Talk:Battle of Adwa

Disputed edits

I invite IP 2A00:23C4:6214:FA01:0:0:0:0/64 to discuss their preferred edits here rather than edit warring. Only a talk page consensus can result in the re-addition of disputed content. This appears to be a misunderstanding of the norms regarding info boxes. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE for advice, also discussed by Cinderella157 above. Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative, pls see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by IP at Battle of Adwa. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

DrNiko giannispolous please see OP to this section. Also my most recent edit summary: Gain consensus before adding commanders. Template documentation limits the number of entries. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and documentation, commanders must be key or significant, as evidenced by the body of the article and not just a passing mention. This is very similar to the edit summary for when the IP first attempted to add an extensive list of commanders to the infobox. Casting aspersions about editors really isn't very WP:CIVIL and certainly doesn't help build consensus. I would suggest you read WP:ONUS as well as the other linked information. You might then propose which additional and/or alternative commanders should be added on the basis that the article evidences that their inclusion is not just "information" but "key information" per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and that they were key or significant commanders (per the template documentation) as evidenced by the article and not just a passing mention that they were there. Also, per the documentation, the list should be limited to seven a side at the most. It would probably be most productive to discuss alterations on a case-by case basis rather than en mass. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

are you trying to insult me with that reply you need to stop being a fool of yourself and as you can clearly see that it says they were COMMANDERS and COMMANDED in the battle of adwa, i suggest you stop speaking before i absolutely destroy you if you want to get into a debate and i highly recommend you stop undo-ing or i swear upon god i will report you to your authorities. Thanks. DrNiko giannispolous (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

social studies

the battle of adwa 196.189.113.133 (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Russian involvment

@Cinderella157 Have you looked into the sources citing Russian involvement? Most of them are links to VERY sketchy Russian websites. The claim that Russian advisors were present at the battle came from Leonitev himself, however, according to this source [1] Leonitev was in Djibouti during the battle. Another source from Richard Pankhurst[2] (which is ironically cited in the article) states Though conceived as a medical support for the Ethiopian troops it arrived too late for the actual fighting, which came to end with the Ethiopian victory, at Adwa, on 1 March 1896. The Russians did not reach Harar until May, of that year, and appeared in Addis Ababa only in July, i.e. some four months after Menilek's Adwa victory. [3]this source also describes how Leonitiev was not even affiliated with the Russian government and was a "military adventurer". I propose that we remove Russia from the infobox as there are reliable sources stating that they weren't present and the source stating that they were seem questionable at best. محرر البوق (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Not certain about the sketchiness of the Russian sources (didn't look), but this looks reasonable at face value. Made a wee copy edit to your edit. Better to be specific rather than claiming "most". Cinderella157 (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 Here are some links to the sources that I removed[4][5][6]. I'd like to add that they are more additional sources stating that Leonitev was not present at the battle.[7] (pg 313) which I believe was cited and [8] which in French talks about how the Russians along with Leontiev did not arrive until a couple months after the battle, hence there seems to be a general consensus among academic sources that Russian "advisors" were not present until after the actual fighting was over, infact I couldn’t really find anything on google books explicitly stating that Leoniteiv participated in the battle. Although there was one French volunteer who might of been present.

I would also like to share to you this Twitter thread by a Ukrainian academic, while obviously not a reliable source, he explains the role of Russia in Ethiopia more accurately then I ever could[9] محرر البوق (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I am sufficiently convinced about this issue. It was just that there are words to avoid when writing and "most", in this context is one of them. You could add additional sources and rephrase the passage I edited to refer to "sources" but not "most sources". Or you could just leave it the way it is. Either way ... Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Agilulf2007,WP:BRD please discuss here. Also that 3,643 you keep citing is not the death toll that was cited in the source (his estimate is provided on the infobox and "immediate aftermath"), adding that this is called WP:SYNTH and is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia. Another thing to add is that on Wikipedia we prefer secondary sources (scholarship) over primary sources. Per WP:RSPRIMARY - Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. محرر البوق (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The death toll of 3,643 is indeed the official death toll, as cited by Richard Caulk in "Between the Jaws of Hyenas - A Diplomatic History of Ethiopia (1876-1896)", 2002, based on the offidial burial commision in 1896. It is not an estimate. Now that i am looking at your revision i notice that it is infact you are adding (your own) false figures onto the source cited above, and claiming that this is what it states, it does not! and if you wish to take this further i will report you. Your "estimate" of 5,900 is a unsourced destortion of the actual figure.
As for your constant removal of the Supported by: section; France supported Menelik with a supply of 50.000 Fusil Gras rifles which Pankhurst described, from the 89.000 rifles at Adwa, as about half were fast firing. Nicolas Clochette a French military advisor of Menelik was present at Adwa itself. The Russian support, from Leontiev's wiki page, In 1895 Menelik ordered 30,000 rifles, 5,000,000 cartridges, 5000 sabres, and a few cannons delivered by Leontiev and while Leontiev was not at Adwa himself he did supply and train the Ethiopian forces. And according to Leonid Artamonov a further 42 mountain guns (artillery pieces) with a team of 15 instructors were supplied and served at Adwa.
You seem to have a strong urge to censor this bit of information. It is non negligible to cite that the Ethhiopian army was not just numerically superior but also heavily supplied with superior weaponry by European powers.One of its consequences, Djibouti. If you wish to distort the article further with false estimates, along with false citations and censorship, i will report you. Edit: Btw everything in the infobox is multiply sourced, so im not sure what your problem actually is. User:Agilulf2007

@Agilulf2007, First of all, add 4 ~ at the end of your comments otherwise I'll have trouble in replying to you. Secondly, 3,643 is not the official death toll, that's not what the source says, I believe we already talked about this but 3,643 is amount of bodies that was recovered. The source instead estimates that 5,900 were killed, I don't even believe you've read the page Nearly 300 officers, 4,600 Italian rank and file, and 1,000 askari were estimated to have been killed[10]. Please read Talk:First_Italo-Ethiopian_War#French_support, the French did not participate during this battle, what they did was supply weapons to Menelik BEFORE the battle occurred, Menelik proclaimed a general Ethiopian mobilisation against Italy. He enjoyed no direct European support. In July 1895 France had rejected his offer of an alliance, hoping for a prolonged conflict. But down to the end of 1895 (at least) the French continued to supply Menelik with arms. [11] and the arms that the French supplied were Russian (Layers of Time, pg 168) and were supplied by various French arms dealers and a local sympathetic governor, infact the Italians provided more weapons to Menelik then the French[12] (pg 95) so by your logic we should put Italy on the Supported By section as well.

You also made the claim that a French military advisor was present but you didn't provide any sources for that. Please provide sources before making such assertions. Leontiev's Wikipedia page is not reliable as those claims are not supported by any scholarship sources and are disputed by many academics (I have made many edits to that page and will make more in the future correcting those claims).

Lets look at the sources cited. The first source, from Richard Pankhurst, states that the Russians only arrived 4 months after the battle of Adwa. The second source, in Russian, states that although Leontiev served as a military advisor in the battle (mind you this is not true, this source is very dubious) was not able to secure Russian aid to Ethiopia in time for the battle. The visit of the Ethiopian delegation was widely and favorably covered in the Russian press. However, the main goal of the mission - to receive a large batch of weapons from Russia (the 135 rifles allocated by the Ministry of War for the Ethiopian army was clearly not enough) - was not achieved. So how am I distorting this article and providing "false citations and censorships" (lol) if the sources don't even say what you just said? Please read the sources and don't make wild accusations as I would like to remind you that this is a contentious topic and you could get TPbanned for that.

I also noticed that you've added back the previous information even though there was already prior consensus (Talk:Battle of Adwa/Archive 1#French Empire) so I'm reverting your edit until we reach consensus.

محرر البوق (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

In regards to the French equipment: here is a quick summery: Marseilles , where he traded gold and ivory for 80,000 fusil gras , 33 pieces of artillery and a machine - gun . In the few years preceeding the Battle of Adwa the arms trade continued to grow . Menilek's Swiss friend and advisor , Alfred Ilg , went to Paris to buy weapons . Chefneux provided guns left over from the Franco-Madagascar war , as well as more quick-firing rifles. 135 cases of rifles and loads of ammunition were obtained from Russia , and a French ship landed at least 250,000 cartridges at Jibuti . British officials estimated 7,000 rifles were imported from Belgium.64 its from 'Approaching Ethiopian History' Tim Carmichael Michigan State University. Department of History, 2001. The russian attachee Artamonov clearly stated that Russia delivered 42 mountain guns and 15 advisers, all present at the battle; and that doesnt even include Leontiev's mission earlier. (!not 135 rifles / 135 cases of rifles). The mention of Clochette in Ethiopia and present at Adwa is also in Caulk's book.Agilulf2007 (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC) User:Agilulf2007

@Agilulf2007 Yes, the French gave weapons to Ethiopia before the war began. Which is what your source says. Hence they shouldn't be included in the infobox as they were not a participant DURING the war. Chefneux was not affiliated with the French government, he was a private arms dealer who was a friend of Alfred Ilg and instead he was working for the Ethiopian government (pg 304). Leonid Artamonov did not participate in the battle of adwa, he is also known for making some very bizarre claims, hence he is not reliable unless he is backed by a secondary source. The source cited for the artillery came from a WP:MAF source, if you read here the author even forgot to remove the Wikipedia citations[13]. Augustus Wyde, who actually visited the battlefield in the same year of 1896 says the artillery guns were purchased from French prior to the war (his book is available on archive.org) Caulk also says that there was only two Europeans in Meneliks army, so your sources contradict each other. Clochette was a retired French officer who arrived at Menelik's camp just before the battle began but his role in the battle is not discussed, saying that he was a "military advisor" is a wild exaggeration. Read The Battle of Adwa: African Victory in the Age of Empire by Raymond Jones, these Europeans (including Leontiev and Chefneux) were just actually various agents/merchants/adventurers/etc. To conclude that their respective nations, without sources, were supporters is an exaggeration. I would also like to remind you that the Italians provided Ethiopia with more firearms during that period so by your logic we should include Italy into the infobox. محرر البوق (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The French did not "give" (as in free of charge) anything to Ethiopia. They may have sold it, at best you can use "provided". But not "gave" which indicates they took Ehtiopian side - which no source supports. 145.224.105.244 (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I remembered we already had this discussion. Yet someone thought it was a good idea to delete all the conversation. Nonetheless i retrieved the source for the most precise figures [url=https://www.mimesisedizioni.it/libro/9788857575070]Link[/url] a more precise figure does not exist. I have re-edited the figures you agreed to before. Everything else is info vital for the article. Agilulf2007 (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)User:Agilulf2007

Can you provide a full quote of what the source says? I can't verify it. محرر البوق (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Agilulf2007 I just noticed that you've combined the death toll of the Italians by Dominioni with the counted ascari death count from Caulk. Combining sources together to make up new estimates is called WP:SYNTH and is forbidden on Wikipedia. If we are going to use Caulk we have to cite his full figures. You also said that the Battle of Adwa led to Menelik personally rafitying Djibouti even though the source says it was due to a border agreement between the French and Ethiopians[14] there are so many problems with your edits that this page is just a mess of WP:OR now. محرر البوق (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, than lets say 4,424 Italians killed (incl 85 in captivity or 4,339 excl the 85 after the battle) and 618 Ascari killed (confirmed). These are the exact figures and everything else is a guesstimate and seemingly baseless as not even Caulk cites any source for his guesstimate and as you can see it is gretaly inflated as the Italian figure is actually 1,500 lower than what Caulk estimated; So providing an inflated and knowingly false estimate is misleading and distortive, especially since the exact figures are known. No, Clochette was not retired he was after Adwa given orders for a Nile campaign. France and Russia provided Ethiopia with military gear and personel, and you are again censoring this information. Please revert Agilulf2007 (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Btw all my edits provide sources; sources that you constantly remove, i dont think that is even allowed without a proper reason. Nontheless, the story of Djibouti is removed though you can read all about it in the source provided as why France was even in the region (interests), the British reaction and when and why Djibouti was ratifed to France by Menelik and the consequences of Ethiopia becoming a landlocked state. This conflict is not just about a "mighty colonial power" jacked up with wild estimates it is much more broader. But it is indeed smth for the article. Agilulf2007 (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Agilulf2007 No. You are literally making up estimates again. We don't combine refs to make up new estimates, we only cite the estimates provided by academia. Caulk's estimate is not false and misleading, your WP:OR is though, as I said before 618 Ascari were not killed, that is just the number of bodies they recovered and source literally says "Far fewer Eritreans were recovered". I literally gave you a proper reason, the sources say that the Russians didn't even arrive until 4 months after the battle, this is why they're included in the main article but not in this one. Secondly, your own source states that the French gave weapons PRIOR to the war, so they are not a participant and should not be included see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The French actually refused to support Menelik during the war, if you read The Life and Times of Menelik II: Ethiopia 1844–1913 it states on pg (160) "At this point, Emperor Menelik turned to France, offering a treaty of alliance; the French response was to abandon the Emperor in order to secure Italian approval of the Treaty of Bardo which would secure French control of Tunisia. Virtually alone, on 17 September 1895, Emperor Menelik issued a proclamation calling up the men of Abyssinia to join his army at Were Ilu." Hence it is heavily misleading to add them as a participant without a source explicitly stating so (the sources cited do not say this, only that the Ethiopians used French arms.

Please read[[] "As the prisoners waited, they became acquainted with the only European to witness Adwa from the winning side, the retired French officer Captain Clochette had been among the European agents/merchants/advisors who had cultivated a relationship with Menelik." You also removed David L. Lewis's estimate of 17,770 troops, there's so many problems with your edits that I can't even effectively address them all. @Cinderella157 @Generalrelative I'd like to know your guys thoughts on this? His edits seem very problematic. محرر البوق (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by this and the above, and have restored your version. Generalrelative (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If I understand the issue of casualties correctly, the disagreement centres on estimates reported in sources v confirmed remains recovered some time later. The number of recovered remains (some time later) is not ipso facto the total casualties. Hyenas? We have two estimates given in the body of the article: ~5,900 (Caulk) and George Berkeley records that the Italian casualties were 6,133 men killed. The latter is unreasonably precise (per significant figures) and should probably be reported in the body as George Berkeley records that the Italian casualties were approximately 6,100 men killed. Accordingly, the infobox should report either a range of these two or, more simply ~6,000 - I tend to the latter. French merchants selling arms (per the body of the article) does not constitute French national support. That was previously discussed. It is fairly clear that N. S. Leontiev (and his Russians) was not at the battle. The article also reports conflicting stories about Russian guns and advisors v French made guns that were purchased. This should remain in the article. However, Russian support should not be presented in the infobox as if it were an undisputed fact. It is best for the infobox to remain silent on this. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, the source even states that the burial commission did not recover all the bodies on the battlefield. I also agree with everything else you just said as well, ~6,000 is a reasonable estimate as almost all the sources state that it was around that number. (there's also another figure of 6,200 out there but I cant find it right now). محرر البوق (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

There are estimates and then there are exact figures. You are dealing with estimates that are completely groundless, at least Caulk does not cite any sources. The figure of the Burial Commision cited in Caulk is indeed incomplete, the figure of 3,025 belongs to Arimondi's column alone (Dominioni) and the 618 Ascari to Albertone's column alone; its just wrongly cited by Caulk (again). The full Italian casualties is listed in Dominioni's book; and it stands at 4,424 killed incl prisoners that died later of their wounds or 4,339 killed excl prisoners that died later of their wounds; and 618 Ascari (confirmed) by the Burial commision. Any other figures are just guesses a la gusto.
There are also estimates for the Ethiopian side ranging from 7,000 killed - 10,000 killed; if the Infobox deals with wild estimates these should also be included.
France and Russia supported Ethiopia and it is highly secondary whether Leontiev was at the battle or not (he was not), he is not even listed under Commanders anyway, he supplied weapons, munitions and training to the Ethiopians in an official mission, and Leonid Artamonov stated that Russia (official) supplied artillery pieces with instructors active at the battle. !!! Artamonov is not an historian writing a century later, he was a military attache at the time in Ethiopia. His account is thus very accurate !!! and yet you keep deleting it (censorship). French artillery was likewise present. The overall French support is obvious and a small summery is cited above. Clochette (also not under Commanders) retired or not was present at the battle as an official advisor, and later reactivated by the French for a campaign to the Nile. There was also a second French military present at the battle whose name can easily be retrived. I think a street in Djibouti is named after him, or after Clochette. Agilulf2007 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to be on the same page here, the Berkeley figures sum up to 4,133 Italians killed (some 200 short of Dominioni) and adds an estimated 2,000 Ascari killed. That seems like an inflated estimate, especially since Berkeley also estimates a further 1,000 Ascari as prisoners. Yet, Abdussamad H. Ahmad and Richard Pankhurst mention that only 4,076 Acari were even ever present at the battle (Albertone's) and the Burial Commision only retrieved 618 Ascari corpses. The discrepancy to the estimate of an additional 1,000-1,500 killed seems phantastic. Caulk also mentions that several Ascari companies defected in the midst of battle to the Ethiopians (limiting their kills). He even laments the fact that the Ethiopian sources mention it otherwise he could style it as 'Italian propaganda' (bias?). Overall, what we are dealing with is the figure of Berkeley of 4,133 Italians killed vs. the figure of Domioni of 4,424 Italians killed. I opted for the latter. That up to 2,000 Ascari were killed is highly improbable as only 4,000 took part in the battle and only 618 corpses were actually retrieved.
Yes, i deleted the estimate of 17,700 in light of the exact figure of 14,519. Btw, the 'Supported by:' section can be deleted for all i care (i didnt even create it) and placed in the article. But then the 'Strength' section should mention the arms and quantity obtained and used by the Ethiopians, as this is a point both Pankhurst and Berkeley also stress. The Pankhurst quote for example existed in the infobox for years, i didnt even put it there but you deleted it (reason ?). Agilulf2007 (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Once again, NO! You are making up new estimates again. We have already agreed that 618 Ascari were not killed but you still keep insisting on that number. Another estimate states that 7,104 Ascari were present at the battle but you conveniently keep removing that. You also assert that Caulk and Berkeley figures are "unreliable", completely ridiculous, this is not how we do things on encyclopedias, you don't dismiss reliable secondary sources like that. Your assertion that Caulk and Berkeley are not reliable is based on nothing, absolutely nothing, which is absurd because they are both scholarship sources. Textbook example of WP:SYNTH and original research, like I said before we don't make up new estimates we only cite the ones provided by scholarship. Almost all estimates for Italian casualties hover around 6,000 killed so it is reasonable to sum it up to that number. As for the estimates of 7,000-10,000 killed, that would contradict the main article which states that number, although I'm not personally against it, you'd have to get User:Cinderella157 on board before adding that number in. Also we already established that claim about Russian artillery is suspect, Augustus Wyle in his book "Modern Abyssinia" states that the artillery were purchased from the French or captured from the Egyptians in a previous war, and he visited the battlefield in the same year of 1896.

Secondly you keep adding back information even though there was already consensus that those should be removed (this is still considered reverting). This is called WP:IDHT and WP:TEND which are both considered Disruptive editing. You just need to let this go at this point. As for the arms and quantity of the arms, that can be mentioned in the body of the article, I've never seen an article add this in their infobox before and its pretty clear from reading the article that almost all of the Ethiopians were armed with modern rifles. محرر البوق (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Neither Generalrelative nor myself have been convinced regarding the lesser figure for Italian casualties nor most of the other stuff that would be added to the infobox with this edit - yet again. The argument being made for the lesser Italian casualty figure is a dead parrot. The inclusion of Russia and France in the infobox is not supported by the body of the article at present. Other material added looks too much like trying to write the article in the infobox and therefore contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The body of the article does state: Whereas Berkeley estimates Ethiopian losses to be 7,000 killed and 10,000 wounded. The infobox should probably be amended to reflect the body of the article and the range of Ethiopian casualties from Caulk and Berkeley? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Me personally I would be in support of something similar to the Casualties and losses section at the Battle of Dogali infobox as 3,886-7,000 is too high of a range. Wounded can be left out so it doesn't look too messy. محرر البوق (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for conflicts to have reports of casualties which vary widely, yet the predominant practice is to nevertheless report such as a range. I have not previously seen the use of or and am not in favour of it. It suggests a binary choice when, in reality, if the real figure were actually known, it would almost certainly be something else in between. As a compromise, I suggest adding citations to each figure of the range, thereby indicating that we are dealing with figures from two different sources - even though we are not required to because the figures have sources in the body of the article. I am not opposed to reporting just the killed on both sides, since we are not reporting the wounded on both sides. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 Sorry for not responding quick enough, was not aware you replied to me, but I agree with your proposed changes now because according to Encyclopaedia Aethiopica the Ethiopian casualties were 4,000-5,000 killed so it's almost certainty between those two estimates. محرر البوق (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

محرر البوق, all good. I've been a bit occupied myself. Done now but I didn't place the citations. The citations for Berkeley's figure were not to Berkeley's work, so I wasn't sure about whether to use one or both, though a direct citation to Berkeley would be better. If you have it, it would be better to use it in the body of the article. Add the citations to the infobox if you wish. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2023

Change: "The Ethiopian forces defeated the Italian invading force on Sunday 1 March 1896, near the town of Adwa."

To: "Ethiopian forces, including civilian combatants and logistics units, defeated the Italian invading force on Sunday 1 March 1896, near the town of Adwa."

Citation: The Battle of Adwa: reflections on Ethiopia's historic victory against European colonialism. New York: Algora Publishing, 2005. Pp. 320.

Change: "At the Battle of Adwa, Ethiopian fighters from all parts of the country rallied to the cause and took up positions on the battlefield that allowed them to come to each other's aid during combat."

To: "At the Battle of Adwa, Ethiopian fighters from all parts of the country rallied to the cause and took up positions on the battlefield that allowed them to come to each other's aid during combat. Ethiopia did not have a national army but a strong patriotic and military tradition meant all able-bodied men answered the call for combat."

Citation: Raymond A. Jonas, The Battle of Adwa: African Victory in the Age of Empire. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 2011. Pp. 413. Oabera (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Furthermore, the additions appear to be POV-pushing. (courtesy ping User:Oabera) HouseBlaster^talk 19:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Adowa

Why is the English language name for this battle missing from the article?

Until the invention of Wikipedia, there was no place called Adwa in English.

142.205.202.71 (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)