Talk:Outer Mongolia

Outer v. Northern

The article is called "Outer Mongolia", but only discusses the more-or-less synonymous "Northern Mongolia". Orcoteuthis (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

country

Isn't OM synonymous w/ Mongolia (country). This should redirect there and the info contained in this article should be incorporated into its history section. --Jiang 06:26, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes. A-giau 02:21, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, the Mongolian Government doesn't recognise this name, it is in not in any way relevent to the present day Republic of Mongolia. 86.45.77.161 (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ROC claims on Mongolia

I pretty certain I've read somewhere that ROC (Taiwan) has recognized Mongolia as an independent state, or at least renouced all claims to Outer Mongolia and surrounding regions, sometime during the 90's. Unfortunately I can't remember the source of this infomation, except that the recognition was done through a legislative act. Can anyone verify? --Alan

The ROC recognized the statehood of Mongolia on 30 January 2002, not in 1990s, though there are still controversies as to whether it is constitutional. See my recent article edit to find it.--Jusjih 15:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

From an edit to UN General Assembly Resolution 505, I have copied this text:

On May 21 ,2012 , the Mainland Affairs Council released a press said that Outer Mongolia is not a part of Republic pf China.

I can't read the PDF that is cited in this statement. Mang (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

References

tulergi monggo

The literal translation of Manchu tulergi monggo would be "Outer Mongols", not "Outer Mongolia". Even if we ignore the distinction between people and geography, tulergi monggo does not mean Outer Mongolia as in English. The tulergi monggo were autonomously controlled by Mongol ǰasaγ (jasak in Manchu) as opposed to "Inner Mongols" like the Chakhar and the Tümed who were directly under the Manchu Emperor. In other words, the tulergi monggo included not only the Khalkha but also the Ordus, Kharachin, Khorchin and others of Inner Mongolia. "Outer Mongols" and "Inner Mongols" correspond to 外藩蒙古 and 內屬蒙古 respectively in Chinese. As for Inner/Outer Mongolia, the Manchu phrase "dorgi jasak i monggoso" (Mongols of[who was ruled by] inner ǰasaγ) referred to the Mongols of banners in Inner Mongolia. --Nanshu 07:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The error originally inserted by Whlee (talk · contribs)[1] was even worsened by 70.21.17.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[2]. --Nanshu (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Outer Mongolia in modern Chinese usage

Normally this usage is regarded as rather diplomatically incorrect by the PRC authorities especially in Russian or Mongolian officials' presence. Having said this, the term remains in very wide usage in Chinese circles by nationalist-leaning people who still believe in the ultimate goal of China is to recover all the lands that were in Chinese (Qing) hands in 1840 but not today, which in other words they still believe or dream of Mongolia being a part of China again. A lot of anti-Communist KMT supporting Chinese overseas, or fenqing still refuse to accept Mongolia's independence and view it as a Soviet/Russian-imperialist-controlled puppet regime (in Chiang Kai-shek's words) not supported by ordinary Mongolians.

Even on the Chinese Communist side, Mao Zedong famously said repeatedly in the 1950s that once the PRC would get prosperous and Mongolia would then come begging to rejoin China. From time to time, people in China sprout that after Taiwan, the next goal in national reunification is with Mongolia. I have seen a few recurring rumours on mainland Chinese cyberspace that even made it to Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao about a Mongolian province's Klural passing resolutions calling for Mongolia coming under the PRC in the Special Administrative Region mold akin to Hong Kong or Macau. --JNZ (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of other people use the term too. I, for example, am neither Chinese, nor really nationalist, nor do I believe that Mongolia should become part of China, but I use the term "Outer Mongolia" a lot when the use of only "Mongolia" might be ambigous ;) . It's sad that so many Chinese seem so ignorant about the areas they want to have "back". Russians for example know very well that Poland or the Baltic states would rather die of starvation than join Russia. Yaan (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The article already says that the term is still used by people (in China and elsewhere) to emphasize a sinocentric view. If you want to connect those views to specific political camps (eg. "nationalists"), then you need reliable third-party sources to confirm that connection. Otherwise it's POV or Original Research (probably both). "recurring rumours" or Mao citations are not enough to document actual current use. --Latebird (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, I can literally cite 100 primary sources instantly using 'Outer Mongolia' in supporting Mongolia returning to Chinese rule as such. A lot of people will then be yapping that "No, that's not enough. We want a secondary source for Wikipedia written by someone else that has researched and summarized the usage of 'Outer Mongolia' in Chinese nationalist contexts, otherwise it is original research!". Can someone stand out and clarify if they want documented usage of "Outer Mongolia" by Chinese nationalists, or a source look at this Chinese nationalist usage? --JNZ (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, you also need to prove that other people don't use the term (at least significantly less often). For my part, I would like to see a source that states something like "In the Chinese language, the term 外蒙古 is predominantly/exclusively/most often used by Chinese irredentists." Yaan (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Then it becomes impossible. I personally am a Chinese irredentist and we all use this term. The only one source who directly discusses the use of "Outer Mongolia" in the Chinese sovereign claim is a passing reference by John Derbyshire [3] who accuses this usage as Chinese irredentist. --JNZ (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I did not read your source careful enough, but where exactly does the author discuss the use of the term "Outer Mongolia" by Chinese irredentists? The author does use the term, but IMO only as a synonym for Mongolia (the country) or maybe Mongolia +Tuva without any connotations, i.e. he uses the teem in the way that is completely usual in the English language.

I am a bit surprised it should be impossible to show that using 外蒙古 might carry certain connotations. I had no great difficulties to find a source (and it's even a somewhat authorative one) for the claim that the use of "Ostzone" in post-1949 West Germany had anti-GDR connotations: [4]. How are we supposed to judge what connotations the use of a certain term carries if you can not give us sources? How are we to know whether using 外蒙古 is not just the same as using "Outer Mongolia" in English?

Btw. I am also a bit sceptical about what people in general (not just Chinese) feel about the term. My guess is that most people don't feel anything. Yaan (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That source doesn't discuss the term, but uses it in the sense defined by the article. We'll have to wait until someone manages to dig up better sources before we can continue the discussion about contemporary use by Irredentists (or others) in China. --Latebird (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you consider reference in the style close to "interestingly, the Chinese still refer this land as 'Outer Mongolia'" or something similar you can technically classify this as discussion. Although by Wikipedia requirements this wouldn't quite qualify as a thorough research. --JNZ (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean. Certainly "the Chinese" don't refer to the areas ruled by the Qing Dynasty as "Manchu Empire", do they? Yaan (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after reading the whole thing, I think I might get what you mean. But I think you are misinterpreting the square brackets. They are not part of Derbyshire's paraphrase of the alleged Chinese world view, they hold a comment made by Derbyshire. At least this is what I understand. But even if we do understand this passage as part of the paraphrase, the whole sentence would basically read as "the borders of the PRC [which do not include Mongolia] are sacred and inviolable." Does this have anything to do with Chinese irredentism?

A quick google search digs up one or two interviews with Pres. Chen Shuibian in which he uses the term Outer Mongolia. Is he just another Chinese irredentist, or does he only use the term when speaking in English? Yaan (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, we need a secondary source that presents the research and analysis. Relying on primary sources will lead to endless debates about whether we interpreted them correctly or not, so we just don't do that (especially not with such a controversial topic). --Latebird (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia has never been part of China. Please don't use such anti-historical words such as "returning", "reuniting" etc. Those Chinese who encroach on the independence of Mongolia are not nationalists, they are imperialists and chauvinists. True nationalists love their own nation, and therefore respect other nations. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

But wasn't China once a part of Mongolia? 86.137.251.212 (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If enough people happen to disagree with you and we find reliable sources analyzing their opinion, then we'll have to include information saying so. Until then, that's a pointless debate. --Latebird (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the article

I had some edits reverted due to dispute of the scope of the article. As it stands now, the article implies that "Outer Mongolia" only refers to the region in the Bogdo Khanate period from 1911-1919 (or 1924). But Outer Mongolia both pre- and post-dates this period. Here is an example of English usage from the US Dept of State:

The Manchus, a tribal group which conquered China in 1644 and formed the Qing dynasty, were able to bring Mongolia under Manchu control in 1691 as Outer Mongolia when the Khalkha Mongol nobles swore an oath of allegiance to the Manchu emperor. The Mongol rulers of Outer Mongolia enjoyed considerable autonomy under the Manchus, and all Chinese claims to Outer Mongolia following the establishment of the republic have rested on this oath. In 1727, Russia and Manchu China concluded the Treaty of Khiakta, delimiting the border between China and Mongolia that exists in large part today. Outer Mongolia was a Chinese province (1691-1911), an autonomous state under Russian protection (1912-19), and again a Chinese province (1919-21).

Here's another from the US Library of Congress:

Outer Mongolia: The name applied to the northern part of traditional Mongolia during the period of Manchu control (1691-1911) and commonly in Western literature thereafter.

This is reflected at Wikipedia as well at articles such as Administrative divisions of Mongolia during Qing ("Mongolia was administratively divided into 2 main regions: Inner Mongolia and Outer Mongolia.")

Examples of "Outer Mongolia" being used for the Mongolian People's Republic in English can be found here, here, and here

As far as the use of "Outer Mongolia" in Taiwan, it can be seen in a ROC government publication here ("In 1949, the ROC government relocated to Taiwan, and Mongolia established diplomatic ties with the People's Republic of China. Due to a souring of relations with the Soviet Union in the early 1950s, however, the ROC revoked recognition of Outer Mongolia, reclaiming it as ROC territory.")

Examples of "Outer Mongolia" used metaphorically by English speakers to denote a generically remote place can be found here and here ("my favorite point of reference for all things odd and out of way")

None of these uses are necessarily entire accurate, correct, or politically neutral. Nonetheless, they reflect English usage and should be included in the article. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive and simply reflects what is already out there. To suggest that the only or most important meaning of Outer Mongolia is "main part of the Bogdo Khanate of Mongolia" (ca 1911-1924) is patently ridiculous. Carry on with nationalist arguments here at the talk page, not in the article. — AjaxSmack 03:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I'll try to make it even clearer. "Outer Mongolia" can refer to the following:

1. The northern part of traditional Mongolia during the period of Manchu control (1691-1911)
2. The Bogdo Khanate (1912-24) including the period of Chinese control (1919-21)
3. A common designation for the state of Mongolia (1924-Present)
4. Mongolia as claimed by the Republic of China (1950s-Present)
5. An English metaphor for a generically remote place

All of these meanings should be covered in the article. You don't have to agree as to whether the usage is "correct" or not; it exists and is attestable. — AjaxSmack 03:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, except that I think the second, third and fourth can be condensed to post-1911 Mongolian state, and that I would like to have an authorative source for what Outer Mongolia referred to under the Qing (just Khalkha? Khalkha + Khovd + Uriankhai? Everything under the administration of the Office for Outer Mongolian Affairs?). Yaan (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked a a few sources: The Chinese Government: A Manual of Chinese Titles, Categorically Arranged by William Frederick Mayers (1886; entire book browsable at Google Books) and several historical maps and atlases including An Historical Atlas of China by Albert Herrmann (of Uni Berlin), Historical Atlas of China by Chang Chi-yun (in Chinese), and maps from History of the Mongolian People's Republic (translation of Bagaryn Shirendyb et al. Bu̇gd Nayramdakh Mongol Ard Ulsyn Tu̇u̇kh trans. by William A. Brown and Urgunge Onon).

According to Mayers, the Lifanyuan covered all of Mongolia and beyond so that doesn't help much. Mayers says: "Outer Mongolia comprises the territory of the Khalkhas extending from the north eastern termination of the desert of Gobi to the borders of Russian Siberia and of the Kalmuks or Western Mongols otherwise known as Eleuths or Oelot." Mayers defines "the Inner Mongols" not geographically but says they comprise 49 banners divided into six leagues. On the maps, the Inner/Outer border generally follows the current Mongolia/Inner Mongolia border in the south and east. The areas of confusion include Dariganga which is Inner accoring to Chang but Outer according to Bagaryn. Alashan and Ejine (modern Alxa League) are excluded from Inner and Outer by Chang in earlier years, Herrmann, and implicitly by Bagaryn. But by 1911, Chang shows Alashan and Ejine as part of Inner. Herrmann, Bagaryn, and sometimes Chang put the western groups (Uriankhai [incl. Khovsgol, Tannu-Ur., Altan Nuur Ur., and Altai Ur.], Khovd, and Dzungaria [in the earlier years]) in Outer but Chang sometimes separates them. The Kokonor Mongols were not included in either.

It's difficult to apply 21st century rationalist notions of territorial division and authority to the Qing Empire and achieve the kind of certainty desired. The I can say based on the small amount of info I perused is that Inner and Outer Mongolia were roughly the same as today with some question about Alashan. I look forward to more input though. — AjaxSmack 05:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this question is related to nationalim - it is about administrative subdivisions of the Qing Empire. If the extent of these subdivisions was ambigous (as opposed to "not properly understood by modern authors"), then we should say so.

The 49 banners do not include the Alasha and Ejin banners, Hulunbuir, the Chahar and, I think, Hohhot (Guihua). Yaan (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Statements such as "Mongolia has never been part of China....Those Chinese who encroach on the independence of Mongolia are not nationalists, they are imperialists and chauvinists" (above) and the deletion of any references to the periods before 1911 or after 1924 are nationalist arguments broadly speaking. The Qing Empire was a non-national empire in the pre-national era. While I agree it was technically not China the name "China," in English, was and is very common shorthand for this empire. To apply all of the baggage of Chinese-Mongolian nationalist relations to this pre-national period and deny this is original research.

"If the extent of these subdivisions was ambigous, then we should say so." Absolutely. "The 49 banners do not include the Alasha and Ejin banners, Hulunbuir, the Chahar and, I think, Hohhot (Guihua)." Mayers treats the "very inner" groups you mention separately from what he calls the "Inner Mongols," i.e. the 49 banners. As I noted above, the Alashan and Ejin are excluded from Inner and Outer by Chang in earlier years, Herrmann, and implicitly by Bagaryn. But by 1911, Chang shows Alashan and Ejine as part of Inner. As far as Hulunbuir, Chahar, and Hohhot, these areas were part of the provinicial system by the time Mayers was writing — Shanxi and Zhili were expanded north of the Great Wall during the Qing into the Ordos, Hohhot, and Rehe areas. As the Hebei article notes, "During the Qing Dynasty, the northern borders of Zhili extended deep into what is now Inner Mongolia, and overlapped in jurisdiction with the leagues of Inner Mongolia." Mayers' explanation support this. One of Chang's maps shows this overlap; he marks provicial boundaries and tribes (蕃部) in two distinct colors. Here's another view of the divisions of Mongolia from 1851 (click):

Note that although Khovd (Cobdo) and Uriankhai are marked as part of "Uliastai," Uliastai itself was part of Outer Mongolia but it was the seat for officials overseeing Khovd and Uriankhai to the west and north.

— AjaxSmack 23:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but how do we deal with all this confusion? I think this is more a problem of sources - I mean we can guess that the reason for these inconsistencies is really some kind of ambiguity or overlap, but we don't have a source for this guess, do we? Just writing "Some authors only count Khalkha, while others include, Khovd, Uriankhai, Alashan and Ejin" is a bit unsatisfying when we don't know just why they differ - did they get something wrong, or is there actually more to it (My guess is that this was all ambigous, but I would like to see a source). Yaan (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We deal with it by explaining what is known based on available sources. It might be "unsatisfying" but that's life. Sometimes topics can't be neatly shoehorned into the state of organisation we prefer. As long as we stick to others' accounts and don't engage in speculation or original research, we can manage. Ideally, we need someone to contribute citations from contemporary Chinese sources (the present-day ones I've seen aren't much better than English ones) but until then we can make do with "According to XXXX, Inner Mongolia was XXXX and Outer Mongolia was XXXX..." I suspect that, even with more sources, the picture would be less than clear. 1644-1911 is a long time and many things changed during that period. Also, pre-modern polities did not have the same impetus to rationalise boundaries and administrative structures the way modern ones do. This applies especially to Qing areas outside of the Chinese provincial system.

BTW, thanks for all of the Classical Mongolian placename images you uploaded to Commons. I've added a couple to articles. — AjaxSmack 04:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK then, go ahead. creating the pictures is a nice practice for getting a bit familiar with the script, and is actually pretty straightforward. But I guess you know that ;) Yaan (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish somebody would get their ass in gear and create a unicode-based font that could actually adjust the Mongolian letter forms and not just spit out crap like ᠤᠯᠠᠭᠠᠨ ᠪᠠᠭᠠᠲᠤᠷ. Then we wouldn't need all the images. — AjaxSmack 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this could display more properly on Windows Vista. But I can't tell you now because I'm currently not on a Vista PC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaan (talk • contribs) 23:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you're right. I guess that's one reason to switch. I see your discussion of it over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Mongolian) now and it's confirmed here. I actually prefer it to appear horizontally like that rather than vertically -- that's how it's usually done in many of the non-Classical Script environments I've seen. — AjaxSmack 02:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The dates you provided are interesting and helpful. But eight years later, the article still contains no dates. <sigh> 75.163.223.45 (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Writing it horizontally of course creates less mess-up in texts, but it also requires you to turn your head all the time. This is no big problem with books, which can easily be turned into the best reading position, but try that with an old 17" monitor! :-) I guess you could discuss this at the Mongolia work group, but at the moment, I do prefer writing it vertically. Yaan (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll continue this there. — AjaxSmack 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an administrative division

I tentatively replaced the phrase "administrative division" with "region." Leaving the Uriyangkhai aside, we can hardly say that Outer Mongolia was an administrative division of the Manchu Qing Dynasty because Outer Mongolia was hardly a concrete political entity. The Manchu empire applied divide-and-rule policies to the Khalkha though not so tightly as to the South. The situation is complicated as the empire spent nearly a century to establish the administrative system, and we need to take into account civil, military and religious affairs. In short, the Khalkha were divided into numerous banners. Four aymags, which were simultaneously leagues, were just liaisons. There was no such thing as a central government of Outer Mongolia. --Nanshu (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Political game with linguistics

Northern Mongolia is simply literal translation of Ar Mongol. It doesn't intend to "elude" anything. There is no political implication in it. I explained it a lot at various places in WP. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you had mentioned elsewhere that Ar Mongol means Mongolia located at the north of something (and in the case, the Gobi desert), right? But that is not equivalent to the English term Northern Mongolia, nor a complete literal translation. As I once mentioned elsewhere too, there is also a Chinese term "漠北蒙古" that means "Mongolia located at the north of Gobi", which is clearly equivalent to the Mongolian term Ar Mongol in meaning. Nevertheless, while both this Chinese term and the equivalent Mongolian term may be used as a history or cultural concept and do not have political connotations when used, the English term "Northern Mongolia" (which is also not an exact translation of the term 漠北蒙古 or Ar Mongol) does seem to have such connotations, and such terms are usually used by supporters of certain view. Apparently language differences are also an important factor to consider. --Chinyin (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It was I who mentioned this. I must confess I don't know who uses "Northern Mongolia" as a term in English. If you collect some sources, you might be able to demonstrate that there is indeed some nationalist connotation in this term. But what I and Ganaa consider more important is how the term ar mongol in Mongolian is used. As I said in my edit summary, it is the most customary term if Inner Mongolians (most of which do not hold pan-Mongol sentiments) want to refer to the Mongolian state. I suppose there are two possible renderings into English: one, more customary, being simply "Mongolia", while the other, more segment-based, is "Northern Mongolia". "ar" does not precisely mean "northern", but it is quite a close correlate: if one wants to translate it into English in an explicit and idiomatic way, "Northern Mongolia" will be the translation of choice. If have changed the text slightly, so that the metalanguage is about the Mongolian word ar mongol and not about the (much less significant) English term Northern Mongolia. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem to mention or point out the Mongolian word ar mongol or the Chinese word 漠北蒙古 (this was mentioned by me). But it should not give an impression that the term is equivalent to the English term Northern Mongolia. In fact, there is also a Chinese word 北蒙古, which is a direct translation from the English term "Northern Mongolia", is certainly a term with political connotations. Clearly, there is a difference between the term 漠北蒙古 (ar mongol, a more cultural or geographical term) and 北蒙古 (Northern Mongolia, a more political term) which needs to be taken care of. --Chinyin (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is my new version ok for you? I tried to take your concerns into account. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not that whether the version is ok for me or not. But I think If the English term Northern Mongolia is mentioned, it should point out at least the possibility to have political connotations for this term. In addition, it's not that these non-English terms are used instead of "Outer Mongolia" in English, so it needs to be further reworded. --Chinyin (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW. there are also Chinese terms 漠南蒙古 and 南蒙古 for Inner Mongolia (*not* southern part of the state of Mongolia), similar to 漠北蒙古 and 北蒙古 as above (for Outer Mongolia). But 内蒙古 has became the standard Chinese terminology for Inner Mongolia. --Chinyin (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

April 2023

The massive expansion of this article - particular for history - is unnecessary. This article should - at most - briefly summarize the Mongolian history articles up to 1921, then hand off to other articles for much of everything after 1921; the articles related to independent Mongolia effectively take over from there. The expansion just duplicates content in other articles using less accessible (non-English) sources. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

While it’s reverted, add a few links on the see also box that is pertaining to it. This will deal the history of Mongolia in full detail. 174.89.100.11 (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

174.89.100.11, in general your habit of throwing everything at something makes a mess (that somebody else needs to address) rather than helps. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

See bottom. That needs to be improved. 174.89.100.11 (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You should notify the various WikiProjects that may have an interest in this article. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I propose merging Outer Mongolia into History of Mongolia. Though its small, that article should merge with the latter while the name section will be moved to the Mongolia#Etymology section.174.89.100.11 (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Since you didn't gain any support (nor any support) for your proposal, and didn't carry through the change, I'm removing the merge templates. Feel free to try again. CapnZapp (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)