This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Brega鈥揂jdabiya road article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This should be cleaned up. The Reports are confusing and contradicting. Only McClatchy states that a helicopter was shot down on Saturday. The Libyan government claims that two Chinook helicopters were destroyed on Sunday, but they dont claim that a Hind was destroyed. Is there any other Source that reports a Hind (or any other heli) was downed on Saturday? 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 18:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing confusing or contradicting. Everything is properly sourced.
Source 6 - confirmed a Hind was spotted over Ajdabiya Saturday coming from Benghazi, only helicopter seen over Ajdabiya
Source 7 - confirmed by the rebels themselves they had a helicopter shot down on Saturday, only Hind seen during the day, so no confusion
Source 30 - confirmed by the rebels themselves they sent another two helicopters from Tobruk in the evening
Source 8 - claimed by government that they shot down two helicopters on Sunday, see source 30 (about two helicopters), again no confusion
The only attack helicopters the rebels have are Hinds, there are no other attack helicopters in the rebel arsenal.
EkoGraf (
talk)
19:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay: 1.) Shows a Hind over Ajdabiya on Saturday, thats right. The same source doesnt mention anything about the heli being destroyed. 2.) So, the rebels (primary source, dont forget that) are now credible? You said several times that we cannot trust the rebels. You're right about that. 3.) Thats right. 4.) Its a claim by the government (primary source), so scratch that. 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I said the rebels cann't be trusted when claiming success for themselves or trying to downplay their losses, just like the government. However, this time they are admitting to have lost a helicopter. Isn't the logical thing to do in a propaganda war to deny you lost a helicopter, not confirm it?聽:) As far as for point 4, we noted that it is a government claim and not independently verified. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, the first source that shows the Hind, which you say doesn't confirm the shot down, is hours before the news of the downing of the heli. The source is from about the time the Hind was seen. Also, pointing out once again, the only attack helicopters the rebels have of being able to attack ground targets are three Hinds. That's it. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It sounds logical, but you're missing my point (again): Anything you wrote about the Hind is a conclusion, okay? You're citing two sources: Source 1 reports that a helicopter was downed; Source 2 shows a picture of a Hind over the city. I dont say, that you're writing something wrong, but its doesnt right either. My proposal: We write that it was "possibly" or "very likely" a Hind. Your last point is simply wrong: The Rebels have Mi-2s that can be used as gunships. 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 20:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Note that the first source is a blog. Its constantly updated. Point proven again. 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 21:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Added another source confirming that the helicopter was shot down. Confirmation from the rebels themselves again. And they said it was "Russian-made". Only "Russian-made" helicopter seen that day was the Hind. Point proven again.聽:) EkoGraf ( talk) 04:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you are not willing (or able) to understand my point: There is still no confirmation that a Hind was shot down. Mi-2s are "Russian-made" too. Your new Source just says that a helicopter was shot down. I NEVER said, that this was wrong. But still, there is no source speaking of or showing a destroyed Hind on Saturday. So, you're wrong again. In fact, nothing has changed on that topic since yesterday. So, please stop editing this page. We had a good solution yesterday... 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 10:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Just that something sounds logical does not mean its sourced! Contact an admin if you dont believe me. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 10:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Only one helicopter seen, and it was the Hind. EkoGraf ( talk) 14:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to assume, that you know I'm right and you're just ignoring facts. I'm fed up on your stupid edits and you are clearly not willing to cooperate with others or pay attention to my words. Last change now, next time I have to report you to an admin. 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 15:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: I'll try it one last time: You can write that 2 chinooks were shot down, because even it is only a claim, it is explicitly stated, that helis of the Chinook type were shot down. No, absolutly no source reports or shows a downed Hind, so you cant write it, okay? 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Quoting the source [1] Rebels said government forces shot down a Russian-made helicopter sent to the fight by revolutionaries only two days before. Rebels confirmed they sent one helicopter into battle and they lost it, and news reporters confirmed that they saw a Hind. Also, you clearly violated the civility rule by calling me stupid. For removal of sourced information, 6 cancelations of my edit and insulting a fellow editor you have been reported. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
No, you still dont understand it. For the personal stuff, please refer to my talkpage. 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 20:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Just made an edit to the article and looked at history, seen I've joined in an edit war. Two things, firstly....that was the first edit I've ever made to this article (or any of the 'battle' articles I think), secondly....stop the edit war. In a dispute like this, you go with the sources....all sources have this as an ongoing conflict, the ceasefire idea was thrown out. It is ridiculous that people have been arguing over this. 92.21.195.147 ( talk) 11:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
On a more constructive issue...the rebels say the fighting is 40km east of brega....isn't that closer to ajdab than brega? They want a positive spin ofc, but point being....people've been putting notes saying this or that hasn't been confirmed, neither Gad or rebels are reliable....we could probably do with a coeopnsistent ad hoc policy towards either always putting such a note for non 3rd party claims, or always just leaving it as 'Gadd/rebels said "blah"'
Just seen on the timeline rebels saying the position is '40km west of Ajdab', so probably looking at rebel checkpoint at the 3-roads t-junction thing half way between. 92.21.195.147 ( talk) 10:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing going on for a few days and there have been no confrontations between the rebels and Gaddafi's forces. -- 93.139.234.192 ( talk) 12:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Phase one and phase two than? EkoGraf ( talk) 00:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Twiter has been in the past highly unreliable. EkoGraf ( talk) 05:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
AJE recently put out this video, which talks about attacks made on clinics and checkpoints by Gaddafi loyalists trapped in the city. I am not quite sure of the date, so I don't know if this is an indication of continued fighting or not. Should this be included? If so, how? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 03:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
This was the reason for reverse of my sourced edit: Press TV is not a reliable source by any standards. Except for Press TV not one reliable source has confirmed the capture of Brega, In fact, all of the others state the attack has failed per the rebels themselves
1, Per what
WP:RS standart is Press TV considered to be unreliable?
2, This is what was reported
Abdel-Hamid Badein, a rebel fighter, said the rebels had to withdraw to their previous positions after they were repulsed.
[2]
鈥淭here is fighting taking place to the north (of the main road between Ajdabiya and Brega) and the south and the middle,鈥 said spokesman Mohammed Zawi.
鈥淲e are making good progress in the north. The fighters there can see Brega. We are within sight of Brega,鈥 Mr. Zawi said.
Radio chatter from Colonel Qaddafi鈥檚 forces showed them asking for reinforcements and for people to come and collect the dead and wounded in the north.
Mr. Zawi said rebel troops were also making 鈥渟olid progress鈥 in the south.
[3]
the rebels Friday stepped up an offensive on the oil town of Brega, hoping to dislodge loyalist troops and win a strategic victory
[4]
Yet somehow we came to conclusion that fighting is over although all sources states repulsion of attack on Brega city itself and direct continuation of battle on other fronts. Also no one had any problems with ridicolious claim about Sudanese army capturing Kufra despite that no other source stated that and suddenly its a problem alghough my edit clearly states that it is just and only Press TV report, not a fact. As for RS issue I moved it here
WP:RS/N#Battle_of_Brega.E2.80.93Ajdabiya_road. --
EllsworthSK (
talk)
22:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The fighting has moved to Brega and rebels now control the Brega鈥揂jdabiya road, so does this mean that they have won this battle (of Brega鈥揂jdabiya road), at least temporarily? -- 93.140.136.27 ( talk) 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Battle of Brega鈥揂jdabiya road. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18086179?source%3Drss{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libyan-Government-Claims-18-Civilians-Killed-In-Nato-Attack-In-Libyan-Town-Of-Brega/Article/201105215991597?f=rss{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.wfmj.com/story/15086449/libyan-rebels-fall-back-after-failed-advanceWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Battle of Brega鈥揂jdabiya road. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43766539/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20110720/libya-rebels-killed-brega-government-forces-moammar-gadhafi-110720/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).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Brega鈥揂jdabiya road. 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:
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).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Brega鈥揂jdabiya road article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This should be cleaned up. The Reports are confusing and contradicting. Only McClatchy states that a helicopter was shot down on Saturday. The Libyan government claims that two Chinook helicopters were destroyed on Sunday, but they dont claim that a Hind was destroyed. Is there any other Source that reports a Hind (or any other heli) was downed on Saturday? 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 18:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing confusing or contradicting. Everything is properly sourced.
Source 6 - confirmed a Hind was spotted over Ajdabiya Saturday coming from Benghazi, only helicopter seen over Ajdabiya
Source 7 - confirmed by the rebels themselves they had a helicopter shot down on Saturday, only Hind seen during the day, so no confusion
Source 30 - confirmed by the rebels themselves they sent another two helicopters from Tobruk in the evening
Source 8 - claimed by government that they shot down two helicopters on Sunday, see source 30 (about two helicopters), again no confusion
The only attack helicopters the rebels have are Hinds, there are no other attack helicopters in the rebel arsenal.
EkoGraf (
talk)
19:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay: 1.) Shows a Hind over Ajdabiya on Saturday, thats right. The same source doesnt mention anything about the heli being destroyed. 2.) So, the rebels (primary source, dont forget that) are now credible? You said several times that we cannot trust the rebels. You're right about that. 3.) Thats right. 4.) Its a claim by the government (primary source), so scratch that. 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I said the rebels cann't be trusted when claiming success for themselves or trying to downplay their losses, just like the government. However, this time they are admitting to have lost a helicopter. Isn't the logical thing to do in a propaganda war to deny you lost a helicopter, not confirm it?聽:) As far as for point 4, we noted that it is a government claim and not independently verified. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, the first source that shows the Hind, which you say doesn't confirm the shot down, is hours before the news of the downing of the heli. The source is from about the time the Hind was seen. Also, pointing out once again, the only attack helicopters the rebels have of being able to attack ground targets are three Hinds. That's it. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It sounds logical, but you're missing my point (again): Anything you wrote about the Hind is a conclusion, okay? You're citing two sources: Source 1 reports that a helicopter was downed; Source 2 shows a picture of a Hind over the city. I dont say, that you're writing something wrong, but its doesnt right either. My proposal: We write that it was "possibly" or "very likely" a Hind. Your last point is simply wrong: The Rebels have Mi-2s that can be used as gunships. 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 20:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Note that the first source is a blog. Its constantly updated. Point proven again. 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 21:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Added another source confirming that the helicopter was shot down. Confirmation from the rebels themselves again. And they said it was "Russian-made". Only "Russian-made" helicopter seen that day was the Hind. Point proven again.聽:) EkoGraf ( talk) 04:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you are not willing (or able) to understand my point: There is still no confirmation that a Hind was shot down. Mi-2s are "Russian-made" too. Your new Source just says that a helicopter was shot down. I NEVER said, that this was wrong. But still, there is no source speaking of or showing a destroyed Hind on Saturday. So, you're wrong again. In fact, nothing has changed on that topic since yesterday. So, please stop editing this page. We had a good solution yesterday... 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 10:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Just that something sounds logical does not mean its sourced! Contact an admin if you dont believe me. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 10:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Only one helicopter seen, and it was the Hind. EkoGraf ( talk) 14:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to assume, that you know I'm right and you're just ignoring facts. I'm fed up on your stupid edits and you are clearly not willing to cooperate with others or pay attention to my words. Last change now, next time I have to report you to an admin. 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 15:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: I'll try it one last time: You can write that 2 chinooks were shot down, because even it is only a claim, it is explicitly stated, that helis of the Chinook type were shot down. No, absolutly no source reports or shows a downed Hind, so you cant write it, okay? 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Quoting the source [1] Rebels said government forces shot down a Russian-made helicopter sent to the fight by revolutionaries only two days before. Rebels confirmed they sent one helicopter into battle and they lost it, and news reporters confirmed that they saw a Hind. Also, you clearly violated the civility rule by calling me stupid. For removal of sourced information, 6 cancelations of my edit and insulting a fellow editor you have been reported. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
No, you still dont understand it. For the personal stuff, please refer to my talkpage. 62.178.177.37 ( talk) 20:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Just made an edit to the article and looked at history, seen I've joined in an edit war. Two things, firstly....that was the first edit I've ever made to this article (or any of the 'battle' articles I think), secondly....stop the edit war. In a dispute like this, you go with the sources....all sources have this as an ongoing conflict, the ceasefire idea was thrown out. It is ridiculous that people have been arguing over this. 92.21.195.147 ( talk) 11:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
On a more constructive issue...the rebels say the fighting is 40km east of brega....isn't that closer to ajdab than brega? They want a positive spin ofc, but point being....people've been putting notes saying this or that hasn't been confirmed, neither Gad or rebels are reliable....we could probably do with a coeopnsistent ad hoc policy towards either always putting such a note for non 3rd party claims, or always just leaving it as 'Gadd/rebels said "blah"'
Just seen on the timeline rebels saying the position is '40km west of Ajdab', so probably looking at rebel checkpoint at the 3-roads t-junction thing half way between. 92.21.195.147 ( talk) 10:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing going on for a few days and there have been no confrontations between the rebels and Gaddafi's forces. -- 93.139.234.192 ( talk) 12:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Phase one and phase two than? EkoGraf ( talk) 00:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Twiter has been in the past highly unreliable. EkoGraf ( talk) 05:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
AJE recently put out this video, which talks about attacks made on clinics and checkpoints by Gaddafi loyalists trapped in the city. I am not quite sure of the date, so I don't know if this is an indication of continued fighting or not. Should this be included? If so, how? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 03:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
This was the reason for reverse of my sourced edit: Press TV is not a reliable source by any standards. Except for Press TV not one reliable source has confirmed the capture of Brega, In fact, all of the others state the attack has failed per the rebels themselves
1, Per what
WP:RS standart is Press TV considered to be unreliable?
2, This is what was reported
Abdel-Hamid Badein, a rebel fighter, said the rebels had to withdraw to their previous positions after they were repulsed.
[2]
鈥淭here is fighting taking place to the north (of the main road between Ajdabiya and Brega) and the south and the middle,鈥 said spokesman Mohammed Zawi.
鈥淲e are making good progress in the north. The fighters there can see Brega. We are within sight of Brega,鈥 Mr. Zawi said.
Radio chatter from Colonel Qaddafi鈥檚 forces showed them asking for reinforcements and for people to come and collect the dead and wounded in the north.
Mr. Zawi said rebel troops were also making 鈥渟olid progress鈥 in the south.
[3]
the rebels Friday stepped up an offensive on the oil town of Brega, hoping to dislodge loyalist troops and win a strategic victory
[4]
Yet somehow we came to conclusion that fighting is over although all sources states repulsion of attack on Brega city itself and direct continuation of battle on other fronts. Also no one had any problems with ridicolious claim about Sudanese army capturing Kufra despite that no other source stated that and suddenly its a problem alghough my edit clearly states that it is just and only Press TV report, not a fact. As for RS issue I moved it here
WP:RS/N#Battle_of_Brega.E2.80.93Ajdabiya_road. --
EllsworthSK (
talk)
22:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The fighting has moved to Brega and rebels now control the Brega鈥揂jdabiya road, so does this mean that they have won this battle (of Brega鈥揂jdabiya road), at least temporarily? -- 93.140.136.27 ( talk) 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Battle of Brega鈥揂jdabiya road. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18086179?source%3Drss{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libyan-Government-Claims-18-Civilians-Killed-In-Nato-Attack-In-Libyan-Town-Of-Brega/Article/201105215991597?f=rss{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.wfmj.com/story/15086449/libyan-rebels-fall-back-after-failed-advanceWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Battle of Brega鈥揂jdabiya road. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43766539/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20110720/libya-rebels-killed-brega-government-forces-moammar-gadhafi-110720/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).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Brega鈥揂jdabiya road. 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:
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).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)