Talk:Annuit cœptis

Latin Issues
a. Coepi is usually considered a defective verb in Latin; it lacks a present system. Most dictionaries will list the verb under coepi, coepisse, and perhaps that is what should be done here. Present forms such as "coepio" are rarely seen and are not classical. b. Pronunciation in classical Latin (as opposed to Anglicized Latin): 'an-noo-it 'koyp-tees. -T. Gnaevus Faber @ la wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.246.15 (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Aeneid
I'm fairly certain these two phrases are taken directly from Virgil's Aeneid. Shouldn't that be mentioned? ~Neil

I'm almost certain that the phrase means: Annual Copper Annuit Coeptis And of course in 1776, the basic continental dollar was made up of copper.

MT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.247.213 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect
Current version of the article is little more than a dictionary definition. I have redirected to List of Latin phrases. If/when someone has enough more to say to turn this into a full stand-alone article, please revert this redirect to the prior version. Rossami 21:49, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
The wording of this article exudes a bias using phrases such as "as some Right-Wingers want us to think". It is also in desperate need of wikification.glocks out 20:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The problematic paragraph had been copied directly from its source, so I simply removed it and improved what was left. &mdash; Elembis 08:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Very good. glocks out 23:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Pronounciation
How is this phrase pronounced? If someone can post a phonetic representation, I could attempt an IPA transliteration. =David ( talk )( contribs ) 16:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Question
Why is it, that every time I translate this phrase it comes up as "to obliterate to begin" or "Out of Chaos, Order"? Mika&#39;el (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Significance of Thirteen Letters: This Is not in Dispute Among Experts
The rejection by Clindberg of the fact that the motto was chosen for having 13 letters runs counter to recent scholarship, official government explanations, and common sense. The seal contains the following: Clindberg would have us to believe that the fact that Annuit Coeptis also has thirteen letters was purely by coincidence and that there is no evidence that it was chosen to fit the theme. However, the official government historians of the Great Seal. Patterson and Dougall, The Eagle and the Shield, published by the Department of State, 1976, makes it clear that the motto "Annuit Coeptis" was in fact chosen BECAUSE of the number of letters. There is consensus that Thomson drew the expression from Virgil, who wrote, "Jupiter omnipotens, audacibus annue cœptis." Patterson and Dougall explained that Thomson changed the expression to the third person in order to arrive at the thirteen letters (see Patterson & Dougall, cited by Hieronimus; Guillard Hunt, a previous historian of the State Dept. is also cited therein, The Great Seal of the United States, also published by the U.S. State Dept. http://books.google.com/books?id=NnVIt8rpkrcC&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q&f=false Clindberg suggests that the diphthong oe as printed on the dollar should be only counted as one letter. But no such single letter exists in Latin. Oe is a ligature, like the ampersand "&" (cursive "et") at best. It is found in no Latin alphabet as a singular letter in any age. The implication that Barton exchanged "Deo Favente" for "Annuit Coeptis" in order to excise "God" from the motto runs contrary to historical consensus of experts; it is likely a preferred alternative interpretation posed by those with a religious or anti-religious agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 13 stars in the crest
 * 13 stripes in the shield
 * 13 olive leaves
 * 13 olives
 * 13 arrows
 * 13 feathers of the arrows
 * 13 levels of stone in the Pyramid
 * 13 letters in the motto E Pluribus Unum


 * I own of a copy of the Patterson and Dougall book; which page is that assertion on? I don't recall any conclusion of theirs supporting the statement, but I may have missed it.  Rather, they attribute the spelling to the particular edition of Eclogue IV that Thomson owned, as that appears to affect the spelling both of this motto and Novus Ordo Seclorum, both derived from Virgil as you say, both of which Thomson came up with (not Barton).  This is on pages 89-90.   The authors suspect that if Thomson had owned a different edition, the mottoes would have been spelled a bit differently (possibly without the œ ligature in the case of this motto, but as "oe", or perhaps spelled "adnuit"). As for that link, I think that's reading a lot more into the Patterson text than what is there.  Here is the statement from the book: Thomson changed the imperative annue to annuit, the third person singular form of the same verb in either the present tense or the perfect tense.  At no point do the authors speculate as to why -- that appears to be a pure invention of the author of the book you link, and so I'm not sure I would consider that a reliable source.  Very misleading.  Patterson/Dougall then discuss the situation of the missing noun, and do note that Hunt suggested the subject was the eye itself, and note that in later publications it has been construed to mean God, without anything further nor offering their own speculation.  I also own a copy of Hunt's brochure; he actually did two versions, one of which had a bunch of significant errors, the second better but not perfect.  I don't remember the 13-letter discussion there either, but I'll have to go back.    As for the implication that the mottoes were changed to excise "God", I'd have to agree that isn't there either.  I thought about removing that other passage from the article too, but it is cited.  It's not supported at all in the Patterson and Dougall book.  I don't think there is any evidence either it was changed for that reason; rather, Thomson's own description links this motto and the Eye of Providence (a generally religious symbol) together.  This all took place well before the Constitution was created anyways; that is really the first point that there was a conscious attempt to separate church and state, I'm pretty sure.   If I had to guess, Thomson probably changed the two mottos simply to be more scholarly (he was a Latin teacher), as the two of them are both from Virgil quotes.   As for the overall theme of "13", yes it's there, but not to that extent.  The various contributors gave their reasonings for many things; I don't recall any evidence that E Pluribus Unum was chosen because it had 13 letters; rather that appears to be coincidental, as does Annuit Cœptis.  The 13 stripes, 13 stars in the crest, and 13 arrows are absolutely references to the 13 colonies, and documented as such.  They even intentionally violated the rules of heraldry to get the mention of 13 stripes in the blazon.  The 13 olive leaves and 13 olives however were not a feature until the 1885 rendition of the seal, a full century later, and were not in the original symbolism discussions whatsoever, and any argument which tries to use that as evidence as to Barton's and Thomson's intent is pretty immediately suspect.  (The first version of the seal had no olives at all, and 15 leaves.)  While blazons during the design process did specify 13 levels to the pyramid, that is not in the final version, and is simply an artistic choice of whoever makes a particular version, though admittedly that aspect is pretty conventional by now.   I have not seen any real evidence that the mottos were there because they had 13 letters (Novus Ordo Seclorum sure doesn't), and there is a certain amount of documentation and discussion available from the principals, without any such mention as far as I'm aware.  It is not supported at all in the Patterson and Dougall book, from what I can find, which is about as authoritative source as you can get -- it's several hundred pages, and you don't get the feel they left any stone unturned.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I concede that your scope is impressive, I cannot concur with your conclusion of "coincidence" with regard to the 13 letters both in E Pluribus Unum and Annuit Coeptis. Do you think that counting letters was something that Thomson would have never thought of? If he's drawing from Virgil, why did he not just lift Annue Coeptis from the text? As far as citing T. Jeremy Gunn as both expert and impartial, I have serious reservations. Gunn is a director of the ACLU--a notoriously politically biased interest group. More importantly, his translation of Annuit Coeptis as "our undertakings have been favored" does tremendous injustice to the fundamental conventions of Latin. Gunn takes Annuit, a third person singular present indicative (he nods, favors), and turns it into a past passive perfect ("have been favored"). Certainly a Latinist such as Thomson would never have intended such violence to the translation. I seriously question Gunn's qualifications as a classicist. Can we agree that for the sake of this article, that the readers be exposed both to Gunn's strict separationist interpretation of the motto, as well as that which has been embraced broadly by numerous writers who note the dual presence of 13 letters and, like me, cannot, in light of common sense, dismiss it as a mere coincidence. That seems to be the most even handed and responsible way to resolve our difference, and most in keeping with Wiki principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.188.20 (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If Thomson (or du Simitiere, who first suggested the E Pluribus Unum motto) thought the 13 letters were significant, you would think they would have mentioned it in some of the documentation surrounding their work. They apparently did not.  Any suggestion that they did choose them due to 13 letters needs a reliable source, and I don't think there is one.  Any such suggestion would seem to be complete speculation, and the gut feel to me is that they are both coincidences (happy coincidences perhaps, but that does not explain why Novus Ordo Seclorum was not 13 letters, if that aspect was truly important).   Perhaps Thomson merely wanted to change the verb tense, and nothing more.  His symbolism was that it alluded "to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause"; the imperative mood doesn't make much sense there, and really would seem almost arrogant.  I share your reservations on Gunn.  That source is at least far more circumspect and accurate in its description of the original sources, but the thought that Thomson (or Congress) was intentionally removing mention of God is similarly unfounded and is just his personal opinion, and is not supported by the mainstream sources from what I can see.  Congress had rejected the entire seal (primarily the obverse side); I can't fathom they would reject based on a motto on the relatively insignificant reverse (which they ended up never using anyways; it was just in case Congress wanted to use pendant seals, which was done from 1814-1871 but they never bothered imprinting the reverse even then).  For my personal guess, Thomson probably just found the Latin in the two reverse mottoes to be bland, and changed them to something fancier, but keeping similar meanings.  He even re-added the triangle around the eye, which I think refers to the Trinity, though left the rest of that design alone -- his contributions were primarily in the obverse, to get something that Congress actually liked.  I have nearly removed Gunn's passage from the article on a couple of occasions, and think we should.  However the solution is not to add another (basically unsourced) personal opinion, particularly when not described as one person's opinion.  Neither opinion is supported whatsoever in the Patterson and Dougall book from what I could find, nor the Hunt brochures.  The two Hunt brochures are online, actually -- Google Books has the many-mistakes 1892 version here (also on archive.org here), and the better-but-not-perfect 1909 version here (also on questia.com as a free preview here).  Charles Totten (who had a seriously mystical bent to his ideas) wrote quite a bit on the seal back in the 1870s through 1890s and did a lot of research; in an 1897 book here (page 113) he does mention the 13 letters, but also notes that fact seems to have entirely escaped the creator's (i.e. Thomson's) notice. I'm not sure the best way to treat these fringe theories -- there is lots of discussion out there, and it may be best to acknowledge that in some way -- but they do not belong in the main body, since the mainstream sources (such as the Patterson book, and others) don't support them at all.  Removing them both is better than the current situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the rigor of only including that which can be supported with original documentation, but I believe it is helpful to the readers to be aware of various interpretations, too. Those kinds of discussions are common in Wiki articles (e.g., theories about Jefferson's sources in the Declaration of Ind.) Gunn has every right to his theory for why Deo Favente wasn't retained, and I don't think it needs to be erased (my experience with Wiki is that someone else will post it again eventually anyway). There are a multitude of other publications, however, that have connected the number 13 to Annuit Coeptis, even though the connection is not explicitly in Thomson's remarks. In the interest of full disclosure and to let readers decide, I think it valuable to retain both ideas (perhaps others if they emerge). You can even add your suspicion that it was entirely coincidence. This will prevent others from adding either theory in the future. If the section in the article needs to be labeled something like "theories for why 'Deo Favente' was scrapped" that would make sense. I suppose your "coincidence" theory may appeal to some, but to simply excise the fact from the article that E Pluribus Unum and Annuit Coeptis both have 13 letters, in my opinion, is to not let readers decide for themselves whether or not there is any connection. It's disingenuous. No matter what you believe to be the explanation, it is a fact worthy of mention in the article in some way. Historical claims don't always need explicit primary source documentation if there is a clear and recognizable pattern. If a Civil War widow showed up to a funeral in a black dress, we don't need to have her written explanation to make the highly rational claim that "she wore the black dress as a result of the pattern/custom of the ritual." It would be pure buffoonery for someone to push back by saying "It may just have been coincidence that she put on a black dress that day." This would be one of those issues where the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" fits. Now you may say that the widows dress example is not parallel to the 13 letters of the motto. But my point is not to prove the case, but to show that there are some claims that don't need primary source documentation. I say let the readers see the evidence and decide for themselves whether there is a pattern or whether it's coincidence, rather than hiding it under the pretension of "removing any opinions that are not linked to original sources." An author's partiality and bias is not only revealed in what is posted, but also by what is ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.26.214.62 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There are guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR to conform to. I can understand if you were misled into believing that trying to make the mottos 13 letters was supported in the primary reliable sources, but it's not.  Currently, Dunn's viewpoint has undue weight given to it in the article, violating that guideline in my opinion, but again the solution is not to add another section which also has undue weight. While a statement like "Annuit Cœptis and E Pluribus Unum have 13 letters and Novus Ordo Seclorum has 15 letters" does not need a reliable source, it's a pretty meaningless statement by itself.  To ascribe any further significance to it would require a reliable source.  All of the primary sources for people studying the Great Seal do not mention any connection; in fact one (who would have certainly wanted to find such a connection) noted specifically that Thomson seemed completely oblivious to that fact.  While I'm sure lots of people have speculated, I'm not sure any of them qualify as a reliable source to anything other than their own speculative opinions.  If we want to create a separate section called "Speculation", giving brief mention to these, that may be OK -- but readers should also be made aware there is basically zero support for those theories both in the primary evidence and in the significant researchers on the matter since.  Thus, the "coincidental" opinion has some backing in the sources; not much else does.  Feel free to bring up any reliable sources that I (or others) have been unaware of, though -- there could always be something else out there.  But the article should represent the mainstream view, and anything beyond coincidental does not appear to be that view, nor do they seem to be scholarly significant theories.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Given your pretensions of only stating in the article what is explicit in the primary sources, I would challenge you and any of your sources to provide primary source evidence that Thomson was in fact borrowing from Virgil's Georgics. I have never seen that in the remarks and explanations of Thomson or in any of the minutes of Congress. It is entirely an inference made by those who look at what does exist, and what it clearly seems to reflect. If the standard of proof for a claim is "the horse's mouth," then the info about Virgil should be extricated from the article. If left in, then why can't another inference that is just as logical and compelling be included? If your only grounds is the authority of Patterson and Dougall, I would allege a fallacy ad verecundiam unless you can support the inference made thereby. On what grounds can anyone assert that Thomson lifted Annuit Coeptis from Virgil? The only argument that can be made is the pattern... the similarity... the fact that Thomson was abundantly familiar with classics. But beyond that, nothing. Why then not conclude that it was just as likely a "coincidence" that Virgil and Thomson used similar expressions? The standards you want to employ seem to be rather arbitrary, convenient, and selective to your own agenda. I won't continue to argue the point; I've tried to compromise and to collaborate; you are obviously set on your personal interpretation that, in my view, is highly questionable. And you don't seem to be much open to anyone questioning your personal interpretation. So edit the article as you see fit. I've tried to compromise. This conversation will serve for posterity my objections to your narrow interpretation. I don't have the desire or energy to argue with a wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not primary sources necessarily, but reliable. It should be noted that the Virgil angle is a guess, to be honest -- Richardson and Dougall do that, but they note that nobody has offered any competing theories in the intervening decades, and that one appears to be correct.  But that is discussed in all of the main publications and research about the seal, whereas the 13-letter thing really is not mentioned anywhere in those sources -- and one specifically pointed that out, that it appeared to be a coincidence.  Why does Novus Ordo Seclorum have 15 letters then?  That would need to be explained, as well.  If that is insignificant, then so well may be the 13 letters.  Thomson changed two mottos; is the number of letters significant in only one case?   None of the main researchers on the seal have suggested that was likely a reason for choosing Annuit Cœptis; so that really represents the mainstream views, which is what Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent, and anything else is not mainstream speculation but more fringe theories.  They should not be given undue weight -- just as you were frustrated yourself by giving Dunn too much weight (which I think you were correct on).  Readers should be aware that they are not mainstream theories, and that most seal researchers do not share either view.  The title of this section was "This Is not in Dispute Among Experts" -- but that is incorrect, as most experts don't even bother mentioning it (though I guess it's not really a dispute in that case).  The views of people who have seriously studied the seal do not include the 13-letters inference, as "obvious" as you think that is, which is different than the Virgil references (which also represent a common thread between the two mottos that Thomson chose, at least).  They have even identified the actual Virgil edition that Thomson probably had based on the spelling. But really, the criteria is reliable sources -- no matter how obvious it may seem, it should be a mainstream view to be represented that way in the article text, and neither Lossing, Totten, Hunt, nor Richardson/Dougall seem to think it was relevant enough to include in their books or writings.  I don't see why we should be including it either, except to note the fringe speculation, which does exist of course.  The WP:UNDUE guideline states: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views.   I'm not sure Dunn or the 13 letters angle are truly significant viewpoints; if so, why would none of the main researchers over the past 160 years mention it?  If you want to bring up reliable sources which do discuss it, by all means, please do so.  I'm certainly open to having my interpretation questioned, but I'm not as open to have the interpretation of seal experts changed.  Your original rationale in this discussion was However, the official government historians of the Great Seal. Patterson and Dougall, The Eagle and the Shield, published by the Department of State, 1976, makes it clear that the motto "Annuit Coeptis" was in fact chosen BECAUSE of the number of letters.  That would be a great reason to include it in the article; however that is turns out to completely not be the case, rather they don't mention it at all, in a several hundred page book on the seal which actually does discuss (and debunk) a few other fringe theories, just about anything that people had brought up over the years.  I agree with your original contention that the article should rely on the "historical consensus of experts"; the 13-letter theory is not included in that.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are a hoot! You change the bar to suit your agenda. Now you've changed the standard to "reliable" sources. Well, what makes a reliable source reliable? Expertise in the field? Research in the field? Degrees in the field? Publications in the field? If you agree that those are what makes a "reliable" source, then you'd have to concede that a person who did a Ph.D. dissertation on the Reverse of the Great Seal would be among the world's leading experts--certainly would have to be considered among "people who have seriously studied the seal" (your words). Well who did a Ph.D. Dissertation on the reverse of the great seal? http://www.unitedsymbolismofamerica.com/page.php?id=9 Whose research has been cited by White House, the State Department, and the Department of the Interior, the History Channel, Discovery and National Geographic Channels? Who has published on the topic? All of these are the qualification of Dr. Robert Hieronimus who published the connection between Annuit Coeptis and 13 http://books.google.com/books?id=NnVIt8rpkrcC&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q&f=false That is why I posted the headline on this thread in a matter of fact way. You may not like Hieronimus' expert conclusion, but you can't deny his credentials. He would easily be admitted in court as an expert on the topic. But I know what you will do at this point--you'll change the bar back to a "primary source" standard. You'll say "I don't care what Dr. Hieronimus says, I want to see the primary source to verify his conclusion." But when I then ask you for the primary source for Patterson & Dougall's Virgil claim, you'll say "well, they are reliable sources, and that's enough." You see--and anyone who reads this conversation will see--you simply are a moving target. You contradict yourself, change your standards arbitrarily, and you elevate yourself as the divine arbiter of reliability and accuracy. I don't know what your credentials are, but I have a strong suspicion that you didn't do a Ph.D. dissertation on the reverse of the great seal. Hieronimus did. And it was more "recent" than Hunt or Patterson. That actually qualifies him more appropriately for what Wiki calls RECENT scholarship. And it certainly makes him among those who have "seriously studied the seal" (your words). If T. Jeremy Gunn is an expert (you've wrongly called him "Dunn" again and again, just like you keep wrongly writing that there are 15 letters in Novus Ordo Seclorum), then Hieronimus is certainly an even superior expert. At one point I thought you might actually have some degree of acumen and erudition on the topic; now I suspect that you are pathological. You probably don't have many successful relationships in your life as a result of your intransigence. Pity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 03:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources. It's not my bar; that has always been the Wikipedia standard.  Sorry if I implied anything else above; I linked earlier to several relevant guidelines including that one.  Primary sources would probably be needed to definitely say "Thomson intended X" though.  As for my credentials, I have basically just read the books in question, that's all, and am fairly familiar with the content. Sorry, yes, I meant Gunn above, and 17 letters in Novus Ordo Seclorum.  The point is the same though.  Hieronimus does bear mention, more than Gunn.  While I don't doubt some of his research was used, what research? As mentioned, Totten had some similar views, though his actual research was fairly scholarly and separate from his personal views -- the factual research was certainly valuable and referenced, even if his personal beliefs are not all that mainstream.  Your Hieronimus link though, again, states that Hunt and Patterson and Dougall explained that to get to the preferred 13 [letters] Charles Thomson used the imperative Annuit in the third person present tense. That is a bad mischaracterization of the source, as I explained above.  The sources merely say that Thomson changed the imperative Annue, but without speculating why, and never mention the thirteen letters.  I linked to the Hunt pamphlets above; is there something in there that I missed?  Leaving it as annue would result in a motto (I believe) of "[God,] favor our undertakings" which has a rather different connotation as a motto, I'd think, so changing to annuit ("[God] favors our undertakings", or if it is considered the perfect tense as Patterson also mentioned as a possibility, then "[God] has favored our undertakings") makes sense in and of itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Boo! on the controller of this article. Boo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.132.87.111 (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

He = God
I think that this article downplays the fact that the third-person singular of "Annuit" refers directly to God. I think the use of the word "Providence" is an attempt to mask what the U.S. is really saying with the Great Seal..."God approves of our undertakings to create a new world for ourselves". In other words, the U.S. is claiming divine rights, which is the basis for Monarchism. This is not a new idea for America. One the main ideas of Manifest Destiny in the 19th century was that the settlers were under the direction of the Christian God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.145.104 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Seeing how the proposals that explicitly stated God (including "God" and "Deo") were rejected, this indicates that the ambiguity was intentional. As concepts evolved, in both the seal designs as well as documents released, the crystallization of the concept of separation of church and state can be observed.  The switch from "God" to the implied [He] has been taken to be an important step toward that end.


 * And how the new government was completely different from the one it broke from was that it severed the notion of divine rule of a monarch with hereditary succession. The leadership of this new nation was chosen by the people.  Those leaders were chosen from the equal ranks of the people.  And the purpose of the government was to the benefit for the people.  This concept was brand new.  Lexington & Concord was the "shot heard round the world", as they say.--Tdadamemd (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What does "In 1782, Sam Adams created the third Congress " mean?
What does "In 1782, Sam Adams created the third Congress" mean? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No idea, so I've removed it. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Our
There is no mention of our in the Latin original. Шурбур (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Article contains no info about Deo Favente
The section of this article headed "Change from Deo Favente to Annuit Cœptis" contains nothing about the change, though this "Talk" page does contain a good deal. Someone who knows something about the change (I know nothing.) ought to edit the page to make the content of the section match the heading.

Jonrysh (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Use in the US Capitol building
Recent events have disclosed the phrase in use above a door in the US Capitol building. No mention has been made of it in the article, only on the US currency.

at 01:35 of 03:14

Jplvnv (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)