Talk:Atlantic slave trade

Readable prose size is well over 15,000 words, meeting the threshold for division or truncation. See WP:TOOBIG. I make the following proposals:

• Spin off "African participation in the slave trade," "African resistance," and "African awareness" into a new article describing the slave trade in Africa.
• Reincorporate "African slavery" into Slavery in Africa and leave only the necessary context to introduce the sale and barter of enslaved peoples.
• Move the bulk of "European slavery in Portugal and Spain" and "European colonization and slavery in West-Central Africa" to Slavery in Spain and Slavery in Portugal.

Lunaroxas (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

No, it just needs to be a lot more concise. There is a lot of material throughout the article that can be thinned out as inappropriate for a high level article. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The article would be a lot shorter if the quality of the writing were improved. For instance, the first paragraph of the lead is full of multiple instances of tautology. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Other problems with the article:
Much of it reads like a random collection of points about the subject. Therefore, in parts, it lacks narrative flow.
It tries to go into too much detail on some subjects. This is surely a relatively high-level article. Therefore, some detail should be in spin-off articles, with only summary information here.
I will add other problems as I encounter them, unless they require a specific section here. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 11:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request for Brazil to be added to the sentence, "Portugal, Britain, Spain, France, the Netherlands, the United States, and Denmark", please. ~2026-14742-78 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. InfernoHues (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The reliable sources are on the article. ~2026-15009-97 (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Responded on my user talk. InfernoHues (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This ip editor has a point, though. The recent thinking of, for instance, David Eltis is that the majority of slave voyages actually originated in the Americas. It is an outdated view that the trade was dominated by Europeans. Instead, it was dominated by colonies owned by Europeans. This is particularly the case with Brazil. This is one of the central points of Eltis, David (2025). Atlantic cataclysm: rethinking the Atlantic slave trades. Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-009-51897-0.. To pick one point where the importance of Brazil-originating voyages is discussed, page 68, we have reference 67, which takes us to , which is one element of the calculations in the text that shows the volume of these New-World-originating voyages. The 1999 reference, which supports the current text, is a quarter of a century out of date.

If a leading slavery scholar has gone to the trouble of writing a book that points out, among other things, that more slave voyages originated in the Americas, it is surely appropriate that this article stays up to date on the research and mentions this. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't really know much about the topic. I rejected the edit request because no sources were provided, which you can also see in the continued discussion on my talk page. Of course, if the article is out of date it should be updated. InfernoHues (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I have made a very modest start on updating/correcting the article. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request for where it says "enslaved African people to the Americas" to be changed to "enslaved African people to the Americas during the early modern period", please. ~2026-30838-93 (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done The time period is given in the next sentence, so this would be kind of redundant. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I have deleted As the European slave trade grew more profitable, the demand for slaves increased, which affected African coastal societies in the following ways: "Commerce with the world outside Africa changed from overland to sea and coastal villages whose main trades had been fishing and salt production became ports and trading posts". The trans-Atlantic slave trade resulted in the colonization of Africa. Colonization in Africa continues to have negative effects as some traditional African cultures are erased, along with traditional languages and traditional African religions. After the trans-Atlantic slave trade had ceased, European colonial powers fought over the land and resources in Africa. because:

1. This is completely unreferenced.
2. My understanding is that the profitability of the slave trade was not high and was certainly uncertain. Hence the greater need for an RS on this. I do have a source that states "that the slave trade does not appear any more profitable than other branches of long-distance trade." (Eltis, David. Atlantic Cataclysm: Rethinking the Atlantic Slave Trades (p. 225).)
3. Similarly, the effect of the transatlantic slave trade on Africa's economy is also questioned by Eltis: pg 360 gives a summary of his views. With that in mind, it seems reasonable to delete this part as well.
4. Beyond a few coastal trading posts, colonisation in Africa started more from the attempts to stop the transatlantic slave trade. If the traditional cultures that were erased including enslaving millions of people and selling them to Europeans, I do not see how that is a negative effect.
5. Exactly which wars are thought of as being between European powers over land in Africa. We have the Boer War and the extension of the First World War. The way this is stated suggests that these wars were caused by the cessation of the transatlantic slave trade. If the intent is to say something else, what exactly?

If you think I have missed any merit in the deleted text, please explain what that is here. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

Regarding number 4, "Beyond a few coastal trading posts, colonisation in Africa started more from the attempts to stop the transatlantic slave trade", colonization of Africa began in the 15th century around the time of the Atlantic Slave trade to take lands from Indigenous Africans because they were not Christian. For example, the number of papal bulls passed by Catholic pope, Nicholas V, such as Dum Diversas issued June of 1452, and I'm paraphrasing, it was issued for Catholic ruling Portugal to enslaved non-Christians. Papal bull Romanus Pontifex was issued in 1455 under Pope Nicholas V, and I am copying and pasting from the Wikipedia article about this papal bull, "Another in 1455 by Nicholas V praising Catholic King Afonso V of Portugal for his battles against the Muslims, endorsing his military expeditions into Western Africa and instructing him to capture and subdue all Saracens, Turks, and other non-Christians to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery. The Church leaders argued that slavery served as a natural deterrent and Christianizing influence to "barbarous" behavior among pagans."

Then the Doctrine of Discovery was issued in 1493 by Pope Alexander VI that was used a justification to take lands from Native Americans and enslave Native Americans and Africans because they were not Christian.

Inter Caetera was issued in 1493 under Pope Alexander VI. I am copying and pasting from the source: "Pope Alexander VI issues a papal bull or decree, “Inter Caetera," in which he authorizes Spain and Portugal to colonize the Americas and its Native peoples as subjects. The decree asserts the rights of Spain and Portugal to colonize, convert, and enslave. It also justifies the enslavement of Africans." (Source - https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/171.html)

So how did the slave trade stop colonization in Africa when Catholic Popes in the 15th century passed papal bulls to support Spain and Portugal to colonize Africa and the Americas.

Regarding number 5, "Exactly which wars are thought of as being between European powers over land in Africa. We have the Boer War and the extension of the First World War. The way this is stated suggests that these wars were caused by the cessation of the transatlantic slave trade. If the intent is to say something else, what exactly?" It was called the Scramble for Africa beginning in the 1870s, when 7 European Nations competed over land and natural resources in Africa. (Source - https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zrfjqfr#zqssf82) Hoodoowoman (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I am thinking of colonisation in terms of, to use a military phrase, boots on the ground. Colonisation to any meaningful degree was not possible until antimalarials were available. This was substantially after the end of the transatlantic slave trade. Any earlier action was limited because of the lack of resistance of Europeans to tropical diseases, even if there had been an ambition to do more. The Papal Bulls have little relevance to any colonisation at a scale beyond setting up trading posts. The colony at Freetown was a direct response to the slave trade by those who were opposed to it.

There was little fighting between European powers in the scramble for Africa.

Regardless of what you or I think of this text, it is completely unreferenced. Some of the deleted text is specifically contradicted by references that are available. In an overlong article, I don't see what place it has here. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I do agree the article needs to be shortened. Also, according to other sources and recent research the profitability of the slave trade was high. American slaveholders needed enslaved laborers for the cotton and sugar fields, and slave traders profited from the slave trade be selling enslaved trafficked Africans at ship docks. And some European nations created slave trading companies. Here are recent sources

1. Europe's Role in the Reemergence of Slavery - https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/europes-role-reemergence-slavery

2. Revisiting the Profitability of Slavery: Slave Hiring Rates and the Return on Investments in Slaves in the Antebellum US South - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369348128_Revisiting_the_Profitability_of_Slavery_Slave_Hiring_Rates_and_the_Return_on_Investments_in_Slaves_in_the_Antebellum_US_South

3. Slavery and Anglo-American capitalism revisited- https://economics.stanford.edu/sites/economics/files/ehr12962.pdf

4. Slavery, economic development in the Atlantic economy, and the Great Divergence - https://www.gu.se/en/research/slavery-economic-development-in-the-atlantic-economy-and-the-great-divergence

Again, the article needs to be shortened, and I am not suggesting for the return of deleted content because the article is too long. I'm just responding to the numbered list you wrote

I'm sorry if I was not clear, there were no wars in Europe during the scramble for Africa, just the political climate was intense between nations as they debated over land in Africa. Source - https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Oxford_Handbook_of_Dewey/4F-pDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Did+European+nations+fight+inside+the+interior+of+Africa+during+the+scramble+for+Africa&pg=PA261&printsec=frontcover Hoodoowoman (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Just a quick answer on the profitability of the transatlantic slave trade. The reference you give under (2) is about the rental rates for slaves in the Southern States of the USA. This is (a) nothing to do with the transatlantic slave trade and (b) is more of a measure of the capital value of a slave.
I have already given you Eltis as a reference on the unspectacular profitability of the trade. Another is Klein, Herbert S.. The Atlantic Slave Trade (New Approaches to the Americas) (p. 102) One point from the remarks of these two historians is that the trade goods that a slaver had to carry to Africa cost substantially more than the value of the ship. That, and the astute bargaining by those who had slaves to sell, meant there was every potential for making a loss on a voyage.

The reference under (3) does not really address the slave trade: it is about slavery in the American South. Even if it discussed the slave trade to that region, it is actually a small part of the overall trade out of Africa and, as such, is atypical of the larger part of the trade.

The reference under (4) appears to be inaccessible in anything other than summary form, which says little.

Generally, the article needs a substantial cleanup. At present, it contains duplicated facts, self-contradictory facts, material that is questionable in a high-level article, and I have just removed a reference that has every appearance of not being an RS. And I have done precious little work on it so far. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 23:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I have put a disputed tag on ...millions more in seasoning camps in the Caribbean after arrival in the New World.... The belief that there was a high death rate in seasoning camps is specifically challenged in
Klein, Herbert Sanford (2010). The Atlantic slave trade (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge university press. ISBN 978-0-521-76630-2. page 160
This fact is not questioned in passing, but is specifically addressed as being without basis. After explaining that it was suggested by another historian without any evidence, he then discusses logical reasons why a high death rate is unbelievable, Klein sums up with

"...to date, there is no documentary basis upon which to make these claims and much evidence to suggest that these high mortality estimates are impossible to sustain."

Klein is a mainstream historian with a good reputation (). Furthermore, many sources suggest that seasoning did not happen in specific camps, but was really just a conceptual term for the early phase of an enslaved person getting used to the work. I appreciate that you have citations in the article section on seasoning, but I have not been able to track those references back to hard data on exactly what happened (a process that I presume Klein also carried out, probably much more diligently than me). Unless someone can categorically refute Klein's position with absolutely solid academic evidence, I think we have to take what he says as correct and delete any mention of a high death rate during the seasoning process. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 12:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps what needs addressing first is the section Atlantic slave trade#Seasoning camps - the words that you've tagged in the lead do fairly summarise that part of the article body as it now stands. That section relies mostly on Melzer's Slavery: A World History (1993); is that the historian discussed by Klein? We also cite Kiple, The Caribbean Slave: A Biological History (2002) but seemingly only for the prevalence of dysentry rather than the absolute numbers. We don't cite the American Freedmen's Inquiry Commission report (1864) for absolute numbers (and need to use it with caution per WP:PRIMARY, WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP). We cite the International Slavery Museum in Liverpool for "two or three years"; however careful the museum's been in preparing their text, they don't actually cite sources or qualify under WP:SCHOLARSHIP themselves. We seem to be relying most on Melzer and Kiple for the figures in our Seasoning (slavery) article too.

I do also wonder how scholars have responded to Klein since 2010. NebY (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I had spotted the section on seasoning camps, and the remarks are equally relevant there. Klein does not name the originating historian who he is criticising, but this seems to be from before Kiple and Melser. I can only access a preview of Kiple, but none of that states where he has hard data of the death rate in seasoning camps. Kiple seems to focus on the diseases that may be involved, but what I can read is based on theory rather than actual numbers. (All through this, I also have the concern that not every part of the slave trade worked in the same way, so Caribbean seasoning of slaves ultimately sold to the USA would have little relevance to an enslaved person who arrives in Brazil and is put straight to work.)

My core question is: what hard evidence of an elevated death rate is presented by Melzer and Kiple? (i.e. what are their sources and what do those sources say?) If there is no rigorous demographic evidence, then Klein's position becomes a lot more relevant. At a minimum, the article should say that a high death rate in seasoning camps is questioned by other historians. We should also make clear that not every slave was processed through a seasoning camp. My impression is that this was the rarer situation.

To answer the last point, so far I have not been able to detect anyone challenging Klein's remarks about the correct death rate in seasoning camps. His book is, however, very well cited and has received favourable reviews. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 16:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I found 2 sources that state millions died in seasoning camps, but they don't provide where they got those numbers from and how the research was collected to come up with that number. The sources do not provide primary sources. So the exact number of how many people died in seasoning camps is not known. Here are the sources

1. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/cfi-subm/cerd-gr-reparations/subm-invitation-feedback-cso-23-perman-pfad-wcg-wcg.pdf

2. https://aaregistry.org/story/the-middle-passage-a-story/

Also here are some other scholarly sources about seasoning camps.

1. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-african-cultural-heritage-in-north-america/chpt/seasoning#_

2. https://www.google.com/books/edition/International_Law_and_Transnational_Orga/j5bSDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=seasoning - this one was published by Oxford University Press in 2016

3. https://exhibits.lib.unc.edu/exhibits/show/onthemove/intro/transatlantic-slave-trade

4. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hGq8EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=seasoning+slaves+transatlantic+slave+trade&ots=GhHtikRDOY&sig=7bCAaJm4nSaPdSaHLPE9VrlJ5gY#v=onepage&q&f=false - seasoning of an enslaved man is mentioned on page 1, this source was published by Yale University in 2023 Hoodoowoman (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this is the problem with trying to refute Klein: you need an academic historian who takes the matter back to good demographic statistics. Since this is essentially the point that Klein makes, any such data would post-date the second edition of his book. The more time passes since then without a specific academic refutation of Klein, the more we have to consider that he is right to say that the stated mortality is unsupported by any demographic data.

Do you have full access to Kiple? Do any of his works use or cite the raw demographic data that Klein states is not available?

As a comment of my own, an elevated death rate of 25% in seasoning camps or in the process of seasoning may not be that easy to detect if the life expectancy of an enslaved person working on a sugar plantation is 7 years. You would need good quality information to show the statistical difference between the mortality for a slave in seasoning and one who had finished that process.

And I still suggest that seasoning camps were the rarer situation, perhaps more relevant with enslaved people who ultimately ended up in the United States (who, as we know, are a clear minority among those who were taken from Africa to the Americas as a whole). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Re raw demographic data, may I digress a moment? I've read far more about slavery in the Roman Empire than I have about the Atlantic slave trade. There's a woeful lack of demographic data for ancient Rome and the Empire at any level, let alone on women and slaves - and yes, it's even worse for women slaves - but we dearly want estimates to understand the economy and many other social aspects, as well as enslavement itself. So it's very healthy that more than one scholar works on the chains of reasoning from carefully gleaned fragmentary data, and that they publish their disagreements; Scheidel's the more credible for having faced Harris's challenges and alternatives. So I'm prepared to accept that the enslavers may not have left us good data about the Atlantic slave trade and that scholars have to work hard to deduce estimates instead. But yes, I rather want to see that such work has been done and has been critically examined so that we can confidently present those estimates here.

Sadly, the sources Hoodoowoman provides above - and thank you for those - do indicate that "seasoning" was a term used then and remains a useful and valid term when describing a period of adjustment and when describing a deliberate process, but don't indicate what scholarship has produced sound estimates. NebY (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't dispute that "seasoning" is a term used by slave holders and merchants, nor that there were some specific seasoning camps. The question is whether or not the belief that there were high death rates during seasoning can be substantiated by solid demographic evidence. The transatlantic slave trade is unique among all the many other slave trades in that a large amount of information was written down about it. The slavevoyages.org database is an amazing collection of information from shipping and other records that holds more information than it has missed (by a substantial margin), in some aspects it is probably a complete record. The slave registers of British colonies in the Caribbean are detailed censuses. Even the sparser records from Brazil tell us a great deal. What historians have failed to do is fully capitalise on this new wealth of information.

Seeing Klein's arguments on this in more detail (pg 175-177), he explains how an understandable misunderstanding of how population growth works has fostered a belief that slaves had a life expectancy of 7 years. (You will note that I have fallen into this trap in my comments above.) Negative population growth among the enslaved was historically put down to excess mortality. Proper demographic study shows that it was due to the high proportion of males in the population, coupled with extended lactation (by European standards) in most slave populations. The latter produces a lower birth rate, which, when added to the shortage of women in the population, means that the population numbers would fall without a high death rate. It is just mathematics.

Klein does not say that high seasoning death rates did not happen; he just says there is no evidence that they happened and provides circumstantial evidence that they did not occur. Again, no academic has refuted this point by providing solid evidence. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I was quite ignorant of the volume of data. I should try to read Klein, but all in all, you've quite convinced me. NebY (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. slavevoyages.org is an amazing and completely free resource, with a mixture of data and interpretative essays. (It identifies, for instance, the 64 slave ships that sailed from Whitehaven, with the names of their captains and investors, and in all probability that is all such ships that sailed from this port.) One of the primary originators of that database is David Eltis, who sums up all his knowledge on the subject at the end of his career with Eltis, David (2025). Atlantic cataclysm: rethinking the Atlantic slave trades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781009518963.. Whilst both Klein and Eltis could possibly be accused of being revisionist, both are based on solid data and, I suspect, will become mainstream in a few years. Klein is a bit more readable (but it's a close run thing), but Eltis has just won the top prize at the Association of American Publishers. And they don't agree with each other on everything. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarity, as I mentioned above sources do not provide mathematical data for the high percentage rates of deaths. And Klein's book is on google books and the pages 175-178, I read them. Hoodoowoman (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I have deleted the mention of "high death rates" from the lead. I am thinking further on the section on seasoning camps, especially the extent to which it is supported by the references given. The cited references I have studied discuss "seasoning" as a concept, rather than specific seasoning camps. At a minimum, it seems to be a somewhat confused description of the subject.ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

(1) For a historical subject, references should generally comply with WP:HISTRS or certainly with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I have already deleted a few, and that is after only sampling a small part of the article.

(2) I question the quality of some museum websites as sources. Whilst some museums take care to produce carefully researched material, it is very rare for them to state their sources. Therefore they struggle to meet the standards of the two criteria listed above. Within the broader subject of history there are several instances of museums putting out material that contradicts the work of published academic historians. Murray Pittock even goes so far as to criticise one museum central to one of his specialist topics in his book on Culloden, and 10 years later the Culloden Visitor Centre still has not corrected the error.

That takes us into material from museums like the International Slavery Museum. Whilst this museum has an outstanding reputation, my inclination would be to always seek to confirm their material from academic sources. That should be possible, and if it is not, it rather highlights the problem of using museum websites and labelling as a source. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:13, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I have put a disputed tag on Stannard's claim that 60 million people died in the transatlantic slave trade. Stannard is outside the thinking of other historians on this by a substantial distance. He is also writing before the extensive research on the demographics of the slave trade, as summed up by the slavevoyages.com website – so one could simply (and perhaps more fairly) characterise this as a dated reference which has been superseded by later work.

Without a good case for including Stannard's number, this should really be deleted. (Though it could be illustrative in explaining how the historiography of the subject has come up with wildly varying numbers – but the article does not currently have a historiography section and it would be wrong, in an over-long article, to add one.) ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The article states in the lead Current estimates are that about 12 million to 12.8 million Africans were shipped across the Atlantic over a span of 400 years. The number purchased by the traders was considerably higher, as the passage had a high death rate, with between 1.2 and 2.4 million dying during the voyage.

So the article is saying that the numbers embarked in Africa are (using the lower numbers in each case)
12 + 1.2 = 13.2 million
or with the higher numbers,
12.8 + 2.4 = 15.2 million

The cited sources for the first component of this information are:
a 1995 book citing a 1989 source (so predating slavevoyages.org)
a 2014 book by a journalist and minor historian (by "minor" I mean not professor of a major university or heading a significant research project)
a blog about Bristol.
None have clear outstanding quality as a source and at least one fails the basic test of WP:RS

The cited sources for the deaths whilst crossing the Atlantic are different, which is probably part of the problem.

What is a good source for the best estimates of those embarked and disembarked? slavevoyages.org is the definitive database. David Eltis, as one of the originators of that database, is probably as well placed as anyone to interpret it.

Using Atlantic Cataclysm, by David Eltis (2025) as a source, we get estimates as follows:
Embarked in Africa: Eltis repeatedly refers to the 12.75 million people carried off from Africa (or similar phraseology with the same number). You see this, for instance on pages 42, 45, 124, 208, 217, 245, and 363.
For deaths on passage, Eltis gives the following estimate: almost 2 million Africans died at sea (p.2)
He discusses mortality in some detail, so I will not summarise it here, but it is interesting that the male death rate is notably higher than for women or children.

Using Eltis's 2025 figures, we have:
Africans embarked in Africa: 12.75 million
Africans disembarked in the Americas: at least 10.75 million.

I see no reason why the article should not be altered in line with the numbers given immediately above. Without reasons for not doing this, I will make this alteration in the next few days. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The article currently says Slavery in Africa was not heritable—that is, the children of slaves were free.... This does not fit with Whyte, Christine (21 August 2024). "Child Slavery in Africa". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History (1 ed.). Oxford University PressNew York, NY. ISBN 978-0-19-785172-2., which explains that usually slavery was inherited in Africa, but the rules under which this happened were much more variable. For instance, the status of the mother was key to the status of the child, in other instances it was the father's status that counted.

I have therefore tagged this part of the text with an inline disputed template. I see no option but to remove the erroneous text, which I will do in the next few days if there is no comment here. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 11:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)