Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation

Infobox
I am proposing an updated version of the info box. Given this page’s importance and the fact that these pages – Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War – both have infoboxes, I felt it was important to do so. I have fixed/addresssed many earlier raised concerns: Alternatively, I would be happy to remove the motives section altogether and keep the rest. By the way, good figures over a long period are very hard to find. If you can, please insert any relevant info there.
 * “It also appears to present as fact events/judgements/motives which are highly contested.”: I don’t believe so, but feel free to delete any or reorder them. They are not sourced on this page (Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War) and thus have no need to be here
 * “Who decides what the motives are for a series of unproven accusations?”: Again, feel free to change or delete them. I thought these would be standard etc.
 * “Islamophobia isn't generally regarded as a motive here”: this I disagree with. It may not be the main motive, but it is a secondary one.

Here are some of my improvements:
 * As with the accepted formula on this page, I have added many attack types. Better, they are sourced.

Please work constructively and add or remove what you think if you have consensus. If little feedback or amendment is given, I will add this box to the page.

Thank you, From Scientelensia (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think this page needs an infobox, tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that? I think it provides clarity and information for new viewers and upgrades the status of the article. Scientelensia (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The question is why do we need one, we managed perfectly well without one till now. It is not for WP editors to make a "case" for genocide via infobox, the accusation is of course disputed and none of that is in the infobox. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My thoughts for reasons:
 * Improves information, makes it more readily accessible without having to trawl through a page.
 * Provides a summation of the allegations of the article.
 * Other respected articles of the same nature use infoboxes for these reasons
 * (As a lesser point, the page looks good.)
 * Scientelensia (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I made some tweaks to the infobox to try and improve it, but I'm still not really liking the idea of an infobox on this article (or infoboxes on the other articles you mentioned for that matter). An infobox is for giving readers at-a-glance quick facts about the topic. For a topic like this, I don't think there are any quick facts that can be summed up into short infobox parameters. Almost every parameter is "unsure/needs explanation," e.g. when it started, where it happened, who was targeted, how many died, the methods (attack type), motives, and who's responsible (it's not just Israel). This infobox kind of concatenates everything from everywhere... but not everyone who says there is a genocide of Gazans going on since Oct 7 also thinks that this genocide began in 1948 or includes anyone in the West Bank or in Israel. Similarly, not everyone who says that the 1948 Nakba was a genocide thinks that the 2nd intifada was part of that genocide. One thing I agree with is the title: it should be "Palestinian genocide accusations" because there are more than one accusation of more than one genocide (or of a genocide with more than one set of boundaries or features). It's all very... complex. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hard to disagree. Removing the infobox sounds wise. — kashmīrī  TALK  18:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * True, thanks for engaging.
 * Just to say that this page is specifically accusations since 1948. It is difficult, but the if what you say is correct (“not everyone who says that the 1948 Nakba was a genocide thinks that the 2nd intifada was part of that genocide”) it does not mean that the date of this uprising did not host other events which could be listed under genocide. Hope I’m explaining myself well. The page for “a genocide of Gazans going on since Oct 7” is different: Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza.
 * Also, I made some important edits, emphasising that these are only allegations. Do you think it is appropriate now? What would you change?
 * If others are complicit, you could always add a complicit section?
 * As for the stats, they are hard to find especially before 2000. Maybe more extensive research is needed.
 * Scientelensia (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the infobox at The Holocaust, and using an infobox like that one here? (So, radically shorter.) Levivich (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There the essential facts are well known and not (usually) disputed so it sort of works. Still think here it is just too...messy...for it to work. Selfstudier (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes potentially, or we could simply remove the motives section here. In any case, I believe an infobox is the right way to go. Scientelensia (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Scientelensia: Have you considered forking infobox civilian attack and creating infobox alleged genocide, perhaps with more appropriate parameters and parameter labels? Because as much as I don't like it on several levels, Wikipedia has multiple articles about alleged genocides, maybe they'd all benefit from a tailored infobox.
 * I should say at the outset that I don't necessarily support the creation of such an infobox or the use of infoboxes on any alleged genocide articles. I'm not convinced that the infoboxes are more informative than (unintentionally) misleading. But forking is an idea.
 * One example of an inherent problem with an alleged genocide infobox is that while genocide is alleged, often (almost always?) the underlying facts are not alleged, they're established. For example, in this case, it's not alleged that tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, or millions displaced, or that there have been airstrikes, etc., all of these individual events are undisputed. What's disputed, or alleged, is that these events together are properly labeled "genocide." So how can an infobox convey that the details are proven, it's the overall characterization that is "alleged"? Without misleading the reader into thinking that either: (a) it's a genocide and Wikipedia is saying so, or (b) the underlying facts are alleged/disputed/uncertain.
 * But maybe there's a way to do this? Also it's possible that other editors will think forking the infobox is a terrible idea (I note there is no infobox genocide). Idk. Levivich (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * An interesting and good idea. Scientelensia (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I have time right now yet I understand you what you are saying. Scientelensia (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * An interesting idea. I'd even go for, with a parameter "Alleged" (Yes/No), alternatively  with "Genocide" a value of "Type", etc. —  kashmīrī  TALK  17:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Levivich as well. Infoboxes are best for summarizing data in a compact format, and that seems very difficult to do in this case without losing qualifications or nuances which are important for NPOV.
 * I think the suggested infobox is a reasonable attempt, trying to balance nuance with compactness, but it ends up having to compromise on both somewhat.
 * I think the goal of making key information more apparent can be accomplished in other ways, like trimming the lead paragraphs, moving some less important details to sections below. XDanielx (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A well reasoned solution. Scientelensia (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

title change
we recently changed title 'Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza' to gaza genocide should this article name also be changed? Gsgdd (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Good question, idk. Sourcing for Gaza genocide is straightforward to locate, is that the case for Palestine/Palestinian tho? Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Gaza genocide is poorly ranked in search result with only 400 views last 30 days. But with recent name change - i think it will start to improve. However this page has around 30k views. Im about keeping title simple, something like (Palestinian genocide). People will know it is currently accusation if they read opening para. And in future - if court rule against israel - we can simply change body and title can remain the same. Gsgdd (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not that concerned with internal search results for main articles, just the usual policies and guidelines discussion as were had at Gaza genocide article, we need (lots of) sources discussing a Palestinian genocide (I know that Gaza is also Palestine, the artificial separation remains a constant problem), I think we can probably do that but we still have to deal with POVNAME argument because there are Palestinians in Israel and WB as well, it's not so straightforward. Idk, to tell the truth, I would have to go looking to see what sourcing is available and I haven't had time to do that myself. It's possible that "persecution" has better sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that editors will support the idea of two genocides being carried out by Israel. I'd wait for now. The end arrangements may depend on the outcome of the ICJ and ICC cases (and thus on sources) – it's possible that this article will be eventually renamed to "Palestinian genocide" while Gaza genocide will either be merged and redirected into this one or will be refocused to war crimes in Gaza. — kashmīrī  TALK  07:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Estimate of future deaths
re the estimate you added, I'm not necessarily against including this, but we should be cautious for a few reasons
 * Lancet lists this as "Correspondence", are essentially letters from readers. See here (emphasis theirs). Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed. The authors do have some credentials, so this isn't a dealbreaker, just more like a WP:SPS.
 * It's a projection of future deaths, so we should make that clear.
 * I feel "statistical estimate" is making this sound more rigorous than it is - they just picked a round-number multiple (four) that they felt would be not implausible for this conflict.
 * To corroborate the plausibility of the multiple, they seem to cite an article titled Global burden of armed conflict, which I can't find. They provide a URL which points to a report titled World Drug Report, so maybe it's that? That report seems to discuss some related ideas of extrapolation based on multiples, but in the context of heroin addicts.

Again not necessarily against including it, but I think it should be framed pretty differently if we do. — xDanielx  T/C\R 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I expanded the line and the cite, and did the same at a few other articles (check my contribs). Feel free to massage it further. Levivich (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I might make some additional changes but will hold off a bit to see other input. — xDanielx  T/C\R 06:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I also think that this information should be included, given that only the identifiable bodies directly killed by assaults from Israeli forces have been included in the listed statistics here thus far, not the ones hidden under the rubble of collapsed buildings or killed by starvation or diseases as a result from this conflict. David A (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, it was clearly stated that the 4x number was a conservative estimate. The maximum was 15x, which would mean over 570,000 total deaths of mainly innocent women and children. Should that be mentioned as well? David A (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of what the source says directly, they do say conservative but also say not implausible, which I think reflects the high uncertainty with such difficult projections. Maybe we should include both?
 * My take (which is admittedly less relevant) is that something close to 15x probably isn't plausible here, since that would be at least 25% of the population, maybe 50%+ if direct deaths rise. The cases with high multiples, like DRC (~10x), seem to involve smaller proportions of the population, and also parts of the world that are more ignored by the West. — xDanielx  T/C\R 06:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, but given the systematic prevention of food deliveries caused by the Israeli military and settler groups, combined with complete destruction of sanitation, systematic targeting of medical personel and rescue workers, and so onwards, wouldn't the situation rationally be considerably worse than usual in terms of indirect deaths? David A (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you have some valid points and it's probably fine to say conservative. Not sure about a number like 570k since we wouldn't have a source for it (maybe stil admissible based on WP:CALC but feels iffy to me), but we could mention the 3-15x range if that works?
 * I think for balance it would also be good to somehow highlight that these are very rough projections, with a lot of assumptions (that Gaza is comparable to other conflicts, that GHM isn't already counting indirect deaths, etc) and uncertainty. — xDanielx  T/C\R 06:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that mentioning the 3x to 15x range seems reasonable, as long as we also mention that the 4x multiple was used for the currently listed estimate. David A (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I found what the authors meant to cite to back the multiples they mention: The Global Burden of Armed Violence, chapter 2. It says In the majority of conflicts since the early 1990s for which good data is available, the burden of indirect deaths was between three and 15 times the number of direct deaths, and A reasonable average estimate would be a ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary conflicts. — xDanielx  T/C\R 05:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. David A (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What if we cited this report as the main source discussing indirect deaths, and briefly mentioned the Lancet correspondence just for the 186k figure? This report just seems much more authoritative and rigorous. I think this could lead to a stronger, more verifiable statement, otherwise readers who check the Lancet source might get the impression that numbers were pulled out of a hat. — xDanielx  T/C\R 06:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that we should use both sources in combination for stronger verification purposes. Mainly using the main source that the Lancet study used for its total casualties estimations does not directly mention the current situation in Palestine as far as I am aware. Meaning, please do not remove any current information, but feel free to add a reference and the 570,000 upper maximum number, in my personal view. David A (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I might have missed the part which implies that it is predictive. Though, when I first read it I interpreted it as indirect deaths up to that point (which would make sense given they're using a figure of how many people died up until recently).
 * That's not to say there's no grounds for interpreting it in that way, and I think there is good reason to think about including the "future" part Genabab (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You missed it because at no point does the report say that the 186k figure is a projection.
 * Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2 375 259, this would translate to 7·9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip. A report from Feb 7, 2024, at the time when the direct death toll was 28 000, estimated that without a ceasefire there would be between 58 260 deaths (without an epidemic or escalation) and 85 750 deaths (if both occurred) by Aug 6, 2024.
 * This is simple enough to interpret. For the current conflict in Gaza, a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death is applied (which gives us the 186k figure). These are not future projections but rather an estimate of the impact to date. The future projections mentioned are from a February report and are based on a different context and point in time. - Ïvana (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That paragraph is a bit ambiguous, but I think the context from the two preceding sentences make it clear they're talking about a projection of future indirect deaths (or maybe both, past + future): Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases. The total death toll is expected to be large given [...]
 * Besides, interpreting it as 186k past deaths would make the claim quite extraordinary. GHM must have a reasonable estimate of total excess (direct + indirect) deaths, which is simply total deaths minus expected deaths (based on pre-conflict data). If that number was anything close to 186k, surely GHM would have reported it and it would be all over the news. — xDanielx  T/C\R 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please continue this discussion at Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war where this has been copied. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood, should we close these other threads then? — xDanielx  T/C\R 19:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2024
Palestinian genocide accusation → Palestinian genocide – Given the movement of Gaza genocide to that title, the current title here has become incongruously inconsistent. How can the parent of a child topic that is not couched in the language of "accusation" be couched in that language? It should be obvious than it should not. More generally, it has become apparent that the language of "accusation" is generally inappropriate. This is not only per MOS:ACCUSED (which outlines how the language of accusation is problematic in its presumptive deployment of doubt (presumably ultimately as a corollary of WP:NPOV)), but also per consistency with similar titles on similar subjects. There are many pages on the topics of presumed or suspected (but not legally ruled on) genocides -- this is in fact the majority of them -- but no other genocide topic on Wikipedia, regardless of how speculative it is, is couched as a "genocide accusation". See the search results. Likewise, the phrase "Palestinian genocide accusation" is all but unknown to scholarship, in stark contrast to "Palestinian genocide", which is a common and widely used phrase, including in titular form, such as in the 2013 The Palestinian Genocide by Israel by the eminent Francis Boyle. In the previous move discussion, I somewhat rallied support around the current title, but that was in October last year, before much of the subsequent discussion around developments in Gaza. It seemed sensible at the time, but that was then, and this is now. Events have moved on significantly since then, not least with the ICJ case and provisional measures -- and hence the Gaza genocide move. As this page covers the overarching legal and scholarly topic of Palestinian genocide, the weight of both everything that went into the Gaza genocide RM discussion, and everything that precedes it in Palestinian history, including the Nakba and all subsequent Israeli policies and actions that have been discussed as conceivably genocidal by legal and academic experts, is under consideration. Given that this page has a significantly grander scope than its child, its title cannot reasonably contain greater doubt than that of its child. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. "Accusation" implies doubt, and considering the recent move of the child article to a more straightforward title, this one is inconsistent. Given the recent ICJ developments, "Palestinian genocide" more accurately reflects the scope of this topic and is also a term widely used in scholarly and legal contexts. - Ïvana (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose — I did not participate in the Gaza RM but would have opposed it as well if I was made aware of it. I'd like the point to the first two sentences of this article: The State of Israel has been accused of carrying out or inciting genocide against Palestinians during the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Debates are ongoing as to whether the entire process and which specific periods or events meet the definitions of genocide or not. (Emphasis mine) An accusation of genocide is an accusation of genocide, not a genocide. Incitement to genocide is not a genocide in and of itself. And the fact that we so prominently mention that "Debates are ongoing" means that I cannot support a move that seems to imply that one side of the debate is truthful while the debate is ongoing. If editors think that including "accusation" in the title favors the other side of this ongoing debate too much, then we could go for the more neutral-sounding "Palestinian genocide question" instead. But regardless, simply pretending in the title that this is not a matter of ongoing and heated debate with many reliable sources on both sides is in my opinion a violation of core policies regarding Wikipedia's neutral point of view. DecafPotato (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That debates are ongoing about the topic of "Palestinian genocide" is why it is a topic. Wikipedia page titles merely the names of topics. Example: Transgender genocide, as was discussed in the Gaza genocide discussion, reflects a disputed or contested term. But again, the very dispute and contestation of the topic validates it as a subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose pure defamation and against the definition. מתיאל (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)מתיאל
 * Oppose per WP:POVNAME and WP:POVTITLE. A title of Palestinian genocide essentially amounts to a (strongly implied) statement in wikivoice that a genocide is occurring. Such a statement is decidedly non-neutral, given the controversy. I don't think it's necessary to discern which side of the controversy has more weight, as long as there exists a significant (non-fringe) viewpoint that genocide has not occurred (which there does, see e.g. here). There are exceptions to WP:POVNAME for widely used (effectively proper) names; that's a high bar that isn't met here. I don't see why MOS:ACCUSED would support Palestinian genocide; it says alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial. Consistency is a minor stylistic consideration relative to these neutrality issues. Gaza genocide might also not be the long-term title, since the consensus seemed to be against it; the RM close didn't seem to recognize that those opposing it were split between two similar alternatives. Setting aside that particular article, there's nothing unusual about "allegations" or similar language in titles; it's a common practice for avoiding WP:POVNAMEs. See e.g. 1, 2, 3, or (from a different topic area), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. — xDanielx  T/C\R 20:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the opening statement, "Palestinian genocide" is a term with plentiful scholarly circulation, while "Palestinian genocide accusation" is a Wikipedia invention. It is also redundant. Every genocide is an accusation. Someone has to be accused of a genocide for there to be a genocide topic. It therefore adds no precision, while clearly detracting from concision, per WP:CRITERIA. The only function that it does serve is as an expression of doubt, which we avoid. As with other genocide topics, few of which are legally affirmed, the title alone does not pass judgement and cannot provide the reader with a notion as to how credible the accusations of genocide might be. To comprehend, they have to read the content. However, the current title here, in using an expression of doubt, does pass a value judgement and therefore exerts a POV, so there is a POVNAME problem, but you have it backwards. The POV name is the current one. The NPOV name would be the proposed title, which names the subject without expressing doubt or casting a value judgement. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, so you're supporting Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel -> Israeli Genocide? Every genocide is an allegation. Someone has to be accused of a genocide for there to be a genocide topic. It therefore adds no precision, while clearly detracting from concision. The current title here, in using an expression of doubt, does pass a value judgement and therefore exerts a POV, so there is a POVNAME problem. The POV name is the current one. The NPOV name would be the proposed title (Israeli Genocide), which names the subject without expressing doubt or casting a value judgement. Bar Harel (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well they say that imitation is the highest form of flattery, but that's a question for that page. However, I would suggest that there are probably some other factors involved. Context is key. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like we disagree about what is implied by titles. To me a title of X implies the existence of X (at least in general; there are some murky edge cases like dark matter), so "Palestinian genocide" implies that a genocide has definitively occurred. A title of "Palestinian genocide accusation" merely implies that accusations have been made, without really saying anything about their merit.
 * If your view is that "accusations" is redundant, wouldn't that mean that a vast number of articles in Category:Allegations should have "allegations", "accusations" and similar terms removed from their titles? It seems the community has decided that the terms are important.
 * I don't think any guideline says to "avoid" expressions of doubt; MOS:DOUBT rather tells us to "watch" such words and use them when "appropriate". The current article repeatedly uses expressions of doubt when discussing genocide claims, suggesting a consensus that they're appropriate here. — xDanielx  T/C\R 05:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I recall my split !vote elsewhere "Option 2 or 3, 2 because there is already a Palestinian genocide accusation that has not as yet changed its title, and 3 because there is a significant view in sources that Israel is committing a genocide and I have not as yet seen a sufficiency of sources saying that Israel is not committing a genocide." and here we are. Due to circumstance and current events we are doing this backwards, the child is done and the parent is waiting when ordinarily it would be the other way about and the child renamed without fuss. The issues are the same tho, is there a preponderance of sourcing that makes the proposed title a topic? And then, if so, is there source evidence sufficient to overcome a POVNAME objection. So we will, willy nilly, have to do all that source analysis over again replacing "Gaza" with "Palestine" (or Palestinian, I guess). I suppose it might be possible to merge the two articles but then we will still have the same discussion so that will have to wait.Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait. I believe that having Wikipedia write about apparently two separate Palestinian genocides may be confusing to readers (and also challenging to capture in navboxes). Looking at where things are moving, I think we'll most likely end up with one well-sourced article about a genocide in Palestine whose scope (time, geography) will mirror the scope of the forthcoming ICJ judgment, due in the next year or so. Once that judgement is out, we'll have to discuss merges and renames in the PI topic area, especially as regards genocides, war crimes and human rights violations, to address the current overlapping. While I'm not opposing the proposed rename as a matter of principle, and I see the all-important COMMONNAME point raised by Iskandar, I'd be somehow inclined to wait for the ICJ, not least for any such renames to be sustained. — kashmīrī  TALK  00:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree that this would be WP:POVTITLE and WP:POVNAME. In addition, there is WP:TITLECON: The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. See, for example,
 * Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War
 * Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel
 * The former of these two is also being reviewed at the ICJ. Why should we take it into our hands to decide which case is stronger? There are some exception to this rule, such as the Rohingya genocide, but it has been formally labelled as a genocide by governments, such as the U.S. Amayorov (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, In the opening of the article it is written: "Debates are ongoing as to whether the entire process and which specific periods or events meet the definitions of genocide or not". To remove the word accusation from the name of the article, is to give the article a wrong name. Hanay (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)