Talk:Joseph Stalin

Misspelling!

I came here from the Lenin mausoleum article as the reference seemed disturbing. Now I see the error is even in the title, his first name is Josif correctly. And if I remember well, his original name is Ioseb (in Georgian). I was quite surprised no one realized such a mistake yet. Didn't want to just change a title though, I am not aware of the process technically - not to damage references or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.76.81.254 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

In the English-speaking world Stalin's first name is most frequently Anglicized to "Joseph". Xelkman (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Soviet calendar

Should we mention the introduction the Soviet calendar, consisting of five- then six-day weeks, in the Changes to Soviet society, 1927–1939 section? His ability to change time itself exemplifies his totalitarian rule. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Many governments change time: for example, conversion to the Gregorian calendar, adoption of daylight saving time.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but changing the number of days in the week (three times!) is on another level. AFAIK only the similarly revolutionary (and similarly crazy) French Republican Calendar with its decimal time is comparable. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, even modern totalitarian regimes content themselves with just renumbering years. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It could be included here. Then again what about all the politicians who introduced Sunday trading? Should that be in their articles?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure that's comparable. I was thinking just a brief paragraph explaining why it was introduced and the effect on the workers. @Carrite:, this is kinda your area isn't it? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think you're exaggerating the issue. I think this is really a testament to the USSR as a revolutionary society, rather than Stalin as tyrant. This was an experiment that failed. Other things, such as female workforce participation (even female fighter pilots) have since been accepted more widely. Unlike the day and the year, the week does not represent any astronomical reality. It is part of a Jewish religious tradition that is now accepted worldwide. Changing the way that time is measured is no more "totalitarian" than changing the measurements of other things, like introducing the metric system or a new currency. It's not fundamentally different, but the practical effects on ordinary people tend to be more profound. The comments in the Soviet calendar article about the effects on workers are comparable to the effects on workers who work weekend and night shifts in developed countries today.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"The week does not represent any astronomical reality." That's certainly true, but forcing people to work continuously for 30 days is quite a radical concept? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The week is 1/4 of the lunar phase cycle in Earths days (rounded to the nearest integer) = number of days between the phases (New moon, First quarter, Full moon, Third quarter (or last quarter)), so it is definitely representing an astronomical reality. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.101.134 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The effects on ordinary people/industry were indeed profound. Religious/traditonal practices of hundreds of years standing were upended, many couples were effectively seperated, varying time-schemes used by different industries led to confusion and chaos in many places, etc. You say it's "a testament to the USSR as a revolutionary society, rather than Stalin as tyrant", but of course Stalin gave the nod to all this, it's virtually impossible to separate him from Russian history in this period. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Russian nationalism

Although Stalin was Georgian, after he became involved in politics he promoted Russian nationalism and significantly promoted Russian history, language, and Russian national heroes, particularly during the 1930s and 1940s. There are also claims that he held the Russian people up as the elder brothers of the non-Russian minorities.

This is very biased and misleading. Stalin is often accused of Russian nationalism, but this is only true compared with the standards of Lenin and Trotsky. Compared with the rule of the Tsars, this is simply not true. Saying "after he became involved in politics he promoted Russian nationalism" is utterly wrong because his work with the People's Commissariat for Nationalities and in Korenizatsiya had the opposite tendency. The other thing wrong with this passage is that it ignores the fact that the vast majority of the Soviet population were Russian. Political point-scoring aside, it's unremarkable that the government would "promote" Russian culture.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The last (unreffed) sentence should go. Stalin did promote Russian nationalism when it was expedient, especially in the Great Patriotic War (and against old guard Internationalists). I think his work with the Narkomnats was largely confined to its inception. We should be more nuanced, and explain the transition from Soviet socialist patriotism to Russian nationalism (perhaps he sometimes used both simultaneously?). Comparing his "Motherland" shtick to the Tsarist era is justifiable -- Lenin would have turned in his humidity controlled glass box. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The "big brother" quote is certainly true, but I don't see it as Russian nationalist. It is simply a recognition that Russians were the majority. I don't think a Georgian would have been in charge under the Tsar. Nor would an Armenian like Anastas Mikoyan or a Jew like Lazar Kaganovich. Under the Tsar, Ukrainians were deemed not to exist as a separate nationality. Under Stalin, they had their own seat at the UN. The passage doesn't mention the Tsarist era, so an uninformed reader is left with the impression that the various national groups were living in peace and equality until Stalin started promoting Russian nationalism.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Stalin didn't rule Russian Empire, he ruled Soviet Union, and in this context his support to Russian nationalism compared to his predecessor is very relevant.--Staberinde (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Lenin was only briefly the leader of the Soviet Union. And almost everyone is more nationalist than Lenin. The article takes Stalin's approach to Russia entirely out of context. For the general reader who knows none of this background it is completely misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Georgia in the 19th century

I changed this paragraph:

Stalin's birth name in Georgian was Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili (Georgian: იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი). He was born an ethnic Georgian; Georgia was then part of the Russian Empire. The Russian-language version of his birth name was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Russian: Ио́сиф Виссарио́нович Джугашви́ли).

to this;

Joseph Stalin was born an ethnic Georgian. His birth name in Georgian was Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili (Georgian: იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი). His homeland was then part of the Russian Empire. The Russian-language version of his birth name was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Russian: Ио́сиф Виссарио́нович Джугашви́ли).

I replaced "Georgia" with "his homeland". In those days, especially in that part of the world, the concept of "country" was a nebulous one. Most people in those days could tell you which village they were from and which ethnic group they identified with, but often they could not tell you what "country" they were from because that issue was considered vague and not all that important. This was a time when the concept of the nation state was still forming and not universal. At 15 years old, Stalin would tell you that he is from Gori, that his people are the Georgians, and that he owed taxes and fealty to the czar Nicholas II who lived far away in St Petersburg.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs with this edit but I think it captures the feel of what the time and place was like. Ghrelinger (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that Stalin said anything like that???--Jack Upland (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329850-600-end-of-nations-is-there-an-alternative-to-countries/ Ghrelinger (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to Stalin.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Georgia was created around 1000 years ago. Georgian culture was very strong and different than the Russian one. Georgia belonged to Russia about 100 years, later declared independence and was invided by the Soviets. Stalin wrote poetry in Georgian and his model was a Georgian Robin Hood Koba.Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I admit this is a bit nebulous and if you guys insist on just calling it Georgia, I can go with it. Ghrelinger (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the current text could be confusing — including the explanation that Gori is "today in Georgia".--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Reaction by successors

The subsection misinforms, tt was a sine function, Khrushchev rejected, Brezhnyev partially refurbished, Gorbachev rejected. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

My text was removed drop garbled mathematics comment.

The subsection misinforms isn't mathematics. Please don't defend misinformations.

The current text suggests that opinions of the succesors were more and more anti-Stalinist. It's not true because Breshnyev criticized Khrushchev so in some way accepted Stalin, compare Leonid Brezhnev#Legacy. Generally in Communism leaders criticized their removed predecessors and prised old dead leaders.Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"it was a sine function" is inarticulate as mathematics and as history. Try to express yourself in clear English. it looks more like binary: 1-0-1-0 Rjensen (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I write as I can. As far no one is capable to review the page better than me.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the article includes a long condemnation of Stalin published in 1974 when Brezhnev was in charge.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Early life

On 22 January 1905, Jughashvili was in Baku when Cossacks attacked a mass demonstration of workers, killing 200. This was part of a series of events which sparked the Russian Revolution of 1905. Riots, peasant uprisings and ethnic massacres swept the Russian Empire. In February, ethnic Azeris and Armenians were slaughtering each other in the streets of Baku. [Early life of Joseph Stalin] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liketeahouse (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

There is a line that 47 girls were found locked in Stalin's basement in the 1930's. This never happened and has no citation, so wtf? 206.63.236.221 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Now removed. The editor concerned has been warned. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

when he succeeded Lenin he promoted Russian nationalism

The recent edit is wrong, Stalin opposed Lenin, compare Georgian Affair. Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above "Russian nationalism". While the two clashed over the Georgian Affair, I don't see how that contradicts the edit.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Stalin had opposed Lenin even before he succeeded him. The quoted phrase suggests that Stalin changed his view.Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Alleged Russian inventors

journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/002070204700200108 - probably here, I can't see the text.Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Intellectuals and Apparatchiks: Russian Nationalism ... by Kevin O'Connor Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian national heroes promoted by Stalin

Alexander Nevsky (film)

Ivan the Terrible (film)

Pyotr Pervyy, based on Peter I by Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy

Alexander Suvorov#Legacy

A Life for the Tsar rewritten as Ivan Susanin.Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but his regime also promoted other culture:

• The 750th anniversary of Shota Rustaveli's Georgian epic "The Knight in the Panther Skin" was celebrated in 1938.
• Stalin obviously liked Alexander Kazbegi's Georgian novel, The Patricide, because he took from it his pseudonym "Koba", and the author was honoured in many ways.
• And Quiet Flows the Don (a novel which became a film ) celebrated Cossack culture.
• As did the film Cossacks of the Kuban.
• Armenian composer Aram Khachaturian, who used Armenian folk tunes in his music, was highly decorated.
• Ukrainian Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnytsky was glorified as a hero of class struggle and a film made about him in 1941.
• Ukrainian activist Taras Shevchenko was honoured in a number of ways, including by the naming of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.

The regime also promoted non-Soviet heroes such as Spartacus and welcomed activists from around the world like Paul Robeson. As pointed out before, the USSR had a Russian majority. It is not surprising that the Russian language, culture, and history would feature in education, books, films etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Portraits

I've taken this out:

After the Soviet victory in World War II, all official portraits of Stalin omitted his Georgian origins, although this process had begun earlier, since the 1930s official portraits had begun to soften his prominent Caucasian features.(Medvedev, Zhores A. (2006) The unknown Stalin p. 248)

Firstly, because it's badly written. Secondly, it's a very big call. It was widely known that Stalin was Georgian, and he spoke with a Georgian accent. Could it just be that Stalin's hair was going white? I don't know what Mevdedev actually says, and what the basis for it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

we can reqrite it--but wiki editors can't argue with leading RS. See https://books.google.com/books?id=v3BrNF80AzUC&pg=PA248 for the statement. Rjensen (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but this seems to be trivial speculation. Medvedev spends a lot of time on the rumour that Stalin was Nikolay Przhevalsky['s son]. According to Simon Sebag Montefiore, this is an "absurdity" and Przhevalsky was actually gay (Young Stalin, p 24). At the same time, there were biographies of Stalin and memoirs of people who knew him in the early days, so there was no doubt he was Georgian. I also don't think it fits under "Culture". It overlaps with information given under "Appearance". Maybe there should be a section "Portrayal"...--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Stalin spent a lot of attention on his image and historians have paid attention to the Stalin cult and "the image of Stalin projected by the mass media". Davies (2004) says " While the cult of the leader has been a distinctive feature of communist regimes since the time of Lenin, Stalin's cult was a particularly striking example of the phenomenon. A recent study regards it as the defining theme of public culture in the Stalin era." [see also Gill, The Soviet leader cult 1980] . the portrait info looks good. I think you're missing the point: everyone knew he was Georgian. The idea was to glorify his heroism in the media and portray him as a hero to all groups in USSR. Take a look at North Korea imagery in 2017 to get a feel for USSR in 1950. Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and as I said maybe we should have a section about that.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree --separate section - good idea. Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Stalin started World War II

Without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Hitler (and Stalin) could not have invaded Poland in September 1939. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:1DE8:35B4:521D:6763 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC))

This article compared to Winston Churchill

There is an extreme bias, especially in the introduction of this article to questionable interpretations of historical events. If we compare this article to that of an equally controversial contemporary leader Winston Churchill, it looks very unbalanced and makes Wikipedia look partisan.

• Various "Famines" are mentioned in the introduction of this article and a supposed "kill count" in the millions provided, but the Bengal Famine (where millions of people died) is not mentioned in the introduction of Churchill's article.
• Churchill as Secretary of War supported the suppression of dissident groups and civilians in Ireland through the Black and Tans, who often murdered political dissidents without trial (for instance George Clancy, the Mayor of Limerick) and tortured civilians. That is not mentioned in the introduction for Churchill's article, yet here the trials of some Trotskyist and Bukharianite anti-Soviet elements is portrayed in bias language as a "show trial" and a "suppression" in the introduction of this article.
• This article is laughably put into the category of "Antisemitism in Russia", yet Churchill, who wrote an article for the Sunday Herald in 1920 entitled "Zionism versus Bolshevism" claiming that Bolshevism was an "international Jewish conspiracy" somehow does not have such a category attached to his Wikipedia article.

IMO we either need some balance across the board, or a re-write, de-emphasising the tabloid-esque controversy mongering which is so prominent on this article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You have made several good suggestions for the Churchill article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

And it does show bias in this article. There is no reason that similar events should be treated differently because their alleged perpetrator is English or Georgian, Conservative or Communist. Wikipedia is neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to report what the reliable sources say, whether favourable or negative. Wikipedia is only "neutral" regarding disputes between reliable sources. Otherwise It is not neutral about Stalin -- instead it reflects the consensus of RS that he was a very nasty person. Rjensen (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The supposed "kill count", the "famines", all nicely put into quotations marks. It's a rather sickening comment, denying historical facts, in the same way some deny that the holocaust ever happened. If anything, the OP's original comment is extremely biased, and that's putting it mildly. As Rjensen indicated, what matters is what reliable sources report, and the consensus on historians on Stalin and his court is quite clear. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, OP kind of lost me at "equally controversial contemporary leader Winston Churchill". There's really false equivalency there. Churchill wasn't responsible for the Bengal Famine, in any meaningful way (he did make a shockingly callous remark about it, but that's quite a different thing). And so forth. Not even exactly clear what OP wants, specifically. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The underlying issue is what happens if reliable sources and venerable Wikipedians are biased. Churchill's article does suggest he was responsible for the Bengal Famine, and he was head of government for the British Empire, so the responsibility lies ultimately with him. However, mainstream historians do not calculate a "kill count" for Churchill. With Stalin, however, for some historians this is all they do. No one has found an executive order by Stalin saying that he wanted the crops in Ukraine to fail. But this doesn't matter.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The idea that Stalin intentionally starved people in the Ukraine, just for being Ukrainian is a highly contentious suggestion. There have been famines in the Russian Empire for a long time before the Soviet Union ever existed and there were also famines in the Russian part of the Soviet Union at exactly the same time. It is in no way comparable to the Holocaust. So to put in the introduction that Stalin killed millions of Ukrainians, while not saying that Churchill killed millions of Bengalis is extremely bias as an interpretation.

The point is that, like in Bengal under Churchill's watch (there were active independence movements there too), many people did die in a famine.... but for one we put a sinister spin on it (Stalin) and in the other it does not get mentioned in the intro at all (Churchill). We mention purges of Trots and other insurgents against the Soviet state, but we do not mention Saint Winston's kill 'em all and let god sort them out antics in Ireland. The overall picture is systematically bias.

At the end of the day, Stalin dragged up a feudal nation to the status of an industrial superpower, raising the living standard of millions, saved the population of Eastern Europe from being reduced to the status of helots under the self-appointed herrenvolk of the Third Reich, stopped the successful completion of the Holocaust and the post-WWII "threat" of the Red Army forced Western governments to concede a social welfare state to their citizens. So Rjensen's assertion that it is a settled fact that he was a "baddie" of history and Winnie a "goodie" isn't so clear. Wikipedia should reflect that. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, but the Bengal Famine and the Ukraine Famine were different events. It makes no sense to say "If Stalin caused the Ukraine one, then Churchill caused the Bengal one; and if Churchill didn't cause the Bengal one, then Stalin didn't cause the Ukraine one". And that seems to be the gist of your argument. The two events have to be considered separately.

Stalin had a complicated legacy. IMO you're entirely correct that Stalin probably saved the world from Hitler (a Russia under a Czar, or Kerensky, or a White regime, or even Trotsky would probably have fallen to the Nazis, who probably would have attacked regardless of who was ruling Russia) and did other good things. So? Does that mean we should give him a pass on the other stuff? Hitler built good roads and was kind to animals, but so?

Churchill's Britain just quite simply didn't have anything like the Gulag. It just didn't, is all. I did Yakov Taubin's article, which has "Taubin was executed... This place is now Yuri Gagarin Park within the city limits of Samara and contains the mass graves of several thousand victims of execution by Soviet authorities". It's just a simple plain fact that they haven't dug up any mass graves from Churchill's regime in Finsbury Circus. IMO this is a significant difference between the figures, and I think that most people would agree. Herostratus (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin's Soviet Union was a totalitarian oppressive dictatorship, there wasn't just Holodomor, there was also stuff like GULAG, executions, mass deportations, purges, overall a lots of really nasty stuff that happened on practically whole duration of Stalin's rule. Churchill's record doesn't really compare, which is also the reason why historical depictions of those two leaders are quite different.--Staberinde (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It would help if Claiomh Solais or Jack Upland would make concrete suggestions for the article, backed up by reliable sources. Instead of providing cynical commentary, defending not only a brutal mass murderer, but even worse, defending even his murderous actions. Not different at all from those who come to the Holocaust article and claim that it never happened. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04E:3594:1796:89BC (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

At least we could remove the category "Antisemitism in Russia" which is not supported by the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin did not save anyone in eastern Europe - he began a world war by invading Poland in conjunction with Nazi Germany in 1939, and then invaded and enslaved all of eastern Europe and the Baltic States for the next 50 years. Stalin did not stop the Holocaust - he actually refused to bomb the death camps. (AndreMonahan (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC))

With your last comment, I think you are thinking of Roosevelt: see Auschwitz bombing debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin refused to use his huge air force to bomb the death camps in eastern Europe. He also kept the Japanese informed on US movements and positions throughout the Pacific War. (AndreMonahan (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC))

Is that you, Harvey?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What? My grandfather was murdered by the Soviets in Poland in September 1939, without trial. I find the idea that Stalin "saved" anyone in eastern Europe highly offensive. Do not forget the Soviets supplied the fuel the Germans used to wage war in 1939-41. (AndreMonahan (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC))

Antisemitism

Further to the point which got lost in the arguments above, I don't think the category "Antisemitism in Russia" is useful here. The main article is Stalin and antisemitism. This makes it clear that the sources and the evidence are equivocal. Historian Albert Lindemann is quoted as saying: "Determining Stalin's real attitude to Jews is difficult. Not only did he repeatedly speak out against anti-Semitism but both his son and daughter married Jews, and several of his closest and most devoted lieutenants from the late 1920s through the 1930s were of Jewish origin, for example Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich, Maxim Litvinov, and the notorious head of the secret police, Genrikh Yagoda." According to Simon Sebag Montefiore (Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, pp 270-71), Stalin's "antisemitism" was a "mannerism", consisting of jokes etc, but he also campaigned against antisemitism, set up the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, and associated with Jews. I think this issue is complex and can't be reduced to a label.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe as a start you should refrain from misrepresenting sources. You claim that Montefiore describes Stalin's antisemitism as a mannerism, consisting of joke (how harmless), but the sentence in question is: "Stalin was an anti-semite by most definitions but until after the war, it was more a Russian mannerism than a dangerous obsession.". And to cite the Jewish Autonomous Oblast as evidence for the absence of Antisemitism, that's either naive or cynical, your choice. In any case, even ignoring your misrepresentation of sources, including Stalin in this category does not imply that he was an antisemite, but rather, that antisemitism is one of the defining feature of this person. That so many historians and scholarly source devote so much attention to this question indeed shows that it is one of his defining features. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:10AD:C5A4:9EE1:64E0 (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)