Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Disaffected editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not using Wikipedia ever again, neither will I ever again donate a cent to it. This is NOT debunked, not by a long shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaalayon (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Given the timing, this unhappiness is possibly related to the Voat article: "...I am probably naive to think we can pull this off, but I have just started the effort to remove 'debunked' from the PG Wikipedia article - please help keep it out of the article (en.wikipedia.org)" Paul H. (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The editor in question has a total of four previous edits, including this gem where they claim that, in reference to traces of cyanide found in Nazi gas chambers, "as a matter of fact the amounts found were consistent with delousing." Why am I not surprised that a Holocaust denier believes this Pizzagate nuttery? The encyclopedia will be improved by their absence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I just was pointing out possible soapboxing and conflict of interest. Paul H. (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Paul, have you read that thread? It's awesome! We're all part of a top-down, left-wing liberal conspiracy. And most of us work for the CIA. It's been "proven". I am so wearing a dark suit and sunglasses to work tomorrow. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I felt that it is best that people read it themselves and draw their own conclusions. In my case, it was "proven" on a fringe archaeological messageboard that I am "paid" by Dr. Zahi Hawass to suppress information about the Hall of Records. I know the feeling. Paul H. (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, but that is your choice.Slatersteven (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Chiming in here, I also agree with Disaffected Editor. How do you debunk something that has not been properly investigated? CBS did a report on the Pizzagate allegations and their reporters wondered why the police never followed up. Conveniently, none of what CBS found is in this article. This is garbage propaganda and whatever little circle of SJWs who wrote this article and locked it should be ashamed of themselves. Relevant CBS report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GZFHLAcG8A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.245.174 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the talk page (check the archives). Have a nice day. APK whisper in my ear 22:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spirit cooking and leaked FBI document

@Volunteer Marek:Re: [1] How can the article mention Satanic rituals and not mention why that connection was made? What's the objection to mentioning spirit cooking? It's noted in the source. And why revert the clarified rewording a "pizza-related" handkerchief > a handkerchief with a "pizza-related map" which is more accurate based on the leaked emails?Terrorist96 (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:Re: [2] The logos were considered to resemble pedophile logos is based on the FBI leaked document. Why do you oppose including that fact in order to explain the connection? It's mentioned in the NYT source.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You're trying to create a false narrative here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

How is it a false narrative? It's stated in the NYT article.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

What VM said. The Inquisitr reference you tried to add has been rejected as far too credulous earlier, and the "leaked FBI document" has never been authenticated. The NYT article uses multiple qualifiers, which were left out. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Can you link me to the discussion that determined the inquisitor article should be excluded? I searched and didn't find consensus to not use that article (mostly about aceloewgold.com, whatever that is). And this is all I found searching WP:RSN about using it as an RS. And there are other sources that connect the Satanic ritual claim with the mention of "spirit cooking" in the leaked emails; see: Snopes. This isn't to claim that the spirit cooking is actually Satanic, but that that was why the connection was made. And if we're mentioning the theories, we should state the reason behind the theory. This is already done for the handkerchief code theory (explaining that it arose based on the email saying: "The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related."

Re: FBI document: We can put "unverified" prior to "F.B.I. document" if you like. However, again, the point is not whether it's been authenticated or not, but the fact the theory of the logos being connected to pedophile logos arose based on the FBI document. And I never got an explanation for "false narrative"; I was just explaining the reason behind the theories.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The Inquisitr is not a reliable source, and moreover, the claim that they are "similar" is entirely-unsourced anonymous pareidolia; the phrasing you are choosing implies that somehow the purported "leaked FBI document" supports the idea that these purported similarities are in any way meaningful, which it does not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You say Inquisitor isn't a reliable source, but you didn't provide a link to that consensus. The article already uses the word "similarities" for the Satanic and pedophilic symbols(Theorists linked the conspiracy to Comet Ping Pong, through similarities between company logos and symbols related to Satanism and pedophilia.). So should that be removed? Fair enough on the phrasing, can you help rephrase it? How about: "based on purported similarity to an unauthenticated leaked FBI document." Do you deny that the FBI documents were the reason the connection was made though?Terrorist96 (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the Inquisitor article?Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Link.Terrorist96 (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Having trouble finding the mention of the FBI leaked document mention.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That's cuz it's mentioned in the NYT article: link. The Inquisitor link was for mentioning spirit cooking. Terrorist96 (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The first sign that this is a terrible article is It has been widely claimed that Assange has either been assassinated or taken into custody, and many believe that Pizzagate is the reason behind his disappearance from the public eye. It has even been suggested that WikiLeaks has been taken over by government agents who are trying to hide Assange’s lack of visibility. The author of the article mostly writes about professional wrestling. Seriously, this is not close to a reliable source. Objective3000 (talk)

That's just a reported fact. At one point people did have theories of Julian Assange being assassinated because he hadn't made a public appearance for some time. Regardless, I'm not trying to add that to the article and the Snopes link also mentions spirit cooking. I just find it odd that the article mentions satanic ritual theories but doesn't explain the genesis of those theories being linked to the mention of spirit cooking in the leaked emails.Terrorist96 (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Err the NYT article does not say the FBI found the logos were similar to Pedophile ones, rather it says that third parties said the FBI listed logos looked like those from the pizza place. The FBI document did not make the comparison.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I never claimed that the FBI made the comparison. I simply said that the theorists came to their conclusion that the company logos were pedophilic based on the FBI document that purports to show "Symbols and Logos Used by Pedophiles to Identify Sexual Preferences".Terrorist96 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I cannot find where you say anything more then the rather misleading "based upon an leaked FBI document". This maybe whyt it's inclusion is being opposed. Now if you wanted to say "non professional investigators took logos linked to pedophiles and claimed they looked like the ones used by..." that might just pass muster.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the claim that the logos are similar to pedophile logos is based upon the FBI document. I offered a revised version: based on purported similarity to an unauthenticated leaked FBI document above. Would you continue to object to this wording as well? There's nothing here saying that the FBI made the comparison. The comparison was made by the theorists.Terrorist96 (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Which is why the fact it is an FBI document is irrelevant. They could just have easily used a copy of the Beno or an episode of Black Adder. The fact that the document was produce by the FBI does not give the theorists analysis of it any validity. Hell even the document it's self is unverified.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

So are we supposed to ignore the source just because it's a purported FBI document? I'm not trying to provide validity to the claims, just explain their genesis. When the article says the logos were claimed to look similar to pedophile logos, a reader may wonder what that claim is based on. What are pedophile logos? Why did they think the logos looked like pedophile logos? The NYT article mentions this, I don't see why we should omit it.Terrorist96 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The reader has a link they can go to, that explains it more fully then we can. This is what the text would have to say

"On line investigators (with no connection to enforcement) looked at an alleged FBI document and concluded that the logos the document claimed were logos used by pedophiles as a kind of secret system of recognition looked similar to corporate logos used by some of the stores alleged to be part of pizzagate. It has been pointed out that many organisations use similar logos, and that no law enforcement agency (including the FBI) had made such a link".

So do we agree to this wording?.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, if that's what it takes to include that fact, then I'll agree to that wording.Terrorist96 (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don’t. Conspiracy theorists (what your suggestion refers to as on line investigators) base their conspiracies on nothing but their own biases. I don’t see adding this to an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

So we can change it it conspiracy terrorists.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that meant to be some sort of personal attack? The NYT article says that the basis for the pedophile logos theory was based on the FBI document, not "their own biases". Please stick to the facts.Terrorist96 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

How is this a personal attack, I did not say you believed it. As to what the source says "Conspiracy theorists claimed that other design elements used by businesses near the Comet Ping Pong restaurant also resembled pedophile symbols.", so calling them conspiracy theorists is conforming to what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You said "conspiracy terrorists", but that's besides the point. I have no issue with calling the people making the claim conspiracy theorists. The sentence itself already uses "Theorists" (Theorists linked the conspiracy to Comet Ping Pong, through similarities between company logos and symbols related to Satanism and pedophilia.)

That was a typo, sorry, which I thought would have been obvious.

"Conspiracy theorists looked at an alleged FBI document and concluded that the logos the document claimed were logos used by pedophiles as a kind of secret system of recognition looked similar to corporate logos used by some of the stores alleged to be part of pizzagate. It has been pointed out that many organisations use similar logos, and that no law enforcement agency (including the FBI) had made such a link"

How about that?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That works for me.Terrorist96 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it simply shouldn't be included. The section is fine as-is. We have no need of any additional ludicrous conspiracy-theorizing here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not "additional ludicrous conspiracy-theorizing". It's explaining the theory that is already mentioned. Without explanation, you're deliberately leaving the article incomplete.Terrorist96 (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The current text is fine. It needs no additional conspiracy nonsense. Objective3000 (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought we were supposed to be unbiased and neutral here. By continuing to use terms like nonsense and ludicrous to oppose the additions doesn't further your argument. Cite a WP policy on which you are basing your rationale. By including things such as the theorists claiming satanic ritual and pedophile symbols without explaining why they made those claims is not explaining both sides in a neutral manner.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We are neutral and unbiased, here. The neutral, unbiased truth is that Pizzagate is bullshit and everyone who's 'investigated' it has actually just been naval-gazing and making shit up. Another thing we are here is a group of real human beings, which means we can actually do things like judging implications. The edits you propose imply legitimacy to this bullshit, so they're never going to get consensus unless they report on something which substantially changes the narrative and are covered by multiple reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You failed to include a link to any WP policy upon which you're basing your objection. Saying that the reasoning behind the pedophile logos theory was based on purported similarities to an unauthenticated leaked FBI document lends legitimacy to the claim? How? So far no one here has tried to deny the FBI document as being the reason for the connection, so the only reason left to exclude it now is because it lends legitimacy? By saying that, you are clearly showing yourself to be biased on the topic. I came here to improve the article. I take no position on the theory itself, but you clearly do.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The current text says what RS say. It does not attempt to delve into the minds of conspiracy theorists to determine their “reasoning”. Objective3000 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The RS mentions the FBI document. The Wikipedia article omits it entirely.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, @Eggishorn:, @NorthBySouthBaranof:, @Slatersteven:, @Objective3000:, @MjolnirPants: I have initiated a dispute resolution request here. Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No validity at all to a dispute resolution when it is 1 editor with bad sourcing vs. many editors preferring reliable sourcing. TheValeyard (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

NYT is a bad source? Snopes is a bad source? We can debate The Inquisitor, but you can't seriously claim NYT and Snopes are bad sources.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You tried to use garbage like the Inquisitr to source your claim. TheValeyard (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, seems like there's this imaginary consensus that Inquisitor is forbidden from being used as a source. Please, I'm asking nicely, show me a link from RSN that declares Inquisitor as an unreliable source. And beyond that, do you claim that NYT and Snopes are also unreliable source? Because the FBI document is mentioned in NYT and the spirit cooking is mentioned in Snopes, in addition to Inquisitor.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I’m afraid you misunderstand RSN. RSN very rarely bans a source for absolutely all mentions. As Inquisitor is an aggregator, you generally need to look at the original source. When it is the original source, it’s rarely a good source. As for NYT and Snopes, they are RS. But, that does not mean that everything they print should be included in an encyclopedia. This article is covered by WP:BLP. Caution is needed in such articles. I would guess that the question in the minds of editors here is why you are trying to make a change. Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok let's forget about Inquisitor then. The reason I want to make the change is because stating the conspiracy theory claims and not explaining their origin is only giving half the story. The same logic that was used to explain the handkerchief code claim should also apply to the satanic ritual claim and the pedophile symbols claim. It's not like people randomly claimed these things out of thin air. There were reasons (regardless of their validity), just like how the origin of the handkerchief claim was the mention of "a handkerchief with a pizza related map" so to the origin of the satanic ritual claim is from the mention of spirit cooking in the emails and the claim of pedophile symbols is based on the FBI document. We can exclude Abramovic's name of you are concerned about BLP. I just don't understand why the article mentions the origin of the handkerchief claim but not the other claims. I don't understand​ why it's so controversial.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

None of us has the faintest idea behind the ridiculous claims. We don’t know if the claimants were actually incapable of logical progression, or knew they were spewing nonsense, but did so to sway an election. Or, if they were simply careless “reporters”. Or, has been documented, people that purposely make up stories to make money on click-bait sites. We should not try to explain illogical inferences. Objective3000 (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This, the problem is we are not explaining their origins, we are stating what sources they misrepresented or took out of context, not how they worked out their extraordinary claims. It does not (for example) gives us an incite into how they decoded this information, or why they picked on this one pizza parlor (it looks like they picked a target then fished for evidence, after all many companies that have not been linked have similar logos).Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So what now?

So what do we do now, are we going to accept the consensus for not including the above, or have an RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

An RfC will come to the same conclusion. The DRN filer said he would not pursue. Objective3000 (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If there's any consensus for removing the bit about the handkerchief, consider me part of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Whilst In can see a difference (the E-mails were the start of this whole sordid exercise in character assassination) I would agree to the removal of the throw away line about the hankie.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent but won't debate either side. Objective3000 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Since Terrorist96 based their proposal in part on the precedent of this being included, and since there was no disagreement in this thread, I removed mention of the handkerchief codes. Hopefully, this will be the end of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I would have rather waited until Terrorist96 had responded, but yes I think this really does address his concerns.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

They can revert me if necessary and begin a discussion. I won't edit war over this. But I've been seeing too many "We all agree to make this change" changes that never get made, or get made weeks or months later, so I figured I'd be bold. Fortune favors us, after all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I already noted that I supported its inclusion, but since I'm in the minority here I won't waste my time anymore. Continue neutering this article for all I care.Terrorist96 (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As your objection was it was a violation of neutrality to include one "fact" but not the other we have now removed the NPOV compliant material. This seems to meet your objection.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so now you must also believe in the theory if you deemed it a NPOV issue (see how that works?). My solution was to include more information to address NPOV, not suppress it. But sure, go the opposite way and assume that you're following my wishes. I'm done here.Terrorist96 (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for any explanation of how NPOV could be an problem if you don't take issue with the subject being presented as a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory. That is, after all, the POV of the article. Your sarcasm (directed at the editor who has been most sympathetic to you no less) is really not helping at all, here. The concern you raised previously was one of due weight. While your concern there was perfectly understandable, none of us agreed with it. But this apparent shift to an unspecified NPOV concern is one that really strongly suggests that you are attempting to advocate for this CS. If that's not the case, I don't have the slightest bit of a problem being wrong. Believe it or not, I actually get that it's possible to say things which have implications that aren't valid. I also don't mind apologizing for my reference to ANI and CIR, as they were out of line and were intended more as hyperbole than as a literal suggestion. But your objections on NPOV ground are still a red flag for advocacy. Whether that flag is false or not is not something I can speak to. But if you do believe that this is a BS conspiracy theory like the rest of the rational world, then I suggest you not pursue this line of argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is getting really unproductive

Terrorist96 Has said he does not wish to continue this, I think we should now respect his wishes. He has said he accepts (but does not agree) with this edit, so the conversation really is over.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC) I've been around long enough that I don't take "I'm done here" at face value every time I see it. It's usually not true. Also, pinging them is probably not "respecting their wishes" if they don't wish to discuss here anymore. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC) That is cut and past for you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Yeah. Cut and future works better. Just Ctrl+C and all of a sudden whatever you wanted to say just appears... Cut and present doesn't seem to work at all... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC) About sarcasm not helping.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Did you click the link? Playfulness != sarcasm. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC) No, as I would no more consider mocking inability to spell as any more playful then mocking an inability to walk.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Cross-tabbed poll data

Not a huge deal, but do we really need a full table of data on percentages of people who believed Pizzagate had merit cross-tabbed by preferred presidential candidate? That seems excessive to me and is only supported by the primary source. The two sentences immediately preceding that table are supported by independent secondary sources and summarize the poll results beautifully in my view. (Timothyjosephwood believes that I supported the inclusion of the table back in December 2016. That was a miscommunication on my part and I apologize. I intended to express support for the inclusion of poll results generally, but not the table of cross-tabbed data.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll also note that the table doesn't add much of note. Sure there are variations among Pizzagate support among the various presidential camps, but those variations aren't very big at all. E.g., 14% of Trump voters believed in Pizzagate, as opposed to 9% overall. No big deal, in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The difference in "yeses" is nearly double between Clinton and Trump voters, and the difference in "unsures" is more than five fold. Overall, the more neutral presentation is the full results, and not those cherry picked by Recode and Salon as being the most attention grabbing. It's not "a lot" or heaven forbid, an "astonishing number" as either of the titles for the other two sources would like to have put out. It's an actual number. We have those numbers, so we should record them. TimothyJosephWood 21:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with DrFleischman that prose is better than a table, but I agree with Tim that clearly showing the hard numbers is better than subjective comparisons. I'm not sure where I stand right now. You two should fight for my support. I can set up a jello ring and pass out speedos if you want to make it really uncomfortable for you, and really amusing for me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sign me up! But seriously, I think Timothy's argument is a legitimate one and I don't really have much more to add. I guess I think that a table of this nature is rather attention-grabbing to a reader casually skimming the article, and I don't think it merits that kind of attention over other aspects of the article. I can see a compromise of removing the table but including the Trump and Clinton numbers in prose. I'm curious about how other contributors come down on this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Trump and Clinton numbers are already included in the prose. I agree with your concerns about how attention grabbing the table is; that's why I prefer prose as a stylistic choice. I'm torn because, in the prose the numbers are just numbers. When arranged in a table, they have some meaning. I was actually thinking that changing the formatting on the table might be the best way forward. I made an edit to make it stand out less. Tell me what you think. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't articulate why, but I think it looks a little strange now. And it's still pretty attention-grabbing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I can understand that. I think perhaps floating it to the left might help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Queen

Please can you change queen of England to queen Elizabeth II. The queen of England does not exist, it's the wrong description to be using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.28.211 (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggested by an IP, placed in it's proper place my me.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done APK whisper in my ear 19:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

1st paragraph - 'populated'

i'm assuming that somebody meant 'promulgated', but was very tired, and typed 'populated' instead. fyi. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)