Talk:Abhinandan Varthaman

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... This is a developing story and more details are awaited. There is a growing skirmish between Pakistan and India, and this POW could play a part in deescalating tensions.

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Abhinandan Varthaman is hero of India who has been captured as PoW by Pakistan. Pakistan is treated him inhumanely by totally disregarding geneva convention.

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... The page is just starting and new updates will be made. Texans123123 (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Tank

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (Article needs formation and writing fixing, I'll update it remove speedy deletion put it under AFD) MrZINE 14:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. The subject has been widely covered in the international media. Passes GNG. Will also get awards for his bravery. This article should be kept. More discussion here Talk:2019_India–Pakistan_standoff#can_we_have_an_article_on_Abhinandan_Varthaman_on_Wikipedia--DBigXrayᗙ 15:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe there can be an article on him once he gets that medal for bravery. For now, this can be covered in 2019 India-Pakistan standoff.Bless sins (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The subject is already covered in multiple incidents (though not consistent with time), but for last 3 days. Multiple reliable sources have opened up as primary and secondary during this week. There is a live telecast of events surrounding him on all news channels in India and Pakistan today. The story is developing from a regional political and diplomatic levels. The notability is similar to Kambampati_Nachiketa If the article is staying, must be handled carefully for human rights and war escalation scenario.(talk) 12:23, 01 March, 2019 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

While India claims that Pakistan used the F-16 jet to violate the Indian air space and attempt air strikes in Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan has rejected any such notion —as any such admission would violate US sale conditions of not letting Pakistan use F-16s in an offensive role.

Please mention that Pakistan rejected the claim which was made by India. This article will surely escalate tensions because of false information. Andrewkay009 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Notability

• Subject was the first Mig21 pilot to shoot down a Fourth generation F16 fighter jet.
• Subject was taken as captive by Pakistan.
• A video of the subject was publicly released in violation of the Vienna convention.
• Several countries were involved in the diplomatic intervention to secure his release from Pakistan.
• the release of the subject was widely covered by the international media.

These are multiple events and the subject passes BLP1E, Please do not restore the redirect. We can have a discussion here and decide next steps based on the consensus. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you seek consensus before you try to change the status quo?Bless sins (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted for appropriate discussion. DbigXray should not have reverted the redirect he has no consensus. The first four out of five are all connected to the same event and the first one is rather trivial. Therefore he does not pass BLP1E and therefore should be a redirect to the ongoing conflict. Games of the world (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Games of the world: WP:BLP1E mentions three conditions, each of which have to be met, to not have an article. Third condition is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". This is certainly not true. The event is significant enough to be on wikipedia's main page. Wing commander is the only POW in the entire incident, so his role is certainly substantial, and widely covered in the media. Hence, an article on the subject is justified. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 11:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That's just ignoring the other two. Lets go out on a limb here. He ain't going to be notable for any other reason. Also his role is what's the word....coincidental and actually did nothing himself in terms of the event. He is not a major player. He got captured. He did not do anything of note here etc. I don't see POW or people captured by pirates/ISIS getting articles left right and centre. Games of the world (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Games of the world: I am not ignoring the other two. I agree that the subject does not satisfy first two conditions, but the policy mentions that it must satisfy all three conditions, hence my point. He ain't going to be notable for any other reason. My apologies, but we aren't playing astrology here. Whether he ain't going to be notable or not, that is in the future. But right now, the subject is certainly notable. I don't see POW or people captured by pirates/ISIS getting articles left right and centre. Hold up. Are you seriously equating Pakistan, a sovereign nation, to pirates/ISIS? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 11:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't start misinterpreting. The point is still the same whether they are a nation or not. Two can play that game Sarvatra assume good faith or others and don't start trying to assume and accuse others of things that you know they are not meaning. Games of the world (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Per Sarvatra and as DBigXray explained above this is clearly not at all a case of BLP1E. Why not nominate it for WP:DYN? it has very interesting hooks. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The point is GSS he should have got consensus first before going ape with the article, which he did not have at the time. He may well pass general notability in terms of sources (I'm not going to deny that there ain't many sources for this incident mentioning this person) and according to others 1BLP, but as noted above by myself I don't see people who are captured (for what ever reason by what ever organisation) getting articles left right and centre. Just because we can does not mean that one should create an article. Games of the world (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Games of the world: Just because we can does not mean that one should create an article What in the world is that supposed to mean? We can create an article because the subject is notable (as already explained). Now tell me why shouldn't we? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 11:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Games of the world: Very funny, BLP1E clearly states: We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met and #3 doesn't fit here, the event 2019 India–Pakistan standoff, is significant and his role is substantial and well documented plus WP:1E states: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

By the consensus here we should create an article on Louella Fletcher-Michie as she has been subject of wide media coverage (for one event, only). But she has not got one so far. What's the difference? Games of the world (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Point 1: With articles like outlets like the BBC, Washington Post , CBC and many other neutral sources calling him the "Face of the Crisis" and giving his situation credit for de-escalation, this article is certainly noteworthy enough to remain.
• Point 2: The last Indian pilot to be held POW by Pakistan has his own artical "Kambampati Nachiketa"
• Point 3: This is an article of many fews and firsts. First acknowledged aerial dogfight between India and Pakistan in 48 years. Rare instances of F-16 and Mig 21 going head to head. Movie names are already being copyrighted in his name .
• Point 4: He has an awesome mustache which is so famous people have written about it . This article should stay.Myopia123 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

References

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM come into play. This is way over detailed coverage of a recent event, showing our time bias towards current events, and it's squarely a news event. We only care about this because it's happening right now. The 2019 India–Pakistan standoff is the real event, and this is just one minor event in that. The section within that article is sufficient for this event. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that I now do support an independent article. My original revert was on a mistaken reading of policy. ∯WBG^converse 13:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Harizotoh9, what you have stated seems to be your personal opinion. The amount of media coverage clearly indicates contradicts your statement.Myopia123 (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Subject got widespread recognition after being shot down in a dogfight with PAF and captured by Pakistan Army.
• Subject was flying Mig21 while getting shot by PAF's JF-17 thunder jet.
• According to BBC news PAF didn't use F-16 as any such admission would violate US sale conditions of not letting Pakistan use F-16s in an offensive role.
• The claims of downing a F-16 by IAF are false according to international media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwells665 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ban on citing Indian media as a reliable source on Wikipedia

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.

---

Indian media is ranked 138 on world press freedom index and should be partially banned from being used as reliable source on Wikipedia. - Gracespingmier (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC) -- block evading sock puppet --DBigXrayᗙ 05:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

References

This will escalate another issue on Wikipedia.--IM3847 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not the correct page to address this issue.Myopia123 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Curious as to what is the ranking of Pakistan in press freedom ? --DBigXrayᗙ 05:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It ranks below India. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Suggestion Cite reliable media of both countries (for opposing viewpoints) as well as neutral foreign media such as Guardian, New York Times etc.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You will find plenty of neutral sources cited in this article.Myopia123 (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2019 (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.

Epic Moustache

User:Myopia123 and others any suggestions on how and upto what detail we could/should add info about the international coverage of his Epic Moustache. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Hey User:DBigXray. I would love to but I have a feeling it will turn into a huge edit war.Myopia123 (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I added moustache content and it was removed in this edit. I think, considering what the source says, and other sources, that this is notable content. Thoughts?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Googling it, this moustache is all over the news. It should certainly be mentioned. Please comment on this. Thank you!!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I cannot over-emphasize about how relevant it is to integrate these sourced trivia(s) into an article. I dislike the general editorial tendency of seeing something, (the internet is going crazy over) and then dropping that at a random place without any concern about the flow of the text.

I will re-insert that but need to think a bit. ∯WBG^converse 11:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

LM's statement on Pakistan suing them

Rumours spread that Lockheed Martin was planning to sue Pakistan for saying that the F-16 was shot down. The claim was made by a Pakistani civil servant and was subsequently refuted by LM India. Should this be mentioned as well? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Rsrikanth05 it is fake propaganda spread by Pakistan. Lockheed Martin denied this propaganda. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I know. I was just refraining from using the word propaganda. But should it be included here? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Rsrikanth05, nope; I guess.

But, if multiple media units from Pakistani sides have carried the initial story about Lockheed suing (my searches don't say so); then this ought be included here. ∯WBG^converse 13:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright. Will keep an eye out. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

F-16

Considering there are no independent sources or proper evidence to verify India'/ claims, would if not be better to reword "He received widespread media recognition when he took down Pakistan's F-16"

The same goes for "A statement released by the IAF said that prior to his MiG's crashing, a PAF Lockheed Martin F-16 crashed in Pakistan" where it should be clearly mentioned that PAF denied IAF's claim 103.78.135.203 (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the second statement. The IAF release clearly did say that an F-16 went down and that is exactly what is mentioned. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please carefully read it again. I said it's important to mention that IAF made a claim and that claim was rejected by the PAF 103.78.135.203 (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Its right you should mention that the claim was denied by PAF. Andrewkay009 (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

While India claims that Pakistan used the F-16 jet to violate the Indian air space and attempt air strikes in Jammu and Kashmir, Islamabad has rejected any such notion —as any such admission would violate US sale conditions of not letting Pakistan use F-16s in an offensive role. Andrewkay009 (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The IAF claimed that he shot down Pakistan's f-16 jet which was denied by PAF. Please correct it, don't misinform people. Andrewkay009 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The Indian media claim of an F-16 going down is unsubstantiated and it would be misleading to readers to acknowledge it on a Wikipedia article. Some points below to consider:

• There are expectations of evidence at this point when an aircraft is claimed to be downed, just like it happened with Varthaman's MiG-21 - wreckage in a populated area where photos and video can be taken and shared easily, family and friends of the pilot, something is leaked. Up until now, there's been nothing like that.
• Further, the Pakistan Army has proactively accepted casualties and damage in this conflict, first in Balakot and then in cross-border skirmishes, and both were proven correct. They have stated all planes are accounted for.
• Finally, all F-16s are audited semi-annually through inventory checks by the U.S. Army, as reported here. The Pakistanis would know their F-16s would be audited before they decided to confirm that they're all accounted for.

The NYT recently ran an article on the dogfight and did not even bother mentioning the F-16 story after doing their own fact-checking.

Let's please keep Wikipedia to substantiated information, that is what people expect from it. Especially in the "fog of war" and dubious media claims, like we are in now. Afinebalance (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Xooxwiki - Please refrain from adding non-neutral sections

Dear User:Xooxwiki, please refrain from adding further info in violation of WP:NEUTRAL and seek consensus before re-adding it. I am in the process of reverting it all.Myopia123 (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

--- User:Myopia123 - I am listing down neutral media sources for each of the points here. If this goes uncontested, I am reverting it

Pakistan retaliated by sending in an army of 24 fighter jets to cross over to the Indian air space. These fighter jets were intercepted by 8 IAF fighters, including the MiG 21 Bison piloted by Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman.[12]

A dogfight ensued between a Pakistani F-16 jet flown by Shahaz-ud-Din of the Pakistan Air Force and Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman. https://sputniknews.com/asia/201903021072895717-pakistani-f-16-pilot-lynched/

According to a NDTV report, the Wing Commander engaged an R-73 air-to-air missile that hit the F-16 fighter jet. At the same time, the F-16 launched two AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-To-Air Missile) missiles. One of these missiles struck the aircraft while another missed the wingman. Both pilots were forced to eject and were seen parachuting down on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control. https://www.rt.com/news/452729-india-pakistan-air-battle-video/

According to a report on the Times of India, Abhinandan Varthaman was not immediately sure of where he had landed and asked the mob that had gathered from the nearby village whether he had landed in India or Pakistan. When told that it was India, the Wing Commander raised pro-India slogans. However, he was later told by another person in the mob that the place was Qillan in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. As the mob began raising pro-Pakistan slogans, Abhinandan Varthaman raised his pistol and fired in the air. As he was being chased, reports note that the Wing Commander swallowed some crucial documents while jumping into a nearby pond to escape. A few blood soaked documents that includes a pink colored book titled "Survival on Land", a notebook and a map were later recovered from the pond.[14]

Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman was soon overpowered by the mob that assaulted him. He is also reported to have been shot in the leg by one of the people in the mob. He was soon taken into custody by six members of the Pakistani army who were called in by the villagers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/01/meet-pilot-may-have-averted-an-india-pakistan-war/?utm_term=.4bfee29ce1a5

Sputnik and RT are not neutral sources. Also you need to seek consensus before revertingMyopia123 (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, you seem to want to insist on writing poetic paragraphs that tell a certain narrative. "Abhinanadan raised slogans, was chased....etc etc.". All of your edits are in violation of WP:NeutralMyopia123 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep things WP:NEUTRAL

I understand that users from both India and Pakistan are editing this article. Please keep things WP:NEUTRAL by following the following steps:

• Please read WP:NEUTRAL
• Please cite neutral sources as far as possible as opposed to Indian and Pakistani outlets with their own obvious biases.
• Please avoid wording that appears to advocate any one side's opinion
• Please avoid mentioning CLAIMS as FACT. There is a clear difference.

Kindly do the above in the best interests of Wikipedia and this article.Myopia123 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

About adding image

Please add best image of abhinandan sir. He is ideal for all young one. Thanking you. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the preference on Wikipedia is to find an image that is free from any copyright. If one is found, then it should be straightforward to add it.Myopia123 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed for date of birth

I noticed that the date of birth was added in this edit. However, there is no reliable source for it. Some references I found online seem to be replicating this Wikipedia article. Could someone find a reliable reference for it?--DreamLinker (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Y iwill try it.Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Abhinandan & F-16

"He received widespread media recognition when he shot down a Pakistani F-16"

Can this be fixed? Abhinandan shooting down an F-16 is at the end of the day, a claim. This claim has yet to be proven and/or ascertained 103.78.135.203 (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Amended to specify the recognition was in the Indian media. The article mentioned how the shooting down is disputed. Hummer431 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC) blocked sock --DBigXrayᗙ 09:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

no need to change india offical and american offical proved it.--

This is a fringe theory that is becoming more fringe with every passing day. The evidence put forth by the Indian media, specifically the wreckage photos, have been debunked by independent and credible sources (noted later in the article). There is no other evidence at the moment for an F-16 going down. This should really not be at the top of the Wikipedia article. Some reference to it may be included in the body of the article, with good context on the contention over the claim.

Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on using screenshots from his videos released by Pakistan

Hi All, wanted to see what thoughts you all have on adding still shots from the videos and images released (and then deleted after they went viral) by Pak Army forces? I think it is useful to have this discussion now and seek a consensus because it will inevitably happen. Believe the following points are important to consider:

• Videos and images released by Pakistani Authorities - Are they free from copyright or will they require fair use rationale? This is a very unique event so believe either argument should suffice.
• Do images of him captured, covered in blood, blindfolded, being released at wagah border, etc. add any value or are the descriptions in the article enough?
• Please note we need to have this discussion while keeping WP:NEUTRAL in mind. There are a lot of editors from India and Pakistan coming to this page and passions among them are fairly high.

Welcome your thoughts and hope we can reach a consensus.Myopia123 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi.

• I believe any use of the screenshots from the video would constitute fair use as only a snapshot of the video would be included.
• The descriptions of him appearing in a bloody state seem to be sufficient although if they are to be included, the images or videos (the latter of which may cause copyright issues) of Abhinandan while he is sipping tea, being interviewed by the Pakistani media and being released at the Wagah border should be included for neutrality purposes. Perhaps the image of the Wagah border in the article should be replaced with images of the location more relevant to the article i.e of Abhinandan crossing the border.

Hummer431 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC) blocked sock --DBigXrayᗙ 09:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

apart from copyright issues it would be a blatant violation of Geneva Convention --DBigXrayᗙ 19:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

In fairness, all neutral sources have stated that Pakistan "MAY" have violated the Geneva Convention.Myopia123 (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Indian media, of course. Can you specify yourself why it would violate the Geneva Convention or at least provide neutral sources that attest to it? Bear in mind, the Geneva Convention applies during the state of war, which Pakistan and India are not engaged in. Hummer431 (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

blocked sock --DBigXrayᗙ 09:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Hummer431, isn't our task to report what sources are saying and not engage in original research as per WP:OR??Myopia123 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• First he was harm in another country so it is breaking of geneva convention.This rule not apply only in war.
• There are many international media which provided images and video.
• you are making joke by saying give proof. Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What is his caste?

This is notable information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.46.76.106 (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Why? At any case, unless someone self-identifies with a particular caste; we don't mention it. ∯WBG^converse 08:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2019

Article needs to be protected for security reasons and much details given on wiki May create problem to fighter pilot. German Bird (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. DannyS712 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

German Bird can you calrify what specific information you want to be removed from the article. thanks. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Störm - Edit War and violating WP:Neutral

Dear User:Störm, I will go so far as to label your actions vandalism. Please stop this and seek consensus on the talk page or I will report you.Myopia123 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Störm, Afinebalance what the hell are you up to? You know that the talk-page exists for a purpose, right? You seek any changes; you discuss it over here and not via edit-sums. ∯WBG^converse 06:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Now I note that Storm was reverting even w/o edit-sums which is textbook vandalism. ∯WBG^converse 06:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I did discuss in the talk page, in much detail actually. Please see the F-16 section. It is disappointing that fringe theories are being pushed even on Wikipedia. Afinebalance (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a fringe theory. Official claims (irrespective of their truth value) belongs in the article. And, we are mentioning the claims of both IAF and DGIPSR. Bellingcat's analysis is undue over this BLP and is mentioned over the article about standoff. ∯WBG^converse 06:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

And, once again, DISCUSS before making these changes. ∯WBG^converse 06:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Documents prevented from being destroyed

The BBC article that is based on the account of the village chief mentions the documents were prevented from being destroyed by the villagers:

”He said the pilot then pulled out papers from his pocket and tried to stuff them all in his mouth to destroy them. But the villagers were able to snatch some of the papers from him, which they later gave to the army.”

To substantiate this, a photo taken at the site indeed captured some documents taken from Varthaman, some of which looked like they had been in water but largely undamaged.

Please review sources before deleting content that is important, especially from neutral and credible sources such as the BBC. It looks like I’ll have to restore this myself when I find some time. Afinebalance (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to restore it; see dispute resolution ways which does not include edit-warring. I don't believe such intricate details are necessary and I would need more sources for this snatch-away narrative. ∯WBG^converse 12:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hold on - you're saying it's too intricate, but it's at the same level of detail you've added (i.e. that he tried to sink the documents). You say you need more sources, but it's the same amount of sources as your narrative (i.e. one) and it's in fact the same source, simply in a different language. Indian media re-writing a story does not constitute another source. If you really need more sources, there is photographic evidence of the documents that were retrieved from Varthaman by the locals, here and here.

I have no time to "edit war" on something like this, but the items that have been removed suggest the possibility that some people are attempting to leave out select items to help push a narrative that the Indian pilot was more in control of his first few minutes than he actually was. These items include the claim that he was fell into a stream, that he was pinned down by locals to prevent him from using his weapon, and that documents he tried to swallow were snatched away. These are all in the BBC article written in English, whereas the preferred source seems to be the Hindi interpretation of that article. Afinebalance (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)