Talk:Kansas SB 180

Please leave the bill text in the article

The wikipedia page has been up for nearly 2 months and there is no defensible reason that the article should not include the actual text of the bill, especially given the fact that the bill is only 1 page long.

If you would like to add weight to the arguments against the bill, please expand the article by providing position assertions and evidence for the statements.

References to gender on this page are not relevant, given that this is a bill about sex as a distinct and independent characteristic from gender. If a section about gender is to be included, it should address foremost how this is relevant to the topic at hand (SB 180). PhenomenonDawn (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

PhenomenonDawn Articles on Wikipedia are not mirror's of a primary source, articles do not verbatim include text of primary sources, instead they are built of secondary and tertiary sources. Specifically relating to the hyperlink, gender assigned at birth the article itself makes clear that it is about sex assignment. Des Vallee (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The revision you are proposing does not meet Wikipedia's standards for Verifiability or Neutral point-of-view.

A primary source is always preferable over secondary or tertiary sources. Including primary sources is not prohibited and in fact gives the most amount of Verifiability. It is incredibly disingenuous to remove from the article the actual text of the bill, in favor of claims about what the bill is saying.

The proposed revision is factually inaccurate, has incorrect grammar, and contains irrelevant citations.

• "...bill which bans any identification of any gender..." | Inaccurate; the bill makes no reference to gender

• "...despite federal recognition of transgender people..." | Inaccurate/misleading; the bill cited (H.Res.1209) was introduced to the House of Representatives on 6/28/22 and has not been passed into law, yet is presented as fact without disclaimer

• "...the bill is generally considered transphobic." | Unverified; citation provided for claim does not provide any evidence of "general consideration" of the bill, e.g., a poll showing public opinion, and in fact is completely irrelevant to the phrase it is applied to. The citation for this phrase is an article about a different bill being introduced in the US House of Representatives and no reference is made to SB 180, the subject under review.

• "The current governor of Kansas Laura Kelly has stated she plans to veto the bill." | Unverified; I will actually remove this in the next revision because I have searched and am unable to substantiate this claim. The current citation discusses Gov. Kelly vetoing other bills, but has no reference to SB 180.

• "Despite the fact that the federal government recognizes gender transition..." | Inaccurate/misleading; this statement reuses previously discussed citation of H.Res.1209, which again, has not been passed into law

• "...bill would completely reject transgender people as an identity" | Inaccurate; again, the bill makes no reference to gender

• "The bill restricts agencies, both public and private from assigning any gender..." | Inaccurate; again, the bill makes no reference to gender. further, rather than citing SB 180 itself as proof of what the bill states, a random journal article was used, which also provides no further proof of claim

• "The bill's proponents state that..." | Misleading; This is the most egregious evidence of the bias of the revision you are proposing. Not only did you completely remove a summary of some of the actual proponent's stance, you deleted all reference to it, and then used a critic's article as a source

• "It is largely seen to take away human rights..." | Unverified; this is a massive accusation with no evidence. As stated previously, to prove something is "largely seen" requires Verifiability in the form of e.g., polling data, which was not provided. Language like this should not be used at all in most cases, as it is very difficult to prove and may change over time.

• "...criminalize identifying as transgender." | Unverified; again, the bill makes no reference to gender or transgender. further, the first citation provided makes no reference to criminalization, and the second citation is an article which requires a subscription to read.

Literally every sentence in your proposed revision is problematic. I am attempting in good faith to reach a consensus, but I will not allow the article to contain the factually inaccurate and biased information proposed. If you would like to correct formatting as noted in the edit, please do so. Further undos of my attempts to provide factual and neutral information, without addressing any concerns or expending any effort to rewrite the sections you take issue with, or even express having an issue with the specific points of the revision, are clear Edit warring. Your actions begin to look deliberately malicious, given that the page history shows you've already had revisions edited because they were "biased and poorly written." PhenomenonDawn (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't you need to sit down and look. You have 5 edits, you have no userpage. I can appreciate a discussion but you need to listen. The article is not meant to be a copy and paste of the bill, WikiSource exists for that. An article is meant to be a descriptor of the sources. The sources describe this.

The bill bans gender identification outside of birth as described here as sex assignment, this was already explained above.

The bill listed present (H.Res.1209) lists already existing passed protections for transgender people in the US.

The current citation listed literally has a section explaining why the bill is considered transphobic

Not unverified, it lists trans bills which the governor intends to veto, since this articles creation the bill has been vetoed.

The sources describe this as a complete rejection of . Your right the bill doesn't make mention about transgender people, but the bill is about transgender people. Sources thereby have stated this the entire basis of articles.

The proponent stance is from the source itself, here.

There is no factually inaccurate or problematic. Please stop assuming bad faith. It is against the rules in any context to bring this up here, I understand you can be new but that is strictly against the rules. The current article you have made is a mess of poor formatting, and broken text. It's very much not.

Likewise the current version is the WP:STABLE version, the version I created, the version which was reviewed by Onel5969, something which you should understand if you read any policies. Des Vallee (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

PhenomenonDawn Please seek WP:PRIMARY, articles should never be built around primary sources, they are built on secondary and tertiary sources. If you would like to add or improve the article you should not remove all sources and replace them with a primary source of the legislative hearing. Use sources like news sources, or scholarly articles that discuss the subject otherwise you will be given a warped perspective in the article. Des Vallee (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no prohibition of using reputable primary sources "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source."

As discussed previously, most sources present in the article before either referenced other Kansas bills without referencing SB 180, required a subscription to read, or were irrelevant to SB 180. I tried as hard as I could to keep "elements of a questionable prior edit," but there was literally nothing salvageable beyond what is surmised in the Controversy section.

You can continue to add to the article if you feel there is something I've missed, but you are absolutely in violation of Wiki's guidelines by simply deleting my edits because it's faster. WP:BADREVERT

I intend to expand the content of this article in the future, so please, expand but do not delete the factual, relevant information I spent hours working on. WP:ONLYREVERT

This is my last attempt at making sure you are informed about Wikipedia's Edit warring policy.

Further reverts without attempt at consensus will be reported. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

PhenomenonDawn You do not have consensus for the changes you are making and as such you should not change them. WP:ONLYREVERT only applies to obvious vandalism. This is how WP:BOLD works, you do not get angry at someone just because they reverted your work, and as a new editor you need to understand that being reverted on Wikipedia is something that is going to happen a lot. I don't even understand your claim of edit-warring as this is the entire basis of bold, revert, discuss.

Primary sources cannot be the basis of an article you need to understand this, primary sources create a limited perspective of an article, you need to use secondary or tertiary sources. Primary sources can be used but they cannot be the entire article. This is not a matter of debate, it's how articles on Wikipedia are developed, please understand the point. Des Vallee (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Clearly we need a third party to provide consensus. I will continue to revise and make the article better, as I wait for response. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• @PhenomenonDawn: You are citing the Wikipedia policy page about original research, but making a common mistake in thinking primary sources are better than secondary. Because this is an encyclopedia, we prefer secondary sources, and minimize use of primary sources. Our aim is to summarize what reliable sources have said on the topic. The general guidance from higher up on the page: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. The project has a lot of rules, guidelines, and idiosyncratic uses of terms (including "consensus") that can present a steep learning curve, including for editors coming to it from other arenas, such as academia. Des Vallee placed a template on your user talk page with links to assist you in understanding how we do things; you reverted it along with subsequent posts there, but you may not be aware that using the "history" of a page, you can always see an earlier version. That goes for your version of the article, too; your work is not lost. I recommend you look some more at the provided links to help you understand our processes and what people are telling you.

Your rewrite was a disimprovement because it replaced cited information with primarily quotation from the bill itself. However, you may have had a valid point on "gender" and other particulars; Des Vallee, the article lacked specifics about the bill, including dates (the vote tallies are only in the infobox) and appeared to quote it inaccurately. That and another quote did not have references where the reader could look up the context. So I've edited it a bit, including a corrected and fuller quote with reference (I took it from the pdf of the amended version linked at the cited page) and made one suggestion in my edit summary for a point I noticed that I think could be usefully added. How does it look now to you? And PhenomenonDawn, you can't currently revise the article, you're blocked from editing it. What specific changes do you suggest? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to restructure article

I am going to create this as a fresh topic because I would like to post this to the Neutrality noticeboard, and I don't want to tire volunteers since some of this information will be repeated from my prior comments. @Des Vallee @Yngvadottir

To start off, I would like to make clear that the current iteration of Kansas SB 180 does not have consensus. The article is not written from a Neutral Point of View and lacks Verifiability, as I will discuss in detail at the end.

I would like to use my previous version as a base for the article, and incorporate elements of the current version into it.

Nothing in my rewrite of the article was controversial, and there were no grounds to completely revert it. The only justification given was an objection for using primary sources. Whether intended or not, this is clear WP:WL. The objection misrepresents when it is appropriate to use which type of source, and instead implies that secondary sources are always preferable. This is not true. Using secondary sources to describe proposed legislation instead of the text of the bill itself is directly in opposition of WP:WHYCITE:

"By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia"

The legislation itself is de facto more reliable than an interpretive internet news article, so the news article adds no value to this section of the Wiki page. Because of this misunderstanding of when/which type of source material should be used, critical information was removed, along with references to a dozen other relevant Wikipedia articles where interested readers can learn more.

The format I chose when rewriting the article gave a clear, neutral, readable, and organized framework for discussion and examination of the bill: what its aim was, what the proponent's points were, and what the opposition's points were. From here, we can easily expand each section with secondary sources.

My revision of the article was intended as a starting point for both editors and readers, not an end point, and was an improvement in every way. The previous and current forms are disorganized, do not easily lend themselves to expansion, have numerous factual inaccuracies, are missing critical information, and only represent one side.

Onto the details, from the top:

1- "is a bill that bans any identification of a gender" False. The bill doesn't even mention gender, let alone ban anything related to it.

2- "despite federal recognition" Biased, false, and therefore likely irrelevant. The usage of "despite" is biased and means to bolster opposition's view. This is a bill which was introduced to the US House and has not been ratified. The current phrasing misleads the audience into thinking that the bill was enacted. Since this is just one of many bills introduced on the state and federal levels, I don't see the relevance to the article at hand. I'm open to there potentially being a "discussion" section or similar, if a specific link can be drawn demonstrating why this is relevant to SB 180, but this could quickly get out of hand due to the sheer number of bills. Specific relevance must be established.

3- "The bill is generally considered transphobic." The sentence is fine, but the context is not. This type of information should be not be included in the lead section, but instead in a subsection "discussion," "controversy," "opposition," or similar. Otherwise this implies that the bill is transphobic, and that's not the point of Wikipedia. The point is to present unbiased information with references that people can use to learn more easily.

4- "It defines a 'female'" - The sentence is almost fine, though the formatting could be better. The bigger point is that most of the critical information about the bill is missing: why definitions are being proposed, how the definitions will be used, etc. This isn't opinion needing secondary source information; this is stated fact as outlined in the bill.

5- "Its proponents state" - Is a misrepresentation and cherry-picked. I don't want to expand much here, you can see in my proposed revision with more complete information written in a less biased way. The main point of contention with the current wording is that sometimes sex segregation is (or was) mandatory for safety in obvious cases like prisons, and this context is wholly missing. Also the reference for this statement isn't from proponents, it is from opposition. It could be potentially be considered a tertiary source; however, the only reference this article even has to proponents is "Proponents speaking in favor of this bill and other anti-trans legislation have been mostly from out of the state, or from national organizations." Therefore, statement given is not supported by the citation. Please note my first revision included credible, secondary sources for proponent's position, but this was removed without cause.

6- "The bill is controversial for excluding intersex people" This is misleading/incorrect. First, the language states this as a fact, "The bill is controversial," and as such this claim should also be included in a "discussion," "controversy," "opposition," or similar section, not the "Bill" section, which should not take sides. Moreover, the bill was amended to include language addressing this, which is not mentioned in the current revision.

7- The "Testimony" section is mostly repeated information with all of the same issues from points 4, 5, and 6 above. Since each side has several points, I think my last revision where each side gets their own section allows for a higher quality depiction of the information.

8- "Veto and ramifications" The heading should probably be simply "Veto," or even a new section be added for "Bill History" where information regarding the different stages from introduction to veto can be summarized for easy view. "Ramifications" implies actual, realized ramifications of the veto itself, but instead the information presented is Gov. Kelly's reasoning for the veto.

9- "The Speaker" and "According to the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence" pieces should be in a separate section, since they are really more of "proponent/opposition" stances or "reactions."

In summary, the current structure of the article makes it very difficult to continue to improve it and I seek consensus to restructure it so improvements can be made with ease. My proposed format can be seen here, and during this restructure, I would like to remove the biased and incorrect information, and also reorganize the salvageable parts as described above.

Thank you for your time. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

PhenomenonDawn Both I and Yngvadottir agree your edits are nonconstructive. They do apply to NPOV, NPOV does not mean the content in the article fits your personal guideline for style, NPOV means that the article is a reflection of the sources. You removed nearly all sources and replaced nearly the entire article with the court hearing text. This is not. As an example while nearly all sources mention this article in the context of transgender people, your version mentions them twice. This is not what nearly all sources on the subject state and it does not apply to NPOV, and it's why primary sources should not be overused. News articles and secondary sources are considered far more reliable then primary sources.

The sources describe this bill as existing to target transgender people. The bill does not even mention "transgender" people once. If we likewise look at other articles as a basis, using your logic should we not include information that poll taxes in the US were designed to exclude black people? The bills themselves don't actually mention race anywhere in their content, however those articles focus on that subject of racism because sources, secondary and tertiary describe poll taxes as existing for the context of racism and Jim Crow laws.

On your point of intersex people, it is absolutely correct, sources describe it as these definitions of excluding intersex people. What you are attempting to do is textbook WP:OR, sources describe it would exclude intersex people, and despite revisions it would still exclude intersex people. You do not get to add commentary on this. The same principle of OR.

Neutrality does not mean that the article tells "all sides" as you claim. That's not what neutrality means, neutrality means that the article is a mirror of reliable sources. Des Vallee (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Des Vallee,

Again, I am proposing a more structured article that enables us to more easily display both sides' views. The current article hardly even acknowledges that there are two sides. Maybe it's not obvious to you since we don't have dedicated sections for each yet.

I would suggest an organization something like: Lead section, Bill History, Proponent View, Opposition View, Reception/Discussion/Coverage/etc. (potentially one of each of these sections for each side, depending how large they get. if many points are made with lots of sources, for readability's sake, each side should get its own section.) Specifically, what is your issue with this?

You haven't actually addressed any of the reasons that I removed sources from the article. I listed each one individually in multiple areas of Wikipedia (twice on the talk page, in the edit notes, on the admin board). Removing sources that are used out of context or do not support the statements they claim to is an improvement.

"while nearly all sources mention this article in the context of transgender people, your version mentions them twice" It does no good to talk in generalities ("nearly all sources") when I am taking specific issues with the sources themselves. In fact, I am open to having these sources included if the underlying issues with them are resolved.

"News articles and secondary sources are considered far more reliable then primary sources." From WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD with my emphasis: "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation."

If you have a specific objection to the sources I've used under the WP:PRIMARYCARE, that should be addressed in specifics. Otherwise, you are in direct opposition to WP:NOTGOODSOURCE "Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable".

"On your point of intersex people" You haven't addressed my point. My point was that the article states this as a fact, rather than a critical view of the bill. Further, I also brought up that the amendment to the bill specifically on this subject isn't mentioned in the article. Your accusation of WP:OR is not valid, since it's strawmanning what I actually said.

@Des Vallee quote "Neutrality does not mean that the article tells "all sides" as you claim."

WP:NPOV quote "neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing...all the significant views...on a topic."

I'm not going to dissect that one further.

In summary, not a single specific and valid point was brought up. That I'm being gate-kept from improving this article by nonarguments is ... well, it's something. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Some of the sources that you want to include are testimonies, i.e. opinions of individuals. It does not matter if they are sworn or not. These are primary sources which should be reported and interpreted in secondary sources, then utilised instead. As an encyclopedia we do not want to stray into the territory of interpreting their statements. – robertsky (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Robertsky,

I'm not looking to draw inferences from primary sources, and I didn't when I included them.

I'm actually looking to have it clearly delineated in something like "Section 1 - Primary Source Facts" "Section 2 - Secondary Source Analysis." It doesn't make sense to report the facts with secondary sources when we can use the primary source instead.

Honestly, having to explain it multiple times now, I'm thinking the fact the article isn't split this way already is contributing to a lot of confusion and therefore time spent clarifying when we could instead be improving things. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

PhenomenonDawn You need to get the point, NPOV means views with significant weight, as an example historical denialism of known events, or conspiracies are common viewpoint of subjects but it does not matter because that viewpoint gives undue weight, you do not get to decide to not "not going to dissect that one further," as that's a redefinition of NPOV. Your continuous claims on primary sources are incorrect, and gives undue weight to the testimony, ignoring neutral third party sources. You need to listen especially when you have been told this multiple times by experienced editors. Des Vallee (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Des Vallee You're telling me I need to get the point while ignoring all of my points. The proponent's view obviously has significant weight. The bill was sponsored, introduced, and passed two bodies of congress. We can't even get to analysis with secondary sources yet because you are refusing to even include the relevant facts of the bill.

I'm not going to discuss your quote further because it's self-evident. That's why I did a juxtaposition. You are saying the exact opposite of what WP:NPOV says, and still claiming WP:NPOV supports you. It doesn't.

Please demonstrate at least one specific example of where I have ignored neutral third party sources.

And also please respond to any and every other point I've made, with specific examples. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

PhenomenonDawn You removed all third party sources and replaced them with commentary from primary sources. You were told on ANI that your edits do not conform to NPOV or correct usage of primary sources, and, you are also being told here by numerous editors on here as well yet you are insisting your correct. Des Vallee (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Des Vallee I asked for specifics please. Because again, I gave a reason for each individual source which was removed, and you haven't explained in any of them why they were used correctly.

"You were told on ANI that your edits do not conform to NPOV or correct usage of primary sources" This is an outright lie. You are lying. You can't show this was said anywhere on ANI.

Moreover, it's not relevant. Your arguments should stand for themselves, and so far you've not made any actual arguments. In fact, not a single editor that has participated yet in this conversation has made any points. So far everything is just generalized and misapplied references to Wiki policies. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

PhenomenonDawn You were told you were edit warring, and breaking policies relating to it, your right you were simply told that and not relating to the content, you were told however that your edits were disruptive. People have clearly pointed out here on the talk page your claims that primary sources can be the entire basis of an article with removed third party sources is wrong. You have 24 edits all on this article, and it's tiring to continuously have to respond to you, despite it being made clear that your edits break guidelines your response is always "no you have already explained why these edits break guidelines but they actually do follow guidelines and you haven't addressed a single point" it's not the way to edit. Des Vallee (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"your claims that primary sources can be the entire basis of an article" This is not something I've said.

My edits aren't disruptive and they don't break guidelines, so please stop accusing me of these things without demonstrating them. It's starting to border on a personal attack, that you have no reasonable argument and keep resorting to attempting simply discrediting me with wild claims.

You have not conceded a single point. Why can't the article have both primary and secondary sources?

I don't plan on dropping this til the NPOV issue is resolved. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Des Vallee you'll probably see this anyway but I forgot to @ above. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

For purpose of discussion, PhenomenonDawn please confirm that this is the revision you are referring to? Special:Permalink/1151234152. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsky (talk • contribs) 19:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Special:Permalink/1151234152 is the original draft that I am proposing as a start. Some edits have been added to the article since that can be incorporated as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhenomenonDawn (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• This is really a non-starter. Articles on Wikipedia should largely be based on reliable, secondary sources (WP:V). The suggested version is mostly analysis of primary sources, which we shouldn't do (WP:NOR), and reflects a viewpoint that runs counter to reliable sources, again something we shouldn't do (WP:NPOV). PhenomenonDawn, I would suggest, as others have above, to take some time to read through our policies and guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It doesn't mean that articles should be neutral or that we need neutral sources, but that we, as editors, should neutrally summarize the significant viewpoints found in reliable secondary sources. It's what ties Verifiability and No Original Research together as policies, reminding us that we need to adhere to them without going off-source, misrepresenting sources, adding our own spin, highlighting minority views, etc. After reading through the available reliable sources on the subject, this article appears to meet NPOV rather well. Woodroar (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hello and welcome @Woodroar,

  "The suggested version is mostly analysis of primary sources" - Can you please review my proposed version of the article and point to where I included analysis?

  I have a thorough understanding of all the relevant policies, and you can see my detailed discussion of this above.

  Again, as I've pointed out above, the article only talks about the opposition's side of the bill. I'm not sure how an issue that has two sides can be neutral when the article only represents one side. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Your suggested version is entirely your analysis of primary sources. For example, it gives almost no prominence to the claims of transphobia (which are the, or among the, primary concern of reliable, secondary sources); it gives higher prominence to "proponents" (which RS don't do) including uncritically repeating their talking points (again, which RS don't do); and it stuffs the lead with unnecessary details about the bill (which RS largely haven't covered).

  For the most part, Wikipedia doesn't do "two sides" or "both sides" or "all sides" because that would create a false balance. It's rather rare for reliable sources to suggest that two (or more) sides have equal validity. Reliable sources generally agree, for example, that homeopathy is a pseudoscience and that Moon landing denial is a conspiracy theory and that Gamergate was a harassment campaign, and that's how we write those articles. We don't try to balance "proponents" and "opponents" because RS don't. In cases where RS disagree, that is when we can incorporate some two-side-ism, but it absolutely needs to start with you (or anyone) locating opposing reliable sources. We won't be able to incorporate any of your suggestions until that happens. Woodroar (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Woodroar My suggested version was mostly a direct summary of the Public Health and Welfare Committee's Supplemental Note. I could appreciate your points if the page were actually a curated source for high quality information, but while the sources are technically "acceptable," calling them "reliable" is a stretch. I've detailed again and again the issues with the citations, none of which have been corrected.

  Lumping Women's Rights in the category of pseudoscience and Moon landing denial like it's some sort of fringe theory is so disingenuous it's actually laughable.

  With that, I'm done. The veto was overridden and the bill is now law. Someone can update the page. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at your version it does appear to be mostly based on primary sources. In general Wikipedia is less interested in what a primary source says than in what is reported in reliable secondary sources. I've no comment on the article content, but as the version before your rewrite had secondary sourcing it better fits Wikipedia's requirements. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)