Talk:Armenian–Azerbaijani war (1918–1920)

WTF

there was no Azerbaijan when hostilities ended

Wrong, read the article again. Azerbaijan won because it retained control of both Karabakh and Nahichivan. It became part of USSR later in 1922.

It was NOT ADR. Azeri and Soviet counter-attack, May 1920

After having gained firm control of Azerbaijan, the Soviet forces moved on to reclaim the Armenian-occupied areas in the west for the Azerbaijan SSR. The Azeri army was reorganized along Soviet lines and reequipped with Russian weapons.--Eupator 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand what you are saying. It doesn't matter whether the country was called ADR or ASSR, it is still Azerbaijan. Changes reverted, please explain yourself better - Kami888

Part of Russian Civil War?

I need advice - can the conflict be seen as part of Russian Civil War, or is it something completely separate? - Kami888

I strongly doubt this can be taken as a separate war: first of all no historical book or encyclopedia ever refers to these events like that. See Britannica or Encarta for example. In the period of 1917 to 1921 there were Armenians, Azerbaijanis (known as Tartars or simply "Muslims" back then), Russians (Bolshevists, White army soldiers, Kossaks, Menshevists), as well as Turkish and British troops involved in this chain of clashes, ethnic cleansings, uprisings. Not to say that the title "Armenian-Azeri" is totally unprofessional, it should be "Armenian-Azerbaijani..." Also, why is it named AA War of 1918 yet the chronology goes until 1921? Another thing: Azerbaijanis weren't the winning side: Azerbaijan eventually surrendered to Red Army, how can Azerbaijanis be the winners of that war? [Anonimous]

The Azeris are on the winning side because they've got control of disputed territories - Naxhichivan and Karabakh. Azerbaijan gave up its sovereignty to Soviet Union later on, but that is not part of the conflict in question.

Grandmaster, it is not nice to delete informations

First of, the commander information seems to be accurate. Second, since the massacre of Armenians was much more reported and found in published works, I wonder why you have deleted that from the other editors edit, when the contrary, the reported massacre of Azeris is untouched. Also, you shall explain me why Nakhichevan planed to be part of the Armenian republic is according to Armenian sources, when it was on the middle, between 'Ottoman Armenia' and 'Russian Armenia', with it being considered as part of Russian Armenia. Again, I don't know what the hell you will answer, but I take once again the opportunity to say, that I do not have free times in my handes to be engaged in any disputes involving some ultranationalists. Just saying that so that you do not expect any answers from me. I just had a few minutes and saw what was missing in that article and what was reverted. Fad (ix) 16:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I did not write this article. Second, I asked for the information to be supported by reliable sources (not nkr.am or the likes). As long as information is supported by sources, there should be no problems. Grandmaster 06:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop being disrespectful. You already witnessed when I started quoting from primary sources the massacres preparation and the subsequent massacre of Armenians from German records in Baku, while you never did the same with the massacre of Azeris. You have deleted an information which you knew was already documented, while I have seen you defending edits by Baku87, which unlike this were never substanciated. Also, by always dissociating yourself like this claiming you haven't written the article, regardless of your close involvement, you are insulting other editors intelligence. This article [1] for example, an article which you are very active in, contains in its last section informations and wordings which you were rutlessly fighting for, and again picture you as doing things without concerns of other editors opinion. (in cases, you pretend not understanding what I mean, and play the innocence card. Transfered, remained, all wordings which were discussed for months in the Karabakh article.) By those words, I rest my case, in such situations, I'd normally be cynical toward you, but I won't get in your way, so you may continue thinking that Wikipedia is your battleground, and Armenians your enemy. Fad (ix) 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion of edits, and not personal beef with other users. If you have enough time to write lengthy posts on talk pages, you should have enough time to add the information you want to the article citing reliable sources. I’m not going to respond to any personal accusations and will seek an admin intervention if you continue to harass me. Grandmaster 08:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK! I see, so I guess the issues above will not be addressed, rather irrelevency, this from someone who is giving lessons on what should be on that talkpage. Fad (ix) 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know where this discussion is going, as it's not supposed to be about Grandmaster... Khoikhoi 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

But sorry, I thought that while I was away, Grandmaster would have changed, but was I thinking?(sorry for the later sarcasm) This is indeed about the article and Grandmasters claim of not proper sourcing to delete, when he indeed knows that not only was the material he has deleted souced, but much more sourced than his 'injectative' (for the lack of better wording) materials. The sourcing was already done, and this, Grandmaster himself beared witness of, we are not toys here having to do the durty loundery when it has already been done, since Grandmaster happens to pretend amnesia. No one here has Grandmasters free time for this sort of game. Fad (ix) 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Khoikhoi 21:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijani victory

Wheres proof for this? some references please, not to mention it was Armenian before, [2] there was also Bolshevik before. Artaxiad 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your objection, if you read the article, in particular the part about "Azeri and Soviet counter-attack, May 1920" it is quite evident that this war was won by the Azerbaijani side.

The Russian and Azeri offensive started in early June and resulted in quick defeat of Armenian forces. On June 5 the Armenian forces were expelled from Shusha. In early July Armenians withdrew from Tatev and suffered several defeats in Kazakh-Shamshadin area. On 28 July the Soviet forces and their Turkish allies staged an assault on Nakhichevan City, expelling Armenian forces and establishing a joint Russian/Azeri/Turkish occupation of the province. In early August, Armenian troops made one more attempt to take over Nakhichevan but were defeated at Shakh-Takhty by joint Soviet-Turkish corps. Thus, the Azerbaijan SSR was fully restored to the borders of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic prior to Armenian invasion.On August 10 1920, the cease-fire agreement was signed in Yerevan between Soviet and Armenian forces, ending the hostilities and forcing Armenia to recognize the Azeri control of Karabakh and temporary independence of Nakhichevan.

I don't think there is any doubt. If it please you more you can write "Azerbaijani and Russian victory" or "Armenian defeat", but the result doesn't change. (Limonlimone 00:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Okay but wheres the reference for this? please don't revert if there isn't anything provided. Artaxiad 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of sources that can confirm you this version, for example the book cited at the end of the article as well as the links. In general we can divide this conflict into two parts, the first part was more favorable to Armenian side while the second and last part that was completly favorable to Azerbaijani side. In fact to be more precise I wrote "Azerbaijan SSR victory" to underline the fact that the war was won by Soviet Azerbaijan and not by ADR. In anycase it doesn't change much, during ADR the government was led by Musavatists, during SSR by the Communists, but we are still talking about Azerbaijan. If tomorrow the France government change colour that country is still named France. (Limonlimone 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

OKAY, give the source to the exact paragraph your reverts don't seem to impress me YOU shouldn't change anything if you do not have sources confirming this exactly you rather have me remove content or add the citation tag? your not helping at all now reference this material or do not revert its not my job to scroll down to the links, if your going to go on with this go request deletion for citation tags. Artaxiad 02:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No citation

I took out the sentence that said "Azerbaijani victory" since there is a citation tag in there for over a month, but there had been no references supporting it. ROOB323 08:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

British Dunsterforce?

Listing British Empire on the same side as Armenia makes it sound as if the British actively supported the Armenian cause for Karabakh, which isn't true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.225.112.144 (talk) 22:55:35, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

POV

The "Fight for Karabakh, early 1920" part seems to be a POV with a only one source referring one sentence. Where are the sources? We have many reliable sources asking about massacres during that fightings but article asks nothing about it just a clashes. What "clashes" without even one killed peaceful Azeri inhabitant (when a large number of Armenian inhabitants were massacred)? Andranikpasha 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Who says? Great Soviet Encyclopedia provides figures including losses of both sides. Grandmaster 10:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Does GSE provide figures including losses of both sides... during March massacres in Shushi/Shusha? Can we have a quotation? Andranikpasha 11:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This quote has been provided on talk of another aricle.

According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Third Edition, 1970), these events contributed to the death of 2096 of the city's population. Subsequently, only a few Armenian families remained. Great Soviet Encyclopedia, vol. 17, London, Collier Macmillan, 1973, p. 301.

Tim Potier. Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal.

Of course the number of 30,000 is ridiculous. And GSE does not say that all the people who died were Armenian. Grandmaster 13:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Third Edition, 1970), these events ..."- what events? There isnt name of Shushi/Shusha, the name of event (massacres or even other variant) and period... this quotation is surely not reliable! "And GSE does not say that all the people who died were Armenian."- also mark- it never says- "by both sides" (of ...event). they write: "only a few Armenian families remained."(is it means that Azeri families were also killed??) there isnt a fact of killing even one peaceful Azerbaijani inhabitant during Shushi massacres! Andranikpasha 16:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert the page until the discussion is over.

1. The March Days do not need to be defined as a historically ambiguous fact, especially if there are no sources to it, since more than enough Western sources define them as ethnic massacres. See the respective article.
2. The statement about Azerbaijani troops entering Shusha through breaking some agreement is based on an Armenian source. Please provide a more reliable source while this statement is being taken out.
3. The number of casualties in the ethnic clashes in Shusha vary. I deleted the paragraph for now because the numbers are too contradictory and, as we will see further, the provided sources also leave a lot to be desired. There are neutral sources indicating 500 Armenians killed (Thomas de Waal) or 2096 casualties on both sides (Tim Potier); see extracts from those books below. These authors are by far more reliable than a law school in New England or an annual report from the British parliament. Konstantin Voevodsky, co-author of the third source, is not even a historian. He is a senior research assistant with a degree in technology[3], and furthermore, was an observer during the Nagorno-Karabakh referendum of 1991 [4] all of which certainly makes one question his reliability.

• Two more sackings in the twentieth century ended Shusha's greatness. In March 1920, an Azerbaijani army sacked the town, burning the Armenian quarter and killing some five hundred Armenians. Thomas de Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War.
• The sacking of Shusha (that is to clarify what is meant by "these events" - Parishan) by Azeri forces resulted in the burning of hundreds of homes. According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Third Edition, 1970), these events contributed to the death of 2096 (notice that there is no indication of the ethnicity of the killed, meaning altogether 2096 Shushavians were killed - Parishan) of the city's population. Subsequently, only a few Armenian families remained. Great Soviet Encyclopedia, vol. 17, London, Collier Macmillan, 1973, p. 301. Tim Potier. Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal. Parishan 07:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Parishan, please at first read what we are discussing here to not write... about March Days. Surely March days in Baku, 1918, were different events than ...March Massacres in Shushi in 1920... I not only saw the related article but Im working on it. "The statement about Azerbaijani troops entering Shusha through breaking some agreement is based on an Armenian source." - What source you mean? I never added any Armenian sources to this article! You just deleted some sourced info... to wait for discussing. After discussing we will add more materials on Shushi Massacres, but before that we need even 2 words about it which you deleted! Parishan be more carefull while discussing "an annual report from the British parliament". I never added such a source here? really what you're discussing? Konstantin Voevodsky is co-author, he is a famous human rights defender from Soviet Union (he is an activist of International Human Rights congress of OSCE [5]) and very reliable source (by the way he cited at Memo.ru as independent observer at Karabakh referendum [6] its not a shame or base for unreliability)! De Vaal is not reliable, we discussed him as an "expert-businessman", he advertised by Azeri community in Moscow, and we had nothing from Potier about "both sides" (dont make original research): he cited a Soviet source and asking that Armenians fled the city. We cant create "killings of another side" just by a source asking "The sacking of Shusha by Azeri forces resulted in the burning of hundreds of homes. According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Third Edition, 1970), these events contributed to the death of 2096". Is it means that Azeri forces burned and killed also Azeris??Andranikpasha 09:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a fighting Shusha according to all reliable sources. Since the number of 2096 is not attributed to any of the sides of the conflict, it means that it includes losses of both sides. And Parishan is right in deleting POV claims, there are more than enough sources on the March massacre in Baku, and the opinion of international scholars is well-known. The article about March days has plenty of citations and references from third party sources. Grandmaster 09:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"There was a fighting Shusha according to all reliable sources". Really, even all? Also that sources Parishan deleted? Also this one you cited here? Does "The sacking of Shusha by Azeri forces" means Shushi/Shusha fightings? Interesting logics! And I cant understand why to discusse here March days? It has a different talk page with well-known sources asking what happened, so why to discuss it here? Im going to translate and add some new materials on it but lets differ- this is a talk page for another topic. Andranikpasha 10:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That source says in another quote that there was fighting in Shusha. And March days are mentioned because POV interpretations about those evnets were removed from this article. Grandmaster 11:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"quote that there was fighting in Shusha."- what the quote? pls represent. now I find out whats the problem with March days here! Another user added to that section before Parishan-s revert. I also see some things to discuss there but better not now as Im discussing another part. Grandmaster, also about fightings: today I downloaded Atabek's file from NYT History. It calls March Days fightings [7]. And after these facts you want to change the name, description and numbers for Shushi Massacres not for March Days?... Andranikpasha 20:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The article about March massacre is called March days, not March massacre. No one says that there was no fighting there. Same with events in Shusha, there was a fighting, and the article should be moved to a neutral title. Grandmaster 18:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes cuz there were a political revolt and fightings, not massacres of one side! And you describe it as a massacre and ... 'genocide' in the description. Its interesting that all the time you claim to be the one who can choose neuthral names for articles. Remember your one (for the same Shushi Massacres) called silly by an admin! Are you going to attack the article by a new such a neuthral name? Or it will be third experience of simply deletion of sources and references?Andranikpasha 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again: you asked you have a "quote that there was fighting in Shusha."- what the quote? pls write less original texts with "virtual" sources and use at least one reliable source to prove something. Andranikpasha 19:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't revert anything until the discussion is overed, but I'd like to make a pair of points here. First point is an answer for Parishan, second is general.

1. March Days are perceived in different manner and yes, for many sources it was a political armed clash which ended in a tragedy and fights were instigated by the Musavat party and their pan-tukist plans with the intention of taking power from the Bolsheviks. I don't know if you consider Peter Hopkirk a valid source, but if so, he clearly states that it was the arrival of the musavat-controlled Savage Division who started all. Hopkirk writes they killed some policemen when they arrived in the city and for this reason they were disarmed and when this happened new units from the Savage Divison came. So the story is a bit different from how is described in the article. Hopkirk also wrote that the Savage Division was galvanized because they already beated the Bolshevik in Lankaran and they wanted to do the same thing in Baku and then he writes : No one really knows who fired the first shots. He adds that at the beginning the Dashnaks remained neutral and only after some hours decided to join the fight against the Musavatists. It's evident that the fight was between the Bolsheviks and their allies against Musavatists and much of the deaths came because the Baku fleet who was close to the Bolsheviks from the harbour started to shell the place where Musavat headquarters were = the Muslim quarter, killing also many civilians in the bombing, as Hopkirk writes. The musavatists lost the battle and the excesses you like to mention so much started only AFTER the fight was over. In a few words they started the match as the hunters and finished it as the prowls. The article should be named "March battle". The reader is free to choice himself on who the responsability of this tragedy lies.
2. I don't understand why Soviet Encyclopedia is a reliable source when it serves to demonize the Dashnaks or when it speaks about the Azeri's sufferences and it is not reliable when it talks about the Musavat or about Armenian's sufferences. Can someone explain me this double-standart please?(Gurgen87 00:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

By the way, the informations I'm talking about can be found in the book of Peter Hopkirk called "Like Hidden Fire: The Plot to Bring Down the British Empire "; take the Chapter 18 called Bloodbath in Baku and read the part about what you call the March Days ( no mention of that name in Hopkirk's book btw ) that is at page 283 in the edition I have. Maybe if needed I can type from the book the whole part here, but it requires me a lot of time that now unfortunately i don't have.(Gurgen87 01:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

You actually support my point. March events are described by most sources as a massacre, which they were. And Hopkirk calls it a Bloodbath in Baku, but that does not mean that we should move it to that title. A neutral title of March days was selected for the sake of neutrality. Same should be with Shusha events, there was a battle which was started by Armenian units. The title that Andranikpasha selected for the article is not neutral, as it gives a wrong impression that the events were unprovoked massacre of civilians, while in fact it was Armenian forces who attacked the Azeri part of the city. Grandmaster 11:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The title is not the main question imho, but the neutrality of the articles. Until now, every article containing the March events suggests that it was an organized massacre acted by ugly armenians against peaceuful muslims while on the contrary every source states that there was a battle for the political control of Baku and those who started the fight were the Savage Division and the Musavatists with the hope of conquering Baku like they already did in Lankaran. It goes without saying that only on their crazy plans lie the responsability of what happened. It is always avoided to tell that the Bolsheviks had only 6,000 regulars against 10,000 Musavatists. A very important point because it explains why the Dashnaks after being neutral for a while decided to join the fight with self-defense units. That was done in order to save their life and the ones of their families because everyone can imagine what could have happen if musavatists and their pro-turk allies had won the contest, you have the material prove of what could happen some months later during September Days. I think that their decision to partecipate in the battle was even heroical and saved Baku from the puppets of the Turks and the Central Powers. It's hidden the political nature of the conflict = the Bolsheviks against the Musavatists | and it is wrongly said it was a warfare between Russians and Armenians on one side and Muslims on the other. Shahumian is often described as an armenian nationalist while in fact he was an internationalist communist and though I'm not a big expert in the topic I was always told at school that marxism favours "class struggle" and not race riots. Hopkirk is cut and pasted only when his words favour one side and he is forgotten if they do otherwise. In conclusion, the articles about march days need a substancial re-write to give a more neutral and balanced version of those dramatic events.(Gurgen87 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Infobox issue

"Strength" should give the number of troops (20,000, 50,000, etc), not the combatants involved, so having Dunsterforce listed there is a non-sequitur. Biruitorul 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Baku part of the Armenian–Azerbaijani War?

This article is in a terrible condition. Looks like some users should have read WP:OR.

Why is the Battle of Baku considered part of the Armenian–Azerbaijani War? It took place hundreds of kilometers away from Armenia. The Armenian residents of Baku supported the Allied forces, but that has nothing to do with the Armenian-Azerbaijani war, which took place in Karabakh, Zangezur, Nakhichevan and other border areas. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC) All I can say is the Armenian–Azerbaijani War article features the Battle of Baku extensively so that should be changed correspondingly. Jaan Pärn (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armenian–Azerbaijani War. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110310011358/http://www.sakharov-center.ru:80/publications/azrus/az_004.htm to http://www.sakharov-center.ru/publications/azrus/az_004.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927034203/http://www.atlas-of-conflicts.com/areas/armenia-and-karabakh/sov_arm_war1920.php to http://www.atlas-of-conflicts.com/areas/armenia-and-karabakh/sov_arm_war1920.php

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

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} 08:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Armenian Army in Baku 1918.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 16 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Armenian–Azerbaijani war (1918–1920). Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Armenian–Azerbaijani War → Armenian–Azerbaijani War (1918–1920) – the Armenian, Azerbaijani & Russian Wikipedia pages all use (1918–1920) to distinguish this war from later Armenian-Azerbaijani wars, and a fair number of the Russian-language sources generally seem to indicate that this war took place between 1918-1920. Personally, I think the title should be changed to reflect that. DJ (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Resubstituted {{subst:requested move}} for above move requested by DJ aka XTheBedrockX (talk). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Support per disambiguation, given the numerous Armenian–Azerbaijani wars after 1991. – Olympian ^loquere 00:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Unless RS commonly use the term "Armenian–Azerbaijani War", I think it would be better to keep the "war" in the article title in lowercase per WP:NCCAPS. – Olympian ^loquere 00:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Good point. DJ (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you please update the proposed article title to reflect this? Thanks – Olympian ^loquere 08:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Support a move to Armenian–Azerbaijani war of 1918–1920. If 'war' is going to be lower case and the title is descriptive, then we should forego the parentheses and use natural disambiguation. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC) [edited 23:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)]

Comment: There is already a precedent that using a timeframe in parenthesis for the main title is acceptable (See: War in Donbas (2014–2022), War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), War in Uganda (1986–1994), War in Vietnam (1945–1946), Russo-Turkish War (1806–1812), Polish–Ottoman War (1672–1676) etc.)

As far as I am aware, it would be perfectly acceptable if the same is done here. DJ (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

None of those articles have lower-case 'war'. Srnec (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

the "war" in "war in Donbass" is not capitalized in the actual article. DJ (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

In any case, WP:NCCAPS dictates that unless sources commonly use an uppercase "W" (and I don't really know for sure, as someone who can't speak Armenian, Azerbaijani or Russian, and reliable English-language sources on this war are a little hard to find), then "war" should be in full lowercase. DJ (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Support. Provided justification makes sense. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 08:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Karabakh Council in belligerents

The Karabakh Council should be very obviously added to the belligerents section, right under Armenia and Armenian militias. NocheLluviosa (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)