Talk:Baldwin II of Jerusalem

Untitled

Ida of Boulogne is presented in a genealogical table in the work "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" but this person is wholely fictitious. No such daughter "Ida" off the Boulogne family at this point existed. And the mother of Hugh (Hugo) was named Jutta (Judith).

Ah, well I was using Runciman. I know he makes things up sometimes but I was not aware he invented whole people...can you give anything that has a "proper" genealogy? Runciman has his parents as Hugh of Rethel and Melisende of Montlhery, and Hugh's parents as Baldwin of Rethel and "Ida". Your additions have a Manasses and Jutta...who are they? Where do you get their names from? Adam Bishop 21:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Runciman shows Baldwin II as the son of Hugh I of Rethel, by Melisende, daughter of Bouchard of Montlhéry, Count of Corbeil, and shows Hugh I as the son of Baldwin of le Bourg, Count of Rethel, by Ida, daughter of Eustace I, Count of Boulogne. This is from the chart pedigree in "A History of the Crusades", vol. 2 (paperback edition, 1990; first published 1952). (Thanks to Chris Phillips for looking up the details on this.) Wjhonson 19:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Runciman is in error about this Ida however. This topic has been discussed at some length on GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com. The gist of that discussion is that no documentation for any alledged "Ida" in this point, in this family, exists, and it is unknown where Runciman picked this up from although "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" in order to force their idea of a mystical bloodline, must place Baldwin II in this same family in direct blood relation to Baldwin I in order to shore up their thesis. Wjhonson 19:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Wjhonson, "read the talk page you idiot"? Come on. Anyway, a discussion on a genealogy message board is not really the type of source we can cite here. If his grandmother Ida didn't really exist, is it even necessary to mention her specifically? We have already said that Baldwin's relationship to Godfrey and Baldwin I is unknown, but they were obviously related somehow. Where did Runciman get the name from? If you want to provide some useful information, go find that out. (Hint: he didn't get it from Holy Blood Holy Grail.) Adam Bishop 08:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes a discussion on a public, veted, archived board of professional and amateur historians, genealogists and experts in documentary evidence and medieval languages *is* a source we can quote here. And pointing out that Runciman made an egregious error, in order not to have other people come in to "correct" this page every week, is relevant. Without this note, other's will be misled by Runciman, et al and never know that this error is a known error. Wjhonson 20:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it is a good idea to point out errors like that, especially since Runciman is so popular. I apologize for being so abrasive and defensive. However, I am still curious about where Runciman got the name...do you have any information about that? Did he really just make it up? Adam Bishop 23:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are interested in the medieval period, I cannot recommend more highly the GEN-MEDIEVAL-L list or the soc-medieval message board. The two are gatewayed together, so either one will do.

Regarding your question, it was and still is not uncommon for people to back-name ancestors based on the names of the descendents. So I would suggest the possibility that he found a girl Ida, descended, alledgedly from this marriage, and hypothecized the ancestress' name. In other words, I don't know. Wjhonson 20:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

relation with predecessor

contrary to some unfounded beliefs, Baldwin II was not a brother of Baldwin I. Sources state very clearly that at death of Baldwin I, his only remaining brother, count Eustace III of Boulogne was offered the royal crown - but he never arrived to obtain it, possibly dying when travelling, or declined the offer. Baldwin II was the closest relative of Baldwin I present in Syria-Palestine at that time, and he received finally the vacant crown. (Already the fact that both guys were "Baldwin" should remind anyone that they should not be thought as brothers, as very usually brothers do not share the only first name.) 217.140.193.123 05:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Who ever said they were brothers? Adam Bishop 14:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Baldwin's Ancestors

Baldwins ancestors are hard to find they decend fromt he de Burgo family. now which part of that family i have no i dea yet, they claim his father Hugh was the son of a Baldwin who was the Son of John de Conteville who was the father of Herluin de Conteville, now if you don't beleive some of this stuff you should search up ancestors of Princess Diana and you'll find John de Conteville their and his sons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burkem (talk • contribs) 17:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I tried using the existing picture of Baldwin II in the royalty box, but couldn't get it to size at all well. If you know more about this stuff than me, or have a good free-use picture please add it to improve the box.

I'll be adding royalty boxes for the whole lineage, so don't worry that im giving undue precedence here, jus need a few days :) Tefalstar (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Invasion of Damascus in 1126

My sources say that Baldwin's invasion of Damascus was pushed back in 1126 by Toghtekin, who actually died in 1128. So Baldwin could not carry it out in 1129 as written before. --Attilios (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi Borsoka Apologies for taking so long on this. Do let me know if you have queries on any of my edits. Some things which I have noticed that are not copy edit issues but which you may wish to look at:

• The lead seems to end part way through Baldwin's career. Eg, no mention of the Battle of Azaz or of Fulk or of Baldwin's death.
• There is a lot of duplicate Wikilinking. I counted four dups just in the lead.
• There may be no reliable source for this, but did Baldwin not fight with Godfrey at the Battle of Dorylaeum?

A fine article. I especially liked the dense referencing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:, thank you for your comprehensive copyedit. I highly appreciate your work. I expanded the lead and deleted the duplicated wikilinks [1]. I cannot remember that sources refer to his role in the battle, but I try to check it. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry

Hi Borsoka. Thank you for that. Personally I can find plenty of sources regarding Godfrey's role and as his up and coming younger relative you would have expected Baldwin to have been close by. But if it's not in the sources that can't be helped. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Frid.antonia-arlon:, you added several sources to verify the sentence that you added. I checked two of the cited sources (Knighthoods of Christ: Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar, Presented to Malcolm Barber and The Aristocracy of Norman England), but none of them verify the sentence. If you find one single source that verifies your claim, we can add the sentence, but for the time being I think deletion is the best solution. Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Hello, thank you for answering my messages, I just wanted to have an idea on how to procceed in order to implement my proposed edits to the article, yes I agree with you (under the whole context that synthesis is not valid, deletion is indeed the best solution). However, I will try to find one or more sources verifying the information I included. Thank you very much for your patience.

@Borsoka: Hello, I must tell you that I read more carefully the book Ancestral Roots of Certain Colonists who came to America before 1700 by Frederick Lewis Weis which I have previously cited as source and it indeed verifies all the information I had added to the article. The link of Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin II to Gerberga of Saxony is mentioned in the page 143 (line 148) and page 150 (line 158), while the link of Baldwin of Bourcq to Gerberga of Saxony is mentioned in the page 57 (line 140), page 107 (line 103A) and page 146 (line 151). The links of the Bouillon brothers and Baldwin of Bourcq to the House of Reginar is mentioned in page 143 (line 148), page 149 (line 155) and page 217 (line 240). You can check this information on google books (https://books.google.com.br/books?redir_esc=y&id=3F9nG8aFJ7MC&q=giselbert#v=onepage&q&f=false) Thank you very much for your help and for reviewing my past edits, I will now procceed to edit the page again, please feel free to comment and review my edits again.

Best regards,

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I was certain there was a Wikipedia policy against using that book; maybe I'm thinking of my own personal distaste for it... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A book dedicated to the ancestry of several American colonists could hardly be used against the testimony of peer-reviewed books dedicated to the subject of the article. Both Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin may have descended from Gerberga of Saxony, but this relationship is not mentioned in books, articles dedicated to Baldwin II's life, so it is irrelevant for scholarly purposes. We are not here to present the results of our research: if scholars say that their exact relationship is not relevant, we cannot write of it. All human beings descend from the same Eve, so we could theoretically state in all articles dedicated to a person that he/she is related to Adolf Hitler. However, this specific piece of information cannot be verified, so we cannot present it. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Well, first things first. I would like to politely present the reasons why I disagree with your arguments. Books and articles dedicated to Baldwin II's life do not mention the relationship to Gerberga because they concern biographical information not genealogy. It must be highlightened these are two different fields in academia. Therefore, the book on the ancestry of American colonists was not presented against the the testimony of the other sources (as a matter of fact, I believe what the other sources state is that the kinship between them was not particularly close, and/or that they (the authors) did not know of it, they never said it irrelevant nor that it cannot be traced. Furthermore your argument about Eve sounds very questionable to me. Consider that: facts about the life of the mitochondrial Eve and her specific/close descendants are unknown to us while Gerberga of Saxony is a established historical figure, who belongs to European royalty, a social group which has had their ancestry registered, testified and written about over and over again throughout the centuries. I do believe that academically speaking we can determine who descends from who with a certain degree of precision when it comes to European royalty, and even in more 'uncertain' times like the medieval period, some specific family relations are incontestable (e. g.: you can say for sure that Sibylla of Jerusalem is the daughter of King Almaric and Agnes of Courtenay), in fact that is precisely what the field of genealogy is about (academically verifying relationships like this). Furthermore, you stated the source I cited is not concerned with Outremer topics specifically and therefore it is not a proper source. I might concede to that, however I must add, this source is merely the tip of the iceberg, I am pretty there are several other authors who are established genealogical authorities that write about the descendants of Gerberga of Saxony and who cite Godfrey of Bouillon and/or Baldwin of Bourcq among them (again you will say that synthesis is not allowed on wikipedia and that I should find a source which cites both of them, and that was precisely what I did, I took the time to do exactly as you suggested, nonetheless you did not deem this specific source to be acceptable. I am certain that if I had the time and the energy to dig more on this subject, I would find other sources supporting the link of the kings of Jerusalem to Geberga, however my time is precious and I do not feel inclined to engage in this discussion nor to edit this page anymore. It suffices to say other editors might follow my clue, in finding more genealogical sources concerning this, and better contribute to the discussion). Moreover, I must state that the relevance of mentioning the exact kinship of baldwin ii to the boulogne brothers in the article is precisely because the (academic) biographical sources on them do not clarify their relationship. So yes, for example, mentioning on their wikipages the exact nature of a (hypothetical) relationship between Pope Francis and King Juan Carlos of Spain would not be pertinent. But I'm sure that in this case (the kinship between the boulogne brothers and Baldwin II), this is not the same and that requiring to genealogical research is completely valid.

Finally, I must tell you the whole approach you took on this subject seems highly discouraging to me as a new editor on wikipedia, I would hardly think that it encourages people to attempt improving the articles on this platform.

Sincerely,

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 1:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

As soon as you are able to establish the relevance of this relationship based on reliable sources, you can present it. Sorry, but no one wants to encourage original research in Wikipedia. Actually, preventing other editors from presenting the results of their own research is one of our principal tasks. Borsoka (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I hate to say this but genealogists are not historians, and the Ancestral Roots book doesn't actually say anything about Baldwin's relationship to Gerberga. It's possible that we'll just never know how Baldwin II was related to Baldwin I and Godfrey. Maybe it was through Gerberga, maybe not, the contemporary sources don't actually say. If you want to read an actual historian on this, the best academic source is Appendix C ("The Claim of Baldwin II to the Throne of Jerusalem") in The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Dynastic History 1099-1125 by Alan V. Murray.

I definitely also have to disagree with your statement that biography and genealogy are separate fields. A perfect example here is recent book about Godfrey by Simon John (Godfrey of Bouillon: Duke of Lower Lotharingia, Ruler of Latin Jerusalem), where the first chapter deals with his ancestry, as any good modern biography would do. The same is true for Susan Edgington's biography of Baldwin I. There's no mention of Gerberga of Saxony anywhere in either book, incidentally. Both are part of the "Rulers of the Latin East" series. There isn't one about Baldwin II yet, but hopefully there will be in the future, so we can use it in this article! Adam Bishop (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Adam Bishop Ancestral Roots does detail Baldwin II's and Godfrey's relationship to Gerberga I took the time check and list each page and line which verify the link in this specific piece of literature. If you read it more carefully, you will find it also. Furthermore, like I said I'm pretty sure the line of descent of Gerberga of Saxony is strongly established by genealogists and historians alike: I know for a fact that people have written books on her children by both marriages, and that other people have written about her children's children etc (if you follow this sequence you'll certainly come to Baldwin of Bourcq and Godfrey of Bouillon, the fact no biographer of Baldwin and Godfrey cites her as a common ancestor is due to the fact she is a (very) distant ancestor and no one found it pertinent nor took the time to check this relationship in particular, it does not mean the link cannot be proven, in fact if you consider the scientific literature which is available on various of her descendants/ Baldwin's and Godfrey's ancestors I am certain this link can be established with highly reasonable amount of certainty (again, like I said, I am aware wikipedia does not allow synthesis that is precisely why I had the trouble to find this specific book, Ancestral Roots etc, and use it as a source. Also, what I meant is historians are not genealogists and genealogists are not historians per definition, these are two different professions specialized in different things (although I'm sure some historians may be genealogists also, vice-versa). Genealogy however does base itself greatly on historical documents, direct attestions and historical scientific literature, which all seem to make a case for the fact both Baldwin and Godfrey were indeed bother descendants of Gerberga (I had previously cited 9 sources, which separatedly mentioned a different/a few different generations of Geberga's descendants which came down to Baldwin and Godfrey)... that's also why if you even follow the wikipedia pages on Baldwin's and Godfrey's parents, grandparents etc which you can reach via their also personal articles you'll eventually get to Gerberga of Saxony too....

P.S.: if you still are unable to find Baldwin and Godfrey's connection to Gerberga via Ancestral Roots or other works of literature, let me know by messaging me directly and I will provide you the exact places where I found/verified this information.

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 2:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Frid.antonia-arlon:, you do not need (or rather, you are forbidden) to take the time to establish the relationship between Baldwin II and the Boulogne brothers, as per WP:NOR. If there are no reliable sources dedicated to their lives which clarify this relationship, we cannot mention it. If reliable sources do not say that their connection with Gerberga is relevant, we cannot say that it is relevant. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka: That is pretty much beyond my point, I already said I have no intention of further editing this article. I am merely replying to arguments at this point. What I'm saying is it is not because combining several sources/using synthesis is not allowed on wikipe dia that the relationship between Baldwin II and Godfrey cannot be established academically. On the contrary, multiple academic sources all point to it. In addition, I'm under the impression (most) of the sources you will find that describe all these complicated kinship relationships in a single work are comprehensive genealogical books, such as American Roots. Especially since the relationship between these two people is too distant, scholars have not yet found the need to comment on it specifically/individually. My intention in mentioning it on my edit on the page/the relevance I found for doing this is because it is stated on this article that the relationship between them is unknown (which it clearly isn't at this point, I don't think I d have found it necessary to even mention this particular and distant kinship if this part of the article was phrased differently). But again, I did not bother to dig further, and find more sources citing all these intricate lines of descent of Gerberga of Saxony, because as I said I do not wish to edit this page again. Nonetheless, I strongly stand by arguments and the information I have uncovered.

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 3:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baldwin II of Jerusalem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 03:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Starting review. This will take me a while. -- llywrch(talk) 03:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• In the secondary sources, "Ferdinandi, Sergio (2017)" is not cited anywhere in the article. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

llywrch writes

I've finally found the time to give this article a read-through & have some initial comments

• First, the lead section is far too long & detailed. The lead ought to be the part of the article which explains why the subject is important & provides an overview of the article. This lead provides so many details that I found it hard to find the outlines of his life; just a sense that Baldwin fought a lot of battles.
• This "just a sense that he fought a lot of battles" continues into the body of the article. I miss knowing just where Baldwin ranked amongst the leaders of the First Crusade. Was he in the first rank? One of the lower levels who rose to become King of Jerusalem thru skill -- or maybe luck? This article was written with use of some good secondary authorities: I would expect them to present informed opinions on his skills & personality.
• There are also a number of puzzling omissions in terms of continuity & context. For example, in the section "Early Life" one paragraph ends with the Crusaders being ferried over into Anatolia; the next paragraph begins with Tancred & Baldwin of Boulogne leaving the main body 8 months later. No mention of his role in the siege of Nicaea or the Battle of Dorylaeum, even if he was present. This could be done with a brief sentence or two, & doing so would establish his place in the pecking-order of the Crusade's leadership.
• It would also help if attention were given to how Baldwin's actions effected the lives & health of the polities he was involved with -- first the County of Edessa & afterwards the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It was typical for historians of Runciman's generation to focus on the actions of the court & battlefield, but more recent historians now look beyond these to how the lives of the middle & lower classes were effected. For example, did Baldwin have a policy for dealing with the local Christians (who were rarely Catholic, & sometimes professed versions of Christianity that Roman Catholics found heretical?) or Moslems (who were present in large numbers, if not a majority?)
• One feature I miss is a section discussing the primary sources for his life. Some of the major primary historians are mentioned in this article -- William of Tyre is mentioned 6 times -- but the Armenian or Arabic historians at best make only token appearances. (Amin Maalouf's The Crusades Through Arab Eyes is listed in the bibliography: there should be something of interest about the insights & biases those sources have.)

Sorry it took the better part of a year for someone to provide some comments on this article. -- llywrch (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and comments. (1) If the lead gives you the sense that he fought a lot of battles, the lead properly summarizes his life. Fighting was his primary occupation. (2) Please read the "Early life" section again. It clarifies that Baldwin of Le Bourg was related to Godfrey and Baldwin of Bouillon and Godfrey appointed Baldwin of Le Bourg to represent him, so I do not understand why do you think he was of lower rank. The section "County of Edessa - First years" makes it clear that he was made count by Baldwin of Bouillon. The section "King of Jerusalem - Ascension to the throne" is dedicated to the circumstances of his ascension to the throne. (3) Yes, unfortunatelly, Baldwin did not write a diary, so we cannot follow his life day by day, week by week or month by month: there are puzzling ommissions. If my understanding is correct, you suggest that two further battles should be mentioned even if his role in those battles was only marginal. (4) Books published during the last two decades and written by modern historians (by Barber, Köhler, Lock, MacEvitt, Tyerman, etc.) are cited in the article. In the article, there are references to Baldwin's relationship with the local Armenians in Edessa. Unfortunatelly, his relationship with the local Christians in Jerusalem is not well-documented, perhaps because the local Christians had not historians, like the Armenian Matthew of Edessa. (5) A section dedicated to the chroniclers of his time could be added, although this is not a requirement for GAs and it would only repeat information from articles dedicated to those chroniclers. Yes, Matthew of Edessa is only quoted three times. Maybe, because his narration covers only Baldwin's rule in Edessa, while William of Tyre gives a detailed description also of Baldwin's rule in Jerusalem. Muslim chroniclers are even more rarely mentioned, because their heroes were Muslim leaders. Could you specifically mention some pieces of information that you miss? Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I had a busy week at work, then had a scare with my eyes that kept me from doing anything serious on Wikipedia.

From you response, it appears that I failed to explain just where this article has problems -- in the presentation. To pick up with the lead, there is no sense of what is important about Baldwin's life. We are presented with a shovelful of details, without any sense of importance. You don't need to mention every person involved in an activity -- that is what the body of the article is for. The idea is to present an outline of the article, & if one is skillful (which I am not), one can also add a hook to draw the reader further into the article. I had to struggle thru the lead alone.

So am I to surmise that he was one of the first rank of leaders because he was related to some of them? Baldwin had no lands & could have likely joined the Crusade as a hanger-on of his cousins. The experts, who have studied this subject, would be able to provide some idea of his role in the Crusades.

Yes, the record is incomplete. However, a skillful writer would find ways to make smooth transitions between the known events. Even to simply write, "After his interview with the Emperor, the next documented event in his life is when he joined Tancred to leave the main army to invade Cilicia around 15 September 1097."

There are several problems with how the battles are presented. One is that there is little attempt to put them in context, to provide any explanation why some might be more important than others. If his life was a series of running about putting out fires, then explain that. If he was following some grand strategy (which the secondary authorities would explain), tell us. Another problem lies in how the information is structured. Here is a detailed critique of one section, "First years":

1st paragraph -- The opening sentence goes nowhere. I'll admit that there is the challenge of keeping 2 Baldwins straight, but that is the kind of care I'd expect in a Good Article. As for the rest of the paragraph, you omit mentioning that the reason Baldwin of Boulogne picked Baldwin of Bourcq to succeed him as Count of Edessa was that he had to go to Jerusalem to be king. (It would be good to know why he picked Baldwin for this honor; so far all we've been told of him is that he accompanied other nobles on their campaigns.)

Next paragraph -- Mention of his marriage to Morphia, who appears no more in this article. (I'm beginning to sense a pattern here.) Not even the fact her father Gabriel was overthrown & killed in 1103 following the fall of Meltene. (Why didn't Baldwin come to his rescue?) Then we are presented with the predations of Sökmen. We aare given little detail about the fighting (e.g., losses, tactics, etc.) so that Matthew of Edessa's quotation appears pointless.

3rd paragraph -- One sentence about Joscelin, then the rest of this paragraph again about something else: the Egyptian campaign against the central kingdom. This is handled tersely again, & the point of Baldwin's involvement is left something of a puzzle to the uninformed reader.

Final paragraph -- Again begins with a sentence not related to the rest of the paragraph -- which is about the ransom of Bohemond of Antioch. From Runciman's account, negotiations to ransom Bohemond was much more complex than provided here. No real explantion for Baldwin's motivations to recover Bohemond, who was not his liege.

I'll note there is a troublesome omission in this article, an anecdote -- which Runciman repeats from William of Tyre -- that provides an insight to Baldwin's character: Baldwin managed to convince his father-in-law, Gabriel, to give him 30,000 besants by declaring he had promised to give his knights that money, & if he failed in that he would shave off his beard; his men joined in the deception, affirming that their master had indeed made such an oath; Gabriel hastened to give him the money -- for Armenians considered a beard necessary to manly dignity, & were shocked that so many Crusaders were clean-shaven -- & made Baldwin swear he would never pledge his beard again. (Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 2, p. 37) What this anecdote reveals is not only Baldwin's wiliness & his need for money (which explain's Matthew of Edessa's characterization that Baldwin was "avaricious"), but also the physical detail he had a beard. (I'll admit that Runciman mentions this anecdote to support his claim that Baldwin, while in constant need of money to pay his soldiers, was less arbitrary & more gentle in his methods than King Baldwin of Jerusalem. He appears to have some diplomatic skills this article doesn't even suggest might exist.)

I could go on. The point is that except for his military record, his life is not well covered. And what we have is not presented in a readable manner. The more I read this, the more I am convinced this need a more thorough rewrite to bring out the subject.

I'm going to leave this on hold for a few days to see if you want to work on it, otherwise I'll need to fail it for insufficient explication & readability. -- llywrch (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review. I think our approach is so different that we could hardly reach a consensus. I will leave the article to be edited by other editors and will return a couple of months later. Borsoka (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Very well, I'll go ahead & fail this. Good luck with your future nominations. -- llywrch (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)