Talk:Basques/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Gascon

Many Basques in the French Basque country also speak Gascon - literally means Basco and Basque - not just French and Basque. Gascon has massive Basque influence in its language. This article is about ethnic Basques, but if Spanish and French are included as other languages than Basque spoken by them, then Gascon surely must be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.80.219 (talk • contribs)

I reverted this. French and Spanish are included because they are the respective state languages that Basques typically acquire through state education and often enough as the only languages they speak. Gascon is not a language typically associated with Basques, Basque ethnicity or culture, whatever the historic roots. Add to that the severe decline in Gascon speakers, this is perhaps worthy of a footnote within the body but not the infobox. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Basque language is the main ethnic language of Basques and Basque culture, but many Basques shifted from Basque to Gascon language (Basque substrate) first in the French Basque country, long before they ever shifted to speaking French. The name of the language itself literally means "Basque" in Latin. Gascon is today spoken specifically in traditionally Basque and Aquitanian lands and is a major language of the regions Basques live in, in the French Basque country, where Gascon has recognition and is found on road signs along with Basque. Most Basques in France live in areas traditionally also Gascon-speaking, not French. Given Gascon is a language of some Basque people themselves in the French Basque country, it needs to be included without a doubt here.174.119.80.219 (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. There are literally only a small handful of Gascon speakers - an ageing population - left in France. I suggest that you actually keep up with mainstream linguistic research rather than make things up as they appeal to your own point of view. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you are completely wrong. You are the one "making things up". And the number of Gascon speakers is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is natively spoken by thousands of people in Aquitaine and specifically in the French Basque country. You provided no source whatsoever for your claim, and there is still some 50,000 native speakers of Gascon in France. The point you are missing is that of the remaining speakers, some are Basques and Gascon is spoken in the French Basque country. It is on road signs in Bayonne, alongside Basque and French.

Trilingual sign in Bayonne, French Basque Country: French, Basque, and Gascon("Mayretat", "Sindicat d'initiatibe")

Numbers of Gascon speakers in Aquitaine, including the French Basque Country: Béarnais and Gascon today: Language behavior and perception

"In the Gascon-speaking region, the number of speakers, at all levels, varies from 3% in Bordeaux to 35% in the Hautes-Pyrénées. That means more than 500,000 people in total."

Béarnais and Gascon today: Language behavior and perception. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249929962_Bearnais_and_Gascon_today_Language_behavior_and_perception [accessed Oct 13 2017].

Furthermore, this does not account for you removal of my valid citation about the numbers of ethnic Basques in the Basque diaspora. You have no citation to refute this, so indeed you are the one who is POV pushing with OR. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Er, where did you get the impression that Eke.eus in an independent, objective (i.e., reliable source)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Where is your reasoning or citation to support your claim that it is not independent or unbiased? What criteria are you using to consider it "biased"? It's a valid website about the Basque diaspora. It meets Wikipedia standards. I clearly mention that the number used is the website's estimate, and not a hard figure. There's no reason to exclude this estimate of the size of the Basque diaspora.174.119.80.219 (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This website, while not a reliable academic journal like the other, states the following: "On both sides of the language border we find a number of bilingual communities. In these communities, speakers (from the age of about 40 to 45 upwards) who define themselves as Basque or bilingual usually speak Basque, Gascon, and French with equal native or native-like proficiency. " [1]

(edit conflict) ... And where did you pull the figure of 50,000 speakers from? A single research paper by a single - presumably - academic. At that, you've pointed to an abstract of the work, and I can find no reviews or citations by peers. Then you've tacked on Martin Haase as a source. This is known as WP:CHERRY. At best, there are a broad range of guesstimates as to how many speakers there are... and as to native-speakers... well. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

ResearchGate isn't exactly a reliable source in itself, reading the article on it. Look, 174.119.80.219, nobody is disputing that there are areas of the BC where other languages are also known. Bilbao is full of Galician speakers and on the western fringes, at least historically, Asturian probably also featured. The question is, is this notable or significant enough (that we can verify) to be included in the infobox. It just does not seem significant enough, certainly not in 2017, compared to diglossia in French/Spanish amongst Basques. I'd be totally ok with a section on historic Basque/Gascon bilingualism within the body. But it does not belong, the way I (and apparently Irina) see it, in the infobox. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Most certainly not for the infobox. Any salient content deemed WP:DUE could only be considered in the body of the article, and using WP:INTEXT attribution. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just to add my bit. Generally I should take EKE as a reliable source in the Basque context no matter what the WP policies are, but it provides some loose, subjective statements, like here, where it does talk of descendants, yes that is true, but also saying that 10.000.000 "have kept their language", well, sorry, no. I think you both had it right in that Gascon cannot be taken presently as a widespread or frequent reality of the Basques, but confined to certain areas, especially around Bayonne (BAB) and outlying areas of the Basque Country in France, so agree on not including it in the infobox. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have provided several sources here, including one academic journal specifically detailing the use of Gascon in Gascony, and especially in the Bearnais region and the French Basque Country. The other editors here have provided NOTHING but opinion and hearsay. They not provided any evidence or support for their contentions. Gascon is used as a lingua franca by Basques in Soule in the French Basque country and is a recognized language in Bayonne, appearing on street signs. To equate it with the presence of Galician immigrants in Bilbao is, frankly, absurd. Gascon has been spoken in the region of the French Basque country for centuries. Their descendants themselves were Basques who switched to the local Vulgar Latin dialect (which became Gascon), and there is a massive Basque substrate in Gascon. Gascon, again, itself means literally "Basque". If you do not wish to include it, then that is your choice, but Gascon is a language used and known, either passively or fluently, by tens of thousands of Basques in the French Basque country. [2]

With regards to the objections against the inclusion of the estimate of ethnic Basques in the Basque disapora, both Basque speakers and non-Basque speakers, the source I have provided is perfectly valid under Wikipedia standards. Thus, objections against its inclusion in the infobox will now be disregarded. This figure will be included, because it is based on a valid source about vibrant Basque diaspora communities such as in Colombia (Basque Colombians) or in Argentina (Basque Argentines). Until you provide an actual valid objection to this, based on some cited statistics, the diaspora number will be included in the infobox. Good day. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Maps

The world map has different colors than its key has. /For example, the U.S. is pale pink. There is no pale pink in the legend.

The Basque regional map gives no indication of where it is. Kdammers (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I see the same colours in the key as in the map. The US shade of pink is the one directly above the white box. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I also see it as Akerbeltz, I see no problem with those colours. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 11:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there was a major problem with it: no data or less than 10,000 was being depicted as white (i.e., no, I don't expect you'd find terribly many Basques living in the world's oceans). I've now fixed the legend to represent the grey areas of terra firma to reflect this stat. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole map is problematic in that it relies on data that is hard to verify... Akerbeltz (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. It lists no sources whatsoever therefore, for the purposes of use in a Wikipedia article, it is WP:OR. Having no justification [[WP:PG|policy or guideline justification for its use, I'm going WP:BOLD and removing it. If any editors can come up with actual reliable sources for the postulated map, they're welcome to bring their arguments to this talk page and actually table the sources for discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5qYGtTnn7?url=http://www.eitb.com/argazki/forum_re/caracterizacion.pdf to http://www.eitb.com/argazki/forum_re/caracterizacion.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Population figures

Please note:

• ideally only census data with self-declared national identity (like in the US data)
• no estimates of "descendents", there are millions of Americans descended from Germans but that does NOT make them German
• no blogs/news articles that don't actually specify the source for their data, there's all sorts of crazy claims out there

Akerbeltz (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note:

There are many sources for ethnicity and ancestry data which are valid apart from government statistics, regardless of national identity; ethnicity or racial identity are not the same as national identity. The is about Basques as an ethnic group or ethno-nation, which is based on descent and ancestral/racial origin, culture and language, not as some looser definition of nationality.

There are indeed tens of millions of Americans of German descent, some of whom can claim German citizenship via jus sanguinis. Regardless of nationality or citizenship though, it doesn't change their ethnicity/race/ancestry as being German or German American; they are not genetically, physically or culturally the same as other ethnicities in America. Being of German descent does make you German in terms of ethnicity/race/genetics and/or culture and/or language. FYI, over 1 million German Americans speak dialects of German at home. Ethnicity/race is not the same as citizenship, and often is not necessarily the same as nationality.

The sources I provided are valid academic sources for Colombia, either from books or organizations or academic articles. You made a fair point about the citations for Argentina though, which I removed. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A lot of these "sources" use very iffy methods to come up with their figures. Many rely solely on counting Basque surnames for instance and while Basque surnames are often easy to spot, there are all sorts of reasons why that is not a reliable way of counting ancestry. The infobox is just the wrong place for that - I'm even somewhat uneasy about including the US figure. Mostly infoboxes state the figures for members of the ethnic group today and significant diaspora members who emigrated during their lifetime and/or still hold citizenship or are still speakers of the language (like French Canadians). Most of the figures you keep trying to add are neither of those. We already have a section on the diaspora which contains various nebulous claims about possible ancestries... No one disputes that there was a significant number of Basques who ended up in the New World. But inflated/unreliable figures serve no one. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The US figure is a valid figure, from a reliable source. The numbers of ethnic group diaspora members is not just about members who still hold citizenship to a state or who can still get citizenship, but those who are part of the shared descent from that ethnic group. Most ethnicities are distinct from that of any existing nation-state. There is no Basque citizenship yet, last I checked, and Basques are ethnically completely distinct from other members of the nation state of Spain (genetically, physically, culturally, historically and linguistically distinct to be specific). Likewise, not all people living in the Basque Country today are ethnic Basques. To elude to your original point, 1 million German-Americans still speak German at home, and even those who do not, German languages have influenced regional American English dialects in the American mid-west. Ethnicity numbers from diaspora communities are thus not restricted to use of language or possible citizenship to a certain state. The ethnic group and disapora numbers are members with shared linguistic and cultural feautures and/or a shared descent/ancestry (which includes shared genetic, physical and cultural/behavioural features). Those of full or mostly German descent still are genetically part of the German ethnicity or "volk", and closest to them in genetic and physical, and some behavioural attributes. Thus, numbers based on ancestry/descent are included in infoboxes, because descent is part of being a member of that ethnic group, regardless of the varying levels of cultural, religious and linguistic similarity. Of the 40 million or so German-Americans, some retain more German cultural and linguistic features than others, and arrived in the US at different times. German-speaking Hutterites, for example, in Germany, Canada, the US, and Brazil are of a common German genetic/ancestry to a specific region of southeastern Germany and Austria, and also speak similar German dialects, and have shared cultural customs with those who have ancestral roots to the indigenous population in Germany or Austria. A German-American who speaks Hutterite German has a better linguistic and genetic connection with an Austrian German from Tyrol than that Austrian German from Tyrol has with a German from Hamburg who speaks an unintelligible Low German dialect. Libertas et Veritas (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have never tried to remove the US data which is indeed from a reliable source. The population figures which I have consistently removed are those where somebody checked the phonebook of X and found Y Basque looking surnames (or the equivalent thereof). Akerbeltz (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Eupedia.

Eupedia thinks R1b-L21 was in Ireland more than 4000 years ago. If this turns out to be true, than we don't know the haplogroup of Celtic conquerors. Even in Switzerland ancient branches of R1a-M417 make up like 17% of haplogroup R. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Basque Incoherence of figures of etnicity and descent

There are incoherences of content regarding Basque figures. For example in articles such as Basque Argentines or Basque Chileans, figures state a 3 to 3,5 million people for argentina and 1.6 to 2.7 million people of basque descent in Chile. This figures should be shown in this article in the same way German americans or German argentines are shown in the etnicity article "Germans". I think the data showing the total people of basque descent is not accurate at all and figures of the Basque diaspora, which are consider of basque descent and can even preserve basque culture should be included in the Basque article. This will solve the contradiction between the Diaspora articles, the Foreign Descent articles and the Basque ethnic one.

I can't police every page on Wikipedia, just because there's junk on the diaspora page, doesn't mean that should be there either. I've looked at the "articles" that are used as "sources", they're all junk, they are almost all rough estimates based on the frequency of Basque surnames and for the millionth time, having a Basque surname doesn't make you Basque. The only admissible data are really census data actual research into identity. That's why the US and Canadian data is included because it's actual census or research data into (albeit self-declared) ethnic identification. Someone counting how many people called Izagirre are in the Buenos Aires phone book is fun, but not hard data. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all the "sources" aren't junk. Some are based on government data. Nevertheless Im going to check the sources personally. Stating the Basque population as being just 3 million when millions of basques descendants live abroad, well is a lot of miscalculations. I understand the data may be unreliable. I will check it as I said. And again for a millionth time again: Having a Basque name automatically makes you a Basque by descent and basque by ethnicity (Except in the Philippines), just as someone having a German or Finnish Surname in the USA makes them of Finnish descent or ethnicity but not a Finn by nationality but an American. In the Finns article for example, Finnish American or Finnish Canadian are stated as Finns. Same should be done in the Basques article for the sake of Wikipedia's coherence. Someone born in Argentina and raised there with Basque ancestors and a Basque surname is a Basque by descent or ethnicity thus should be classified as such like in every other damm article. Alejojojo6 (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The Finnish Canadian data is based on a census where people were able to indicate their claimed descent. That's very different from someone counting surnames in a phonebook. Doesn't matter how often you repeat yourself, you cannot assign people an ethnicity just based on the surname. Take an extreme example - a slave owner has a Basque surname. If the slaves are manumitted, traditionally they take their former owners surname. Now ignoring how offensive a convention that was, there is no way in hell you can claim these are suddenly all ethnic Basques. But their (male) descendents would carry the Basque surname. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Following your logic then, not all the 3 million you state as "Basques" are so. As the basque country had emigration from the rest of Spain. On a note 90% of those with a Basque surname do have basque ancestry somewhere along their line the only exceptions being in the philippines. So you are basically setting yourself with a wrong estimate of the total number of basque people instead, leaving millions of Basques descendants in the world outside of this page which is wrong. You should be following the logic followed for all the ancestry pages on wikipedia. You will have more accurate numbers than cutting all those out. 0:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Learn how to read. It quite literally says including some areas where most people do not identify themselves as Basque. The figure serves as a realistic estimate i.e. it'll be somewhere below the total, but most likely not widely out of kilter with the top figure. I'm not even going to bother picking apart the rest, bring reliable sources (and that does NOT include some random e-zine putting out an estimate) or there is nothing to discuss. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC

Makes no sense to include people who dont identify as basque themselves in this figures and erase completely people in the americas who still consider and identify themselves as basques. Have some coherence and learn how to be less rude. Out of 3 million, Basque etnically would be less than 750 000 out of the 2 million figure provided for the Basque country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Race

Basques are historically a little people (about 300.000 in 1800, a 1,5% spanish population). It's impossible these figures of Basque descendants (about 10% argentine people and others). For example, in the list of 100 most common surnames Argentines, only two Basque surname: Aguirre (126.000), Leguizamon (48.000). In addition, the Basque emigration to America is very small, as the Basque Country became industrialized at mid XIX and there was little emigration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.7.209 (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Basques are a race, look at Armand Marie Leroi who proves that. We should add his article as a citation.

Basques are indoeuropean R1b haplogropup in 90%, the MOST RECENTS inhabitants of Europe. The basque lenguage its a koine of africans languages and celtic and latin. The basque myth... its only nationalism propaganda sustained by Basque government and institutions with much money and much violence.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

And... Argentina 3.5 million, Chile 1.3 - 2.6 million, Cuba 1.5 million? it's a joke? In Spain, much less than 40% of the Basque provinces inhabitants are 'Basques'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.74.94 (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

JUST in Spain as a whole, there are 4 million spaniards (outside the Basque autonomus community and Navarre autonomous community) with basque surnames (and with that, having basque ancestry). This figures count people with basque surnames in the world. In Argentina, Chile, etc... there is a large basque descended community. JUst in Chile figures about Basque ancestry are in between 10% and 20% of the population. So The figures are not incorrect. Saying this, we have to be carefull in for example the philippines where some people may have basque ancestry and some may have a basque surname as a given name, given to his ancestors who converted to christianity and adopted a new surname. You are also forgetting about the french basque diaspora and the basque navarrese diaspora. - signed by anon IP

Basques are a race, look at Armand Marie Leroi who proves that. We should add his article as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.154.71 (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What absolute rubbish. 50.111.34.214 (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Basques are indoeuropean people like spanish and south french people. Their language is a koine of Iberian, Celtic and Latin, emerged in III BC. Basques was only 200.000 people (total in Spain and France) in 1700. Stop Basque nationalist propaganda in Wikipedia.

Blah blah blah, go away and find a reliable source (good luck) or your crap will get reverted out, that's how it works. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a disputed theory on Basque people are the closest descendants of Cro-Magnon and earlier, Neanderthal species, other than human races. The majority of Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal remains tend to be in the Pyrenees of France and Spain. Geographical isolation and limited contact with Indo-European or Latin/Romance speaking peoples whose nations later claimed to rule the Basque country is theorized to preserved a high percentage of rare genetics. RH negative and O type blood frequency is the highest among the Basques than any other nationality or ethnicity, as well links to Central and East Asia, and even indigenous peoples of North and South America. And studies of COVID-19 survival and recovery rates on these countries' Basque people by coincidence were among the highest case counts in the world, but there were theories of the first human (common cold) coronaviruses from felines or cats infected Cro-Magnons who domesticated them and managed to adapt to a possible SARS like virus in the last ice age. Basque nationalists and genetic scientists theorized these people are among the world's oldest ethnic cultures. 2605:E000:100D:C571:94BD:B0F1:A6B9:12B5 (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources? --Kgfleischmann (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Basques are nothing but White Europeans. End of.--2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:82C:3F5E:DAE1:9CB8 (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Indigenous status?

Are there any sources for Basques being indigenous to Basque Country in the sense that Native Americans in the United States, Maya peoples, First Nations peoples, Irish Travellers, Morioris, and Crimean Tatars are considered indigenous? ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't say that Basques are indigenous in the sense you mention. In its most basic sense, 'indigenous' is largely synonymous with 'autochthonous', and this obviously applies to the Basques when you look at the "Origin" and "History" sections. So it's fine to say: Basques are indigenous to and primarily inhabit an area traditionally known as the Basque Country.

However, when it comes to the narrower sense that is commonly implied when talking about "Indigenous peoples" (with the package of massive territorial, economic, social and cultural marginalization), Basques fall outside of that category. –Austronesier (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the first meaning for autochthonous, but I take the second view to be pretty arbitrary. The fact is that the stateless native peoples of Europe were wiped out from Wikimedia Commons as a category when they were not considered indigenous. Now we find misleading categories such as People from the Basque Country, which historically is obviously not the same thing as the Basques as an ethnic group defined by their language. The Basques are still an indigenous people, and discriminated as an ethnic/national group with only partial recognition. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: Do you mind elaborating a bit on the last part? ~Chara of Arctic Circle System (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, it is a stateless people, Basque-language education was outlawed by the constitutional court in France last autumn, eventually leaving the ruling on hold following protests and demonstrations. Basques have been subjected to intense Frenchification historically, punishing children speaking Basque and alienating the Basques in all public spheres. Nowadays, Basque is banned in the railway network SNCF, its signposting and service to customers and as a requirements for certain job positions. The same goes for most of Navarre, where Basque linguistic profiles needed for services in administration for Basques have been discarded by the two main parties (only 1% of the administration labour holds a Basque language profile, as compared to the 12% of its population that can speak Basque).

Unlike other Spanish autonomous communities with their own language (Galicia, Catalonia, even Asturias), Basque, the historic language of the Navarrese, is not considered a cultural heritage of Navarre. The administration of the Basque Autonomous Community does not guarantee public services after 40 years of autonomic statute, with continuous intervention of Spanish tribunals in matters of language requirement and use, to the point of even accepting reports to farmer market sellers for having signs only in Basque. By contrast, breach of law is commonplace in the areas of highest Basque-language density, for example by having Spanish-only doctors and civil servants, despite legally Basque being co-official in these areas. To different degrees depending on the area, alienation of the Basques, understood as Basque-language speakers, is an everyday reality. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: I apologize for the late response, but while the suppression of the Basque language is awful, I'm not so sure they'd be considered indigenous people. This document from the UN explains the current conditions generally used for coverage of groups as indigenous people. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/workshop_data_background.doc Also are there any sources that say that Basques consider themselves indigenous to the region in any way other than as the original inhabitants of the region? English people are the original inhabitants of England but they're not indigenous (just to clarify what I mean). ~Ceres of Arctic Circle System (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)