Talk:Sri Lankan place name etymology

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

copied from above wrt content of this work

What a joke. Here is my whole point in a sentence. The given citation does not back the claim. I just read the whole book and in the whole book the claims that are made on this article are not covered and backed. Furthermore, I have citation that gives contrary claims to what is written in the specific section of the article. Which means that the disputed claim is not backed and therefore is false claim. So it is my claim that the citation is falsely used to cite false claim and that the views presented, and cited, are not the ones that reflect the view expressed by the authors of the citations. Now it the ball lies in your court to try to prove me wrong! Watchdogb (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, why don't you substitute the present claims with the other claims you found, including page number. Then people who have read the book (not me) and disagree can provide other citations to the contrary, if there are any. Go ahead Jasy jatere (talk)

I choose to only oppose the claims that are supposedly taken out of the whole book because the whole book does not back up this claim. Watchdogb (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But there might be other stuff in the book which might be worthwhile to include. Something must be in thereJasy jatere (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am still looking to see the if this article can be used in wikipedia at all. Apparently this has not bee published and WP:RS demands (in bold :) ) that the sources must be published. Watchdogb (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the relevant section scholarship but obviously Indrapala is an acredited scholar and a historian his Phd thesis will pass RS requirement (borderline) but what we need is that we should be able to verify from page numbers as to what the claims for facts are. Taprobanus (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

After research I figured that this source is WP:RS. We, however, need to verify because the whole book does not support claims made in this article. Watchdogb (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification: do you have the book or just the summary from the website? The website summary might not be adequate, I fear Jasy jatere (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PhD theses should pass RS without problem, nothing with borderline. But university should be checked for partisanship. A PhD thesis is compiled over several years and read by a qualified scientific committee, which only accepts the thesis if it is according to scientific practice. This is a much stronger validation than normal peer review. PhD theses are not always published, but you can normally write to the university and ask for a copy/photocopies, so it is available for verification. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there is no such copies available, it was lost. So all what we have is snipets from non reliable websites that have a POV which we now have to belive are really what the original thesis was ? How can we ? Taprobanus (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean, apparently? Jasy jatere (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) If no such copy is available, we are not able to say anything about this work, and hence we should remove it from the list of references. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If the thesis is lost, then the currently archived versions on racist websites are not WP:RS. I agree with Jasy Watchdogb (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Watchdog, I would call the POV websites notracist, just my opinion but indeed it is a loss because the work cannot be verified. I will post the relevent citations for it being lots then we can close it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved from the bottom of this page

The British Library claims to have a copy of Indrapala's thesis in its Document Supply Collection, as anyone can verify by searching for "Indrapala" in their online catalogue. My next trip there won't be for some months yet, but basically, anyone should be quite easily able to verify what the book says. Note, though, that Indrapala (2007) retracts much of what the thesis said, on the basis that our knowledge of Sri Lanka has moved on. -- Arvind (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This confirms the availabiltity information I too mentioned. But it is also correct, as Taprobanus and others pointed out, that several publicly available documents in several pIaces are missing. I have also looked through most writings of Indrapala. It is not clear that Indrapala has retracted anything in his 2006 book, The evolutiuon of an ethnic identity (please give some specific differences relavant to the place-names issue). In regarding Place names Indrapala (1966 and 2006) is in agrrement with Gnanaprakasar, Vellupillai, Lewis, Horsburgh etc. Also, Indrapala's "Dravidian Settlements ...(1966)" is in agreement with the more brief discussion in The University of Ceylon History of Ceylon, Edited by Profs H. C. Ray, C. Nicholas, S. Natesan and S. Paranavithana (1959)p50 et sec.. I do not know of a 2007 book by Indrapala, and I assume Vadakkan-Aravind means the 2006 book. Also, when the details are looked at, that no substantial change has been made is mentioned by other historians (e.g., Michael Roberts), except for megalithic civilizations which were not covered in the 1966 work. Since we are trying to resolve place-names/etymology issues, any specific differences/retractions relating to place names would be interesting. I think there are noi retractions regarding place names.Bodhi dhana (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There are three printings of Indrapala's Evolution of an ethnic identity - (a) in 2005, by M.V. Publications for the South Asian Studies Centre, (b) in 2006, by Kumaran Book House (c) in 2007, by Vijitha Yapa. Between these three, it's also gone through two editions. My impression is that (b) is the first impression of the 2nd edition, with (c) being a reprint, but it may well be that (b) is a reprint of (a), and (c) is the first printing of the 2nd edition. I've not had sight of a copy of (b), so I don't know. I also don't know how substantive the changes between the 1st and 2nd editions are, as I've not bothered to compare them. Anyway, what this means is that we need to be sure we're using the same edition of the book - and it seems to me that the newest version - i.e., (c) - is the best one to use.

As far as retractions go, whilst he does not address place names specifically, there is an express statement in the preface that he now views his dissertation as being completely outdated, and that his views have changed a good bit. As far as I can remember, he does not qualify that view with reference to place names - and, in point of fact, I seem to remember him now claiming that some names recorded in Pali texts possibly indicate a Dravidian influence (which quite contradicts his thesis). My copy of the book is in India, so I fear I can't supply an exact quote, but perhaps someone else who has it can? -- Arvind (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments below, under Indrapala(2007)Bodhi dhana (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Indrapala's thesis is now available as a free download from the British Library, through their Electronic Thesis Online Service. You will have to register, but a key principle of EThOS is that access to research must be open - i.e., free at the point of delivery - so you will be able to download the thesis without charge. --Arvind (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Clearly a RS source that is self published by an individual who has standing as a historian Taprobanus (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not self-published. Kumaran Book House isn't a vanity press, it's one of the better ones of the Tamil houses that has a presence on both sides of the Strait. Their standard in relation to their Tamil academic publications tends to be quite good, their English non-fiction is a little more spotty. Basically, I'd say stuff they publish has the same value as non-fiction published by a second-tier popular publishing house in the West - that is to say, a few notches above self-published works, but well below works published by one of the reputed academic publishers. -- Arvind (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See also note above on the multiple editions of this book - we need to make sure we're referring to the same edition so we can stay on the same page. -- Arvind (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The 2006 Edition(Kumaran, Chennai) is the second edition done in 2006. The Vijitha Yapa print is a Colombo reprint which is cheaper to purchase, but no new material in it (it is not a third edition). Even the second edition mainly differs in having an appendix and some plates. So there is no major difficulty. The Forward to the first edition indeed goes on to say "that dissertation is now completely out of date ... the work of a whole new generation of Sri Lankan scholars has not only helped to unearth much evidence relating to prehistory and protohistory, but has also ..." etc. Thus, as remarked before in these discussion pages. much of the new book deals with Megalithic history etc. Here we are mainly concerned with place names, and these were addressed in the thesis using material which has not changed. On pager 375 of the 2006 edition/2007 reprint, footnote 359 deals with a place name not dealt with before. But we already discussed this in the material that was archived by User:Sebastian Helm. There the claim that the word Malaya (or malé) which occurs in place names was suggested to be possibly of Dravidian origin. However, the word malé occurs in 3rd century BCE Sinhala place names (e.g., Kothmalé, Dudugamunu story, Pali attakatha, etc) and also in Pali and Sanskrit ( even dictionaries show ) that the word Mlechccha for "barbarian hill tribes" indicate transfer of the applelation to designate "hill country" as well. So the Dravidian languages, and also Sinhala, may have got it from Pali and Sanskrit. This does not have much bearing on the reference to many hundreds of place-name origins mentioned in the 1965 thesis, in agreement with the analyses in Casie-Chetti(8134 Ceylon Gazteer), Vellupillai, Gananaprakasar, Horsburg, C. S. Lewis, Rasanayagam, Thaambimuttu, Paranavithana and many other writers (we can provide suitable qotes from many of these authors). Thus I see the new book by Indrapala as being entirely consistent with his 1965 thesis except for the prot- and pre-historic periods where new material is treated. This is also affirmed by the quote in Michael Robert's article that I used in the earlier (Feb 2008) version of this Wiki article.Bodhi dhana (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about the editions - that is more or less what I thought, as I said above, but I wasn't wholly sure.

Now, on Indrapala, a few points:

• I seem to remember Indrapala discussing both "malaya" and "pattana" as being possibly of Dravidian origin. Is my memory letting me down? Perhaps you could quote the relevant excerpt from p. 375?
• There are reliable etymological sources (viz. Burrow & Emeneau's Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, which treat both "malai" and "pattana" as being derived from Dravidian roots. Obviously, whether the words come to Sinhala directly from a Dravidian tongue or whether they come to Sinhala through Pali, or for that matter whether they are Dravidian at all, is something that can be debated, but it's not something we can decide. We go by what reliable sources say, not by whether we think the sources are right or wrong, and where reliable sources differ, we simply report that disagreement.
• Indrapala's statement in the 2nd edition of his book (thank you for the quote, by the way) is pretty unequivocal. He doesn't qualify it by saying that "that dissertation is now completely out of date, except for the bits dealing with place-names" - I don't see how we can read a statement that he regards his past work as being "completely" out of date as meaning "completely, except for bits a, b and c".
• That having been said, Indrapala's view that his earlier work is now out of date is simply his view. If other scholarly sources regard it as still being valid, notwithstanding Indrapala's own retraction, then we can say that. I'm not sure Roberts' piece (you're talking about his Narrating Tamil Nationalism at pp. 103-4, right?) quite does that, but that's a separate issue, which we can get to once we've reached agreement on which sources are reliable and which are not. -- Arvind (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If Indrapala 1965 was out of date, there should be new research with supersedes his thesis. Since we are not aware of any substantial new material regarding etymology, we must conclude that this section is not outdated. As a comparison, a certain book on Guarani grammar from 1967 is surely outdated (and often wrong as far as I am concerned), but continues to be used in scientific work simply because no better material is available. We should do the same with Indrapala 1965. Use all etymological material we can get from there unless subsequent research has proven it wrong. There is no "best before" date for theses, they stand until they are refuted.Jasy jatere (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I realise that theses don't have "best before" dates - it's just my view that Indrapala's own disavowal of his thesis raises questions as to its reliability. But I don't feel particularly strongly about it, so I'm happy to go with the consensus here. There's not been that much unbiased research on place-name etymology since then, so I doubt we'll find many sources on the point. Scholarship on Dravidian linguistics has moved on a good bit since then, but it's not really been translated into fresh studies on toponomy. -- Arvind (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jasy J. What Jsay J says is the standard scholarly procedure. Also, Aravind will not be able to find a single instance where Indrapla repudates any specifics in his 1965 thesis (a point noted by Michaler Roberts the historian, and by the reviewers of his book in the Island newspaper, sept 2007). New "interpretations" of magalithic civilizations do not change the known place names and how they evolved with time. Indrapala stated that his thesis is out of date, and updated mainly the megalithic history in a book published in Chennai and which has NOT undergone peer review since Indrapala had NOT followed the book with publications in peer-reviewd journals (where as the thesis WAS followed by articles in established academic journals). However, in spite of the somewhat lower status of the 2006 book, I think we need to include that book because Indraplala is a reputed scholar.As far as place names are concerned, his 2006 book re-affirms what he said in 1965. Anyway, his 2006 book needs to be used only where necessary for place names. This reference in a foot note on p375, on just one place name (Male being claimed to be being Dravidian, he does NOT claim Pattana tro be Dravidian) is seen to be incorrect from any Dictionary. We discussed all this once before, when Sebastian Helm was involved in these discussions; and Aravind has to just return to those discussions instead of asking for a repeat of them and rasing them again and again. Even if the p375 quote is valid, we don't need it as there are thousands of place names mentioned in the other works (Indrapala 1965, Tambimuttu, Horsbutg, Gnanaprakasar, Veupillai, Rasanayagam, Casir-chetty, Devendra, Paul E peiris, Dutch VOC maps, adminstrative records of British civil servants etc.) where there is good agreement about most palce names. AlSo let us NOT waste time and stick to the well established ones. Unlike in other areas of historical reaserch, in place-names work, old records are more valuable than new writings as old records tell what the old names were. Let me suumarize the issues, come to a conclusion and move on:

• The place-name discussion of 1965 has NOT been repudiated by Indrapala;
• The 1965 discussion has NOT been repudiated by any other scholar either.
• The 1965 discussion agrees with previous discussions by Casie-chetty, Vellupillai, C. S. Lewis, Horsburgh, Gnanaprakasar, Rasanayagam, Dutch VOC maps etc., British writngs, and views of modern commentators like Prof. Michael Roberts.
• The place-names article does not depend purely Indrapala as he is only just one source from the corpus of sources and pineering studies(CSPS).Bodhi dhana (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, enough talking, let's start writing and see where that takes us. -- Arvind (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should still be able to use the following, The earliest known Dravidian language element in place names used was during the earliest Historic period in Pali chronicles in which the Central mountainous region was named as Malaya which means a mountain in Tamil as well as Pattana derived from Dravidian word for a coastal city appended for two major ports in the north of the island namely Jambukola-pattana and Gonagamaka-pattana. ref Indrapala, K The evolution of an ethnic identity…, p.375 ref * Indrapala, K (2007). The evolution of an ethnic identity: The Tamils in Sri Lanka C. 300 BCE to C. 1200 CE. Colombo:Vijitha Yapa. ISBN 978-955-1266-72-1. also about Pattana see this and Franklin C. Southworth in Reconstruction of South Asian languages page 223 mentions that Pattana is a lexical borrowing from Dravidian into Indo-Aryan.Taprobanus (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Taprobanus. I was sure I remembered a reference to Pattana in Indrapala. Is that an exact quote?

In addition, the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, too, takes the view that both both "malai" and "pattana" have Dravidian roots, as opposed to Indo-Aryan roots. I've looked through the discussion in the archives, and all I see there is Bodhi Dhana arguing that Burrow and Emeneau were wrong. Well, if reliable sources say that they were wrong, I suppose we could say there's a difference of opinion on the provenance of these two words. But we can't discount the DED simply because we think its authors may have been wrong. -- Arvind (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Indrapala does NOT say that Pattiana is of Dravidian origin. He says is that "the suffix -pattana occurs in some ancient ports in south India, and that the word pattinnam is a word found in Sangam poems with the meaning of coastal town ..". Patttana is a word for which Emerson Tennent in 1856 had devoted almost half a chapter, and so I am sure Indrapala knows better than to claim that "pattana" is Dravidian. Ancient ports in south India have, and have had, many names from Sanskrit languages. Only the word malay has been claimed by Indrapala as being of Dravidian origin, but the opposite is clear from other standard dictionaries, and from Borrow and E themselves, from the links kindly supplied by Aravind for the B&E dictionary. The links given by Vadakkan|aravind http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:2160.burrow malai, and for Pattinnam prove that these words are IN the Dravidian languages, and are essentially on the same footing. The entry does NOT claim exclusive origin, or even mere origin, or attempt to develop the philological evolution. Thus we see that B & E have NOT claimed these words as being from exclusive Dravidian roots, but they have simply included them in their dictionary. That proves that Malai, pattinnam and their cognates are valid words in Tamil and other Dravidian languages, but nothing more. So Borrow and Emeneau have not erred. Now Aravind should also look at the Sanskrit/Pali dictionaries (I had already given links. But he clearly does not need my help here). These on-line dictionaries gives quotes to the the Rig Veda or the Pali canon for these words. The majority scholarly view is that the Rig Veda Sanskrit is older than either Tamil or Sinhala or even Pali. Our job is NOT trying to settle the etymology, but to report what has been said by different experts. Then we can get to editing the article proper instead of endless discussion.Bodhi dhana (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Taprobanus also reads Indrapala as suggesting that pattana is of Dravidian origin. Perhaps we should type up the exact wording and ask a third party, such as Jasy Jatere, to take a view on what Indrapala is really saying? Since I don't have the book at hand, I'd be grateful if either you or Taprobanus could do this.

You're quite wrong as far as the significance of the inclusion of "pattana" and "malai" in the DED is concerned. Burrow and Emeneau make it quite clear in the print edition of the DED that they have not included words which are thought to be Dravidian borrowings from Indo-Aryan languages, and have only included words that they believe have native Dravidian roots, as you will see if you take a look at pages xvii - xviii of the introduction in the print version (unfortunately, the online version does not include the front matter). So if a word is in the DED, it means that Burrow and Emeneau think it is derived exclusively from a Dravidian root and was borrowed into the Indo-Aryan languages, or that such derivation is a definite possibility which cannot be ruled out. The only borrowings included are ancient borrowings that have been "naturalised", and these are clearly marked as such - see the entry on arasan for an example. So, to sum up, the DED clearly takes the view that both pattinam and malai are from native Dravidian roots, and to the extent they are present in Indo-Aryan languages, representing borrowings by those languages. The fact that the words are in the Rgveda doesn't make a difference - Rgvedic Sanskrit is believed by the majority of scholars to have a number of words that have Dravidian roots (and, presumably, were borrowed from a Dravidian language). But all this is a digression - the only relevance is to show that the people who take the view that place names ending in -pattana in Sri Lanka have a Dravidian element aren't talking rot - there are serious scholars who take the view that the word is Dravidian in origin. -- Arvind (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We are here to create a encylopedia using reliable sources not do our own original research. If Bodhi has his own point of view about Pattana, then he can take it to his grave about it but that does not mean the rest of the world is going to change their point of view. I had shown more than Indrapala who says that Pattana is of Dravidian origin derived originally from Patti a cow shed in most Dravidian languages. Including languages that did not come in contact with Indo Aryan untill modern times. The best source is The reconstruction of Prehistoric South Asian Language Contact by Franklin Southworthp.223. Does Bodhi think that he has his own sources that contradict such eminent true accredited scholars ? Hardly, it is his own arguments which are his own research. We should no longer respond to wikipedia policy violation such as WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:POINT and move on and I consider this beating a dead horse. Taprobanus (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Taprobanus has to read a little more of Southworth's work before he jumps to conclusions. Southwork would not claim such definiteness as what Taprobanus so categorically presents. For example, South-Asian Residual Vocabulary project (SARVA) is led by Southwork. In this project one assembles words of controversial or unknown origin which are under discussion. The item number 8014 is indeed as follows:

Item 8014 *paṣṭāna— ‘Afghan’. [← Ir. cf. Psht. paštūn, pl. °tānƏ < *pr̥ṣṭāna— ‘hill people’ EVP 61] K. paṭhān m., °ṭhöñü f. ‘Pathan’, S. paṭhāṇu m., P. paṭhāṇ m., N. paṭhān, A. B. pāṭhān, Or. paṭhāṇa, H. paṭhān m., G. M. paṭhāṇ m.

This word is nothing but our word under review! Indrapala ascribes "coastal town" to it. Taprobanus ascribes "cow shed"-something different to indrapala, while Turner relates it to hill country plains - but we know how they all relate. However, let us stay on focus. In this exercise what we are reviewing (NOT researching) is Indrapala's discussion on footnote 359 of his book which says "Some of the early geographical names in the Pali chronicals also seem to indicate the influence of Dravidain Languages ..." Thus it is in reference to what was written in the 5th century CE in the Pali chronicles, in regarded place-names like Jamukolapattana and malaya. These chronologize to 2 century BCE. By that time both Rigveda and the Pali cannon had acquired these words many centuries earlier, and so had Sinhala and also nascent sangam Tamil. If some proto-dravidian form had given the word pattanam to OIA (old-indo-aryan, the abbriviation used by Southworth), or if it had come from something even earlier etc., is irrelavant to us. We are interested in the co-synchronus independent existence of the cognates of the words "pattana (Pattanam), malaya (malai)", in Sanskrit, Pali, Sinhala and Tamil for many centuries prior to 2nd century BCE, as attested by (i) Rigveda, (ii) Pali cannon, (iii) R. I. Turner A comparative dictionary of Indo-Aryan languages. London: Oxford University Press (1961-1985), as well as in the updated: (iv) Burrow, T. and Emeneau, M.B. A Dravidian etymological dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Clarendon Press, 1984, and the (v) on-line Pali and Sanskrit Cologne dictionaries that we had already referred to, and (vi) finally the current discussion page of the SARVA project.Thus these words, even if exclusive to some proto-language some 10 centuries before, were no longer exclusive to any of these languages by the 2nd century BCE.Bodhi dhana (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thus these words, even if exclusive to some proto-language some 10 centuries before, were no longer exclusive to any of these languages by the 2nd century BCE So that is your Original research I suppose? Good work but it does not matter when we are writing an encylopedia. Eventually what we have arrived at here is that Indrapala (2007) is a valid reference, it can be used in this article and he has not made thos arguments without proper backing for his asertion and definitely you can add what ever you want to that asertion such as what you have proposed above as long as it is not original research. The counter argument that Pali had already borrowed those words from Dravidian when it was used in Sri lanka to name places has to be properly cited and NOT synthasized from multiple unrelated sources to the subject matter at hand just like you have done above. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I will return to contributing to this discussion and to the editorial effort when I am out of hospital - hopefully soon. Perhaps Peri-Sundar can help meanwhile,; I know he has the knowledge, especially Dravidian etimologyBodhi dhana (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/road.html, with additional material infringing from this: http://www.lankalibrary.com/geo/dutch/dutch5.htm Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

As an additional note, while I have revised the material, my concern is merely addressing the copyright violation. Whether the usual editors of this article subsequently choose to alter or remove that material is, of course, up to them and consensus as it develops here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This section doesn't make sense: Wolvendahl (Vale of Wolves). The latter was known as 'Guadelupe' by the Portuguese, which the Dutch took to mean 'Agua de lupe' which they translated accordingly. "Lupe" isn't a word in Portuguese; "wolf" would be "lobo". If the Dutch had in fact translated 'Agua de lobo', they'd have ended up with something like "Wolvenwater". What they did is translate "Guadelupe" etymologically---it comes from Arabic "wadi" (valley) and Latin "lupe" (vocative case of wolf). Mbethke (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)