incident" (1860). Choosing only those where Google Books highlighted the words, then you'd find the following –
May 13th riots – 20
[9] (I stopped searching for variants after this, but you'd get the idea).
It's just a quick count, and a different person may find different numbers, but it does show that there is no clear preference for any particular single title. If you want to play around further with the title search, try Google Scholar –
[10][11][12][13], JSTOR –
[14][15], etc. (all of which again show that May 13 is more common than 13 May). Trying to change the title without establishing which is the more common one will only lead to endless change.
Hzh (
talk)
07:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)reply
I agree with these observations. It's clear that there's no "proper name" for this event, so let's fix the caps and use any one of these common names. I agree the year is not typically used.
Dicklyon (
talk)
15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Still seem a bit arbitrary though. Perhaps first go through the different sources in Google Books and Google Scholar thoroughly and see.
Hzh (
talk)
11:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm OK with any reasonably common descriptive phrase for the incident. The objection is to the current pretense that it has a proper name. If you have a preferred alternative, propose it.
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per nom, per the MOS, but note what a terrible title it is. It completely fails to describe the topic. The current title does not feature as title for the event in the first references of the current article. "13 May" is no more than an in-context, close-perspective shorthand reference. A better title would be "
Malaysia race riots of 13 May 1969. The main incoming link, from
Malaysian general election, 1969, is sourced to reference 3, which is titled "The tragedy of May 13, 1969 (part 2)". Whether it is "Tragedy" or "Race riots" is not the point, just that some actual descriptive word for the event is necessary. "Malaysia" was already firmly in context for the reference, the publisher being the newspaper "Malaysia Today". --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
03:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the support. I say let's go ahead and close this case-fix discussion, and then entertain a proposal from whoever has a better title to propose based on all this discussion. I agree that almost any somewhat more precise title would be a good idea, though I know there are those who would prefer to stick to the more concise ambiguous title, too.
Dicklyon (
talk)
03:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
On first sight of the title, "13 May Incident", I thought: either a quite inept title decision probably by a one-time contributor, or it is a composition title, a poem or a song or a play, where the author deliberately intended to have a peculiar title, possibly obliquely named after something real. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
We shouldn't really be inventing title ourselves. It is commonly referred to as "May 13 [something]" (sometimes just "May 13"), and everyone in Malaysia would know what it refers to. There isn't really any other significant riots on May 13 around the world, therefore per
WP:CRITERIA for title, a concise recognisable name is preferred. Previous discussion moved the title
13 May incident (Malaysia) to
13 May Incident (see above), it's just going to go back and forth endlessly.
Hzh (
talk)
11:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
The mere "May 13" is a common shorthand frequently used within close sources, such as newspapers of the time. It was repeated a lot that year and in the following years that no source from the period gave a true introduction, the context was of common knowledge of the event. These 1969-1970 newspaper sources are not quality sources. Look to quality sources, reliable sources taking a distant perspective, and how these sources introduce the topic. They use "Malayasia" (if not a Malaysian document), "riots" and "1969". Often "race" is used. Trawling the current references, many of them are not so good sources as they are sourcing very specific things. Ref 10 "May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969" is a good example of a whole-topic reference from many years later. I am not seeing any two general references of quality and distant perspective using the same construction to title the event, so it does make a descriptive title more challenging. The current title is quite inadequate for introduction to an international audience. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
05:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Sure, I agree. "Thirteen May 1969" by Graham Brash, 2001, included. This "incident", a funny word for deadly riots that changed Malaysia forever, is so deeply entrenched in the national psyche that it lives by the familiar shorthand. I don't think a viable title can leave out a variation "13 May". I think a longer more descriptive title is needed. 13 May 1955 was also a day of riots in Singapore. At
Hock_Lee_bus_riots#Student_Movement we have the prose "This eventually led to the May 13 incident in 1954", in reference to an unrelated 13 May incident, the
1954_National_Service_riots. The current title fails WP:PRECISE. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)reply
This is like arguing that
September 11 attacks should be renamed because there were other attacks on September 11, e.g.
2012 Benghazi attack. Only one event is important for which the date is known by. The idea that someone who haven't heard of the May 13 event would be confused by the lack of precision simply does not make sense, they would not be looking for it in the first place. I would agree however that the word "incident" obscures what the event is about (the majority of sources would have the word "riots" in there), although I believe that is close to the official title in Malay.
Hzh (
talk)
09:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Nonsense. The Malaysian May 13 1969 race riots do not compare at all with the international significance of the September 11 2001 attacks. There is basically nothing about this “May 13 incident” that is not already couched in a Malaysian context. There are other May 13 incidents in other years in other countries. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
22:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Seems like you are ignoring the point made. Being internationally significant has got nothing to with title. Only specialists would known about
May 4 Movement or
February 28 incident (or indeed hundreds of other events) outside of the countries where they happened, that does not they need to have the countries specified. Give other May 13 incidents you are claiming to have happened that are known by that name.
Hzh (
talk)
22:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Seems like you do not appreciate the purpose of a title, for the reader, to recognizably and precisely define the content of the article, and are thinking that a title need only be technically unique among existing article? The are many people like that in RM discussions, and none have ever yet given a reader-based reason for not using a meaningful title. Just across the straight, the neighbors have a different May 13 incident in their collective memory. Readers should not be expect to know, when selecting a title of an article for downloading, whether it is possible that similar incidents are under the same name or some other name. Why should a Malaysian have to know that the Singaporeans call their May 13 incident a "bus riot"? And similarly for every other "incident" listed at
May 13. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The purpose of the title is very clear, as already given in the link above (giving reader a recognisable title that is precise, concise, natural and consistent). The
Hock Lee bus riots happened on May 12, why you bring that up I don't know, I don't think you read the article properly, and that riot is not called the May 13 incident in Singapore (and the other event on May 13 is titled
1954 National Service riots). It is irrelevant anyway, google "May 13 incident", and it's mostly about the Malaysian event, that is before you google "May 13 riots" (which is the more common choice), and I don't see any links to other events until the seventh page, therefore that is the primary topic per
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Hzh (
talk)
08:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The
Hock Lee bus riots were a series of riots that ran for days, and there were several specific riots, or "incidents", on May 13. Sure, google "mostly" returns Malaysian 1969 hits, but note the proportion of the hits that are embedded in the context of Malaysia or under a heading containing "Malaysia" or "Malaysian". "Malaysia" or "Malaysian" is part of the introduction to the topic, which means it belongs in the title. In contrast, "September 11 Attacks" do not pre-establish a context of the United States. There are too many incidents listed at
May 13.
September 11 attacks is not unique, others are listed at
September 11 attacks (disambiguation), but one has international long term significance dominating all others. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
08:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)reply
A couple of those appear to be uniformly capped in sources; I move the ones that are not. I believe these are now pretty consistent with the guidance of
WP:MOS.
Dicklyon (
talk)
17:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
I believe for such an important incident in Malaysian history, a riot which effected nearly 40 years of Malaysian politics, it should be a top-importance article for WikiProjects Malaysia (It's instead just a mid-importance article here). Any thoughts?
PenangLion (
talk)
10:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)reply
The funeral before the election has no particular significance on the riot, it is therefore largely irrelevant to this article and does not warrant an entire paragraph. It is already mentioned in a sentence as one of the events preceding the election, and in reality only the election itself and events after the election is important for this article. Don't use this article to attack any particular group.
Hzh (
talk)
15:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)reply