Talk:Mount Tabor Indian Community

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Terran57 (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)There are many reference to this band all over Wikipedia from the Cherokee Nation page; Cherokee Treaties; Yowani Choctaws as well as numerous individuals. This is not a fraudulent site a d one look at Google should tell one otherwise. I am new at creating pages, so, although about 10-15 years ago I have done this, I am trying to figure it out on the run, but deleting it is plainly stupid, rude, racist or a host of other reasons. Could I use some assistance, yes!

@Abishe: Mind adding your input? I'm frankly not sure why this counts as a hoax. (Note: I've moved the article to the proper title and tagged the previous title for speedy deletion.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anon126: I nominated the article earlier for a speedy deletion by considering it as a hoax as the title was mentioned as Starting a new wikipedia page. Now I have withdrawn my decision to consider it as a hoax and I apologise for the mistake. Thanks Abishe (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Needs in-line citations for sources

There is a list of references, but it is generally impossible to tell where content comes from. At least every paragraph (and every quote) needs an inline citation to a Reliable Source. Parkwells (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

There is so much here that needs citation it's hard to know where to start. There is also at least on false claim. The Mount Tabor Indian Community is not recognized as a tribe by the state of Texas. Texas has not legal mechanism to do that. Other states do, but not Texas. Condorman (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Condorman that this article came about most likely as a ploy to gain Federal recognition for this group, however, I believe there is enough in reliable sources that the group passes the encyclopedia's notability requirements which is why it has not been contested (See Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory and the numerous attempts to have it deleted]]). As I stated then and will continue to hold as an opinion, I find these groups to be offensive. I never grew up on a reservation though my Mothers family are registered and I would never take away funds meant to help them. I do fine on my own. These groups infuriate and incense me, however, if they pass Wikipedia criteria for inclusion and someone writes about them then the article should remain. It is expected that editors like myself and you, among others, will keep the contents of the article in line with Wikipedia policy and not allow COI editors to place anything in the article that would not present a NPOV according to the reliable sources provided. To that end, as pointed out by @Yuchitown below, feel free to edit as you see fit. Be bold but make sure it falls in line with policy. Even if we feel this group is a hoax, it is an article about a hoax. The article itself is not a hoax. --ARoseWolf 17:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC) --edited 17:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It's good to share honest, neutral information based on verifiable facts about various organizations identifying as Native American tribes. Yuchitown (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Having no dog in this hunt, I've found it interesting that there is bias from several directions on this subject. I would like to address the hoax question in the words of a tribe member in a genealogy group that is wrestling with the same set of questions (that's how this got on my radar; I'm a genealogist unrelated to these families). She said, "Mount Tabor is not a CPAIN, they are a legitimate descendant community but not eligible for Federal acknowledgement as a tribe. Members of CPAIN groups are frauds who have no Native American connections." I've also learned about the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory in the past 24-hours. Personally, it sounds like attempted fraud. The Mount Tabor group is not the same thing, but the president of the group listed in the article was also affiliated with Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory according to an NBC News article. The Mount Tabor Community was a real historically verifiable group. There are verifiable historical facts, there is a cemetery, and there is known site where this community was centered. There is a report from a Mexican official in 1835 about a group of Creeks north of Nacogdoches and it appears that Stand Watie's wife was from Mount Tabor (need a source for that though). There is not a question that it's real, but these assertions need to be backed up by references. As far as becoming a tribe, I suggest that the angle the article here should take is to address the question from both sides. There is a group that wants to be a tribe. It's clear that part of the motivation is to get federal funds. That's my opinion, but the article should NPOV. On the other hand, I've read some genuine "dislike" in the press from tribal leaders (Cherokee, Delaware, and Shawnee) that also seems financially motivated. My impression is that everyone involved is fighting for a piece of the Federal $$$ pie. That conflict is real and should be objectively described. That content is easy to reference. The NBC New article already referenced in the article that discusses in significant detail. But, behind all that controversy, is a group of real people that are really descended from a group of native Americans that live in in a five county area in East Texas.

BTW, @ARoseWolf, I'm glad to see you jumping into the discussion. You are sharing an important perspective that needs to be part of getting this right. Condorman (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If you've read the sources, please jump in edit. Of course, Original research is completely outside the purview of Wikipedia (not our place to determine anyone's legitimacy), but material from reliable, secondary published sources is completely welcome. Yuchitown (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

I've reached out to the original author. I hope to have some interaction with him before starting. I think the first order of business is to collect sources that can be used as references and that I can use to become more fully informed of the subject matter. One of the disadvantages of being unbiased is that it also implies a level of being uninformed. :) Condorman (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I try to remain dispassionate when it comes to articles though it is, admittedly, difficult. We had a recent discussion concerning Marcia Herndon. I have seen a troubling trend on the encyclopedia of not being able to separate ourselves from the feelings we have personally. It's hard to but the encyclopedia demands in some cases that we do just that. Marcia Herndon's life was a hoax, at least as far as we can tell. She not only pretended to be a descendent of a specific American Indian Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, but she put herself forward as an authority of the culture. At the time in which she did this most Native communities had no way of investigating these claims and making sure that these people that attempt to speak for their Nation are actually a part of their Nation. Her actions sicken me yet I see beauty in her life, still, and that causes a lot of turmoil in myself. I also recognize that Wikipedia allows articles on hoax's but the article itself can not be a hoax. In other words, we can have an article on Marcia where we describe her life as it is portrayed in reliable sources and even provide for the fact her life was somewhat to mostly a hoax if we can find that evidence in reliable sources. We can do this because she was a real person, the subject of the article is not a hoax though parts or most of her life may have been. She is notable for the hoax she lived, among other things, because that's what independent observers of Marcia wrote about her.

There is no doubt that this group or community is notable in my mind. Whether they are directly linked to the original community or not and whether or not they are actually descended from the Cherokee is not of import to Wikipedia in regards to notability. It my be to us personally, or it may not depending on your position, but that matters not. All Wikipedia is concerned with is its criteria for inclusion being satisfied. Verifiable sources. Independent sources. Secondary sources. Neutral Point of View. I'm damn well proud of the fact we could separate our feelings about the subject, especially after investigating it ourselves and determining the hoax she lived when combining a little original research with the reliable sources we had. I'm proud that we stuck with improving and pushing the article into main space. All of this along with the fact her lies disgust me and the fact she may have used those lies to further her own career is appalling to say the least. Still, I'd fight for the article's inclusion. I am not saying that is the case here. These people may very well be connected some how as descendants or they may not. What is true is that the group is notable. --ARoseWolf 13:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur with your sentiments. Your discourse reminds me of how I feel about the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. It's only meaningful when we apply it to speech that we find hateful or disgusting. I don't have to agree with someone's words to go to the mat for their right to say them without government censorship or other infringements of their rights. Condorman (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Handbook of Texas Online Entry

The Handbook of Texas Online is a good resource, published by the Texas State Historical Association. However, the article in the Handbook of Texas Online article about the Mount Tabor Indian Community is co-authored by the former chairman of the Mount Tabor Indian Community and is not unbiased. I suggest that this article, which is listed as a source, is not suitable for as a Wikipedia source. On a related note, many of the original versions of entries in the Handbook of Texas Online date back to the 1950s. The Handbook of Texas online article was written in 2018 about the same time as this article on Wikipedia. The original author of this article has disappear and is no longer a Wikipedia editor. I suspect that the TSHA handbook entry and this Wikipedia article were parts of the same concerted effort to raise the profile of the Mount Tabor Indian Community as part of pursuit of federal recognition as a tribe. I have no evidence, but I have a suspicious nature.

Having said that, I do concur with the decision not to delete the article. However, it needs some serious review to ensure that the content is unbiased. {Condorman (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)}

Edit away! The challenge here seems to be that the 19th-century Mount Tabor Indian Community and the current nonprofit group using the name are two separate entities, so clarifying that is a challenge with such a verbose article. Yuchitown (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

I concur. No offense to the nonprofit, but this should be about the history, not a legal entity. I haven't seen evidence that the nonprofit is representing the interests of a community as opposed to half a dozen people around a kitchen table in East Texas. Evidence is lacking. Condorman (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The Mount Tabor Indian Community itself is not a nonprofit and whoever attached that to the demographics needs to take it down. There is, in fact, the Mount Tabor Indian Heritage Center that is a nonprofit but there is no current wikipage or website on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealMTICnonRep (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Inventory of Sources

The purpose of this section is to create an inventory of potential sources for this article and to classify each source based on it's veracity and applicability.

Citable Sources

"Texas Senate Bill 2363". LegiScan. Retrieved 8 June 2022. {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}
Biesele, Megan. "Leverett's Chapel, TX". Texas State Historical Association. Retrieved 10 June 2022. {Condorman (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)}
Clinton, Matilda (1977-07-03). "Leverett's Chapel: An Area Steeped in History". The Kilgore News Herald. Kilgore, Texas. Retrieved 2022-06-10 – via Newspapers.com. Prior to 1850, Leverett's Chapel was a virgin forest where a large Indian village was located. They were Cherokee Indians and they were a friendly tribe.

Citable Sources, with Caveats

I've search through newspapers at The Portal to Texas History and at Newspaper.com. These are all the newspaper references to the community that I have found: Knaupp, C. On the Scene: Family Tree's Roots Grow Deep. (2003, July 11) Tyler Morning Telegraph, Sec. B, p. 1.: Tyler, Texas. (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/103428190/on-the-scene-family-trees-roots-grow-d/) Accessed on 8 June 2022.

• Earliest known mention of the Mount Tabor Indian Community in a Smith County, Texas newspaper.

Ballard, L. K. Texas eyes on Oklahoma. (2018, April 7) The Kilgore News Herald, p. 2: Kilgore, Texas. (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/103429481/texas-eyes-on-oklahoma/) Accessed on 8 June 2022.

• Earliest known mention of the Mount Tabor Indian Community in a Gregg County, Texas newspaper (excluding meeting announcements that began after the nonprofit was created).

I found no reference to the "Asbury Indian Cemetery" in any newspaper, ever. The cemetery this is referring to is called the Asbury Cemetery. The evidence suggests that the nonprofit is trying to appropriate the Cemetery by adding the name "Indian". No other party has called it that. If it was a named used before 2015, not a single obituary in all the newspapers in East Texas search on two clippings services services has used that name. FindAGrave Wikitree Billion Graves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffery Gentry (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there is no official designation of the cemetery where it is called "Asbury Indian Cemetery". We do have some references stating that there were Cherokee and Choctaw buried there but most of this would be considered Primary sources, even if independent. It's not enough to officially label the cemetery as anything other than by its common name, "Asbury Cemetery". I researched it using both Overton and Wright City as a location. We could just make the change in accordance with WP:UCRN but I prefer adding sources along with it and FindAGrave is not considered reliable. --ARoseWolf 17:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed, FindAGrave.com is not a reliable source. Not for genealogists either. Speaking as a genealogist, the headstone often pictured is considered a reliable source. Back in Wikignome mode, we do not need a source to remove an unsourced assertion. If I assert that "Wolf is a lizard alien." in a Wikipedia article, removal doesn't require a source that refutes my assertion. There is no unbiased source to support that "Asbury Cemetery" is called "Asbury Indian Cemetery". No sources are required to remove that assertion. I only became aware of the deception when I tried to find a source to support the assertion. Even thought I know the cemetery, I assumed I would find a reliable source. I did not. The point I want to reinforce here is the track record of deceptive misinformation from a few parties. I've said elsewhere that I'm unbiased on the subject matter; that's true. However, I am biased against misleading information and where there is one attempted deception, there are likely more. That makes me unusually skeptical when looking at the rest of this article.

Addressing your comments on the ancestry of people in that particular cemetery, as a genealogist that grew up in SE Smith County, there is no doubt that there are Native American descendants and probably a few 100% Native Americans buried in that cemetery. Ironically, I randomly picked a Berryhill gravesite in that cemetery to add to Wikitree as part of a project to document at least one gravesite in each cemetery in southeast Smith County, Texas on Wikitree. I picked it because it is the oldest known gravesite in the cemetery. If you are familiar with Creek history, you'll recognize the family name. A Berryhill in Rusk County, Texas in 1853 was of Creek descent. If I had picked the next gravesite to the left, we wouldn't be having this chat. I wish I had. Now I feel obligated to set the record straight.

PS - Wikipedia needs a Discord server. :) Condorman (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Condorman - Actually, it has one. I don't think I've commented on it, other than saying hello, but I joined it a few weeks ago. --ARoseWolf 13:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Unusable Sources

J. C. Thompson and Patrick Pynes, “Mount Tabor Indian Community,” Handbook of Texas Online, accessed June 09, 2022, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/mount-tabor-indian-community.

• Content written by biased authors. J. C. Thompson is the former chairman of the nonprofit. Patrick Pynes is a historian, but as a descendent stands to gain if the community is federally recognized; also aligned with the nonprofit and prominently featured on their single-page website. May have some research, but must be independently sourced. {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}

Inventory of Assertions Requiring Citation

• "It maintains strong connections to three of their traditional cemeteries, the Asbury Indian Cemetery near Overton..." There are two adjoining cemeteries called Asbury Cemetery near Overton. One is a historically black cemetery, the other is historically white. I find no reference to this cemetery as "Asbury Indian Cemetery". Independent source needed. {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}
• "600 members" This claim is sourced from the Handbook of Texas Online, a biased source. Independent source needed. {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}

Unsupported Assertions

Though the following assertions are false of unverifiable, they may be useful in the context of a "Criticisms" section:

• "The Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas, like Mount Tabor, is recognized only by the state." Mount Tabor is not recognized by the state of Texas. A bill was put forward to that effect in 2019. It was not passed. (https://legiscan.com/TX/drafts/SB2363/2019) The is not legal mechanism in the state of Texas to recognize an Indian tribe. {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}
• "Additionally, the band publishes a quarterly newspaper, The Mount Tabor Phoenix, for its nearly 600 citizens." This is an example of the use of the word "citizens" within the article, implying tribal status or biased toward the cause of tribe designation. It's misleading and needs to be changed. Changed to what, I'm not sure. Since there is a 501(c)(3), "member" would imply a member of the legal entity, which may or may not be true. {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}
• "Mount Tabor Indian Heritage Center" This 501(c)(3) has been terminated or is no longer active (https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/mount-tabor-indian-heritage-center,472350957/) - {Condorman (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)}

These assertions either need to be modified to fit the reality of the situation or they need to be deleted entirely (preferred). Wikipedia can not make assertions that are neither verifiable nor factual based on the evidence from reliable sources.

• If Texas, in fact, has no mechanism to recognize non-federally recognized Native communities then the only way this groups assertion can stay is with that caveat provided and sourced.
• Likewise, we should go with what independent sources call individuals from this group, not what the group calls their own members. If that is member then so be it. If that is citizen then so be it (As much as that pained me to say).
• We can add that the 501(c)(3) has been terminated or is inactive and provide the source for this.--ARoseWolf 13:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

CORRECTION: There are two legal entities related to the Mount Tabor community. One of them IS ACTIVE. Legal Name: MOUNT TABOR INDIAN HERITAGE CENTER. An older one with a nearly identical name is inactive. Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Thee source linked to the page (Cause IQ) is referencing the correct legal entity, but the information is wrong or out-of-date. Condorman (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Historical Community vs. Non-profit Organization

We need to decide as the Wikipedia community whether this article should be about the Community (Historical) or the Non-profit Organization (formed in 2015). There is no verifiable evidence, as presented, that the two are mutually the same or even that current members/leadership have any connection with the historical community. Most of the content concerning the non-profit was introduced by someone that claimed to be a member of leadership within the non-profit and the sources used are mostly primary and non-independent. We can't proceed with dissecting the article and separating the historical community, which is with out a doubt notable, and the current non-profit that claims to be descendants of the historical community, which may or may not be notable, until we decide which this article should represent. If we decide to go with the historical community then I suggest all information concerning the non-profit be moved to a sandbox and held there until we can decide what, if anything, can go back into the article or if the non-profit is found to be notable then the information can be used to create the article for it.

Note - I will not be creating an article for the non-profit should we choose to separate the two and the latter be deemed the case but the information can be moved to my sandbox to be held if anyone else desires to create the article. I did the same for the NCNOLT of which no one has taken up that offer to this point but the offer remains. --ARoseWolf 13:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The nonprofit is defunct. There is no nonprofit for which to do an article: https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/mount-tabor-indian-heritage-center,472350957/ Condorman (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Condorman As I know you are aware, a subject need not be active nor relevant currently to be notable enough to receive an article on Wikipedia. It needs only significant coverage in reliable sources. If it was notable five, ten or fifty years ago then its notability is secure. Not saying that is the case here but if it is not notable then it never was notable, active or not. Reference WP:NTEMP. --ARoseWolf 16:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

CORRECTION: There are two legal entities related to the Mount Tabor community. One of them IS ACTIVE. Legal Name: MOUNT TABOR INDIAN HERITAGE CENTER. An older one with a nearly identical name is inactive. Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Thee source linked to the page (Cause IQ) is referencing the correct legal entity, but the information is wrong or out-of-date. {Condorman (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)}

My perspective is separate the nonprofit from the historical community and this article should represent the historical community. I also have no interest in the nonprofit, but I don't believe that it is notable. I've help create three nonprofits over the past 10 years, all of them more notable than this entity. None of those three are sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article. Based on my research, some bad actors affiliated with the nonprofit used the notability of the Mount Tabor Indian Community in an attempt to make the legal entity notable. For instance, the same group of people that wrote this article originally also wrote the Texas State Historical Association (TSHA) article. They then used that TSHA article as a source to back up assertions such as having 600 "members" which they then described misleadingly as "citizens" or "enrollees." I suspect (no evidence, just following the pattern) that the leadership of the nonprofit then went to the Texas State Senator for the area where this community is located and said something like, "Hey Mr. Senator, we represent 600 of your constituents. We love you. Let me tell you about us. Here is a TSHA article and the Wikipedia article about us. Did I mention that we are all voters in your district? 600 voters. How about a congratulatory resolution recognizing our contribution to the community? I happen to have a draft of a resolution for you here." This happens all the time and usually passes unanimously. I could probably get one congratulating my Dad for turning 80. These resolutions are not notable. Then the group uses the resolution to update the Wikipedia article, making it look more notable and begin to claim that the state of Texas recognizes them as a tribe. And so it goes. At the same time, they tried to appropriate the name of a local cemetery - Asbury Cemetery - by starting to call it the Asbury Indian Cemetery. It's never been called that name. I searched through newspapers in two archives across all three counties back to the 1880s. Not one single reference to "Asbury Indian Cemetery" since the 1880s until they started calling it that in their event announcements after the nonprofit was created in 2015. So why am I sharing this? Sadly, this nonprofit group has propagated so much misinformation, and done it quite well I might add, to manufacture notability standing on the shoulders of a legitimate and important historical community that now I find myself meticulously questioning every assertion to sift the misinformation out from the true history of a great group of people that are an integral part of the history of East Texas. In closing my diatribe, I think that a few bad actors (who themselves may have had some good motives) have had a negative impact on the image of a truly historically notable community. So my perspective: The nonprofit is not notable; it never was notable; they deceptively put on the air of notability but the cat is out of the bag now. Nonprofit is not notable; never was notable. Postscript: As mentioned before, I'm a genealogist. This whole issue got on my radar from that context, seeing this article as a citation to backup questionable genealogical claims. Just happens that I'm also a Wikipedia editor. While I'm working on this article, I'm also working on genealogical issues related to the same information that has infiltrated Wikitree. If some of the research mentioned seems a bit much for Wikipedia (like searching newspaper archives), yes, it absolutely is. BUT, it's routine for genealogists and it's useful to share what I've learned from that perspective as well. Condorman (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Condorman, I appreciate your interest in the article and welcome the discussions. We are making fine progress in explaining the issues with the article. Unfortunately, the majority of a lot of what we are doing here so far is WP:OR. We need something backing up what the claims made. We may assume bad actors created all this as an elaborate ruse to gain federal recognition but we then have to prove what we assert. We also may assume that the resolutions passed by state legislatures are not official but where is that proof? But a state resolution can not be verifiably reliable for notability of these entities. State resolutions would be considered primary and are not independent precisely because of the scenario you gave above. The solution I am offering is that we either remove the information pertaining to the non-profit and leave it in a sandbox for potential further use or we split the two articles. After that we can have a discussion about the notability of each and whether they belong. Once the non-profit is separated from the historical community we may find that the only source for notability is this Texas state resolution. As I have already stated, those are primary and non-independent so they cant be solely used to verify notability. By splitting or separating them we can also get a clearer picture of the historical community in a stand alone article and begin to parse away what is fact or fiction based on reliable sources thereby improving the article and the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 18:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR - Concerned with sourcing the article, not the Talk page; prioritizing misinformation over unsourced assertions; propose we give original author some time to participate (I value his input).

I hear ya, but I'm not on the article, I'm on the Talk page sharing hypotheses and background. If someone comes along and says, "Hey Condorman, that's not true", I'll be happy to bring the receipts. To be blunt, I'm not going to spend more time citing sources in Talk than has been done on the article. Energy needs to focus on article content; that's what needs to be sourced. Yes, I'm in favor of splitting the nonprofit from the historical community. However, right now, personally, I'm in a holding pattern. I'd like to give the original author time to respond and participate. He may have a different perspective now than a few years ago and he probably knows a great deal about the subject matter. He may even have new sources. I assume he has, and had, good intentions. I do not want to exclude him unless we just don't hear from him. In the meantime, I'm happy to spend some time editing out misinformation. So if we separate out misinformation from unsourced assertions, I plan to focus on misinformation until the author has an opportunity to weigh in or sufficient time has passed that we decide he may not have feedback in a timely manner. If you want to separate the legal entity from the historical community before then, I have no objection because I don't see it as notable. If, for example, the author shows up with a reliably sourced, credible picture of 600 people at a MTIC event sponsored by the nonprofit, my perspective will change on the spot. I'd even favor keeping the two things together. BTW, this is bigger than just a few people around a kitchen table. Here is a link of a visit to the cemetery at the old community site, including the Vice Chairman of the Rusk County Historical Commission. This was back in 2005, ten years before the nonprofit was created. I'm impressed by the people that re-found and documented this cemetery. There is also some decent sourcing on this website. It's worth a read. Condorman (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)