This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
An attributed statement by the Columbia Journalism Review is not undue. [1] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear Snooganssnoogans ( talk): He is known for biased reporting ... " is a smear and not written from a neutral point of view. Further, citations are to articles in the Columbia School of Journalism Review, as well as an Opinion article; none of these are reliable sources. Please discuss on the article talk page before continuing to re-insert and edit war. - BattleshipGray ( talk) 10:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to copy edit this to make some sense and not be so wordy and confusing. Can others help please. Thank you, -- Malerooster ( talk) 16:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is what we have:
In January 2018, Solomon published a report for The Hill suggesting that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had foreknowledge of a Wall Street Journal article and that they themselves had leaked to the Wall Street Journal.[19] According to the Hufftington Post, Solomon's reporting however omitted that the Wall Street Journal article that Strzok and Page were discussing was critical of Hillary Clinton and the FBI, Strzok and Page expressed dismay at the fallout from the article, and Strzok and Page criticized unauthorized leaks from the FBi. According to the Huffington Post, "Solomon told HuffPost he was not authorized to speak and does not comment on his reporting. He may simply have been unaware of these three facts when he published his story. But they provide crucial context to an incomplete narrative that has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber all week."[19]
Thank you, -- Malerooster ( talk) 16:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
We summarize the body in the lede per WP:LEDE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The line in bold type has been deleted twice by the same editor: "No evidence of any quid pro quo or other wrong-doing has surfaced.[20] The Clinton Foundation failed to publicly disclosed four donations totaling $2.35 million from Uranium One's Canadian chairman, Ian Telfer, which were made via his family's foundation.[21]
According to Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" policy, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
The article does not mention the donations made by Uranium One's chairman to the Clinton Foundation, nor does it mention that they were concealed. This is important information that is relevant, well-sourced and neutral, and its omission does not give readers a balanced view of the controversy.
Here is the diff of the 1st deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_F._Solomon&diff=896568920&oldid=896568544
Here is the diff of the 2nd deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_F._Solomon&diff=896975287&oldid=896975012 Ghostofnemo ( talk) 04:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that using op-eds to back up assertions in a lede would generally violate WP:RS and WP:NPOV, at a minimum. Is that not the case here?
I don't have a horse in the race, but for the casual observer, it doesn't look too neutral. From a persuasion standpoint, it's also too blunt to sway anyone. Dorama285 ( talk) 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't follow. It's one short sentence and describes no specific instances of biased reporting or faux scandals. Lead sections are supposed to summarize prominent controversies. R2 ( bleep) 22:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem with that approach is that it would treat facts opinions. That's contrary to our neutrality policy. (See WP:YESPOV.) R2 ( bleep) 18:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
How doesn't it accurately depict the facts from the sources linked? Also, would you mind using good indentation to make this discussion easier to read and understand? R2 ( bleep) 18:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
CJR is a reliable source. It is in fact the gold standard for reporting about the media. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I got here via off-wiki criticism. Doug Weller is correct that the CJR articles do allude to something that could be reasonably described as "manufacturing of faux scandals". Neither mentions "conservative bias" as the lede had mis"lede"ingly stated. ^^ I've fixed the SYNTH problem by re-arranging the refs. My opinion is that the lede does not sufficiently summarize the entry or the person's biography, but know better than to get involved. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Please refrain from constantly reverting to a biased version of the page and undoing the work of others. Couple things regarding recent edits:
"American" or any other nationality is almost always used as an adjective to supplement the description of the person's main occupation. Being "an American" is not sufficient to warrant the creation of a dedicated Wikipedia page, hence the characterization based on primary occupation. Award-winning is used on hundreds on Wikipedia articles in the very first sentence description of notable individuals who have been awarded recognition in their main field of work, and is thus perfectly suited for this introduction. Examples include:
/info/en/?search=Julie_Hirschfeld_Davis
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_DiCamillo
/info/en/?search=William_Brangham
all of which specifically use "award-winning American" in their introductory description.
The "has a reputation" is blatantly subjective and completely unwarranted given that it comes from a single source that can hardly be responsible for a "reputation", nor does it belong in the introduction, being an opinionated description of a journalist. The "Reception" section is more than sufficient to address these characterizations. This reads as an obvious attempt to sway the opinion of passing-by readers' who will not delve more carefully into the subject. This type of information manipulation does belong to Wikipedia. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dragore (
talk •
contribs)
22:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
This page was recently reported at WP:AN3. As the closing admin, I wanted to check out the tone of the article. The article does seem very negative against the subject and, without checking all the references, I am hoping that the article is a neutral summary of what is found in the sources. For instance the material in the section John Solomon (political commentator)#Reception might be reviewed for balance. This sentence might be over the top: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." I could not find the phrase 'fake controversy' in the sources, so perhaps that can be clarified. Of course the "award-winning" phrase is the usual puffery and can be safely omitted. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This guy is no longer an investigative Journalist. His colleagues at the Hill complained about his reporting and the Hill moved him to the Opinion side. Specifically, for his reporting on Ukraine. He has several crazy out there conspiracy theories he has pushed since 2016. Fox News even made Sean Hannity stop calling him and others investigative Journalists. Maybe replace Investigative Journalist with Investigative Conspiracy Theorist. See below article as proof.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/leaked-memo-colleagues-unload-on-john-solomon-the-reporter-who-kicked-off-trumps-ukraine-conspiracy 216.8.66.130 ( talk) 19:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
References 7, 11 and 17 on this page all link to the same article. Seems like someone wants to pile on "Something fishy" Suggest removing two of the three. The one with the author's picture is good but hard to read. The others are just reformatted versions with bigger type and ads, etc. 6daveh ( talk) 05:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He is not an investigative reporter and now he is caught up in the Trump Investigation. Please edit any mention of him being an investigative reporter and replace it with former or something.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-ukraine-dirt-file-has-private-email-between-john-solomon-and-rudy-allies 216.8.66.130 ( talk) 21:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
considering he was the investigative reporter for the washington post, and that he has several awards for investigative journalism... i'd say it's okay to call him an investigative reporter. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.164.60.179 (
talk)
16:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
THIS IS A WHOLLY BIASED OPINION PIECE. Interesting how the accuser is guilty of the very same behavior he accuses Solomon of. This is NOT a factual straight forward accounting of Solomon's history. The prejudice should be removed promptly. You spend the time. I only work for being paid. 65.78.31.71 ( talk) 11:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "there is no wrong doing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden." This is unnecessary and political bias that has clearly been added and removed several times by partisans pushing an agenda. 2600:1700:38F0:3120:4123:A53:D4A9:595C ( talk) 04:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The Washington Times reported Hunter Biden said his father Joe Biden (at the time Vice President of the United States) knew about the directorship and asked Hunter about it. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/what-joe-biden-said-to-his-son-hunter-about-ukraine-and-burisma-shows-he-knew-it-was-shady
In an interview with CBS Boston, candidate Joe Biden stated he never discussed this matter with his son. https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-biden-ukraine-hunter-denial
A major indicator of wrongdoing is lying about the activity in question. "Wrong" doesn't necessarily mean criminal. Hunter Biden obtained this Board position, as he's admitted, because of his last name. That's wrong. Illegal? Almost certainly not. But "wrong"? Yes. (It's the same with his Amtrak Board position, but that is not at issue here.)
The statement about there being no evidence of wrongdoing by either of the Bidens is now objectively incorrect as there is now clear evidence that one, the other, or both, are lying. Nearly two weeks have passed since these well-publicized statements were made by the Bidens, and neither has been retracted, walked back, or "clarified." Their statements are mutually exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyAtlanta ( talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
now objectively incorrect as there is now clear evidence that one, the other, or both, are lyingis incorrect. soibangla ( talk) 18:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Solomon's part in the Trump–Ukraine scandal" section it is Sean Hannity's not Sean Heannity's RAU9231 ( talk) 07:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
To add to this article: the information that, on June 19, 2022, Donald Trump sent a letter to the National Archives naming Kash Patel and John Solomon as "representatives for access to Presidential records of my administration." Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/15/trump-fbi-search-solomon-patel/ 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 01:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
He is the "registered agent" and Chairman for "The Affinity Media Exchange Inc", on of the advertising agencies that Trump's Truth Social works with:
Why is it in virtually every Wikipedia article about a prominent conservative, they are branded a conspiracy theorist? Simply expressing suspicion over potential illicit conduct regarding Hunter and Joe Biden is not a conspiracy theory. It's
I don't see Hillary Clinton labeled a conspiracy theorist for peddling the idea Trump stole the election, for example. CandleinDarkness ( talk) 02:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
An attributed statement by the Columbia Journalism Review is not undue. [1] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear Snooganssnoogans ( talk): He is known for biased reporting ... " is a smear and not written from a neutral point of view. Further, citations are to articles in the Columbia School of Journalism Review, as well as an Opinion article; none of these are reliable sources. Please discuss on the article talk page before continuing to re-insert and edit war. - BattleshipGray ( talk) 10:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to copy edit this to make some sense and not be so wordy and confusing. Can others help please. Thank you, -- Malerooster ( talk) 16:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is what we have:
In January 2018, Solomon published a report for The Hill suggesting that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had foreknowledge of a Wall Street Journal article and that they themselves had leaked to the Wall Street Journal.[19] According to the Hufftington Post, Solomon's reporting however omitted that the Wall Street Journal article that Strzok and Page were discussing was critical of Hillary Clinton and the FBI, Strzok and Page expressed dismay at the fallout from the article, and Strzok and Page criticized unauthorized leaks from the FBi. According to the Huffington Post, "Solomon told HuffPost he was not authorized to speak and does not comment on his reporting. He may simply have been unaware of these three facts when he published his story. But they provide crucial context to an incomplete narrative that has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber all week."[19]
Thank you, -- Malerooster ( talk) 16:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
We summarize the body in the lede per WP:LEDE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The line in bold type has been deleted twice by the same editor: "No evidence of any quid pro quo or other wrong-doing has surfaced.[20] The Clinton Foundation failed to publicly disclosed four donations totaling $2.35 million from Uranium One's Canadian chairman, Ian Telfer, which were made via his family's foundation.[21]
According to Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" policy, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
The article does not mention the donations made by Uranium One's chairman to the Clinton Foundation, nor does it mention that they were concealed. This is important information that is relevant, well-sourced and neutral, and its omission does not give readers a balanced view of the controversy.
Here is the diff of the 1st deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_F._Solomon&diff=896568920&oldid=896568544
Here is the diff of the 2nd deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_F._Solomon&diff=896975287&oldid=896975012 Ghostofnemo ( talk) 04:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that using op-eds to back up assertions in a lede would generally violate WP:RS and WP:NPOV, at a minimum. Is that not the case here?
I don't have a horse in the race, but for the casual observer, it doesn't look too neutral. From a persuasion standpoint, it's also too blunt to sway anyone. Dorama285 ( talk) 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't follow. It's one short sentence and describes no specific instances of biased reporting or faux scandals. Lead sections are supposed to summarize prominent controversies. R2 ( bleep) 22:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem with that approach is that it would treat facts opinions. That's contrary to our neutrality policy. (See WP:YESPOV.) R2 ( bleep) 18:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
How doesn't it accurately depict the facts from the sources linked? Also, would you mind using good indentation to make this discussion easier to read and understand? R2 ( bleep) 18:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
CJR is a reliable source. It is in fact the gold standard for reporting about the media. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I got here via off-wiki criticism. Doug Weller is correct that the CJR articles do allude to something that could be reasonably described as "manufacturing of faux scandals". Neither mentions "conservative bias" as the lede had mis"lede"ingly stated. ^^ I've fixed the SYNTH problem by re-arranging the refs. My opinion is that the lede does not sufficiently summarize the entry or the person's biography, but know better than to get involved. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Please refrain from constantly reverting to a biased version of the page and undoing the work of others. Couple things regarding recent edits:
"American" or any other nationality is almost always used as an adjective to supplement the description of the person's main occupation. Being "an American" is not sufficient to warrant the creation of a dedicated Wikipedia page, hence the characterization based on primary occupation. Award-winning is used on hundreds on Wikipedia articles in the very first sentence description of notable individuals who have been awarded recognition in their main field of work, and is thus perfectly suited for this introduction. Examples include:
/info/en/?search=Julie_Hirschfeld_Davis
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_DiCamillo
/info/en/?search=William_Brangham
all of which specifically use "award-winning American" in their introductory description.
The "has a reputation" is blatantly subjective and completely unwarranted given that it comes from a single source that can hardly be responsible for a "reputation", nor does it belong in the introduction, being an opinionated description of a journalist. The "Reception" section is more than sufficient to address these characterizations. This reads as an obvious attempt to sway the opinion of passing-by readers' who will not delve more carefully into the subject. This type of information manipulation does belong to Wikipedia. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dragore (
talk •
contribs)
22:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
This page was recently reported at WP:AN3. As the closing admin, I wanted to check out the tone of the article. The article does seem very negative against the subject and, without checking all the references, I am hoping that the article is a neutral summary of what is found in the sources. For instance the material in the section John Solomon (political commentator)#Reception might be reviewed for balance. This sentence might be over the top: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." I could not find the phrase 'fake controversy' in the sources, so perhaps that can be clarified. Of course the "award-winning" phrase is the usual puffery and can be safely omitted. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This guy is no longer an investigative Journalist. His colleagues at the Hill complained about his reporting and the Hill moved him to the Opinion side. Specifically, for his reporting on Ukraine. He has several crazy out there conspiracy theories he has pushed since 2016. Fox News even made Sean Hannity stop calling him and others investigative Journalists. Maybe replace Investigative Journalist with Investigative Conspiracy Theorist. See below article as proof.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/leaked-memo-colleagues-unload-on-john-solomon-the-reporter-who-kicked-off-trumps-ukraine-conspiracy 216.8.66.130 ( talk) 19:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
References 7, 11 and 17 on this page all link to the same article. Seems like someone wants to pile on "Something fishy" Suggest removing two of the three. The one with the author's picture is good but hard to read. The others are just reformatted versions with bigger type and ads, etc. 6daveh ( talk) 05:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He is not an investigative reporter and now he is caught up in the Trump Investigation. Please edit any mention of him being an investigative reporter and replace it with former or something.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-ukraine-dirt-file-has-private-email-between-john-solomon-and-rudy-allies 216.8.66.130 ( talk) 21:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
considering he was the investigative reporter for the washington post, and that he has several awards for investigative journalism... i'd say it's okay to call him an investigative reporter. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.164.60.179 (
talk)
16:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
THIS IS A WHOLLY BIASED OPINION PIECE. Interesting how the accuser is guilty of the very same behavior he accuses Solomon of. This is NOT a factual straight forward accounting of Solomon's history. The prejudice should be removed promptly. You spend the time. I only work for being paid. 65.78.31.71 ( talk) 11:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "there is no wrong doing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden." This is unnecessary and political bias that has clearly been added and removed several times by partisans pushing an agenda. 2600:1700:38F0:3120:4123:A53:D4A9:595C ( talk) 04:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The Washington Times reported Hunter Biden said his father Joe Biden (at the time Vice President of the United States) knew about the directorship and asked Hunter about it. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/what-joe-biden-said-to-his-son-hunter-about-ukraine-and-burisma-shows-he-knew-it-was-shady
In an interview with CBS Boston, candidate Joe Biden stated he never discussed this matter with his son. https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-biden-ukraine-hunter-denial
A major indicator of wrongdoing is lying about the activity in question. "Wrong" doesn't necessarily mean criminal. Hunter Biden obtained this Board position, as he's admitted, because of his last name. That's wrong. Illegal? Almost certainly not. But "wrong"? Yes. (It's the same with his Amtrak Board position, but that is not at issue here.)
The statement about there being no evidence of wrongdoing by either of the Bidens is now objectively incorrect as there is now clear evidence that one, the other, or both, are lying. Nearly two weeks have passed since these well-publicized statements were made by the Bidens, and neither has been retracted, walked back, or "clarified." Their statements are mutually exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyAtlanta ( talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
now objectively incorrect as there is now clear evidence that one, the other, or both, are lyingis incorrect. soibangla ( talk) 18:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Solomon's part in the Trump–Ukraine scandal" section it is Sean Hannity's not Sean Heannity's RAU9231 ( talk) 07:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
To add to this article: the information that, on June 19, 2022, Donald Trump sent a letter to the National Archives naming Kash Patel and John Solomon as "representatives for access to Presidential records of my administration." Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/15/trump-fbi-search-solomon-patel/ 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 01:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
He is the "registered agent" and Chairman for "The Affinity Media Exchange Inc", on of the advertising agencies that Trump's Truth Social works with:
Why is it in virtually every Wikipedia article about a prominent conservative, they are branded a conspiracy theorist? Simply expressing suspicion over potential illicit conduct regarding Hunter and Joe Biden is not a conspiracy theory. It's
I don't see Hillary Clinton labeled a conspiracy theorist for peddling the idea Trump stole the election, for example. CandleinDarkness ( talk) 02:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)