Talk:Meir Kahane

Talk:Meir Kahane/Archive 1 (2001 - August 2006)

Untitled

Why is he listed in the category "American Criminals"? 148.78.243.121 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes on supposed affair

It must be noted that this affair was denied and has no coroborating evidence. The only people writing about it are Rabbi Kahane's political nemesis.

It must also be noted that unlike what someone wrote below: "Since the NYT source is impeccable..."(sic) the NYT has been caught red-handed in allowing lies to fester when it is against those whose politics they dislike. References for that have been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnsquare (talk • contribs) 04:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

NYT is a good source per WP:RS. I can't see any real policy grounds for removing the section and some of the changes you've made don't really fit in with the style requirements. You could be entirely correct and it's a political concoction, I have no idea, but it meets the standards for inclusion as far as I can tell. Sol (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't read your own source WP:RS. :)

"The reliability of a source and the basis of this reliability depends on the context. No source is universally reliable. Each source must be carefully weighed in the context of an article to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source."

I didn't suggest taking away the section - is that a straw man? It is proper to note the context and the people reporting per wikis guidlines that you refered to.

If you feel something doesn't fit in the style guidelines then be specific and point out how or make it stylistically pleasing. Don't remove something because you personaly don't like it.

I did not do that and neither should you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnsquare (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a strawman. If the information were from a bad source then it should be removed. If you've got any sources talking about how the NYT's is wrong on this/made it up/etc. then you could insert them as a counterpoint but you can't editorialize within the article itself. It's not because I personally don't like. Sol (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand my point. Its not the "New York Times" but its the author that is being questioned. The point about the NYT is that they do not have a double-check but rely on the authors.

I gave a source indicating the author's bias and that is his own statement on his desire to broing Rabbi kahane down for the Rabbi's political beliefs which this author is in in disagreement with. So I am willing to hear how you would put in the very fair questionability of this source. But to ignore that totally ... wrong and unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnsquare (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Obituary makes no reference to what it is supposedly referencing which is why I'm removing it. The village voice statement has no reference either and it is being removed until reference is made.

I note that there are people here removing items from this page with no reason given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnsquare (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nosair was aquitted?

"Kahane was assassinated by El Sayyid Nosair in Manhattan in 1990 after concluding a speech in a New York hotel"

El Sayyid Nosair article states: "He was also charged by the State of New York as the gunman who killed Rabbi Meir Kahane...While acquitted of that charge Nosair was convicted of weapons charges"

Wikipedia find Nosair guilty as charged? I'm sure his lawyers will find that interesting.

Placed requests of sources on all the assertions of Nosair being convicted of murder that I noticed. The editor with such a casual disregard for the facts even had the gall to place this in the so-called encyclopedia!!! LOL -> "Nosair was acquitted of murder because no witness had actually seen him pull the trigger." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.224.251 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

One doesn't need an eye witness to find a murderer guilty of murder. He was seen immediately after firing the shot with the smoking gun, he ran away and shot some one else. The reason he was acquitted was because his liberal Jewish lawyer tricked the predominantly black jury into believing that Kahane hated blacks (which he did not). The judge rightfully criticized the not guilty verdict as being inconsistent with the evidence. (David Kessler) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.97.121 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled about this part:

"The killer was recharged, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment some years later, after the discovery of his membership in one of Sheikh Omar Abd El-Rahman's terror cells connected to Al-Qaeda in the United States."

In the first place, it is a confusion to refer to Omar abd-al-Rahman as connected to al-Qaeda. The 1992 World Trade Center bombing was a separate conspiracy from the 2001 attack. I also want to know: how was Nosair "recharged"? We are not supposed to have double jeopardy in the United States. This needs elucidation. Hadding (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits since May 1st 2007

Or there abouts. If you look at the differences, there seems to be quite a bit of difference. Can anybody look at all the changes and see what is what. I remove a little bit about Goldstein. Thanks! --Tom 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I sorry, but you forgot towrite down an Israeli and a Jewish Nazi, it is much more relevant then describing him as an activist.

To call him a Nazi is both silly and dishonest. There is no record of killing any Arabs, although he did advocate expelling them. (David Kessler) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.97.121 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

There are language issues with this article. For example referring to Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane's assassins as "terrorists" or "murderers". This was a political assassination of a leader of an extremist organization that was both banned in the US and Israel, not to mention a settler in an illegal colony.

OK, if the assassin wasn't a terrorist or murderer, what is he? Also, do folks agree that Kahane was assassinated or should it be murdered? Thanks, --Tom 17:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just because the man was murderer you can't call the responsible a terrorist. Just called it responsible/s.190.173.223.91 19:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, this was an assassination and should be called so. Kahane was a political activist, a leader of a nationalist movement, if you will. Since the nature and purpose of the killing was definitely political based on religious motives, the responsible is to be called terrorist Ehud 04:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If the supposed assassin was acquitted, he should not be described as the killer. Even in America one is presumed innocent until proven guilty - or did the "Patriot Act" do away with the presumption of innocense?

Intro.

'I edited expansions in the intro. which is not supposed to contain them. The second contains this material, which is regiven below in the appropriate section dealing wih Kahane's death. It can't stay in both places, and should not be in the intro. since that deals with Kahane not with Al Qaeda, and terrorist incidents:-

'El Sayyid Nosair later stood trial for the murder in state court and was acquitted of murder, though convicted of firearms possession. Later he faced Federal charges including Kahane's murder as part of the 1993 al Qaeda terrorist truck-bombing of the World Trade Center and plots to bomb the United Nations building and to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. He was convicted on these Federal charges and is serving a life sentence. 'Nishidani 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Former member"

I deleted the word "former" from "former member of the Israeli Knesset". He's dead, so it doesn't matter much that he's a former MK.

It was restored with the explanation that he was expelled from the Knesset before he died. I don't see how that is relevant. It doesn't make the word "former" any more useful.

Finding a concise encyclopedic way to explicitly mention that he was expelled in the opening paragraph may be useful, though. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Psudeonym"

Psudonym is a purposefully loaded word, and difficult to spell. Meir Kahane had pen names, just like Stephen King and Kurt Vonnegut and tens of thousands of other authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.146.35 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

JTF Support

I think that it is obvious, that a Kahanist group is one of his supporters. Thus it doesn't need to be placed on the Supporters list. --Doom777 (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so obvious to the non-jewish or Kahanist reader.

Please don't remove it.

Likeminas (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? While a non-Jewish or Kahanist leader won't know all Kahanist groups, if someone knows that JTF is a Kahanist group, it is obvious that they support him. Also, why single out this group, while there are many other Kahanist groups? --Doom777 (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on verifiability so if you know of any other groups that support him and can provide a source for it, please by all means, feel free to include them as well.

Nonetheless, you cannot remove sourced information on the basis that you don’t like it.

Likeminas (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Is JTF truly a kahanist organization? Are there any valid sources that prove it exists outside of its website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.93.235 (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone keeps on trying to link JTF article. What's the connection? Ideology? Link it to Kahanism, not here. --Vicky Ng (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Meir Kahane's Life as Michael King

• • • • 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)In 1971, as reported by Michael T Kaufman in The New York Times (and subsequently followed up by The Village Voice in the early 1980s), Rabbi Kahane lived a double life in the 1960s. He lived as Rabbi Meir Kahane in Brooklyn as the founder of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a columnist of The Jewish Press and a loving father and husband. In addition, under the pseudonym of Michael King, he had an apartment on the upper East Side of Manhattan where he lived with a gentile woman, Gloria Jean D'Argenio. In 1966, Rabbi Kahane/Michael King sent a letter to Ms D'Argenio where he unilaterally ended their relationship. In response, Ms D'argenio jumped off the Queensboro ("59th Street") Bridge; she died of her injuries the next day. Rabbi Kahane admitted to Mr Kaufman that he loved Ms D'Argenio and had sent roses to her grave for months after her death.

//www.nytimes.com/1994/03/06/weekinreview/remembering-kahane-and-the-woman-on-the-bridge.html It has been speculated that Rabbi Kahane's rabid anti-Jew/gentile relationship stand was at least partially based on his own unhappy experiences.

• • • • 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the NYT source is impeccable, I don't see any reason why this can't go into the article. Zero^talk 03:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I added this section to the main article back in September, 2009. Why was it removed from the article? I subsequently readded it in April 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SurfFlorist (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's Talk Cats

It keeps coming up in this article so it seems like time we address it: should Meir Kahane be in one of the terrorism categories? Sol (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What keeps coming up is pure vandalism. --Vicky Ng (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In the manner it's been done, pretty much, but it's got some merit. Kahane did found/lead at least 2 groups labeled as terrorist organizations, enunciated a philosophy of Jewish terrorism against Arab terrorism and was arrested for his involvement in various plots. Does that justify the label? Maybe. Sol (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? Groups labeled as terrorist organizations long after his assassination for actions he had nothing to do with? So, let's add Jesus and Mohammed to terrorist categories then. Regarding "philosophy" and "plots", see WP:TERRORIST. --Vicky Ng (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If it were solely on the grounds of groups he started later being labeled terrorist organizations then I'd agree. But I think the stronger argument for putting him in the "Jewish religious terrorism" category is his role as the ideological foundation for extremist rhetoric and his very clear encouragement of terrorism. That plus his arrest record relating to various terrorist plots, in America and Israel, doesn't leave much question that he was actively involved in the ideas he espoused. This isn't labeling him a terrorist(WP:TERRORIST only covers in-article but I could be wrong), per se (although plenty of RS do), but acknowledging his role as a central figure in the philosophy and political foundations of Jewish terrorism. Bonus reading: Planned biological attack against the USSR? I'm glad that one got shelved. Sol (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL. He could have discussed capturing a Marsian city with the same degree of seriousness as a Soviet City. Don't forget, this is in the middle of Cold War, not long after Vietnam, student unrests, etc. JDL's protests were no different from countless rallies of those times, none of them leading to terrorist designation. Their "terrorism" - always gimmicky, only to get their story on page 1. Yeah, "terrorists" holding meetings at their Brooklyn headquarters, how amuzing. Don't you see a fundamental difference between this article and other articles categorized as terrorists? --Vicky Ng (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, I had to do a double-take when I read the FBI report, it was too bizarre not to share. Sol (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the formal designation of terrorist groups by the FBI and Treasury Department didn't begin until the 90s, not that it's the only source that matters for WP's purposes. The JDL was involved in a number of violent attacks and plots under Kahane's leadership (from the ADL):

September 27, 1970: Two members of the JDL, Avraham and Nancy Hershkovitz, were arrested in an alleged plot to hijack an Arab airliner. The two were arrested at Kennedy Airport carrying firearms and explosives. They were later indicted on six counts by a grand jury but pleaded guilty only to a charge of passport falsification.

May 24, 1972:In an apparent effort to disrupt U.S. - Soviet relations, four people, two of which were reported to be members of the JDL, were arrested and charged with bomb possession and burglary in a conspiracy to blow up the Long Island residence of the Soviet Mission to the UN.

July 17, 1973:Rabbi Kahane stated in Israel that he had written to JDL members in the U.S. suggesting they blow up the vacant Iraqi Embassy in Washington.

February 8, 1975:Rabbi Kahane was accused of having conspired to kidnap a Soviet diplomat, to bomb the Iraqi Embassy in Washington, and to ship arms abroad from Israel, when he was there in 1972. As a result, a federal judge scheduled a hearing on revocation of Kahane's 5-year probation, dating from a July, 1971 conviction for making a firebomb.The judge subsequently found Kahane guilty of violating his probation, and imposed a one-year prison term, which Kahane began serving on March 18 of that year.

Multiple RS call the group a terrorist organization and Kahane a terrorist. I think this claim has merit. Sol (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

KAHANE AND BIRCH SOCIETY

One reason why Wikipedia often cannot be taken seriously as an "encyclopedia" or even presenting fact-based articles -- is revealed by this article on Kahane.

Contrary to claims made in this article, Kahane never "infiltrated" the Birch Society for the FBI nor was he ever a "consultant" to the FBI concerning the JBS. Even his widow, Libby, told me that she had no corroborating documentation for this claim.

I possess the entire FBI HQ file on the JBS (12,000 pages; HQ 62-104401) along with most FBI JBS-related field office files -- and there is no mention whatsoever of Kahane nor is there any document which mentions somebody whose description would correspond to Kahane.

In addition, FBI field offices that used informants within any organization had to first prepare a summary memo about their proposed informant and then request authorization from HQ to use them.

After HQ approved use of the informant, periodic field office reports were submitted to HQ which summarized whatever info the informant provided and the field office would characterize every informant's data in terms of reliability (such as "of known reliability" OR "unknown reliability" OR the office assigned a percentage such as "informant information found to be 95% accurate".

BUT there are no such documents in any FBI JBS-related file because the FBI never sought or had informants within the Birch Society!

For an actual example showing how an FBI field office requested permission to use an informant and reported on reliability of information received, see the following documents pertaining to Rev. Delmar Dennis who infiltrated the most violent Klan in our nation's history---the White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi. Notice, too, that the Bureau assigned a code name and symbol number to every informant. Significantly, NO SUCH DOCUMENTS EXIST on Kahane with respect to "infiltrating" the JBS for the FBI.

http://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/dennis

Beyond that, every FBI informant usually had expenses (e.g. travel to/from meetings, purchasing publications, membership dues, etc.) plus many were compensated for their services weekly --- so, obviously, FBI files always contain expense reports or memos reporting whatever monies were paid to them. BUT there are no such memos or reports whatsoever in ANY JBS file----because the FBI never had informants inside the JBS!

Furthermore, you have to ask the obvious question: what information about the JBS did the FBI supposedly want that it could not obtain except by “infiltration” by "informants"?

Lastly -- the FBI never conducted a formal investigation of the JBS. Informants were used by the Bureau primarily in instances where official investigations were conducted -- such as, for example, inside the KKK and CPUSA.

There were, of course, people who contacted the FBI of their own volition and then provided unsolicited raw information. In fact, many JBS members and JBS officials contacted their local FBI field office to ask questions, to report information such as telling the FBI they planned to subscribe to a Communist publication or to tell the FBI about some person or organization they suspected of being "subversive" or "pro-Communist", etc. If the contact was in person or by phone, an FBI Agent usually recorded the information in memo form and the memo became part of the JBS file (and/or other relevant files) but it was considered RAW information--which had not been verified as to accuracy.

The FBI Chicago field file on the JBS (100-36671) contains a serial which illustrates how unsolicited raw information was often received from citizens---but the person providing the information was not an FBI informant.

Serial #420 is a 29 page memo concerning a February 25-28, 1966 National Coordinating Committee meeting of the W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America (Chicago file 100-40865). The FBI characterized the person who provided the information contained in that memo as “has furnished insufficient info to determine reliability”.

Page iii of the memo contains a “remarks” section at the bottom which makes the following comment about the person who provided the information:

“He is not being considered for PSI (potential security informant) because he holds ‘ultra-right’ views and it is not believed he could be controlled. However, he has been advised the FBI will be happy to receive any information he has that he feels might be of interest to the FBI. [Name deleted] because of his ‘ultra-right’ views is afforded no direction by the Chicago office.” [Chicago 100-36671, #420; 3/31/66].

It is not uncommon for FBI files to reflect information received from people whom the Bureau described as "mentally unbalanced" or "a bigot" or "extremist". It is also clear from FBI files that certain types of people would not be seriously considered as informants--including those whom the Bureau thought might want to use their association for personal benefit or who might embarrass the Bureau because they were unstable or irrational or considered to be political extremists.

For example: In an FBI memo dated January 21, 1964, the Bureau proclaimed that...

"As a matter of fact, the Bureau will not approve any individual for development as a confidential informant if he is a member of the John Birch Society." [FBI HQ file 62-104401, serial #2027, 1/21/64 memo to Mr. Callahan from (name excised)].

While it is possible that Meir Kahane contacted the FBI in New York City to report something he thought they might like to know, that hardly would convert him into an "FBI informant" Ernie1241 (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo

I added a photograph of the graffiti, 'Gas the Arabs'. I understand there have been some passionate efforts to blank the photograph across several languages of Wikipedia, but I've only seen it done for apparently nationalist reasons. Given that there are reliable sources which connect vandalism in Hebron calling for the murder of Arabs to Meir Kahane, is there a sound reason for blanking the photograph? If using the photograph here seems unacceptable to you, or fails to meet some standard, why is it unacceptable, and what is that standard? Cheers, DBaba (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to add two citations which include imagery of this particular graffiti, and restore the photograph. Please respond to these remarks, here, if you feel the need to blank the image. DBaba (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that this specific graffiti can be linked to Meir Kahane? It's , at best, speculation. In essence, anyone could be responsible for it and contribute it to the JDL - not unlikely, given that the painting is in English. Anyway, the burden of proof that this graffiti can really be linked to JDL/Meir Kahane is yours. Knowalles (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Kahane quotation: "I will be merciful and allow them to leave. Whoever does not will be slaughtered."

A 1971 Kahane quotation from Chapter 9, The Righteous Assassin, of The Fall of the House of Bush, Craig Unger, 2007, pp.133-134:

In two years' time, [the Arabs] ... will come to me, bow to me, lick my feet, and I will be merciful and allow them to leave. Whoever does not will be slaughtered.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that book reliable? Anyway the quotation is from "The False Prophet" by Robert Friedman, page 217. I can only see a snippet. Zero^talk 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Writing a proper reply is taking me a long time unfortunately. I'm having difficulty even just writing a short reply to your question about reliability. It's an interesting question because, although his books obviously don't fall into the category of academic writing which is regarded as most reliable, Craig Unger made his career as a journalist writing for and editing a number of magazines and newspapers which would themselves normally be regarded as reliable (without being very publicly sued). Most of what Unger has to say about Kahane would, in any case, actually be better cited back to the sources he himself uses, Robert Friedman being a main one, though he does make an interesting claim, original to himself but stretching things too far I think, that, because of El Sayyid Nosair's (fairly tenuous) links to Osama bin Laden, Kahane should be counted as the first victim of al-Qaeda. The question then arises as to whether sources such as Friedman should be regarded as reliable. I would say, notable and worth attributing material to, definitely, but without corroboration, for anything controversial, not reliable on their own.     ←   ZScarpia   23:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I have Friedman's book. It seems pretty thorough and well-sourced (including multiple interviews with Kahane and his associates). I believe Friedman's book is a reliable source for this article. Friedman says that the Hebrew weekly Kolbo Haifa reported a public speech Kahane made in Haifa on June 28, 1985. He said "No one can understand the soul of those beasts, those roaches...we shall either cut their throats or throw them out." Then later "In two years time they will turn on the radio and hear that Kahane has been named Minister of Defence. Then they will come to me, bow to me, lick my feet, and I will be merciful and allow them to leave. Whoever does not leave will be slaughtered." It sounds pretty shocking, but after reading all the other examples Friedman brings it is not at all implausible. Zero^talk 10:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A Los Angeles Times report from October 1985 which describes a meeting in Los Angeles at which Kahane appears to have said something similar (with the exception that he would be Prime Minister instead of Minister of Defense): Edward J Boyer - Kahane Means Terror to Arabs, He Says in L.A., 30 October 1985. At the end of the report, there is mention of Kahane being stripped of his American citizenship, something which isn't currently described in the Wikipedia article.     ←   ZScarpia   03:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is another report of it from 1985, but this one says he give it up in 1988. Confusion reigns. Zero^talk 03:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's another Los Angeles Times article about it. The first article does say that Kahane sought an injunction to overturn the loss of his citizenship. Perhaps he was succesful.     ←   ZScarpia   04:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

More still: Los Angeles Times - Kahane Seeks Citizenship, 26 October 1988. The article says that Kahane did formally renounce his US citizenship in September 1988 (and then announced a month later that he wanted it back again). So, it looks as though he either managed to over turn the loss of citizenship of 1985, or, at least, have its implementation frozen until 1988.     ←   ZScarpia   14:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

According to this article he was indeed stripped of his citizenship; he fought that decision and he won, having his citizenship restored in 1987. --_W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 18:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Some links:
- Laurence Jay Silberstein, Robert L. Cohn (editors) - The Other in Jewish thought and history, 1994: Chapter 12 - Gerald Cromer - The Creation of Others: a Case Study of Meir Kahane and his Opponents.
- Los Angeles Times - Meir Kahane collection.
- Ehud Sprinzak - Kach and Meir Kahane: the Emergence of Jewish Quasi-Fascism, from Patterns of Predjudice, Volume 19, Numbers 3 and 4, 1985 (published byThe American Jewish Committee)
- A blog devoted to Kahane's writings: Barbara Ginsberg's Desktop Rabbi Meir Kahane Writings.
- Meir Kahane, Revolution or Referendum, 1990.
- Raphael Cohen-Almagor - Vigilant Jewish fundamentalism: From the JDL to Kach, Terrorism and Political Violence Volume 4, Issue 1, 1992, Pages 44 - 66.
- Gerald Cromer - Negotiating the Meaning of the Holocaust: an Observation on the Debate about Kahanism in Israeli Society, 1987.
    ←   ZScarpia   05:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Rav-Kahane.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rav-Kahane.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)