Talk:Drop bear/Archive 2

Suggested lead rewrite

As there seems to be a little controversy around edits here, open for critcism. I'm modelling on the Unicorn Hoop snake page.

A dropbear or drop bear is legendary creature from Australian folklore described as resembling a carnivorous koala. Their notoriety originates from tall tales and hoaxes designed to scare tourists and other visitors. While koalas are typically docile herbivores (and notable, not bears), drop bears are described as unusually large and vicious marsupials that inhabit treetops and attack unsuspecting tourists (or other prey) by dropping onto their heads from above. {ref here}

In addition to this first paragraph, I'm thinking of putting the next two paragraphs in reverse order under a heading of ==Tall tales== or ==Oral history== And then the sections on Australian Geo and Aus Musuem should be merged together in a section about ==Endorsement of the hoax== or ==History of hoaxes== or just ==Popularisation of the hoax== Again. I am not interested in "removing the surprise" that the drop bear is not real, just really feel the term "fictitious marsupial" is clunky and doesn't match he rest of entries on other legendary creatures.ZayZayEM (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Modeling on Unicorn is inappropriate. That's a legend dating back thousands of years, included by reference in thousands of stories, and as best I can tell, never intended as a joke.

Again, legendary in common use (not referring to specialized usage) does NOT say fictional. It doesn't say "this is a lie". Failing to say that is an inappropriate characterization of drop bear, which consists of an "insider joke", where details are made up on the spot with the intent to deceive an outsider. The drop bear isn't oral history or folklore, it's a running joke. The initial statement needed for a hoax is "fictional", not any gentled-down terms. Legendary, at most, implies a tale handed down from antiquity, not specifically a hoax. Folklore implies stories passed down from indigenous inhabitants, which in this day of political correctness, are presumed to be truthful. Both are improper descriptions (I've seen no evidence that the drop bear joke originated with Australian aborigines).

To repeat myself, the two important pieces of information that should be in the first sentence are some way to say "this is a hoax" and "this is Australian". Anything less would be a misrepresentation. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I still find you are having difficulty telling the difference between a word that is commonly used incorrectly, and it's use is phrasal term with specific meaning. But regardless, so is hoax creature acceptable? I've also changed unicorn to hoop snake and not found much difference. --ZayZayEM (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Folklore does not suggest Indigenous origins. Dreamtime and mythology would. If you continue to show ignorance on what basc terminology such as legendary creature and Australian folklore is (especially given this entry is contained within both relevant categories). I'm going to stop engaging in discussion as you are not bringing anything credible here. ZayZayEM (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nullabor nymph, Ned Kelly and Waltzing matilda are all parts of modern Australian folklore. Please learn what words actually mean. ZayZayEM (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Gonna also refer to Category:Fictional ghosts lead to illustrate there is a different between a fictional creature, and a creature that appears in folklore, myth and/or legend (even though none of them are real)--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into "what words actually mean". I'll just assert that in normal language (as opposed to some kind of specialist use) "legendary" does not call out "this is a lie" and is thus inappropriate for this article. Unicorn is a poor comparison, it has none of the ongoing joke attributes of drop bear. If you still intend to change the lede to remove fictional, I suggest we engage WP:3O. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Unicorn is not the only comparison. Hoop snake. Pope Lick Monster. Chupacabra (the latter two refer directly to legends, rather than legendary creature even). Do these articles somehow suggest that these creatures are less fake then drop bears. I've requested opinion from the WP:HOAX group. But at this point I'm not seeing an attempt to garner consensus from you but an attempt to refuse changes to an article. I've asked you three times now - What about using the term "hoax animal" or "hoax creature" - we both agree it is a hoax.?--ZayZayEM (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Why the aversion to fictitious? That seems to me to accurately describe something where the details are made up on the spot to accommodate current circumstances. Legendary does not. Hoax does, but why go with a fancier word than you need?

As for consensus, it seems nobody else is participating in the discussion, which is why I suggested WP:3O. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. Does the question have to do with whether the lede should imply that the dropbear was made up (a hoax), as opposed merely to being legendary? Do reliable sources indicate that the dropbear was made up? Not all legendary creatures were made up. Some are based on mistaken observations, and the origins of some legendary creatures are unknown, going very far back. I would advise the editors to be civil. What is the question?

The underlying question we don't seem to be able to move past is whether it's acceptable to change "fictitious" to "legendary". My contention is that in a WP:HOAX article, we must call out that the subject is untrue, not merely allow the implication by using the term "legendary", which doesn't always mean false. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources indicate that it is fictitious, the lede should say so. The lede should only say fictitious if a reliable source indicates that. Since you don't seem to agree, the next step would be a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Most sources refer to it as a "hoax". I have suggested that "hoax animal" be an acceptable response to this. No source I was able to access referred to them as fictitious.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources say it is a hoax, then it is fictitious, as opposed to merely legendary. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Why object to the term "hoax animal" then. But anyway, see below (it is referred to as both):

Retracted see below

Terminology from accessible sources

• "famous Australian animal hoax" Herald Sun
• "The Australian version of the “snipe” of American snipe hunts is the legendary 'drop bear'" Slate
• "mythical creatures" and "yarns" Great Australian Stories, Seal G
• "urban legend" KASAI novel, Wood BD
• "fictional breed of koala" Lingo Dictionary Miller, J
• "legendary australian animal" Australian Museum
• "Australian folklore" Marvel comics database

I would use the Aus Museum and Herald Sun as the most reliable sources, and continue to support "legendary creature" and "hoax animal" (possibly even both) as the appropriate terminology to use.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"legend" is the most commonly used term from that selection.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

And my objection to "legend" is it doesn't unambiguously and immediately say "fiction". From my perspective, that's the single most important point this article must convey, and it should do so unambiguously and in the first sentence.

I think the sources you quote amply support that this is not merely a legend, since legends can be true (even urban legends sometimes have a grain of truth). The terms snipe, hoax, yarn, and fictional all convey, with varying degrees of obfuscation, that it's a hoax. "Legendary" in those articles is being used, in my ever-so-humble opinion, as a euphemism of "lie". We shouldn't be indulging in euphemisms.

My discomfort to using "hoax" is simply that it's a less common word and the grammar would be awkward. It's a noun and verb, rather than an adjective, so "hoax animal" doesn't work, you'd have to find another way of wording that sentence. That could lead to burying that statement several sentences away from the lead, which again, would be improper since I hold the most important point is that it is fiction in spite of vigorous efforts to convince otherwise. What's the objection to the existing "fictional"? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

New proposal

The page as it stands cannot exist in stasis. That is not how wikipedia works.

New proposal

A dropbear or drop bear is a hoax in contemporary Australian folklore featuring a predatory carnivorous version of koala. The hoax is commonly used in tall tales designed to scare tourists. While koalas are typically docile herbivores (and notably, not bears), drop bears are described as unusually large and vicious marsupials that inhabit treetops and attack unsuspecting tourists (or other prey) by dropping onto their heads from above.{ref here}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 06:17, 19 January 2016‎ (UTC)

That works for me. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Huzzah! Progress. I'll edit this and a few further edits after that so please hold off reversions for a bit.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Drop bear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050510144619/http://www.countrynews.com.au:80/story.asp?TakeNo=200505025048382 to http://www.countrynews.com.au/story.asp?TakeNo=200505025048382

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

bogus science paper?

The article mentions the reference Volker (2012). This was published in December 2012 so is not an April Fool's joke, unlike the Australian Geographic article also mentioned. Does anyone know anymore about the context of it publication? DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Popular culture

Why was this section removed? It seems to me that the appearance of drop bears in the internationally successful Discworld books is a legitimate example of a piece of local folklore having a wider cultural impact. RoryKat (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed it because it just appeared to be trivia. It wasn't sourced, from the description it appeared to be a minor plot element and when I looked at all of the links you provided to other articles none of them mention drop bears or anything else that I could equate to the subject of this article. -- GB fan 11:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I should have sourced it (apologies), but if you think it too trivial for inclusion, I won't argue. RoryKat (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying it to trivial. It is hard to judge with no sources and no mentions in the linked articles. If there are good sources that discuss this it might not be to trivial to mention. -- GB fan 11:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drop bear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050510144619/http://www.countrynews.com.au/story.asp?TakeNo=200505025048382 to http://www.countrynews.com.au/story.asp?TakeNo=200505025048382

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2018

Drop Bears are a folklore. Raadgirl4 (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done. Please specify that change you are interested in in the form of "change x to y", and specify a reference for your claim. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Legit danger from falling branches

I'd heard that the drop bear was invented as a humorous means of keeping tourists away from Eucalyptus trees, not because bears might fall out of them but because there was a legitimate danger of branches falling on people. Is there any truth to this? And if so, should it be mentioned in the article? 75.112.52.7 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

plausible but more likely like any good story there is a sliver of truth to the drop bear tale.

it has been well known by science for many years that a koala diet consists purely of Eucalyptus leaves, a food toxic to most other species and lacking in much nutrition. ontop of having minimal energy needs for a koala modern research has found the leaves to be hallucegenic meaning koalas are for a lack of better term "stoned". these 2 events combined mean it is semi common for a koala who has not correctly wedged themselves into a nook of the tree to slip and fall from the tree. these falling koala would be the likely origin of the term. especially with how lethal a falling marsupial to the head can be.

obv this is original research based on linked bits of information and I have nothing sourced to confirm this as being the origin of term though.

101.167.226.87 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Good thoughts - either way, we would need a reference in a reliable source before including it in the article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

Add to the Popularisation section the drop bear prank played on ITV reporter Debi Edward <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RzrUOCWjtw>. 2A00:23C4:A401:FA00:48E7:E640:C8D7:4DCF (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomy

There have been some edits recently attempting to legitimize the drop bear based on a fossil species. I've reverted the changes as being unrelated to the drop bear hoax which is the current usage of the term. The existence of a species of bear which dropped from trees at some prehistoric period has nothing to do with the drop bear which requires tourists to place vegemite behind their ears or speak in a australian accent. Efforts to tie the two together fall under WP:FRINGE. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not the case there were no fossils used in the description, that was in error, the information used to descripe this is based on phototypes in taxonomy. The added text was in relation to the taxonomy of the NEW species — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenjohnmaxwell (talk • contribs) 04:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll note some pieces which weren't immediately obvious; the changes are based on a single paper, published by the editor himself. The last iteration of his changes also included references to a predatory journal cite. A lot of justification is needed before these edits can be accepted. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: - I agree with this removal, you just beat me to it. In particular claim that "somebody made up a taxonomic name for it, therefore it is accepted as being real" was stretching things way too far. At most, this paper might warrant a single sentence under "Popularisation" similar to the museum taxonomical entry.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the publication being cited is: Maxwell, Stephen (2019). "A Description of a New Endemic Carnivorous Marsupialia in Myrtoideae Forests of Australia: A Taxonomic Misadventure with Phototypes". Research in Zoology. 9 (1): 12–15. doi:10.5923/j.zoology.20190901.03.

I'll note Research in Zoology is one of the SAP publications, a group which has been considered predatory. If they have an editorial board, I haven't found evidence of it. They claim that within a month, the paper will be reviewed by at least two experts in the field, but it's not clear what this means. I think we can conclude (even if the paper didn't do so for us) that this doesn't meet the minimum requirements for "published research". Tarl N. (discuss) 18:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Latin name

• Is there any source for the proposed Latin name? I'm assuming it's something like Ursus cadere? - Philipwhiuk (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Grammatically better would be Ursus cadens, or Thylacarctus cadens. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The Australian Museum has already suggested Thylarctos plummetus. Joke page. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The Correct latin name is Bicingulatus ninjabearus which is in the literature https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335909047_A_Description_of_a_New_Endemic_Carnivorous_Marsupialia_in_Myrtoideae_Forests_of_Australia_A_Taxonomic_Misadventure_with_Phototypes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenjohnmaxwell (talk • contribs) 05:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

See below discussion in Taxonomy section. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Path of Exile

Hey, I'd add it myself but the article is blocked because of vandalism - please add a reference that they were referenced in the New Zealand game "Path of Exile" as enemies, named the Plummeting Ursa. Clear reference to this thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.248.178.88 (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Origin

I was curious if perhaps drop bears were inspired, at least in part, by the mythical "jagular" from the Winnie the Pooh stories. They share some similarities. Sadly, I could find no mention of either beast when searching for the other. It is possible that the two tales are unrelated. Can anyone out there find a legitimate connection? 2601:191:300:16B0:F9F8:A10D:2BB7:9FC4 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Why were all the pictures removed?

Why were all the pictures removed?Jenny23456 (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thylacoleo

An editor added Thylacoleo to the "See Also" section of the artice. I reverted edit as this article is about a ficticious, hoax, animal and all the other entries in the lisy are similar hoaxes. Thylacoleo the extinct marsupial lion, however, was a real beast identified from the fossil record. Consequently its placement in the "see also" section of this article is inappropriate.

Further per BRD the user had made a bold edit, I Reverted and then we are supposed to Discuss it if the original editor wants to take it further. Unfortunately the edior chose instead to re-revert directing me to the talk page through the edit summary, insetead of coming here themself before restoring their edit. I will now revert again to restore the original state of the article and await to see the editor correctly follow BRD and discuss the matter here before taking any further actions on the article. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: you might like to check your facts before throwing around accusations. Thylacoleo was originally added by Pakiyeetus in this edit. You reverted it, and I put it back, then you removed it again. At last, it is on the Talk page where it belongs.

I don't follow why you claim that the "See also" section is restricted to only contain mythical creatures. The Loch Ness Monster is just as fictitious as the drop-bear (my Scottish ancestors are turning in their graves as I type that), yet the "See also" section on that page includes Plesiosauria: real prehistoric creatures that could be a possible source of the legends. Mermaids are equally fictitious, yet the "See also" section includes real conditions including Ichthyosis and Sirenomelia. Similarly, the article on the Yeti includes the real Gigantopithecus and Denisova hominin in the See also list. In the latter case, it has a sub-section under See also for "Similar alleged creatures" which is more like what you describe.

So please explain your reasoning - why do you claim that the drop-bear should be treated differently from all these other cryptids?--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Other articles do it is not a valid reason to do anything. Context is everything, in this case, where we are talking about drop bears, the subject of the article is a joke: no one seriously claims thay are real unlike the examples you cite. Consequently the "see also" section here should refer to similar joke animals, which it does until Thylacolea was added. A real, ancient, but now extinct animal is entirely irrelevant to this article and the "see also" section. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: On the other hand, OTHERCONTENT certainly is not an argument AGAINST including that content; in fact it goes on to say that "while these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument", and that if such an article is a GA (which Mermaid is), it "makes a much more credible case". And you could look at other Good Articles that are similarly jokes but which don't follow your rule in their "See also" sections, such as Flying Spaghetti Monster or Jackalope. We don't put stuff in this article because it is in those others, but the fact that other articles, including GAs, don't follow your rule should give you cause to question it - why does it only seem to apply on this one article?

This proposed restriction of yours that the "see also" section here should refer to similar joke animals is something you appear to have made up, so the onus is on you to justify the rule you propose. At first you said your restriction for inclusion was based on the drop-bear being fictitious, but now you moved the goalposts and you say it is based on it being a joke. Either way, I don't see why your restriction is required in order to meet the "See also" section's aim "to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics", not just more of the same. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

If I could butt in, news articles (1 2) and popular culture (1 2) often compare Thylacoleo with the drop bear. Placing the article for that species in the See Also section feels not only innocuous and inconsequential, but appropriate. TangoFett (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@TangoFett: you're not "butting in" - this is meant to be a discussion between all interested editors. This article used to have a section about the comparison between Thylacoleo and the drop bear until it was removed by Hemiauchenia in this edit for lack of "wide support in the literature". I think that adding the sources you found give sufficient support to put back one or two sentences - what do you think? Nick Thorne? --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The drop bear is a modern urban legend that has nothing to do with the prehistoric ice age mammal that has likely been extinct for 40,000 years. The plesiosaur claim is a prominent part of the modern loch ness monster legend, while the Thylacoleo claim is not a prominent part of the drop bear legend, which is based on the koala. Per WP:ONUS, the fact that some sources have mentioned this doesn't implicitly justify inclusion. TV Tropes is an unreliable WP:USERGEN source, world atlas looks like a random website with no reptutation for fact checking. That leaves just two newspaper sources, which seems undue per WP:IINFO. Pinging our resident folklore expert @Bloodofox:, who I think should be able to input valuable insight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't honestly suggesting TVTropes be included in the article, just using it in the talk page as an example of how prevalent the popculture connection is. ARK: Survival Evolved also has its Thylacoleo behave like drop bears, with the playerbase nicknaming them as such, but likewise there's no way I can cite that. TangoFett (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Hemiauchenia:. We need to be especially wary of this sort of thing. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022

Please remove citation #18 because it's not reliable. It only appears once, on a sentence that's sourced both to #17 and #18, and #17 is a reliable source that provides all the information given in the sentence. Even if #18 were reliable, it wouldn't be contributing anything. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Please provide links to the specific reference or at least the name of each reference. The number assigned to the refs are automatically provided by the Wiki software and may change. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The editor was referring to a naked IMDB reference. I removed the paragraph entirely, as a non-notable film. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Nick Thorne, since the article hadn't been edited in several days, there was no ambiguity. Even if there had been, you could have ascertained what I meant quite easily by looking in the article history for the version that was current when I posted the request (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drop_bear&oldid=1081022559), and then looking for citation #18 in that revision. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2022

Hi there,

I am writing to request a substantial addition to this page. I grew up with these stories camping with scouts etc as an Australian boy. Then after visiting Naracoorte caves, I realised that the urban legend was based on fact.

Add to the origin of the urban myth of drop bears. Considering the timelines, indigenous Australians would have had contact with the marsupial lion - a carnivorous marsupial that dropped out of trees onto its prey. So the urban myth was likely based on fact.

I have added a link from National Geographic to https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/australias-real-drop-bear 203.221.64.113 (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: For edit requests you must provide the prose you want inserted exactly in the form of please change X to Y. You cannot ask editors to generate prose based on information from given sources. —Sirdog (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This needs to stop now!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jack Upland What needs to stop? Yitz (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Reading that piece, the best we could do is something like: “One writer in National Geographic noted that the drop bear bears some resemblance to Thylacoleo carnifex, an extinct carnivorous marsupial. As stories of the drop bear arose in the 20th century, there is no chance that Thylacoleo inspired the myth.”
And I’m just not sure that would really be worth adding. — HTGS (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)