Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Libertarianism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Putting part of wikipedia on partially paid basis?

Even though Wikimedia_Foundation is a charity, there must be some way it can raise money to hire admins who will deal with the most hard core tenditious editors who ruin the wiki experience. Unpaid ones burn out too quick or don't want to deal with the people who will have a dozen friends attack you. This is really a question for a 501c3 attorney, but libertarians might have some idea how wikipedia might raise funds legally, like fining people $1 for a warning or $5 for a block. Or anything else that might have been done by charities which still allow some market mechanisms. Ideas? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you run for adminship? You've been here long enough that length of tenure wouldn't be an issue. You may also want to see m:commercialization. Commercialization a good idea, although Wikipedia should probably be funded by advertising rather than by fines. By the way, part of this WikiProject's purpose is to coordinate action on situations where people are editing tendentiously on articles related to libertarianism. You can't canvass by posting to people's userpages, but you can post a message to this discussion page about the situation, and we can intervene. Tisane (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

After posting that I went to a Wikipedia meetup and someone explained why it was not something wikipedia would/could do for either philosophical or legal reasons. Really forget details - or the work around I thought up at the time. However, already others are making wikipedia pay by stealing all the content and running ads. I don't know how much money they are making.

One can canvass individuals in some cases, especially people who've already worked on an article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism (metaphysics) needs help

I just gutted a mass of unsourced WP:OR but there certainly is material that could be entered - and some good sources linked or mentioned if not used. FYI CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting more members

Let's all make sure other libertarians know this project exists. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Austrian school

An anon IP keeps on changing the importance rating of the Austrian school of economics article for the Economics Wikiproject, and the Libertarian Wikiproject to 'Top'. It's the opinion of the Econ wikiproject people that the article is 'Mid' importance to us. If you could pop by the talk page of Austrian school and leave a comment and give a rating, maybe we can settle the edit warring that's going on there. thanks, --LK (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Leftist spin in Libertarianism lead

Per Talk:Libertarianism#Vallantyne_opinion_in_lead_POV someone keeps putting "The best known version of libertarianism supports unrestricted private ownership of the means of production, as distinguished from left libertarianism which seeks to abolish or place limitations on it.[8][neutrality disputed] " in the lead. I don't have a problem with rest of lead which admits fact many self-styled libertarians are anti-property and that is mentioned in lead and text. However, if he wants to say the best known version of libertarianism is anything, it should phrased in a neutral tone (without "means of production") and have the mainstream sources. That's what I intend to change it to but since right now no one else is commenting, some support would help. Thanks! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson GAR notification

Thomas Jefferson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lloyd

Check out the history of Mark Lloyd. He's the FCC diversity czar that seems to think we should emulate Venezuela which is in the process of shutting down radio stations, and enacting a "media crimes" law. Anything not from the short FCC official website is automatically scrubbed, and an administrator has threatened to block anyone who attempts to put information from a blog, or conservative talk show or even a liberal blog saying anything about Lloyd's statements about Hugo Chavez, or clamping down on media in Venezuela. This has got to be a libertarian topic. Bachcell (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can Glenn Beck be used as WP:RS??

So many people say that conservative blogs and even talk shows can't be used as RS, even for video that obviously exists. What do you folks think? This can easily be used to scrub anything that doesn't come from mainstream media since they so heavily censor what gets out relative to conservative press which is much smaller.Bachcell (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A. he's not a libertarian and B. best to check WP:RSN with specific example of what you mean. check their search box also for past discussions of him. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem at Libertarianism

A leftie has created Libertarianism#Historically_significant_social_movements_of_propertarian_Libertarianism which is both very POV and WP:OR. Basically he's claiming most significant movement of "propertarian" libertarianism is a few Chicago boys helping pinochet. I'm away for a few more days and can't really work on this computer. But needs others telling him that this section is unsatisfactory - and contradcited by other sources. (like a reason article I recently read). See Talk:Libertarianism#Questionable_.22Historically_significant_social_movements_of_Whichever_libertarianism.22_Sections.CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This problem still exists, FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No Contractarian article

Just noticed the word redirects to Social contract in case anyone out there is itching to start the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theory promotion at Human rights

A number of Iranian editors are attempting to add poorly sourced or unsourced claims to Human rights concerning a 6th century BC artifact, the Cyrus cylinder. They claim that it is supposedly the world's first charter of human rights, and that the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great effectively originated the concept of human rights. (To summarize, this is a fringe theory promoted by the late Shah of Iran in the 1970s as part of his regime's propaganda and has subsequently been promoted by Iranian ultranationalists, particularly in the pro-Shah diaspora. Mainstream historians reject this viewpoint as tendentious and anachronistic.) This has previously been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard on two previous occasions. It's now being discussed at Talk:Human rights#Religious tolerance and Achaemenids. Human rights is listed as a top-importance article for this WikiProject so some input from outside editors would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism at GAH

Anarchism has been nominated for Good Article status. I have assessed it and placed in on hold so that some points I have raised can be dealt with. I see the article has this project's tag, so am informing people here. My comments are at Talk:Anarchism/GA1.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do note it doesn't have much on anarco-capitalism or propertarian libertarian anarchism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the above comment after I passed the article. You can try raising it on the article talk page or go to my talk page if you want. However, I'm in the middle of a purge of my watch list and I'm about to unwatch this project page.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been purging away lately myself so Just wanted to alert others... :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Anybody know what that means?? :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't move this project to liberalism

I saw these messages but the project still has the same name. Someone reverted it immediately. Hopefully USer:Trust Is All You Need will not just up and mover this without giving it a few days for several people to enter into discussion!

(Move log); 17:06 . . Trust Is All You Need (talk | contribs) moved Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libertarianism to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Liberalism (Expanding scope, seeing that this project is near dead-active )

(Move log); 17:06 . . Trust Is All You Need (talk | contribs) moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Libertarianism to Wikipedia:WikiProject Liberalism (Expanding scope, seeing that this project is near dead-active )

Hopefully those others who pass by from time to time will agree. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I moved it back. I'd be happy to have that discussion, but I'm absolutely certain that it would be rejected. On the other hand, I would not have any principled problem with creating WikiProject Liberalism as a parent project to WikiProject Libertarianism. Then again, that's dependent on the European definition of liberalism - is there even a universal definition of 'liberalism' that doesn't contradict libertarianism? If not, then I would object to making it a parent of this WikiProject. Bastin 19:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It does get confusing since Classical Liberalism is almost libertarianism, with a little more government thrown in. And then it depends on whether you are talking anarchist, decentralist or minimal state libertarians. My feeling is best to leave them separate and mention only in ref to history of liberalism, Classical Liberalism or any libertarian Liberal parties that exist. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

“Classical liberalism”

More eyes needed at “Classical liberalism”. —SlamDiego_←T 23:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A request for consistent application of NPOV and BLP

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#A_request_for_consistent_application_of_NPOV_and_BLP. THF (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think most libertarians do think Bush was deranged. But the question of whether there should be an attack article about an alleged medical condition at all seems to me to be the bigger issue. Was there ever an AfD? CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism article changes

I should have reported earlier that an editor has been reworking the libertarianism article without sufficient consultation in a POV fashion, dismissing criticisms, making so many changes so fast it's hard to keep up, throwing out good refs and replacing with irrelevant refs, or just adding WP:OR in front of existing references not relevant to his point. While some of the changes might have been helpful, given the other behavior it's hard to tell. After he's got it out of his system I'm going to go through better earlier versions (circa end of 2009), plus a few good changes that happened in January (ignoring some really bad ones that I hadn't gotten around to fixing before this started), to clean it up again. But just an FYI since this is the Libertarianism project. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Merger_proposal_:_Minarchism

At link above there is a proposal that Small government, Limited government, and Night watchman state should be merged into Minarchism.

I have counter proposed that the articles Small government and Limited government be merged and Night watchman state and Minarchism. I wrote While it is true libertarian minarchists use descriptors "small" or "limited" government, conservatives who want a lot more government than that (especially big militaries and security states) also call for "small" or "limited" government. The latter articles should reflect that point by describing both libertarian and conservative use of the terms.CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of these seem to me to be different concepts. "Small government" need not necessarily be "limited" by any particular constraints; it may just not have grown very big yet, or there may be a possibility that, while it has been reduced in size, it could be increased later. Likewise, a limited government is not necessarily small; the U.S. Government theoretically has some limits on what it can do, but it is not small. On the other hand, rule by a "night watchman state" is basically minarchy. Tisane (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm crazy, but both small government and limited government have inherent blind spots. A small government could still infringe on individual liberty, depending on what few things it does. For example, a small government which supports slavery is not an ideal state. On the other hand, a limited government seems to be a government which is limited in its actions to specific things. But some of those items could infringe on individual liberty. For example, let's suppose that the US Constitution included in the enumerated powers act that the federal government determines aesthetic qualities of clothing. Under a strict constitutional interpretation, you have a limited government, but it can tell me that my pants are too baggy. Also, not an ideal state. So while limited and small government are interesting catch phrases, they both have issues and they are not the same thing. --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, history has shown that small government and limited government don't work too well in practice. Economic law predicts that a monopolistic service provider will tend to overcharge and provide poor service. A written constitution can't change that, any more than it can change the laws of physics. The only solution is to introduce competition and free consumer choice to the market. Tisane (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Articles for deletion

Resolved

 – Kept

See the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. Jstriker (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles whose importance has been suggested by Pete Eyre (activist) and comrades

• Agorism
• Austrian Economics
• Bonarchy
• Campaign for Liberty
• Economics in One Lesson
• Emergent order
• Fr33 Agents
• Harm principle
• Henry David Thoreau
• Individualist anarchism
• Lysander Spooner
• Market anarchism
• Murray Rothbard

| class="col-break " |

• No Treason
• Nouri al-Maliki
• Ron Paul
• Samuel Konkin
• Stateless society
• The Law (1850 book)
• The Philosophy of Liberty
• The Philosophy of Self
• The Road to Serfdom (comic)
• Voluntary society
• Voluntaryism
• Waco: The Rules of Engagement

Tisane (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Importance to watch, clean up, expand, tag importance of or what? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably all of the above. Basically, he has been posting a lot of YouTube videos that say at the end, "Google voluntaryism." (See, for instance, The Tax Dilemma) We figured, if he's going to be telling people to google stuff, we should improve the wiki articles that show up when people follow that advice. I did a bit of work on the voluntaryism article, and these are other articles people suggested when he crowdsourced the matter. I figure, this project can be good for both the libertarian movement and Wikipedia. Tisane (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Rudolf Rocker Coronellian (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism ongoing issues

The lead and miscellaneous sections of the article constantly are revised by pro and anti-property libertarians, with the former in majority and latter coming by from time to time to stir things up. I've tried to make article NPOV with proper sourcing to reflect the balance of the use of the word.

Meanwhile, something more specific that I'd like input on is Talk:Libertarianism#Need_consensus_on_use_of_pro_and_anti-property. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/archive1

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008 is currently under peer review. Comments from members of this WikiProject would be appreciated. Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Schiff, economist?

Is Peter Schiff an economist or not? Is "non-professional" economist demeaning? Please weigh in on this discussion. ephix (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Movement (Italy)

Hi, I refer you to insert page Libertarian Movement (Italy) within the WikiProject on Libertarianism in Italy. Thank, goodbye. Lib3rtarian (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. And a reminder of how lacking other articles about international movements. Libertarian movement just redirects to Libertarian Movement in the United States which itself is a pretty crappy article. Something I meant to clean up in days before I got annoyed at W. and stuck to just editing/maintaining a few articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for having viewed the page of the Libertarian Movement (Italy), as I wanted to alert despite the approval of maintenance of the page on English wikipedia there are problems with the user Rrburke (talk) that considers this ML page promotional, despite numerous articles and reports in a bibliography section and asks for her cancellation at the rear. I remember how in the Italian version of Wikipedia, this page of the Movimento Libertario has been shamefully deleted by italian users little "libertarians". Try to talk with Rrburke. Thank, bye.Lib3rtarian (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It probably would help to change the name to Libertarian Movement (political party). And maybe just cut down the amount of detail about political positions, which probably can be found in party documents. And merge some more general info on libertarianism to other articles. It sounds a bit promotional, so make it a bit more encyclopedic and you won't be hassled. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carolmooredc, No, no Rrbuke considered promotional and insignificant all the article about the Libertarian Movement (Italy) because he consider the deletion from Wikipedia Italy of the encyclopedic voice without know how it happens. Despite the approval of keep in English Wikipedia on the article, he proposes to reopen the debate to make the cancellation of the ML page. I assume that he doesn't know what mean the Libertarianism concept and the italian political situation and also he is not part of the wikiproject. In these months he continues to pose critical questions on issues about the permanence of the page (as well as motivation without feedback demonstrates the rich references). He doesn't accept the keep of the page also after the approvation. Despite all the links in the references still based on some distorted information taken from some users who have deliberately censored in Italy prevented us from Wikipedia Italian tral'altro defense and updating / improving the Wikipedia page on Italy ML. The information on this page are reflected bibliographic ML than to explain to non-experts what the ML and the anarcho-capitalist libertarian than the complex reality of Italian politics. Also he continues to pose problems on upload pictures of the two directors responsible for the ML (Leonardo Facco and Giorgio Fidenato)though these are public images without any special copyright about them. Bye.Lib3rtarian (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Carolmooredc sorry if I ask you, but do you know an email address to send the material to Wikipedia.org on permits for processing images of those responsible for ML and possibly to explain officially what is it the ML?. I know formally the ML administrators so they could send both ML permissions to the images that the necessary explanations on the ML. The others Wiki users that are "processing me" do not want my answer to that question, I remain available to clarify the misunderstanding and the issue of copyright images delegating directly to Leonardo Facco and Giorgio Fidenato (I've already heard them and they are more than willing to provide information merit to Wikipedia.org). ByeLib3rtarian (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

First, do take my suggestions seriously especially changing the name. (That might help in Italian wikipedia too.) As for photo, you can just write that you have permission to use them and include the web page and tell people to contact them through that for confirmation. I've just said I had permission to use a photo and had no problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Carolmooredc I will do as you suggested, I'm sorry if I have not answered yesterday but another user Moonriddengirl (talk) has locked my account because I allegedly used pictures for articles Leonardo Facco and Giorgio Fidenato (administrators ML), the problem is that these images are not protected by any explicit copyright, I have also their direct and explicit unofficial approval in their use in Wikipedia. The problem is that others users continue to believe neither the ML copyright holder on the same photo on their main leaders (though they are published on their website) and signed a copyright violator. The point is that the images have no copyright, and if other users have downloaded or uploaded to any sites that do not show their property but rather their free use. I calmly tried to explain this but here I shall be considered a bandit or a criminal, preventing the continuation of the debate block your account (which will change the name). Anyway I'll try to do as you say but I think this is not enough, I just hope that the page ML is not discussed again for its cancellation. Discussing with the administrators of ML I convinced them to also send an email request is signed as described here Thanks for the answers to me, I hope that the page ML can stay and be evaluated soon by you or others responsible for the Wikiproject. Bye Lib3rtarian (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.113.142.217 (talk)

Libertarian left

I just edited libertarian left so that it no longer redirects to left-libertarianism. I felt the redirect was inappropriate because the libertarian left is not a socialist movement in any way, as far as I know. But the article could use some love from someone more knowledgeable about the subject. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 05:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Left-libertarianism#Radical_free-marketeers does exist. Libertarian left is really just another way of saying same thing. It's not even ref'd. If I had energy I'd AfD it, but do not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You should get Twinkle! It makes it a lot easier. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 15:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I should investigate. Didnt know it did that. Why are you encouraging me? :-) There are lots of things I'd like to see deleted, especially when similar articles I supported were deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that borders on WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Anyway, my philosophy is that if something is going to get deleted eventually, we might as well delete it immediately so that a bunch of time doesn't get invested in improving it to no avail. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 16:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. There are just no refs supporting its wide use. Again an article on two related groups (original and splinter) using "____ of the Libertarian Left" might be supported, though it only would have belly gazing refs, no other real WP:RS. I'm finally taking on the mess of the Libertarianism lead after both lefties and righties have made it an absurd mismash. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

State (polity)/Sovereign state merge

If people have thoughts about this discussion that came up a couple weeks ago on these articles, perhaps they should opine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Libertarianism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Statism needs beefing up

Before some statist comes along and gets it deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Added a HQRS reviewing the literature on the use of the term statist as applied to analyses of the distribution of power in societies. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Can the Project house a sub-page for a bibliography of sources

Dear project editors, After discussion at Talk:Libertarianism#Yet_More_Intresting_and_Fascinating_HQRS two editors dedicated to the use of HQRS in Libertarianism believed that keeping a handy and easily accessible annotated bibliography would improve both discussion at Talk:Libertarianism and the sourcing and writing of Libertarianism itself. We then asked at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Where_should_a_source_related_subpage_go.3F if this situation had happened in the past, and what the best way forward was. They suggested we ask the Project to host such a bibliography, perhaps as WikiProject Libertarianism/Sources? What do project editors feel about this? Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What's HQRS mean? Sources good if fair and balanced :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about jargoning! HQRS is used by the Featured Article Criteria; basically, works in the academic press. I noticed the request elsewhere in the project for a transfer of Policy regarding source credibility (which interested me). Fifelfoo (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of commentary, I will Be Bold in a couple of days. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to take up sourcing reliability guide task "Libertarian Reliable Sources"

This task appears to be stalled or not initiated. As my main interest in wikipedia is quality of sourcing, and my current heavy review task is finalising, I'm proposing to take this task up. Could editors comment here, otherwise I will start Being Bold in about half a week. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

First, if this is a continuation above, why not keep together to avoid confusion. Second, while I don't have it bookmarked any more, I know that there is such a thing as part of the Anarchist wikiproject which is a guide and has some similar sources of interest. Which makes your job easier. Second, the problem is people who want to add more pro-property sources may not want to do so, making the whole thing rather unbalanced. What is your intention in that regard?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)