Talk:Frederick Birks/Archive 1

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

POV reversion

In this edit, user:Backslash Forwardslash provides an edit comment stating: "Every FA on Aus VC winners doesn't have this section, and it is not aesthetically appealing"

Separating the two opinions:

"it is not aesthetically appealing" - Please advise when "I don't like it" became an acceptable justification for reverting facts with supporting references.

"Every FA on Aus VC winners doesn't have this section"
1. Is there an easier way to find out which are the "FA on Aus VC recipients" without going through the List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients one by one?
2. Why is that sentence sufficient justification for reverting facts with supporting references?

• Is there some guideline somewhere that says: "Featured articles must not have 'medals' sections"?
• Has anyone put up an article for FA with a medals section and had it rejected?

I would prefer you provide an argument based on facts rather than the opinions of you and your friends, and it is my understanding that Wikipedia requires this. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I came across rude, but you seem to have misjudged my intentions with this edit. I don't know where you got the idea I was attempting to provoke an edit war - perhaps you misjudged the removal as a personal attack?

Yes there is. I went to the trouble of making a template that could keep track of the articles, and User:Abraham, B.S. has been kind enough to keep track of it. It is located here. As you will see, none of the FA articles - or indeed any of the articles have separate sections for medals. FAs are scrutinised for minute infractions of our manual of standard, so any need for a medals section would have been raised. The reason for this is that per our Manual of Style, we should avoid entering textual information as images. Every soldier who participated in those battles were awarded those medals, and that can be addressed in the text - the article is still being worked on. Having a separate section for a collection of coloured bars also overwhelms the text; which goes against our layout recommendations.

Look, it's going to be subjective no matter how you approach this; we are dealing with layouts of articles and there aren't any 'facts' that I can give to you to support my argument. Similarly, you are equally as burdened to provide an explanation as to why this section should be included. After all, it goes against the standing consensus displayed across most of our military articles, and while consensus can change, I haven't seen an argument from you as to why this article should be an exception. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I notice there have been quite a few additions... all from yourself. I take the comment about 'all the articles' back but I stand by those that have been improved and peer reviewed have not got the section. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(Your response is written in a much more reasonable tone than I was expecting. Yes, I do seem to have misjudged your intentions; I expect I reacted negatively to your initial removal-without-mention followed by your subsequent removal-accompanied-by-a-poorly-justified-statement, rather than you responding by dropping me a line on my talk page and discussing the matter. No, I didn't categorise the removal as "a personal attack", but given your implied question as to what my judgement was, I will answer that I thought it was rather bad manners, particularly given that you are an admin. But I digress. I had not intended to mention any of the above. However, you seemed to be asking/implying direct questions, so I felt that you probably deserved direct answers. Meanwhile ... )

Regarding "an easy way", I gather the answer is "no" - i.e. we are reliant on the good efforts of people like you & Bryce to manually keep records. Well, it's a good thing that there are such people doing such things, isn't it. ;-)

So, getting to the subject at hand:

"FAs are scrutinised for minute infractions of our manual of standard, so any need for a medals section would have been raised. The reason for this is that per our Manual of Style, we should avoid entering textual information as images."

Mmmmmm. That is one way of interpreting the situation. However, you could just as validly come to a number of other interpretations.

• I don't necessarily agree that "any need for a medals section would have been raised". Keeping Occams Razor in mind, it may simply be the case that no-one has thought of, (or raised), the topic of "the need for a medals section" ...
• I will spend some time reconsidering WP:MOSIMAGES before I comment further.

"Every soldier who participated in those battles were awarded those medals, and that can be addressed in the text - the article is still being worked on. Having a separate section for a collection of coloured bars also overwhelms the text; which goes against our layout recommendations."

You have raised a number of points here.

"Every soldier who participated in those battles were awarded those medals"

• That statement is somewhat ambiguous. Depending upon what you mean, the majority of replies would be: "Well, no. That is not exactly the case."

"and that can be addressed in the text"

• Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Which "that" is it that "can be addressed in the text"?
• I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. The text can indeed tell you what the ribbons look like, but why? An image of the ribbons and accompanying explanatory text does a far superior job in describing the ribbons than just text. After all: Q: Why are the ribbons worn? A: They quickly communicate a lot of information that it would take the proberbial "thousand words" to otherwise communicate.

"Having a separate section for a collection of coloured bars also overwhelms the text;" - That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I don't see how it usefully contributes to this discussion.

"Look, it's going to be subjective no matter how you approach this." - I'd like to think that the matter can be approached and resolved objectively. So, at the moment, I'd like to try to do that. So, at the moment, I don't agree that "it's going to be subjective no matter how you approach this". So far I believe I am yet to make a subjective statement, and for the moment I'm going to attempt to continue to do so.

"Similarly, you are equally as burdened to provide an explanation as to why this section should be included." - Am I. Hmm. It will be a challenge to do so in an objective manner! I guess I'd better get started on it.

"After all, it goes against the standing consensus displayed across most of our military articles, and while consensus can change, I haven't seen an argument from you as to why this article should be an exception."

I'm not sure I follow that sentence.

• Why "After all"? "After all" what? Sorry, I don't understand.
• "it goes against the standing consensus".
  • What is a "standing consensus"?
  • What is the "standing consensus"?
  • I would venture to suggest that there can be no consensus about something that isn't defined - only about something that is defined.
  • I gather the concensus is what is defined in the Manual of Style? I am of the impression that the MoS does not address this particular issue.

"I haven't seen an argument from you as to why this article should be an exception"

• No, you haven't. And you won't, because I do not believe that this article should be an exception.

"but I stand by those that have been improved and peer reviewed have not got the section."

• I have not challenged (and do not challenge) the accuracy of that assertion. But equally, I don't believe that assertion is relevant to this issue. I'm sure there are many attributes which do not appear in the set of articles to which you refer. But that does not necessarily mean that those articles should not have some of those attributes. It just means that, currently, those articles do not have them.

I'm not sure which attributes such articles should and should not have, but I do not believe that (the fact the the articles do not currently have them) means that (the articles should not have them.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ribbons

My main argument so to speak, is that the ribbons do nothing to add informative value to the individual soldiers article. The Medals section serves to provide information about which medals were awarded, which can be easily explained in the text. I have done so here, as the medals don't appear to have been mentioned earlier. I'm willing to compromise, however. I can see the merit in the table, as it is providing information that could not easily be transferred in the text. I'm just not sure about the ribbons above that. Is it an attempt to imitate how they are worn on the shirt? I don't believe they add any more information than the table does. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Is it an attempt to imitate how they are worn on the shirt?" - Yes.

"I don't believe they add any more information than the table does." - Only a little more. (i.e. As you deduced, the "more information" they add is "how the ribbons appear on the uniform".)

I'm guessing you are suggesting that you would like the ribbon bar removed? Not my personal preference, but is this the sort of thing you had in mind?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that doesn't make the section look as intimidating, and fits in a lot better with the text. Thanks. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Backslash, although I didn't bring it up in the GA review as it isn't really in the criteria. Frankly, the ribbons look out of place and make the article look bloated; more importantly, however, they add no real information and seem to be purely decorative. Skinny87 (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

<od>

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I don't see how it usefully contributes to this discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please advise when "I don't like it" became an acceptable justification for reverting facts with supporting references. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And in case it wasn't obvious, I have a different opinion, and it, too, is irellevant to this discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Backslash Forwardslash and Skinny. The ribbons add very little, if anything, to the article, and, if at all, Birks' medal entitlement should be presented in prose format. You are right, of course, Pdf, that "I don't like it" is not a reason to remove something, but MOS: Images, consensus and consistency are. Just my two cents. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet another irrelevant opinion.

Please explain precisely what MOS: Images and consensus say that is relevant.

As for consistency, when discussing disambiguations, one of your heros has said "consistency is not important". (You can look up the archives as easily as I can.) So, apparently, that too is irrelevant.

Look, I'm playing by YOUR rules here, "your" as in "You plural in the Milhist community".

How about you plural playing by the rules you impose on others rather than cherry picking the ones you want to impose and ignoring the inconvienient ones that don't support your current point of view?

I had a civil, sensible and productive conversation with Backslash Forwardslash that addressed facts, not opinions.

Neither Skinny nor Abraham, B.S. have expressed anything other than their opinion.

For the third time I will state:

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I don't see how it usefully contributes to this discussion.

I have no interest in who agrees with whom about what. (I have no doubt that the members of the Nazi Party agreed with each other, but that too is irellevant.)

How about some FACTS and some supporting EVIDENCE.

(Also, you will note that I have expressed NO opinions. Only asked questions, and expressed facts.)

Awaiting a relevant reply that is based on facts and evidence.

Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you are disregarding other people's facts and opinions just because they do not agree with your own. Backslash Forwardslash has already provided a rational in regards to MOS: Images above that this impinges on. WP:MOSICON would also be applicable here; most noticeably from WP:ICONDECORATION down. Consensus is, basically, based on agreement and "majority rule"; hence its mention. If the majority agree on something, that is traditionally the way things head. I have no idea where "disambiguations", "heros" (sic) or "consistency is not important" came from, nor its particular relevance here, but anyway ... There was very little opinion, but supporting fact in the above posts (i.e. MOS: Images, consensus), and we have also posted in a civil manner. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

<od>

"It seems that you are disregarding other people's facts and opinions just because they do not agree with your own." - That sentence either makes no sense, or is false.

• "you are disregarding other people's facts" - Which facts am I disregarding?
• "just because they do not agree with your own" - As you have no idea what my opinions are, it is a mystery to me how you can know what I do and don't agree with. How about sticking to the facts?

"Backslash Forwardslash has already provided a rational in regards to MOS: Images above that this impinges on." - And I have already responded to it.

"WP:MOSICON would also be applicable here; most noticeably from WP:ICONDECORATION down." - Perhaps, but I don't see how that is relevant. Perhaps you can be specific?

"Consensus is, ... " - Factual, but irellevant.

"There was very little opinion ... " - That in itself is opinion.

"and we have also posted in a civil manner" - Factual, but irellevant.

How about some FACTS and some supporting EVIDENCE.

Still awaiting a relevant reply that is based on facts and evidence. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting to the point, I will reiterate for the third time: this particular section is in violation of MOS: Images and WP:MOSICON. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"this particular section is in violation of MOS: Images" - As I said in my reply-before-last: "Please explain precisely what MOS: Images says that is relevant." I have now read it for a third time, and I can find nothing in there that could be interpreted as saying "pictures of medal ribbons are a violation of this policy". Specifically, what are you referring to?

"and WP:MOSICON" - With the exception of the single paragraph WP:ICONDECORATION, I can find nothing in there that could be interpreted as saying "pictures of medal ribbons are a violation of this policy". Other than WP:ICONDECORATION, specifically, what are you referring to? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic purpose

Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing visual cues or layout. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information nor visual cues or layout that aid the reader. Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration.

1) The icons have been added to this and other pages for a number of reasons. Two that I can quickly think of are:

• They inform the reader of what the recipients medal ribbons look like, so that if/when they see the ribbons, they are able to identify what they are, and what they mean.
• The text can indeed tell you what the ribbons look like, but why? An image of the ribbons and accompanying explanatory text does a far superior job in describing the ribbons than just text. After all: Q: Why are the ribbons worn? A: They quickly communicate a lot of information that it would take the proberbial "thousand words" to otherwise communicate.

2) "Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction" - Not applicable. They are not there for decoration; they are there to convey information in a more efficient manner than text alone would convey the information.

3) "Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing visual cues or layout." - These icons "have a useful purpose in providing visual cues".

4) "Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information nor visual cues or layout that aid the reader." - Not applicable. These icons provide "additional useful information".

5) "Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration." - They do. Refer to 1) and 3) above.

In summary, I fail to see how "this particular section is in violation of MOS: Images and WP:MOSICON", and you have provided NO specific evidence to support your assertion. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

They are purely decorative, PDF. What, exactly, do they convey that is encyclopedic and useful? What colour they are? What height and width they are? They are decorative, and provide no useful further information that isn't decorative - all they show is colour and size, which I fail to see as encyclopedic or improving the reader's understanding of the article, the medal, or the recipient. Skinny87 (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"They are purely decorative, PDF. What, exactly, do they convey that is encyclopedic and useful?"

The icons have been added to this and other pages for a number of reasons. Two that I can quickly think of are:

• They inform the reader of what the recipients medal ribbons look like, so that if/when they see the ribbons, they are able to identify what they are, and what they mean.
• The text can indeed tell you what the ribbons look like, but why? An image of the ribbons and accompanying explanatory text does a far superior job in describing the ribbons than just text. After all: Q: Why are the ribbons worn? A: They quickly communicate a lot of information that it would take the proberbial "thousand words" to otherwise communicate.

"What height and width they are?" - Why do you ask?

"They are decorative, and provide no useful further information that isn't decorative - all they show is colour and size, which I fail to see as encyclopedic or improving the reader's understanding of the article, the medal, or the recipient." - Already addressed above. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm frankly tired of this wikilawyering. I've given my reasons for opposing the addition of the medal ribbons, and frankly don't care a whit if you think they're opinions of not. You would appear to be the only one here supporting them, against at least three others. Should WP:Consensus solidify, which I believe it may already have, on this page, please obey it. That's all I have to say. Skinny87 (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the rational of consensus by Skinny, the images of the medal ribbons should be removed from this article and the mention of Birks' medal entitlement converted into prose. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frederick Birks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I would suggest moving the description of the VC and appending it after '...veteran and recipient of the Victoria Cross.' to make it clearer and avoid repetitiveness.

   'In Wales during 1910' - Since he never left Wales before this, I don't think the first two words are strictly needed.

   What unit of the Royal Artillery? If unknown, just say 'with the service' or something similar.

   'Birks went on to work in Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria as a labourer and later, a waiter.' Suggest replacing first word with 'He' to avoid repetition in previous and succeeding sentences.

   'At the age of nineteen, Birks lived in Largs Bay in late March 1914, starting a relationship with sixteen year-old Suzy Gelvin' - 'In late March 1914, at the age of nineteen, Birks lived in Largs Bay and started a relationship with sixteen year-old Suazy Gelvin.'

   'After stopping in Albany, arriving on 10 December.' Fragment of a sentence.

   'The 2nd Brigade were also sent to Cape Helles, where assisted in the attack on Krithia' - Missing a word!

   'On 26 June 1915, Birks was wounded shrapnel but returned to service the next day, remaining on Gallipoli until 9 September.' - And another

   'On 9 September Birks received another recommendation, and was awarded Military Medal on 4 October 1916.' - A third word missing, and also - what was the recommendation for, ie what did he do?

   'Birks took classes at the Australian 1st Division school in France, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the 6th Battalion on 4 May 1917.' - This is a bit abrupt. How did he go from corporal to 2nd Lt? Is it linked to the recommendation for the MM mentioned above? It's also odd that he went from stretcher-bearer to infantry officer - any idea why?

   'Birks' battalion were ordered to attack and capture the German line parallel to them, and the men moved towards their positions from Zillebeke on the night of 18 September, coming under some fire from gas shells' - Where were these positions, which I assume were the launching point of the attack?

   'They were attacked with bombs, and the corporal was seriously wounded. Birks continued on alone' - Wikilink bomb?

   'Birks assisted in the reorganisation and consolidation of Australian men who had drifted away from their unit' - 'He also' at the start to avoid repetition?

   'The next day, 21 September, enemy shelling in response to the movement of Allied artillery had buried some men in Birks' platoon. Another shell aimed at the C Coy post killed Birks and four others.[12] Birks had attempted to dig out these men, "standing exposed", but was killed before he could save them.[4]' - Confused order. Suggest merging last two sentences, as it's otherwise disjointed, with Birks alive, dead, then alive again (seemingly)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   'He is known to have lived in Norwood, a suburb of Adelaide, and in Hobart.' - Citation needed, and possibly place this before the 'late March 1914' info.

   What makes 'The Victoria Cross' website reliable?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Appears to be an edit-war taking place over placement of ribbons. If this is not resolved one way or another, I can't pass this article.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An excellent article, just needs a few things to do to get it to GA level. Skinny87 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I have made the prose fixes, and the only 'points' remaining:

   'On 9 September Birks received another recommendation, and was awarded Military Medal on 4 October 1916.' - A third word missing, and also - what was the recommendation for, ie what did he do?

   'Birks took classes at the Australian 1st Division school in France, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the 6th Battalion on 4 May 1917.' - This is a bit abrupt. How did he go from corporal to 2nd Lt? Is it linked to the recommendation for the MM mentioned above? It's also odd that he went from stretcher-bearer to infantry officer - any idea why?

   'Birks' battalion were ordered to attack and capture the German line parallel to them, and the men moved towards their positions from Zillebeke on the night of 18 September, coming under some fire from gas shells' - Where were these positions, which I assume were the launching point of the attack?

   It appears the numerous dates have confused me in regards to the MM date, as the AIF Project and ADB give conflicting dates. I'm at a loss as what to do, and that was the best I could interpret from the sources.

   By all accounts, he was selected for commissioning (likely as a result of the MM) and 2nd Lt. is the lowest rank that a commissioned officer can take.

   I'll look into the last point in re to the positions. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

   I hope youse don't mind me butting in here, but I was hopping I would be able to help in regards to the Military Medal/commissioning issue. For more information on the award, I would advise taking a peak at the digitalised recommendation copies located at the Australian War Memorial website ([1], [2] & [3]). I know that with the Australian forces during the First World War, infantry soldiers often volunteered or were allocated roles as stretcher bearers briefly due to the high number of casualties, so it is likely Birks was an infantry soldier, who had acted as a stretcher bearer, and was recommended for commissioning due to (as Backslash Forwardslash states) bravery or leadership. This is, however, OR and probably cannot be sourced. ;-) Also, I doubt that Birks was recommended for the MM on the directive of Birdwood himself. The original recommendation would have been written up by his battalion CO, passed on and approved at brigade HQ, passed on and approved at divisional HQ (one can see in the above recommendations that they are from the divisional CO) and then passed on to Birdwood as corps CO. I think that ADB is actually saying that Birdwood presented Birks with the MM, or ribbon of such, on this date. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

   This makes more sense. I had been trying to find these after seeing them quoted in the Memoryshare source. I think it's clearer how the dates fit together; I'll work on the prose of the section now. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

   Just to confirm, he was recommended on 10 June, [4], awarded it in July (ADB), and recommended again on 9th September? The AIF lists him as being awarded the medal on 4 October 1916, perhaps there were bars or maybe he was given the medal and ribbon on separate dates? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

   Try not to confuse the dates (and yourself!) too much. ;-) The recommendations I provided above state the exact date of action; the London Gazette was when the award was announced, made public and official; the ADB states the date of action as in July, and that it was presented by Birdwood, by not exactly when; the AIF Project states when the award was announced in the Commonwealth Gazette, but, to me, seems to confuse itself. I would recommend that you describe Birks' actions as best you can (mentioning the date of occurrence), and then state that it was announced in the London Gazette. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

   I've reworded the section, how does it read now? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

   It is a little confusing, as it implies that Birks was recommended for the MM twice, and the prose is split, with other information in between. I would just state that "On 10 June 1916, Birks (explain actions, and situation). For his "devotion to duty and good work", (cite recommendation) he was recommended for the Military Medal. The announcement for the decoration was publiched in the London Gazette on (insert date and cite)." I think something along these lines would be good, and then mention that the award was presented to Birks by Birdwood. As something of an example, you might like to have a little look at Percy Statton, and how the info on his MM is presented there, though add your own style and flair to it. ;-) I hope this is helpful. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

   I've had another stab at it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

   Just about there! Sorry for being such a pain in the butt. I would keep all mentions of the MM together, not fragimented by the mention of his promotion in between. Also, the article states that Birks was awarded his MM by Birdwood on 4 October 1916, but we are kind of putting two and two together and do not know for sure. If you are sick of figiting with this, just give me a shout, if you want, and I'll have a stab at it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

   If you can reword it better, by all means go ahead. I'm one edit away from removing the paragraph. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

   Done. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(od)Can this be confirmed as completed and fixed, now? Skinny87 (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm fairly sure the MM issues have been resolved. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks good to me, so I've passed it. I'm sure that any further fixes can be done without compromising it's current status. Well done! Skinny87 (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)