Talk:Catherine II of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia Portal
Catherine II of Russia is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Core This article is listed on this project's core biographies page.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
The introduction of this article is too short.
To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, it should be expanded to summarize the article.
This article has been tagged since April 2008.

Contents

[edit] Archiving

Talk:Catherine II of Russia/Archive01


[edit] Any direct relation to the significane of Catherine to the enlightenment?

im in an AP European history course and i was looking for some information on the subject, direct subject, of the relevance of Catherine the Great to the Enlightenment. Any information Available? Yes there is a ton of info there, but what directly relates to the enlightment?

[edit] ON NAMING SEE Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice

[edit] Date of Birth

Dateof Birth is in questiosovpage more than once refers to her death on 6th November.

Which is correct ? - unsigned

6 November 1796 (O.S.) = 17 November 1796 (N.S.). The Old Style date is the one that should be used in "anniversary" type listings, while the New Style one is the one that should be used when trying to ascertain what happened elsewhere in the world on that particular day. In either case, the date should be specified as being in the Julian or Gregorian calendar. Interestingly (or not) she was born in an area that had adopted the Gregorian calendar, but died in an area that had retained use of the Julian calendar. - Nunh-huh 07:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I think, it is confusing: Exemple: The Russian Revolution of 1917 happened October 26th (Old Style, Julian-calender, i.e. orthodox Russian time). The same day in Europa is November 7th (new Style, Gregorian calender, State Holiday in the USSR in modern times). So the written date in "New Style" is represented by a date "12 days LATER" than the same date in Old Style.
  • The date of birth of Catherine the Great is November 6th OLD (Julian) STYLE, and November 17th NEW STLYE (gregorian, western), and not reversed, as specified in the aricle. Similar exemple: Soviet president Brezhniew was born January 1st, 1907 (New Style), or December 19th, 1906, old Julian style. Please verify! Best regards: akela3@freemail.hu (Akela, Registered in the Hungarian Wikipedia).
    The date is correct. The difference btw OS and NS was 11 days in 18th century, 12 days in 19th century, 13 days in 20th century, etc. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

This article is full of unnecessary words and phrases, it is typical of a non-English person trying to show that they have a good command of the English language. I will write parts of it in due course. BlueKangaroo.

[edit] A constitution?

Wasn't the proposed code-of-law reform binding to the monarch? If so, wouldn't that make it a constitution, and somewhat more worthy of mention? My memory seems to tell me that this was a more serious matter than the half-sentence mention it's getting here, but I can't find any information off-hand. Please clarify this for me, if you know for sure. Thanks! Fearwig 06:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Some factual errors here, I've hopefully cleared them up. Main source was the memoirs of Princess Dashkova, which (while slanted in Catherine's favor in generally predictable ways) gave more than adequate accounts of what would then have been " known" facts, such as the nature of Peter III's death and the circumstances of his abdication.

[edit] her ancestry among ancient rulers of Rus

fourteenth generation from a king of Ruthens, from a Grand Duke of Tver

15) Catherine II of Russia

14) Johanna Elisabeth of Gottorp m Christian August of Zerbst (A)

13) Christian August of Gottorp m 13) Albertine Frederikke of Baden (B)

12) Frederikke Amalie of Denmark m Christian Albrecht of Gottorp (son of Marie Elisabeth of Saxony (B) m Frederik III of Gottorp (C))

11) Sophie Amalie of Brunswick

10) George of Brunswick Kalenberg

9) Dorothea of Denmark

8) Dorothea of Lauenburg

7) Catherine of Brunswick

6) Catherine of Pomerania

5) Sophia of Pomerania

4) Maria of Masovia

3) Alexandra of Lithuania

2) Uljana Alexandrovna of Tver in Russia

1) Alexander Mihailovich of Tver

St Mihail Jaroslavich of Tver m Anna Dmitrieva of Rostov

Jaroslav Jaroslavich of Tver and Novgorod

Jaroslav Vsevolodovich of Perejaslavl and Kiev m Fjodosia Igorjevna of Rjazan

Vsevolod Yurievich of Vladimir

Yurij Dolgorukij of Kiev

Vladimir Monomah of Kiev


A: John Louis of Zerbst

Sophie Auguste of Gottorp

Marie Elisabeth of Saxony (B) m Frederik III of Gottorp (C)


B: 12) Auguste Marie of Gottorp

11) Marie Elisabeth of Saxony m Frederik III of Gottorp (C)

John George of Saxony m 10) Magdalena Sibylla of Prussia (D)

Christian I of Saxony

Anne of Denmark

Dorothea of Lauenburg (above)


C: Auguste of Denmark

Frederik II of Denmark

Dorothea of Lauenburg (above)


D: 9) Mary Eleanor of Cleves

8) Mary of Austria

Ferdinand of Austria m 7) Anna of Hungary (E)

Philip of Austria and Burgundy

Maximilian of Austria

Frederick of Austria

Cimburga of Masovia

Ziemowit IV of Masovia

Ziemowit III of Masovia

Maria Jurjevna of Halicz

Jurij Lvovich of Halicz

Leo Danilovich of Halicz

Anna Mstislavna of Novgorod m Danil Romanovich of Volhynsk

Roman Mstislavich of Kiev

Mstislav Izlaslavich of Kiev

Izjaslav Mstislavich of Kiev

Mstislav Vladimirovich of Kiev

Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomah


E: 6) Vladislav of Bohemia and Hungary

5) Casimir of Poland

4) Jagailo Vladislav of Lithuania (m Zonka Andrzeievna Holszanska, great-granddaughter of Svjatoslav Ivanovich, Grand Duke of Smolensk)

3) Uljana Alexandrovna of Tver

Alexander Mihailovich of Tver m 2) Anastasia Jurjevna of Halicz

1) Jurij Lvovich of Halicz

[edit] Children?

Who were her descendants? There were two sons named in the article, but were there more? HiFiGuy 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Catherine II had three children, if I recall correctly. Paul Petrovich, who became Paul I; Anna Petrovna (died in infancy); and Alexis Bobrinski. I think rumor went that all three were fathered by lovers, despite the fact that Paul became the unchallenged King after Catherine's death.

[edit] Repetition?

"Six months after her ascension to the throne, on July 17, 1762, Peter III was killed by Alexei Orlov (younger brother to Gregory Orlov, then court favorite and a participant in the coup) in what was supposed to have been an accidental killing, the result of Alexei's overindulgence in vodka. During the Soviet period it was assumed proven that Catherine ordered the murder. Now, some historians tend to doubt her involvement because of the long-running tensions between Alexei Orlov and Catherine - he eventually killed her husband."

Doesn't "- he eventually killed her husband" seem a bit repetitive, since at the beginning it states, "Peter III was killed by Alexei Orlov"? Its already been stated that Peter III was killed by Alexei Orlov, and "- he eventually kiled her husband" makes it sound funny to me. I definitely think the paragraph could do without it.

[edit] Foregn Affairs

From my talk page

Ghirlandajo constantly deletes information that she annexed territories of other countries[1]. --Molobo 12:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

All this information who had owned the lands is already in the article - in the Catherine II of Russia#Foreign affairs. I am second to Ghirlandajo's opinion that there is no need to duplicate all the article's information in the very first sentence. The second additions consists of two sentences. One stating that annexation of Poland caused keeping of the absolute monarchy that is extremely dubious and unreferenced. The second sentence that the annexation caused tensions and uprisings up to the twentieth century is true but not particular relevant to the biography of Catherine II, though can be added.
In short, I incline to mostly support Ghirlandajo's version and urge you to discuss your inclusions with him and other editors on the talk page before reverting his changes. abakharev 13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

All this information who had owned the lands is already in the article You believe that was a land and not countries settled with people, cities and towns ? --Molobo 13:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, much of the Novorossiya was taken from Ottomans whoever wrote it that it was from Poland. Second, I kept Piotr's ref to support her emotions towards May conctitution but the rest simply doesn't belong here. This is the Empress article and not History of PL, of RU or of Europe. If we start making it such, it will be a bad article for people who came to it to read about Catherine. Until I spinned of the horse sex stuff into a separate article, it was taking about as much as her legacy. Are we going to expand her stance towards Poland and its implication in the biographical article? Most of what was added was mere duplication. Please feel free to start a separate article pn foreign policy but keep this article on topic. --Irpen 05:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is not too long, and I see no reason why we should not be more specific, my edit simply is more precize in terms of what specific lands she had acquired and how. Many articles contain duplicate information, as long as they are not too long (pun not intended) there is noting in MoS that would suggest it's wrong. On the contrary, it makes every single article more comprehensive. Once the article gets too long, and the relevant subarticle is created, than certainly some info should be added only there, not here. Until than I see no reason for deletion of useful (referenced!) info.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The section on "Relations with Japan" is written in atrocious English. (From the tenses, I would suspect that it's translated from Japanese.) It definitely needs to be re-written by someone knowledgeable in the subject. Cerowyn (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Absorbing other countries is usually called annexation

Disputed-Catherine didn't add virgin geographic territory but territories of other countries.Furthermore the terminology "absorb" is POV. Russia annexed those territories not "absorbed" them. No mention of Khanate of Crimea or Duchy of Courland is in the text. Did Nazi Germany and Soviet Union abosrbed territories of Greater Poland, Little Poland, Belarus and Ukraine ? Let's not be absurd and use proper terminology. Absorbing is not the correct term. According to definition: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=absorb 1 : to take in and make part of an existent whole Which would imply that the territories in question themselfs entered Russian Empire rather then be taken by it with force. --Molobo 13:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not talking about "absorbing" countries. It is talking about absorbing territory, which is a perfectly acceptable term that has no connotation of approval. There is no need to go into detail on this subject in the introduction. john k 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave that particular term to others to work out, but into is short and needs expantion, and the fact that it did not mention that she acquired Polish territories made it very incomprehensive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Białowieża part of Belarus or Ukraine

Again please define if Białowieża is Part of Ukraine or Belarus. --Molobo 13:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic policies

There is so little, if anything, in the article about her domestic policies! I suggest we get to work on that! Cleanup of the excessive and disproportionate repetitions of the effect of her rule on Poland that is kept being readded can be done later and it harms the article's quality much less than a total blank spot as far as her domestic policies were conserned. There are plenty of info, including much being available online, in English, Russian and many other languages. --Irpen 04:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is an exact copy of an EB's article on her available at a non-paid site. Poland is mentions there all right (the "Commonwealth" not even once, neither "partition") as follows:

  1. in intro: "...and extended Russian territory, adding the Crimea and much of Poland."
  2. in "early years": "In 1764 she resolved the problem of Poland, a kingdom lacking definite boundaries and coveted by three neighbouring powers, by installing one of her old lovers, Stanislaw Poniatowski, a weak man entirely devoted to her, as king of Poland."
  3. in "Effects of the French Revolution" "Next, Poland, encouraged by the example of France, began agitating for a liberal constitution. In 1792, under the pretext of forestalling the threat of revolution, Catherine sent in troops and the next year annexed most of the western Ukraine, while Prussia helped itself to large territories of western Poland. After the national uprising led by Tadeusz Kosciuszko in 1794, Catherine wiped Poland off the map of Europe by dividing it between Russia, Prussia, and Austria in 1795."

At the same time, the article talks at length about her personality as well as her rule. While using much of it directly may not be a good idea (while the article is extensive, we ought to have a more detailed one) to use its structure and chronology may be useful. --Irpen 05:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's good to remember that our goal is to be better then EB. Nonetheless it is a valuable publication, and so hopefully point 1 will make you stop reverting my addition of Poland to the lead. As was discussed many times, PLC is more correct than Poland both in terms of reality and in terms of wiki syntax (Poland is mostly a disambig in historical terms for various Polish former states). As far as point two, it is fairly debatable whether Poniatowski was 'a weak man entirely devoted to Catherine' - while some historians argue that, other have a rather contrasting view of him. Considering our current article about him is mostly 1911 EB based, this is something that definetly has to be expanded sooner or later. Finally, point number three is mostly correct. As far as your other point, I definietly agree that the article should speak much more about her non-Poland related policies and such - but that is no reason to remove current Poland-related details. If one section is better than the other one, you don't dumb it down to the levels of the others, you expand the others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop revert warring

Molobo, Piotrus, please stop your silly revert warring. If you have to attack Russia-related articles, please find another object. I removed my Ferbruary additions to the lead, since they spark Molobo's ire so much. Also, please stop stalking me. These days, it's enough for me to make even a minor edit to an article mentioning Poland but once - such as this one or Sigizmund Krzhizhanovsky - and Molobo attacks it within minutes. It's not on and may lead to admin action. Please find Poland-related articles to edit. Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 07:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


If you have to attack Russia-related articles, please find another object Please Ghirla have good faith. We all have objectivity here as goal. --Molobo 20:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This link Battle of Svenskund and the war is broken. [Anonymous]

[edit] Horse hanky-panky

I understand that it is addressed in full detail in the related 'legends' article, and I really do hate to say it: however, one of the chief things Catherine is known for is the horse sex thing. A line or two linking to the 'Legends' article, with a brief and tasteful summary of this common urban myth, would seem in order, no? -Toptomcat 04:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Toptomcat. I came to this article to see if she was the one I was thinking about and did a search for 'horse' and was dissappointed that only the stature 'Horsemean' came up. I would have spent a lot of futile searching time if I hadn't checked the talk pages. The link should be referenced in the article SOMEWHERE. 207.69.137.35 02:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It is referenced in Catherine II of Russia#Personal Life, and there is a link in the Trivia section. The "horse thingy", or at least its details, is somewhat irrelevant to her rule : ). The current summary seems to me perfect - brief and tasteful, maintaining the encyclopedic tone. --AVIosad(talk) 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
With respect, that's nonsense. The article needs to be an overview of who the woman was, and not conceal those stories told of her of historical value, and not concealed within a link in a section that isn't supposed to be in the article in the first place (trivia). If you wish the article to be about her rule, then perhaps what you are looking for is the creation of another article based solely upon her reign. This is an article about her life - her whole life - and the "horsie thing" whether true or not is part of the legend that surrounds her, so it will be a part of the article. Sorry for the brusqueness, but I don't truck with revising history. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vladimir Monomakh of Kievan Rus- Russian monarch???

In XI-XII centuries, when Monomakh ruled, Russia just did not exist yet. Moscow's claims to the legacy of Kievan Rus are largely ungrounded. It was the Eastern Slav medieaval state, only indirectly related to modern Russia. Respectively, the ruler of Kievan Rus by no means may be considered a Russian monarch. I removed the mentioning about Monomakh Morkva 18:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced Good Article

Article has been nominated for consideration by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced GA. Badbilltucker 16:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unreferenced"? Most of the text is copied verbatim from 1911 Britannica. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Inline citations are becoming increasingly a norm. It should not be difficult to reference all material from EB, and see what was added from other sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

I suggest the following passage should be moved to Russian Enlightenment:

Also we could call the Catherine II as founder of Russian state university on land use planning, it was announced on May 25, 1779 (on May 14, Julian Calendar) that the Surveying School should be opened. The school was named Konstantinovsky by the name of Great Prince Konstantin Pavlovich, the grandson of Catherine II of Russia who was born in the year. The government and Catherine II of Russia herself patronized and supported the school from the date of its establishing emphasizing a significance of land management and special surveying education. Lack of land surveyors and state importance of land surveying initiated establishing of the school. The legislation of the day emphasized significance of land management: "Current surveying is a business, which is performed not only to the benefit and peace of every holder but the state business containing the Emperor glory and advantage of peace and quiet for all the State."

[edit] ural depictions of Catherine II of Russia

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

Now that Władysław II of Poland got moved to Jogaila shouldn't we move this article to Sophie Augusta Fredericka von Anhalt-Zerbst? //Halibutt 09:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mind WP:POINT. And remember the not feeding advice before responding. --Irpen 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, Halibutt is right that Jogaila sets a strange precedence, and this can affect many articles, so that issue needs to be discussed in more detail; nonetheless I'd suggest one discussion at WP:NC instead of several at various monarchs' pages.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever is the best place to discuss the global issue, the proposal to move this article floated by Halibutt is inappropriate. If he is looking for a similar case with a Russia monarch article, it would be Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse whose title generated much dramma and still makes many people unhappy, not this stable and precise title. Whatever problems this article has, those are not with the title. --Irpen 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No wiki article is stable - and apparently no monarchy-related. //Halibutt 06:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial Ballet School

The statement that Catherine the Great founded the Imperial Ballet School is contradicted by Anna of Russia and Vaganova Ballet Academy. Should not the sentence stating that Catherine founded the Imperial Ballet School be removed?

[edit] Imperial Ballet School

The statement that Catherine the Great founded the Imperial Ballet School is contradicted by Vaganova Ballet Academy. The latter article states that Anna of Russia founded the school in the Winter Palace. Which article is correct?

The standard of English in this article is just terrible. It really is hard to understand anything that is being said it's so full of sub clauses. Read the opening sentence for an idea of what i mean.

[edit] Why Alexeyevna?

Does anyone know why did she receive the patronymic "Alexeyevna"? Her father's name was not Alexey. Is it the name of her priest, godfather or guardian saint? --Amir E. Aharoni 21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, foreign princesses who married Russian rulers were given Russian names upon their conversion to the Russian Orthodox Church. If their fathers' names were not used in Russia, new patronyms were given. This tradition was followed by all of the following empress-consorts of Russia. For example, the last Empress of Russia, Alexandra (Alix of Hesse-Darmstadt), was known as Alexandra Fyodorovna Romanova. Her father's real name was Louis (Ludwig), not Fyodor.

[edit] Vandalism

As is the custom of Russian despots, Catherine had the ability to unhinge her jaw, like a snake. She used this ability to devour Pugachev's head, leader of the failed mass peasant uprising in Russia, who was ironically eaten by the starving peasants. This is further proof of the substantial and legitimate accounts of repeated cannibalism In European History.

What on Earth is this?

"Catherine the Great was a great leader, proabably the greatest in Russian history. It is roumored that she did not enlighten the lives of peasants she inconvienenced everyone by raising taxes but later improved the lives of everyone by purchasing helpful military technology such as gunpowder. It is also said that she spent too much time doing personal things for her enjoyment and that blocked her from see what was really going on in her country. This is not true for she possessed no talents other than a military ruler and she spent her time thinking of ideas to improve her country. "

I don't know where to begin with this tripe. Firstly it's blatantly POV. Secondly, it doesn't even seem to fit under its triva headline. Thirdly, it is ridiculously childish in its prose as well as irrelevant/contradictory/dubious/untrue. I'm deleting it.--SCJE (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warring and internal policies.

As explained in this edit, this article is a biography. It is not expected to provide a detailed coverage of everything that happened in the Russian Empire between 1762 and 1796. Having written a large part of this article, I find it offensive to see my edits unceremoniously reverted. There is no need to reproduce the content of the page Russian history, 1682–1796 in this article. Thanks, Ghirla-трёп- 10:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image gallery

Guys, please stop adding all sort of portraits to this article. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an image gallery. The article links to the appropriate Commons page, is it not enough? Our readers may view all your images there. Now I see that someone started a gallery. Though it has only four images and does not appear to be pesky, I predict that in a few months it will grow to include many more and will look silly indeed. Once you start a gallery, every passerby would want to add a couple of images from Commons. This biography can't have all the possible images of Catherine II. Please stop. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have solved this problem in some other articles by moving the entire gallery to the talk page. Sometimes that works, particularly when it is viewed as a "sandbox" of sorts for images that may become useful in the article as it evolves. Another job for those who care is to organize whatever images are over in commons so they are in a useable form. However, many images in these articles are not eligible for posting there, so a "sandbox gallery" of images contained within wikipedia only can be helpful. Anyway, all I did was try to put the drawing of her in men's clothing into the article (far more in character than the frilly maiden equestrian portrait there, but apparently people like the pretty picture better, oh well), and it would be nice if it could at least be tucked here somewhere, as such images of "warrior queens" riding astride in that period are not easy to find. Montanabw 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Looks like this was discussed briefly before, but the recent removal/restoring of the criticism section got me looking for citations there. Before I put a citations needed in that section, I scanned the article and saw few reference. And I suspect our understanding of the woman has changed significantly since 1911? I've put a refimprove tag at the top. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crtiticisms?

Why? Would Legacy not do the trick? Or assessment? At least taking into account the positives that made her "the Great." Otherwise it only takes the negatives into account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.15.233 (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The word criticism is not exclusively negative. For example, many literary criticisms are quite positive. --Kham89 (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violation?

I have reverted the recent insertion of text that looks like it is from http://members.tripod.com/~Nevermore/CGREAT.HTM. Please review WP:COPY and see if there is a way to get this useful text in without violating a copyright. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Catherinian?

I see a list of them. But what is one? (John User:Jwy talk) 04:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)