Talk:2020 Vienna attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Location(s)

Videos and pictures seem to show that the events were concentrated in the west of the Schwedenplatz and in at least one nearby narrow street by the synagogue. I have placed some tentative coordinates in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Government isn't certain this is a terrorist attack

I'm having too many edit conflicts --Annemaricole (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.213.144 (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Both the Austrian Chancellor (head of government) himself and the interior minister have called it a terrorist attack.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-attack/at-least-one-killed-in-vienna-attack-involving-multiple-assailants-locations-idUSKBN27I2JF

This section should be deleted 85.148.213.144 (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This section exists as a record of the conflicting reports and changing information in the hours following the attack. TompaDompa (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

There are certainly more than 2 deaths here.--46.7.63.144 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Condolences from other countries

These add nothing. Please don't add them. Their addition only turns the "Reactions" section into a (often flag salad) WP:QUOTEFARM. The quality of the article is improved by removing condolences, not adding them. TompaDompa (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• I concur. Abductive (reasoning) 02:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Agree Ҥ (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Me too. WWGB (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Article merge with November 2020 Vienna attacks

-- Posting this here as well since this articles name just changed from shootings to attacks.

Original argumentation:

I believe this article should be merged with the article November 2020 Vienna attacks because it follows the naming conventions as per WP:NCE.What's happening is an attack, it's likely not to be limited to only shooting and considering the naming of other similar attacks on Wikipedia I believe the title of this article "November 2020 Vienna attacks" is the proper title to be used. See also the discussion on Talk:November 2020 Vienna attacks. I'll also post this at Requests for merge assistance and feedback. -- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

New argumentation:

I still believe this article should be merged with the other one as the month should be specified, as per wikipedia naming conventions. For example November 2015 Paris attacks, September 11 attacks. However I also see a lot of articles named with the month so I'd like to discuss below what is more appropriate.-- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Putting in month might be a good idea, but so far the two articles seem to cover identical things. Were there any non-November shootings in Vienna?VR _talk 22:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a disagreement about which title to use, not a proper merge proposal. I've redirected the other title to this one (the other article was only a stub, nothing worth merging). TompaDompa (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

TruthToBeSpoken, ermm, no? There were two major attacks in Paris that year, one in January (see: January 2015 Île-de-France attacks). And 9/11 is an official name. That is how the government and media referred to it, as well as the masses. Vienna attacks don't have an official name. November 2020 Vienna attacks should be deleted or redirected here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum. I didn't do a thorough enough search, I stand corrected. -- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Weird deletion

Some editor made this weird deletion of what the refs support. Can someone please restore? I don't want to edit war with someone, but this seems weird. --2604:2000:E010:1100:3574:7179:FD8:3B85 (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The weirdness was in your nonsensical addition, claiming that there were "two dead and two women". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Was trying to restore the previously deleted two men and two women. Now - what's wrong with that? --2604:2000:E010:1100:3574:7179:FD8:3B85 (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Its not what you wrote.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Related draft article

FYI -- A related draft article, on a fellow referred to in this one, is awaiting approval here... Draft:Oskar Deutsch

--2604:2000:E010:1100:3574:7179:FD8:3B85 (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO, his (cautiously sceptical) reaction to the 2020 attack might well belong HERE, but isn't justifed in the lead to HIS article. This is about an incident, his is about a (notable) life. Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Published. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Chancellor quote, in The New York Times

An editor has cleansed the article once already by deleting a quote of the Chancellor of Austria, stating in his words the nature of the attack, as reported by the New York Times. That is highly relevant, relevant for the lede, and its deletion is unconscionable. Before he attempts it again, he should see, consensus, but it is against wp standards. --2604:2000:E010:1100:1080:A916:7D47:6053 (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Calm down a bit. The addition was poorly written and poorly placed within the WP:LEAD, and Kurz was already quoted as saying it was a terrorist attack in the reactions section. I am in fact the one who insisted that we quote him as saying it's a terrorist attack rather than a terror attack (see this diff and this diff). TompaDompa (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Tom - that is not a satisfactory answer. You deleted it. It was a quote. It was of utmost importance for the lede. It was the Chancellor speaking. It was the NYT reporting. I'm certainly willing to assume you did it in good faith. But then - it was horribly innappropriate, and I can't understand why you don't just say you were wrong in deleting it. --2604:2000:E010:1100:3574:7179:FD8:3B85 (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. At the time it was added, only a few hours had passed since the attack began. The early reports were conflicting and the various sources did not agree on how to translate the German quotes into English. Kurz was already quoted in the body as calling it a terrorIST attack. Quoting him as calling it a "terror attack" (a term which doesn't mean anything, unlike "terrorist attack") in the WP:LEAD at that time undercut what he was saying. Considering how short the article was at the time and how little time had passed, I saw no reason to rush the inclusion of either "terror" or "terrorist" into the WP:LEAD; there is WP:NODEADLINE. Waiting for a few hours until a clearer picture had (hopefully) emerged was a perfectly cromulent option at the time. When my removal was objected to, I copyedited it to both agree with the cited sources and say "terrorist", which is the term which actually means something. TompaDompa (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

TompaDompa, What is the difference between a terror attack and a terrorist attack? PS: I don't see any reason to tell the above editor to calm down. I also don't see any reason to conceal the deeds of murderers. Do you? 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"Terrorist attack" has a specific meaning. "Terror attack" doesn't. The latter is a suggestive term used by e.g. news media when using the former would potentially be inaccurate or libellous. TompaDompa (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

One can't assume everyone is versed in US centric and disputable nomenclature. For 99% of the public (probably including the Chancellor of Austria) a terror attack and a terrorist attack are the same thing in English. In Austrian he used the term Terroranschlag which means terrorist attack. https://orf.at/stories/3187757/ 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think this is US-centric. Terrorism has a legal definition. Terror does not. Anyway, we can't make up quotes. If the sources say that he said "terror attack", we can't change that to "terrorist attack" because we think that's what the sources should have written. TompaDompa (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

TompaDompa, please stop trying to protect terrorists. The sources say he said "terrorist attack", verbatim quote: ""disgusting terrorist attack". Why do you keep ignoring the sources?: https://orf.at/stories/3187757/ (Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF) is the Austrian BBC equivalent, national public service broadcaster) 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

First off, please read WP:AGF. The point here is that when we quote sources, we quote them verbatim. We can quote Kurz as calling it a "hideous terrorist attack" (The Guardian seems to have removed that phrasing from their article) or "Terroranschlag" based on the sources, but if we want to quote him as saying it was "definitely a terrorist attack", we need a source that uses the exact phrasing "definitely a terrorist attack", not one that uses the similar phrase "definitely a terror attack". See MOS:QUOTE. TompaDompa (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not said anything about usage of the word "definitely". The confusion arises when people quote news media that hides actual facts. CNN has reported (falsely) that the Austrian Chancellor said "terror attack" because apparently (and evidently) CNN doesn't like to hurt the feelings of people who execute random civilians on the streets. CNN has literally subverted and falsified a verbatim quote by a world leader.

"terror attack" https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/vienna-terror-attack-nov-2-live-updates/h_78376dce7bbff794929eb6360fc329ec

Whereas a real news organisation, Reuters has actually done what news organizations are supposed to do and that is state facts. That the Chancellor said "terrorist attack":

"terrorist attack" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-attack/at-least-one-killed-in-vienna-attack-involving-multiple-assailants-locations-idUSKBN27I2JF

The accuracy of Reuters quote is corroborated by the Austrian national news service: https://orf.at/stories/3187757/

CNN should (evidently) not be a reliable source for an Encyclopedia. The proof is right here. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Should we hide the leader of Austria's quote?

In the leading paragraph, should we hide the fact that the leader of Austria (Chancellor Sebastian Kurz) called this a terrorist attack, in order to protect the terrorists? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-attack/at-least-one-killed-in-vienna-attack-involving-multiple-assailants-locations-idUSKBN27I2JF

Who is for protecting the terrorists and hiding the quote of the Austrian Chancellor in the leading paragraph? 85.148.213.144 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

What on Earth are you on about? Please read WP:CIVIL and knock it off with this silliness. Poisoning the well is not conducive to building an encyclopaedia collaboratively. TompaDompa (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry TompaDompa but I don't take kindly to people who protect terrorist motives. You reverted more than 15 of my edits that attempted to add published video of the terrorist attack. Your behaviour transcends wikipedia etiquette. I don't care what your political affiliation is. This is the law. Report me to wikipedia editors as you have done. I know who to report your IP address to. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wait, is your issue that NYT doesn't link to the video itself whereas Fox does? Also, I have to say that I don't quite understand what you mean by I know who to report your IP address to. TompaDompa (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

When choosing between 2 reliable sources (NYtimes and Fox News) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Why choose the one which doesn't have video coverage of the actual attack itself?

Why am I even asking that? Of course you don't want video in this article showing the actions of terrorists.

Tell me I am wrong: tell me you have no problem linking the (WP:RS) Fox News article that actually shows the video of the attack as opposed to the NY Times article that doesn't.

Tell us clearly that you do not want to protect the terrorists and have no problems at all linking the news article that shows the actual video of the attack itself. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's hiding anything, Wikipedia is not a news source and has to report the consensus of what the secondary sources say. This is explained at WP:NOT#NEWS. Liveleak and such are primary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 02:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Why choose NYT over Fox? Because NYT describes the content of the videos, whereas Fox doesn't. There's nothing stopping us from adding both, but we need the NYT article because it allows us to describe the contents of the videos without engaging in WP:Original research. Why didn't you just say from the start that you wanted to use a source that links to the video itself? That's not a tall order, though we can't remove the NYT source even if we add the Fox one.

And seriously, accusing other editors of wanting to protect terrorists is a quick way to get yourself blocked from editing. Of course nobody here wants to protect the attackers. TompaDompa (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Then act like it. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Legend lists FOX News as a reliable source.

Fox News features an actual video of the attack itself. [1]

I am placing a link to the Fox News article in the page. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll be adding the Fox's video link in External. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Very well, I'll remove the inline citation since we're not really using it for anything and there's no need to have the same link twice. TompaDompa (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Video of attackers executing citizens on the street

A video has surfaced of the attackers executing random citizens by pistol shot on Seitenstettengasse street (warning the 4th video is very graphic):

(Site not allowed on Wikipedia)

You'll have to Google the video as wikipedia will not allow posting the link to Liveleak. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless WP:RELIABLE sources report on this, it doesn't warrant mention in the article. TompaDompa (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Legend

Lists Liveleak as "links must be whitelisted before they can be used." I suggest the link is whitelisted. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox news is reporting the same video now: https://www.foxnews.com/world/shootings-austria-injured-person-dead 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox doesn't describe the contents of the video, making it fairly useless. NYT does however, so we can paraphrase their descriptions. TompaDompa (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Where does the NYT describe "executing random citizens by pistol shot"?Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere, of course. Which is why I wrote Don't make up your own descriptions. Paraphrase the sources instead. in my edit summary. NYT writes Yet another video appeared to show the same gunman on the same street, shooting a man with a long gun at close range, then returning seconds later to shoot him twice more with a handgun., which I paraphrased as [...] an attacker shooting a civilian with a rifle and then with a handgun. TompaDompa (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Which is what we say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Right. I think you and I are in agreement about how to handle this particular issue. TompaDompa (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

Here is written there are five deaths: https://www.ildolomiti.it/cronaca/2020/terrore-a-vienna-5-morti-e-una-quindicina-di-feriti-il-ministro-dellinterno-neutralizzato-un-attentatore-laustria-intensifica-i-controlli-alle-frontiere

My edit is changed or reverted though I supplied a link to Reuters... Klaas `Z4␟` V 12:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The majority of sources, including up to date ones and the ones we use, say four confirmed civilian deaths.Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we can wait until we know for sure.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Islamist terrorist attack

The Austrian press along with Reuters, Guardian and others are calling the authors "Islamist terrorists". Wikipedia should reflect this info as well.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-attack/austrian-minister-says-at-least-one-islamist-terrorist-behind-vienna-attack-idUSKBN27J0EN

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/nov/03/vienna-austria-synagogue-terror-attack-police-live-updates Mcrt007 (talk)

I would rather wait, we do not need to rush into print.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. This is heading nowhere productive. TompaDompa (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It was a peaceful attack, it was in the name of peace and love. You cannot speak ill of their religion for it's a peaceful religion. Can't you see all the peace? look at all the peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalthing (talk • contribs) 14:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC) You do know not all terrorist (or even mass killers) are Muslim?Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, they were peaceful Muslims practicing peace by the sword. That is their peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalthing (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Attack or attacks - gunman or men?

Sources seem unclear as to whether there has been one or many events/attackers.

Initially, police said the shootings took place in six locations in Vienna’s 1st district near the Danube Canal, and warned of a group of “heavily armed and dangerous” gunmen. But by Tuesday morning police were not certain how many attackers were involved. … … It’s difficult to say for sure if it was one or several attackers. Lots of witnesses are injured, traumatised, and we have to analyse the data. This will take some time … at this stage there is no definite answer. … …  A series of shooting in Vienna’s city centre … … Twelve hours after the assault, it is unclear if the man acted alone, or how many other terrorists were involved. … … Initially, police said the shootings took place in six locations in Vienna’s 1st district near the Danube Canal, and warned of a group of “heavily armed and dangerous” gunmen. But by Tuesday morning police were not certain how many attackers were involved.

So it is unclear whether this is one event and whether one or several attackers were involved. Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Investigators are now also checking whether one or more other perpetrators are on the run.

  I found this on the German article which may be of use. Also the German article probably has a lot more information that can be translated so not sure why the tag was removed --Excutient^Talk 09:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The uncertainty seems to be how many attackers are on the run. 2604:2000:E010:1100:3574:7179:FD8:3B85 (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I would exercise caution as to whether those being sought are attackers or accomplices (ie supplied weapons etc). Searching for anyone who may have offered material help is normal.Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"As of 3 November police are still looking for at least one suspect." so it probably isn't a good idea to reword the article into singular. --Excutient^Talk 09:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

More than one attacker or accomplice does not mean more than one event ... German article appears to use singular for event, as do most, but not all, sources today. I've attempted to reword leaving the option open as to whether there was one or several attackers. Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not wait until we know, wp:notnews?Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but initial reports were certain that there were 6 attackers, 6 events, present position is uncertain and the 6 figure appears to have been abandoned. I have attempted to phrase such that the uncertainty is maintained. Authorities seem to still believe there may well be more than one, but even that is uncertain. We shouldn't record many when we know that is now in doubt IMO.Pincrete (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Its why we should not use initial reports.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:HYH Pincrete (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kurz

Pigsonthewing, this edit misses the mark by quite a bit. That the quote is still in the archived version is completely immaterial because the reason it was removed is that it adds no new information (The statement from Kurz doesn't really add anything anymore since other officials have since made more specific statements on the same subject, and those statements are already included in the WP:LEAD.). We already write that Officials said that the attack was an Islamist terrorism incident., so a statement from Kurz saying that it was terrorism adds... what, exactly? And of course, that phrasing was removed from the source for a reason (whatever it may be). The sources have changed their translations from German repeatedly. This entire event has shown the extent to which WP:AGEMATTERS with the earliest reports being mistaken about a lot, so why should we rely on the older, more outdated sources when we have more recent ones? TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Your removal of the quote followed you tagging a statement as failing verification. It did not. Your diff is misleading, as it is the first of a series in which I modified the material in your diff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You have a point, tagging the statement as failing verification did not describe the issue properly – the issue being that the source used to say something it no longer does, and we shouldn't second-guess the source's decision to remove that particular content. I'm not quite sure if there's any good way to tag that, though ({{retracted}} does not seem like a perfect fit). Anyway, as I said before quoting Kurz was completely superfluous (regardless of the exact phrasing) because other officials had made more specific statements about the type of terrorism, so I don't see why there was any reason to restore the quote. TompaDompa (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

20,000 videos

"the police received more than 20,000 videos" Did they? Or did people send them multiple copies of some videos? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Source says 20,000! Given that many of these are probably taken on mobile phones, 20,000 is not an impossible number. Pincrete (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

20,000 is half a football stadium-full. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If RS say 20,000 so do we, we do not second guess RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

One source, making a highly remarkable claim - one that test the bounds of credulity - that is not repeated in any other source. We do not blindly repeat sources making dubious claims. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I simply changed it to "a large number". The exact number is not terribly important, and it could be argued that the runtime is a more relevant metric anyway. TompaDompa (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Eyewitness quote

An eyewitness was shocked by the violence, and likened the shooting to other countries that are the sites of mass shootings stating, "At the beginning I thought I was somewhere in the US. This is something we only see in America, or in Iraq or Afghanistan, but not here in Austria."[13] What is the relevance of this quote, at the very end of the entry? I would suggest to remove it. Same goes for the earlier reference to the "nearby Czech border" (Vienna is not so close to CZ, and unclear relevance too) --Dans (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll remove it. TompaDompa (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Nexhip Vrenezi

A victim of the attacks, also Albanian from N. Macedonia (from Veleshtë, Struga). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edion Petriti (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Source? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Vienna Terrorist, One Victim, Police Officer of Albanian Origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edion Petriti (talk • contribs) 08:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Nationality of passers by who helped

″The wounded officer and an elderly woman were saved by a Palestinian and two Turkish-Austrian men, who carried them into safe places and to ambulances; after confronting the attacker, one of the Turkish-Austrians was shot and wounded.[20] The three men were praised for their actions″

Is it really necessary to make reference to the middle eastern nationalities of only these people who helped? I'm pretty sure more people have helped, but since they are not of middle east origin they are not mentioned? What is this strange trend we keep seeing in news? You keep helping increasing the divide. DukieFukie (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

No, such statements do not "increase the divide". But anyway, congratulations on making your first edit to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion and thank you for the congrats! It's nice to be part of your community.DukieFukie (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to include all details the sources do, however. TompaDompa (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

True.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Was it AK-47 ?

Where is source or proof that it was AK-47 assault rifle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon jablanov (talk • contribs) 21:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed both that and an equally-unsupported, contradictory, claim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)