Talk:Revolutions of 1848/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rewrite

rewrite. this reads like a high school history textbook: a bunch of abstract mush that, after being read, imparts almost no knowledge to the reader.

i would like to see, within the first 4 sentences of this article, a concrete description of what the revolutions of 1848 actually was. not what theories are about what caused it. not grand abstract notions and words like 'bourgeois class' and 'proletarian'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.250.195 (talk • contribs) 14 Sept 2005

Might I also suggest more information on the failure of the revolutions, more specifically the causes of the failure (especialy in Italy)

• there is a strong nexus between the Sicilian revolution of independence of 1848 and the Risorgimento of 1860-61. So isn't failure too strong a word? Having said that, I agree that the Sicilians wanted independence above all else, and they certainly failed to get that! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I would rewrite the article, start out by telling what the revoultions of 1848 are, and then going on to talk about the causes, and then going on to it's global effect. By the way the revolution did not start in Italy but in France in 1830. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Athatipelli (talk • contribs) 26 April 2006.

I feel the need to add that this article is clearly heavily influenced by Marxist thinking; it shows quite a strong bias. Russia was "missing" from the revolutions because it hadn't developed the "necessary prerequisites" for a revolution? This implies that a 'proletarian' revolution is inevitable, which is a clear bias toward Marxism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.107.232.203 (talk • contribs) 22 November 2006.

Perhaps the inclusion that many of atheistic, free-thinking 48'ers who fought for the North in the Civil War were Communists and Statist Socialists should be made? Certainly not all, but many were certainly Communists (Joseph Weydemeyer) to Statist Socialist (Carl Shcurz). It seems disingenuous NOT to include such information. Merely calling them "freethinkers" is a bit distorting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.73.52.194 (talk • contribs) 12 September 2006.

-And of course that's a bad thing ..... Hmmmmm a bit POV aren't we!!! --Gramscis cousin 07:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

--I'd like to bring to everyone's attention the fact that this article is linked under the title "aftermath". It assumes the person has previously read the other articles on the revolution. I'm going to rename the title of the page from "Revolutions of 1848" to "Aftermath of the 1848 revolutions" so no one will be confused anymore.

Ottoman Empire

The article was recently edited to add the Ottoman Empire to the list of areas where nothing revolutionary happened in 1848. I believe this is wrong, and that there were revolutionary movements at least in Moldavia and Wallachia (I can't speak for elsewhere). - Jmabel | Talk 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wallacia and Moldavia were vassal states to the Ottoman Empire as well as Serbia at that time, so even though they nominally belonged to the Ottoman sphere of influence they have had their self rule and semi-independence. That means that their internal affairs would not classify as Ottoman affairs, as these countries emancipated from Istanbul years before. There have also been some minor rebellions in Serbia itself in 1848, although the overall climate in the state was pretty much peacefull (unlike in "Serbian" Vojvodina, Transylvania, Croatia etc where Serbs and Croats, alongside Romanians and others, fought against Hungarians). In 1848 these countries were semi-independent in all matters and cannot be fully associated with the Ottoman affairs, so when I say Ottoman Empire i imply to the European areas of the Empire that were subjugated directly to Istanbul (such as Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo etc). User:NeroN_BG

Fair enough, but we can word that more explicitly. - Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge requests

Please vote on and discuss proposed merger of The Gathering Storm: Before the Revolutions of 1848 and Conclusions of the Revolutions of 1848 with this article, Revolutions of 1848.

Vote

• Support - the titles of the articles are cumbersome and the subject matter is compatible with Revolutions of 1848. LuiKhuntek 08:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, assuming it doesn't make this article way too long (ssems it won't). Certainly "The gathering storm" needs to be renamed at the very least. That's a name for a book or essay, not an encycloepdia article. Why not just have an article called The Cause of a Rebel: The Early Life of James Dean. -R. fiend 08:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - It seems as though the merging of these articles would be extremely useful for research purposes.
• Support - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Pygmypony | Talk
• Support - and then thoroughly edit the "Gathering" and "Conclusions" sections for appropriate encyclopedia style. Noel S McFerran 04:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• as i have recently finished learning about this in my european history class, i agree taht the two articls need to be combined to the article on the revolutions of 1848. I also agree the United States should be left out of this article.<unsigned>
• Yes, merge them here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Cumulus Clouds 04:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Carte blanche - HJV 21:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC) And it's a yes in case someone didn't understand :) When is this merge going to happen, by the way? The vote's been up since February...
• Support. Naturally. --PaxEquilibrium 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Discus

Also, the discussion the United States in 1848 is weak and probably should be omitted from article.<unsigned>

Nah, it should be England. Every source for the Revolutions of 1848 refers to England and Russia, not Great Britain.<unsigned>

...

This set of pages looks great, but it doesn't seem to integrate very well with things like History of France and so on. To what extent are The Revolutions of 1848 in France and Second Republic duplicate articles? -- Tarquin 20:07, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From the article: "Only England and Russia had no revolutions." I have some doubt about whether the word "England" is actually correct here. To the best of my knowledge there were no uprisings in Wales or Scotland. Ireland was caught up in the potato famine, but I don't recall ever hearing of anything resembling an 1848-style uprising there. -- Jmabel 09:03, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's been 9 weeks and no one has replied. I am amending "England" to "the United Kingdom" -- Jmabel 07:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, there was a minor uprising in 1848 in Ireland, but it was such a farce that it is seldom counted. Perhaps it deserves mention though. -R. fiend 17:34, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

The Netherlands article says "there were no major events in the Netherlands". So maybe the Netherlands should be mentioned alongside the UK and Russia? DirkvdM 19:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Re the Netherlands: "the country became a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch in 1848." Rmhermen 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall revolutionary activity in Belgium... john k 21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't, afaik. If I recall correctly, the government of the day defused the situation by lowering the amount of paid taxes required for voting rights to the constitutional minimum. Perhaps that should be worked into the article somewhere, but I don't know much of the whole situation beyond that titbit... Random Nonsense 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed this statement from the article, as it rather belongs to the discussion page

" This sucks!!During 1845-46, economic conditions worsened over the already-bad early 1840s. Causes are disputed, but there were crop failures (in an age where about 70% of working-class money went to food), and financial crises (notably in France) and resulting unemployment. Many left the farms for the cities, with resultant pressures. The working class was largely male, itinerant, uneducated, and sometimes violent. Corruption in high places in France reduced faith in the leaders; the textile sector of Germany was depressed in 1844-47." Kaarel 01:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What revolutions, exactly?

This article is confusing. It says that revolutions happened everywhere in Europe but in England, Russian, and the Ottoman Empire (which was in Europe?) and perhaps outside Europe as well (Brazil). And yet only one of these Revolutions (France) has an article about the revolution that supposed to have happened there in 1848. This article should specify exactly what revolutions happened in what countries in 1848, and link to appropriate pages; providing instead a list of countries where revolutions did *not* happen is a vague and sloppy method.

What social upheaval happened in what countries, *exactly*? Or as exactly as possible. My own knowledge of the happenings of this year is murky, and I'm disappointed that this article didn't help me improve my understanding very much.

Did you notice that this is the first of a series of six articles? Is there anything else you need besides what is covered in all of those? Rmhermen 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Except the obvious fact that the Ottoman Empire wasn't in Europe (well, a big part was in Europe but not all and of course it wasn't a European empire) i'm not sure if the rest is correct, i have to agree that the article is confusing. About Ottoman Empire, while most of the nations in it didn't revolt untill about 30 years after 1848, Greece did in 1821, and gained independence in 1828 if i'm not mistaken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.168.63.56 (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

List

Would it be possible to have a straight list on the article somewhere of all the revolutions that did occur, chronologically? I may work on this myself... Korossyl 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancien Regime

Suggesting the Vienna Settlement returned Europe to a state similar to that of the ancien regime seems rather misleading in the context of the article, which is more concerned with politics rather than territorial boundaries. One might read that the international absolutism of the ancien regime was a major contributing factor to the liberal revolutions of 1848, whereas in actual fact most scholars seem to think Vienna changed European diplomacy significantly. Nickmuddle (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Scandinavia

To say that the Scandinavian countries were little affected is not completely true - the Spring of Nations "inspired" Frederick VII to give up absolutism and begin working on the Danish Constitution of 1849. Over the years, Denmark became a democracy, all because of the events of 1848. Even though no blood was shed, it still had a massive effect on Denmark. ElChrissos (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Spain

Someone needs to add Spain under the exceptions.--189.121.177.48 (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The end of Mid-nineteenth_century_Spain#Moderado_rule should give a start.--189.121.177.48 (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Ceylon is not in Europe. Nitpyck (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Belgium

Wasn't Belgium also spared revolution? It had a constitutional monarchy from its establishment in 1831. What about Greece and the Iberian Peninsula? john k 13:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What's all this about a "communist clique" when the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, seventeen years before the Belgian Revolution? This must have been one hell of a visionary clique.

1848 is 18 years after the Belgian Revolution, not 17 years before. Rmhermen (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The section is poorly written but appears to be correct. See [1]. Marx and Engels were themselves in Brussels at the time and attracted socialist followers to the area. Rmhermen (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the misunderstanding stems from the fact that the unsigned editor thinks the events took place in 1831 during the Belgian revolution, while the events described in this article in fact occurred in 1848 (hence the title of the article). But you are correct that the section on Belgium is poorly worded. I have reworded the last sentence and added a citation, but the rest could need some elaboration, after all it was a very complicated chain of events. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Revolution?

"Failed revolutions" are not revolutions. A revolution needs social and political change and that didn't happen in all of these countries. I think we need to acknowledge that somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.51.124 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Revolutions never fail. What's the solution?
If one should fail, it's not a revolution.

I definitely see your point here. Maybe it would be more appropriate to rename this page "Events of 1848". Under that title, we can acknowledge that significant events occurred in 1848, but weren't necessarily revolutionary. I think it's misguided to throw the word "revolution" around carelessly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.51.124 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ireland?

Surely the Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848 should be included here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.30.143 (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I also didn't understand this so I added the Ireland rebellion. - Dalta (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire??

Since when is the ottoman empire considered european? Considering the turks as europeans is like considering the french to be south american, for having the french guyana... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.48.29.78 (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Move Exceptions to the end

Why should the article start off with exceptions, before even discussing similarities or origins? This section should be moved to the end or weaved in somewhere else. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Strange, it's been like that at least since 2008. I wonder why. — Sebastian 10:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Chartist 'upheavals' 1838 to 1848

I am surprised that the article as it stands suggests that Great Britain was entirely uninvolved in any unrest in 1848. That seems to me to be being economical with the truth. The Chartism article makes it clear that there was significant unrest in the years running up to and including [cf Manchester and Yorkshire] 1848. Specifically, HM Government drafted 100,000 special constables to prevent 150,000 demonstrators from marching on Parliament merely [!] to present a petition. I really can't see why the article doesn't reflect this more honestly. Let's place Chartism in a wider context, albeit that it appears to have been ahead of the game vis-à-vis Britian's neighbours. --Red King (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Arab Spring

No mention of the Arab Spring? We shouldn't neglect to note History's rhyme . . .--Elatanatari (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would there be any mention of it? The Arab Spring is too new to draw any proper conclusions concerning the two. Caelestis Filius (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it related to "Social Democracy"? neutrality?

Near the links there is a whole box implying that this "belongs" to Social Democracy. Moreover it uses the rose symbol which is used by quite a few political parties, at least in Europe. This seems very dubious to be, as we deal with historical facts which also impacted nationalism in Europe. Mbaudier (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Western Ukraine section

I am grateful for a brief mention of events in Western Ukraine in 1848. However, this section is not in fully grammatical English. Also, there isn't a link to a main article comparable to that for other sections, e.g, links re Hungarian Revolution of 1848, Sonderbund War in Switzerland, etc. I request that someone rewrite this section. Length of the existing section is roughly ok; we don't need much detail here. But for those seeking more info, the rewrite would be greatly improved if there can be a link to a main article elsewhere, or to some external website where English-speaking people can learn more about what happened in Western Ukraine in that era. Oaklandguy (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

France or Sicily? In one place this article says the revolutions began in February 1848 in France, in another it says Sicily in January 1848. PRC 07 (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

long-lasting effects

The overview mention the only long-lasting reforms of this revolution to be found in Denmark and Austria. However, this revolution also marked the end of the reign of the last Capetian monarch of France and the establishment of the 2nd republic of France. Although this republic was quickly replaced by the second empire, the empire and the historical capetian monarchy are quite different in nature. Thinking that the end of a 900 year-old monarchy was well worth mentioning as a long-lasting effect, I took the liberty of editing (hopefully not controversially) the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.130.240 (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Finland

Shouldn't this article also mention Finland? "Finland" or "Finnish" isn't mentioned anywhere here, yet seems to fall within the scope of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:39D7:732E:A5C5:5B5E (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Our article History of Finland doesn't seem to mention any specific events in Finland in 1848, however if you know more about the subject you are more than welcome to add some information yourself. Just make sure it is sourced with reliable secondary sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Poles

I have just finished the book about the Polish participation in Springtime of people. Seems that e.g. Mierosławski commanded in Polish uprising, in Baden-Palatinat, in Italy; Bem commanded in Hungary and in Vienna; Polish legions were formed in HUngary, in Italy, and in Germany. Polish officers were often called for help in creating professional armies. DOes it deserve a mention here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.169.136.47 (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands

I am not an expert of Dutch history, but the Dutch formalized a constitution in 1848 that established a parliamentary constitution in response to the 1848 revolution. Statesman and Prime Minster Johan Rudolph Thorbecke brought this new constitution to fruition. Wikipedia has an article on Thorbeck, and mentions the time period, but the 1848 article contains no mention of the Netherlands. I could definitely take a look into this, but I am a relatively amateur user, and would prefer someone with more expertise in Dutch history to work on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.10.33 (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It is very briefly mentioned. I have added material on it on several occasions but it seems it keeps getting "trimmed". Rmhermen (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Bad grammar

Hey Guys, I found this sentence while reading the article:

"Although Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, working in London, had written The Communist Manifesto (published in German in London on February 21, 1848) at the request of the Communist League (an organization consisting principally of German workers), once they began agitating in Germany following the March insurrection in Berlin, their demands were considerably reduced."

It doesn't make much sense. Can someone rewrite that sentence and make the point a bit clearer? I can't because I don't know what he/she is saying and I don't know much about the springtime of nations. Peter Cipriano (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Role of ideas

The original paragraph under this heading was removed by 216.104.207.86 on the 12th September and replaced with a new section consisting of descriptions of events in different areas copied from the Events section of this article - some parts have been copied in a jumbled or incomplete from and appear as gibberish; for instance the opening reads "Despite forceful aum Fighting in the village of Risquons-tout during the 1848 crisis in Belgium. In Belgium, the uprisings were local and concentrated in the sillon industriel industrial region of the provinces of Liège and Hainaut." I am therefore deleting it as vandalism and reverting the edit using Undo.Robocon1 (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Alphabetical order of countries?

Shouldn't the countries be placed in alphabetical order in the section describing the events in each country? Or are they placed with concern of other principles? --Aciram (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

working class ?

What do you mean by working class? Free-wage labourers? Industrial proletariat? They were a minority.

1) Britain

But there was no working-class movement in the sense of an organized presence that exercised a contj.nuing national influence. Trade-union membership included perhaps 5%-10% of the occupied male labour force built, as in the past, it was highly unstable and fluctuated with the local labour market.

Richard Price, p.3 in Linden (1990) Formation of Labour Movements Volume 1

2) Sweden

the industrial workers - still amounted to only a small minority of the Swedish population

Berger Simonson (Ibid p.99)

3) Italy

At the beginning of the 1890s..Italy [possessed] though it still constituted a minority, a modern class of factory workers

Franco Andreucci Ibid., p.192

4) Bulgaria

Bulgaria, the party appeared at a time when the proletariat was only just emerging, when wage earners were a minority amidst peasant, small owners and a petty-bourgeois mentality

Zhivka Damianova p.404 Ibid.,

5) Serbia

domestic servants, whose number 'probably exceeded all other categories of wage earners

Mira Bogdanocic p.423, Ibid.,

5) greece

the number of industrial workers remained insignificant in comparison with the total number of those employed in the secondary sector (in 1870 there were no more than 7,000 industrial workers, a number which more than doubled by the end of the century)

Panagiotis Noutsos p.441 Ibid.,

6) france

In France, in 1871, half of the working population was employed in agriculture.

Jacques Kergoat p. 164 ibid., — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ireland

If a group of RIC police were being chased, and took refuge in a house, is the wording "raided a house and took those inside as hostages" correct? Wouldn't "took refuge in a house together with the inhabitants" be less pro-revolutionary?Royalcourtier (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Tone

I can't be the only one who sees this. Referring to French revolutionaries as "cannon fodder?" Casually remarking that the bourgeois had "flexed their muscle" in 1789? I don't know how to put the template up, but several sections up this article should be noted as not in encyclopedic format. J1.grammar natz (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You're not. It's as if it was somehow written by a disappointed 1848 revolutionary in places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:C69C:AA00:F966:227A:28A2:F8B4 (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

The legacy section is one of the worst written things i've come across on wikipedia in a while. Somebody (I'm no expert on this subject) should take the time to rewrite it. Lack of citations is only one of this section's many problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.217.167 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC) I want to add that it's a relevant section and probably shouldn't be removed, just edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.217.167 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have edited it heavily. Comments welcome. --Red King (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I third and fourth the above. The section is little more than an atrocious personal essay. However I would only be qualified to contribute on the post revolutionary periods in France and Czarist Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.209.82 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Marxists denounced 1848 as a betrayal of working-class ideals by a bourgeoisie indifferent to the legitimate demands of the proletariat" What "marxists" are we talking about here? Marxism was not yet formalized at this time imo. Did marx himself have this opinion? if so it should be cited imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.175.24 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Marx's Influence

Maybe it's just me, but I feel as though the mentions of Marx on this page overstate any influence he may have had way way too much. It seems to me that whoever edited it wanted to make it look like Marx played an important role in setting off the revolutions. In reality, as the article itself explains, they arose from a number of longstanding issues and movements that had nothing to do with Marx. His newspaper was, to my knowledge, only distributed in Cologne which, judging by the page on the German Revolutions, did not have any major uprisings anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBBorges (talk • contribs) 05:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Failure/Repression

All of the revolutions that has been talked about has an outcome of a failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3CA:204:84F0:1DAD:B2B0:2A50:962 (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Marx

Can we use something other than "Radicals such as Marx built up a following." Using the word 'radical' is a loaded term. Caelestis Filius (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Marx's ideas were radical for the time period, though. He can hardly be described as a moderate.--2A02:C7F:D29C:6600:19D2:49BA:A1CD:97C3 (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

1848 = bourgeois revolution

A) Marx argued that 1818 was bourgeois. eg "as shown in the third article of Marx, in the spring of 1850 developments had concentrated the real ruling power in the bourgeois republic that had emanated from the “social” revolution of 1848 in the hands of the big bourgeoisie" [see http://www.slp.org/pdf/marx/class_struggles.pdf] also: " Marx elaborated in his 1850 "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League" a theory of permanent revolution according to which the proletariat should strengthen democratic bourgeois revolutionary forces until the proletariat itself is ready to seize power. " [Intellectuals & Revolution: Socialism & the Experience of 1848. 1980, p131] (b) It is common in the non-Marxist scholarship: (1) "the rising tide of revolutionary bourgeois liberalism in Austrian political life, as demonstrated by students' activities, the March riots of 1848, the rising in Hungary, the open revolt in Vienna itself in October 1848, and the course of the revolution." [History Today 1960, p668] (2) Csizmadia, Andor. "Hungarian customary law before the bourgeois rebellion of 1848." The Journal of Legal History 4.2 (1983): 3-37. (3) T. J. Clark, The Absolute Bourgeois: Artists and Politics in France 1848-51 (1982); (4) "Middle-class anxiety in the German revolution of 1848." Journal of Social History (1969): 189. (5) In France "The discrepancy of aims between bourgeois revolutionaries such as Alphonse de Lamartine and A. T. Marie and the radicals, led by Louis Blanc, contributed to the eventual failure of the revolution." [Columbia Encyclopedia, 2020]. Rjensen (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)