Talk:Silver RavenWolf

POV

This article is presented in biased terms. I have no direct interest in the subject matter, but would suggest for those who are, that in order to qualify for NPOV the article be re-written with an eye for more balanced language. LeFlyman 02:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. The entire article is unreferenced ("best-selling", "some more traditionalist witches"), which seems to me a verifiability problem, not a NPOV problem. What exactly are you concerned about? Jkelly 05:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at what the article was like when I put up the note. It's better now; however, this uncited sentence is problematic, as it reads like Original Research: "Despite, or perhaps because of, her relative popularity many of the more traditionalist Wiccans take issue with Ravenwolf's claims and interpretations, labeling her a fluffy bunny, and often leading to accusations of posing as a high priestess to cash in on the religion." One critical Web page doesn't qualify as a verifiable source of "many of the more traditionalist" -- the use of which is what's known as "Weasel Words" - LeFlyman 18:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

A quick search on most pagan boards online would reveal that Ms. Ravenwolf is indeed generally thought of in this manner. As a practicing Wiccan, I can say that, from my general suspicion, she dramatacises and skews aspects of the religion to better market her book at a young 'rebellion' type audience: anyone with more of a grounding in, say Gardnerian Wicca, would claim that a lot of her rituals are pointless mumbo-jumbo. The distinction may not seem that big to non-wiccans, but she is generally not regarded as an authoratative source on the religion. She is (unfortunately imo) very well-selling though, especially in the US. I'll avoid making major edits because of POV, just adding my two pence. Will correct some spelling though. --KharBevNor 01:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC) (I do wish Wikipedia would stop logging me out)

It seems amusing that a Gardnerian Wiccan would suggest that anyone's rituals are "pointless mumbo-jumbo", as many (includng myself) feel the same about that tradition's rituals. In any case, this article ought not to be simple opinion, pro or con. This is an encyclopedia. Docrailgun 09:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from hanging around in alt.religion.asatru it seems many think almost everything published by Llewellyn Publications is badly researched "fluffy bunny" stuff. // Liftarn 15:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thinking on it though, it's pretty NPOV to note that many dislike her attitude to other religions. --KharBevNor 01:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's an example of a POV statement. Use of an unqualified and unsourced statement such as "many dislike..." is, as I note above, a "weasel word" To be truly NPOV, you need to find a Verifiable publication/media (not just someone's personal Web site) source which you can reference. LeFlyman 03:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually agreed with the article more before it was edited. However, it is one point of view, and many people think otherwise. There has to be a neutral way of presenting the same information. I, personally, think that RavenWolf should be discredited, but as this is an encyclopaedia, and articles have to provide a neutral overview, this isn't the place to do it. --Jcvamp 20:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I note that the article now closely resembles an anti-Ravenwolf personal essay. Even if it is the case that we do not have a single editor on Wikipedia that thinks highly of her, surely we can find someone, somewhere that we can use as a reliable source for information about Ravenwolf that is not solely a criticism of her writing / religious beliefs / publishing arrangements. Jkelly 18:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a criticism her writing abilities, her beliefs, or her publisher, this is a criticism of the factual inaccuracy of her books. --68.109.185.29 03:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole "many dislike" is something of an unvarified statement. This actualy presents something of a problem though. How exactly would you verify that. Anyone can go onto most any pagan/wiccan message board or forum and find that opinion to be prevalent, but you can't start refferencing thousands of posts? I suppose someone could do their own study by doing various polls on the topic at various websites and forums, then compiling them into one summary poll. Then I suppose that poll could be refferenced as a private poll done for the purpose of the article.

Straw polls are the very definition of 'original research', though. The plain fact is that Silver Ravenwolf's works face criticism for their content. We should be able to say at least that much without risking a POV violation. 70.66.215.159 (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

about silver ravenwolf in general

i beleive that siver ravenwolf is exaderatory and lies quite a bit as well as makes the rest of the wiccan religion look bad, she calims that almost nine million wiccans were killed during the burning times, i beleive that would have majorly affected modern society today, wer would not have as many people. there is no need for her the exagerate like that, is a "mere" 60,000 lives lost not truamatic enough for her? Cocacolafreak 06:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Silver Ravenwolf is not the only Wiccan that has claimed that there were 9 million people killed during the burning time. One of the most influential authors of today has stated the same and he goes by the name of Raymond Buckland. The Burning Times wasn't a mere 10 years, but a strech from the inquisition the the Salem Witch Trials. Silver and Buckland are talking about how many Witches in general have been killed in general for studying the Craft so if you must put down people learn more information on them.

Sure, even Gardner claimed there were 9million people killed during the Burning Times (which typically is not taken to include Salem). The difference is that he was writing at a time when Matilda Gage's work on the subject was the best evidence available to many, and it was the accepted historical opinion of the time. Silver Ravenwolf is writing today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.80.115 (talk • contribs)

The fact she says Wiccans is a factual error AFAIK it wasn't even used in the context as is today until the 1950s Crashandburnnz 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Silver Ravenwolf, I believe is just trying to teach kids about Wicca, she want's to be interesting to them and non-threatning I belive, I really think that most teens are not going to bother about how many Witches or People were murdered, I believe that a more "accurate" statement would be that 9 million people either were tortured, discriminated, or killed for being a Witch in the "Burning Times", the number would be much farther if counted today because of the Catholic Churches controlling appeal, I believe people are greatly discriminated today for being Pagan, Wiccan, or just a Witch.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.66.215 (talk • contribs)

If you're assuming the Burning Times were restricted to North America, the 'nine million' figure is not only wildly inaccurate, but totally impossible (the Salem trials occurred in 1692-93, and the Thirteen Colonies had an estimated population of 874,000 as of 1700). In the three-hundred-year span of the European trials, scholarly estimates range from 40,000 to 50,000 executions. At most, there were only about two hundred people killed in the Salem trials (which is still a lot for a one-year period, just nowhere near 'nine million'). 24.108.102.4 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Serious POV problems

This article is suffering from an extreme POV problem as nothing that is on this site is grounded in reliable sources, but tends to be the opinion of the writer of the original entry. Statements such as "However, the lineage was clearly falsified, as it was chronologically impossible" is an opinion, and could be construed as slanderous. You can't call someone a liar on a public site such as this unless you have concrete sources to back up your claim. The lawsuit against the John Kennedy entry should be an object lesson to anyone who writes an entry for this site.

Secondly, as a practicing Wiccan, there is _no_ way to "prove" anyone's Wiccan lineage. I practice Celtic Wicca simply because I am Irish. However, there is nothing to stop me from saying I am descended from O'Hara the Fat-Toed, a Druid from the 6th century; claims such as these are made all over the Wiccan community and are unprovable. The only thing that is known for certain is that Gerald Gardner is the one who 'founded' Wicca in the 20th century, and even that is debatable by admission of the Gerald Gardner official site. This vagueness about the theological history of Wicca means that ANYONE can say they are descended in tradition from anyone they like and no one can prove what is said as 'right' or 'wrong,' so arguments and name calling regarding lineage in Wicca are moot. Thirdly, Wicca is not an "ancient" religion, it is a 20th century formulation of what are _THOUGHT_ to be ancient cultural practices in countries such as England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Eastern Europe.

None of this should matter if the religion works for you and as long as the practice of the religion is not hurtful to others. Personally, I did enjoy Silver's boiled down version of Christianity and the Burning Times in Silver Broomstick, and having studied the "Burning Times" extensively, I don't think the Wiccan community ought to get on its high horse because _NONE_ of you have proven your points about her "lies" with reliable sources. The sources that are listed on this site are slanted to agree with the original entry writer's point of view and are not supported on their own sites--they are both editorials, and editorials by their very nature are opinions. This is simply bad research writing. Having read over 100 books by Wiccan authors, most of the information about Wiccan 'history' tends to read the same from book to book, so Silver Ravenwolf cannot be blamed or made a scapegoat for something others do as well. The only _reliable_ book with reliable sources I _have_ read by someone sympathetic to Wicca is "Drawing Down the Moon" by Margot Adler. Therefore, I have re-written this entry to reflect both sides of the arguments (Silver's side and the disagreements with Silver on various issues within the Wiccan community), and hopefully, have presented to the millions of readers of this site a more NPOV entry. 142.151.143.157 23:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Diane O'Leary, MA, Historical Theology, University of Toronto

Diane, you can prove your MA because you are on the list of graduates, no? SRW claimed to be a part of many a tradition and YET she is not considered a "Proper Person" by those who are INTIATED in those specific trads. You can practice Celtic Wicca, but do you also claim to be INITIATED into a Celtic Wiccan Coven? *There* is the DIFFERENCE!!!

Thanks for your contributions. My general sense is that you improved the article. I'd like to point out that Gerald Gardner, having been dead for decades, does not have an official website. http://www.geraldgardner.com is a website set up by a knowledgable enthusiast. Further, there's really no need for the above level of argumentativeness. A number of people have expressed concern about the article's POV problems, but apparantly very few people were motivated enough to address them. That happens on Wikipedia. Again, I want to thank you for your contributions, and welcome you to Wikipedia, but keep in mind that nobody "owns" any article here, which is precisely why one should be WP:BOLD and fix articles that need it, just as you have attemtped to do. Jkelly 02:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[This is simply not true, anyone publicly Wicca (or BTW in the new parlance that allows "Wicca" to apply to other forms of Pagan Witchcraft) will have a traceable lineage.]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.80.115 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, most of the complaints about Silver's "lineage" have to do with supposed claims that she says it's a "Gardnerian" lineage. A number of the complaints suggest that certain Gardnerians (especially British ones) object to the idea that having Raymond Buckland in a "Gardnerian" lineage breaks the line (since Buckland wasn't a Gardnerian), and that she includes "Eldering" in her lineage, which certain Gardnerians don't acknowledge either. That aside, her "lineage" isn't at all faked (as there are a goodly number of people with fairly much the same lineage from the "SerpentStone Family" tradition. Even if I wasn't aware of that (and didn't claim much the same lineage myself), if _To Ride a SIlver Broomstick_ and her other books are good enough for Issac Bonewits, they certainly would be good enough for me. (see http://www.neopagan.net/Witchcraft-Rec-Books.html, under "Neopagan Witchcraft: Some Recent Worthy Titles". These entries also include Scott Cunningham books, Robin Wood books, and others) Docrailgun 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

and yet there are those who wish to up the STANDARDS by which they live their faith and beliefs!

Thank you

My apologies for the use of the word "official" for the Gerald Gardner site;it was a semantical error. It was also not my intention to be argumentative--but authoritative, as I am a teacher. Thank you for your kind comments.Toronto Scholar 09:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC) I believe all us Wiccans who are so concerned with linage degrees and title should understand there are several religilons where they can get these things to their fulle.g., Catholicism, Luthernism, Episcopalian. Remember the Reded says do as ye will without hurting anyone. Arguments about liunage, go to school and get a real degree like a PHD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.22.95 (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In regards to :

She is considered by the Wiccan community to be very progressive, and to have assisted in furthering the positive image of Wicca as a legitimate religion in the United States by becoming active in Wiccan anti-discrimination issues and with similar organizations detailed in the appendices of her books.

Quoted from the article

This is not the case i have seen it, i know many wiccas/pagans who think that she is actually not progressive she is setting the religion back by making everyone think they can be wicca buy reading her book. Also she makes it seem like their is a hudge descrimination against the pagan community in which there is not.

Unfortunately, it's fairly obvious that most of the people that have bothered to reply here are violently anti-Ravenwolf. That's really too bad. But, we all go through phases. Eventually, we get past the "I hate fluffy bunnies" stage when we grow up. Docrailgun 00:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing with Ravenwolf is that she is very hypecritical. How can she be taken seriously if she contstanly says one thing, then says another that contradicts. As a beginner book she is okay, but people need to realize that there are better authours out there. But she is in no way hindering the religion, in fact she is helping it. There are other people in the world that severly damage the religion. Ravenwolf isnt one of them.

why, you most certainly do damage to anything if you continue to publish FALSEHOODS and LIES!

"why, you most certainly do damage to anything if you continue to publish FALSEHOODS and LIES!" The only problem, though, is that, techically, Wikipedia does the same. Wikipedia publishes falsehoohs & lies, but yet, nothing is done about it. I hope someone sues Wikimedia and takes over ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.116.198 (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ravenwolf's Career

I'm trying to find my source on the matter, but prior to the works that have made her well known within the neopagan community did she not run a small newspaper for the neopagan community, and supposedly fight for the rights of pagans in her community? As I can clarify that source I'll be sure to edit it in. Sethimothy 21:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It would probably help in your research if you knew her married (2nd marriage) name is Trayer. That is not her maiden name. I believe her initial writings were published to the Dillsburg Banner, which were mostly editorial in nature. Dizzyg1970 (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Lineage

I'm not sure if any of th lineage stuff is worth mentioning - as pointed out above, pagan 'lineages' are difficult to verify, & easy to argue with - esp. as many are not exactly 'public' or 'published'. To cite the only 'vouched for' lineage to an organization that was created in 1991, and gave her a first degree apparently less than a year later - After she started writing and claining significant lineage, just does not bode well - on the other hand, it is difficult to argue with lineage claims (or which one is worth what and is actually notable). My recommendation would just be to 'not go there' and significantly condense or eliminate the whole lineage bit.Bridesmill 16:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

but without your lineage vouch(es), you are nothing in the wiccan community of initiated alexandrians and gardnerians, et al.... it doesn't have to be published to be checkable -- all covens keep track of their members and initiates. it's quite easy to OUT someone who is a LIAR.

And the lineage means nothing in real terms, other than internal to 'a' coven. Bridesmill 00:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing?!? Not initiated, are you? ;) It's a big deal because SHE made it one. If you are publishing books that are distributed worldwide, it's a very big deal if you are presenting yourself publically as such and such, but not really being one. That's called lying, and it should be a concern beyond the coven.

I also have grave concerns over "lineage." Gardnerians and Alexandrians are primarily concerned over witch lineage, and in particular, this is a British witch concern and does not concern American Wicca nearly as much. Could something be put in regarding the differences between British Wicca and American Wicca? Ravenwolf largely identifies herself with, in many of her books (HexCraft, Silver Broomstick, Teen Witch) American German/Appalachian Folk Magic.

This entry has changed considerably since I edited the whole thing (with Silver Ravenwolf's assistance) originally. I spent a lot of time on this entry because no one else seemed interested in it. I deleted the "fluffy bunny" reference six times (someone kept putting it back in). I also wrote the original "argumentative" POV article in which I soundly denounced the bad research that went into the original entry. So far as I am concerned, there is no excuse for bad research when people who are not academicians use this site and look at it as a reliable reference. I also included academic references to the Burning Times and clearly denoted that the figure 9 million was no longer thought to be accurate by modern academicians and gave numerous citations in References. I do not see that reference in there, and as far as I am concerned, this article is nearly as bad as it was when I edited it the first six times. I also no longer see the academic sites I put in about the European and American witch trials listed in References. Clearly, whoever is editing this is not interested in fact, but in proclaiming to the whole world how much they dislike Silver RavenWolf.

The point is, Wiccans can debate the lineage thing till the cows come home--the fact remains she proclaims a certain lineage, what she claims was included in the article, and this article is still biased against her which is unfair. It's okay to disagree with her--you don't have to like her--but this is an encyclopedia so let's put the facts in and let readers decide. --206.21.41.223 17:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Toronto Scholar

To upgrade article

There are a range of Wikipedia sources that can help you out. All articles must meet WP:V. To learn how to a proper citing style, consult WP:CITE. For what kind of external links are acceptable, WP:EL is a useful set of guidelines. Good luck! GBYork 18:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

Criticism

Does this qualify as an acceptable citation for a site critical of her book? Septegram 15:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It would probably fail WP:RS, because it's your own research, offered on your own personal website. --Roninbk _{t c #} 19:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see that it would if I referenced it, but if someone else did? Of course, I've probably tainted it by mentioning it here. Oh, well...

Septegram 16:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind: I just now saw Ekajatis remarks below. Of course, mine isn't so much a criticism of the author as of her book, but that may be splitting hairs. I'll leave it up to someone else to decide.

Septegram 16:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please address criticisms of Silver RavenWolf other than by reverting

It is uncivil and improper and does not assume good faith. MaxReg 02:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your sources are inadequate for an article about a living person. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, especially WP:LIVING, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:EL. In particular, articles on personal websites and articles by anonymous or non-notable individuals may not be used as criticism of a living person. The only sources which may be used for criticism of a living person would be books published by a reputable publisher, reputable journals, well-known newspapers and magazines. The sources you have used don't qualify, and per WP:LIVING must be reverted as quickly as possible. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources for criticism

The following may not be used as sources of criticism:

• Amateur reviews on Amazon
• Personal websites
• Websites on "free" services such as Freeweb, Geocities, etc.
• Blogs or forums of any sort.

The sources of criticism must be both reliable (i.e. not self-published, but published by a reputable publisher), and written by someone who is actually notable. Personal essays, forum content, blog entries, amateur book reviews, etc. do not qualify as sources and in the case of a living person, may not even be linked to from this article. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I would like to suggest that this page be re-organised with a list of books written by Silver, if there are no objections i can begin as soon as i get a list together myself. Grey witch 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Stylewise, the correct method is to add a section titled Bibliography to the end of the article (but before See also, Notes, References and External links. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought a bibliography would only be the title if we had references from the books? Not if we were just listing the titles of books she had written? Grey witch 13:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. on Wikiepdia, that's called "References" - a list of an author's works is titled "Bibliography". Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok then thanks for your help. Grey witch 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have another suggestion. The information for Marriage and Children should be changed to something less absolute. Married for 23 years is only true for 1 year. If I recall, she was a mother of 4 teenagers over 14 years ago, which means all her children would be in or near their 30's by now, no longer teenagers. Raisenero 06:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited this down to "She is married and has four children." for the reasons stated. If someone knows when she was married, it may be worth mentioning the year and possibly the spouse. I have no personal interest in this subject so I won't be doing additional research, but the change made sense. James A. Stewart (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

wicca.timerift.net

Is the personal site of Catherine Noble Beyer, see [1]. As such, it is self-published critcism and cannot be used. It could only be used if it were published by a reputable third party. Thanks. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, we're citing Silver RavenWolf's personal site, why can't we link a prominent critic's personal site? She's a published writer who's gotten her work through peer review; it's not some kid on geocities. I've readded both links. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've reverted this attempt to introduce individual's negative screeds disguised as "external links". The first link substitution said it went to the Serpentstone Family website, but the substituted link went to an article by a detractor called "Tarnished Silver". The two additional links went to a couple of blogs. This info is not appropriate in the section called "external links", and is contrary to WP:Bio in any case. This has all been discussed on this very page; I particularly refer you to the section marked "Sources for Criticism" above. This was just a sneaky way of trying to circumvent prior action by an unidentified one-shot editor with a problem with the subject of the article.Rosencomet (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Article Thus Far

This article is basically short and to the point. It is objective in that it simply presents factual information: who she is, what she does, her marital/parentage status, the fact she has written books, a list of those books, citations to support all that, and similar data. I believe this is all the subject merits and all that is encyclopedic.

The attempt to interject a section consisting of some people's negative opinions of her, or controversies railed about on blogs by her detractors, would be NON-encyclopedic, and would not only have no place in this article but would be a violation of the instructions at the top of this very page. The same would be true of a section entitled "Praises of Silver Ravenwolf" featuring the positive assessments of her fans as written on THEIR blogs. Wikipedia articles are not forums for subjective arguments between individuals about the value of the subjects, but just factual references about the subject. Save the screeds for other forums; there are plenty. Neither criticisms nor praises belong here, IMO. Rosencomet (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that you did the right thing because the sources are not reliable. A lot of criticism started because the author claimed a false wiccan lineage at the stat of her career to became famous and after, when the fact was noted, she negated it and erased that affirmation from her personal blog, but there are still the proofs in some of her former books. Considering her as an author, for me some of her books are good and some are bad, but the true is that she started her career with a lie and she is not really wiccan so her behavior enraged a lot of true wiccans. Vergelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.10.119.215 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Criticism" Section

Sorry I didn't leave an explanation, but if you view the history, you'll see this has happened several times: a single-topic unidentified editor drops the same bunch of blog-referenced negative material in as a "criticism" section. Your assessment is quite correct, IMO; thanks, User:Asarelah, for looking twice.Rosencomet (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: NeoWiccan

This sounds an awful lot like something I read on the talk page for the 'Wicca' article -- user Xglenxx made the claim that 'according to Trad Wiccan law, then if you're not Alexandrian or Gardnerian initiated, then you're not Wiccan - you're Neo-Wiccan'. I certainly don't consider myself 'neo-Wiccan', and I find that to be rather POV. I can stand to be corrected on this, though, so...correct away! 207.6.145.129 (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:Verify, I've been removing the 'neo' prefix wherever I can find it; we don't refer to Catholics or Anglicans as 'neo-Christians', so (until supporting evidence is presented) we shouldn't refer to non-Gardnerian Wiccan paths as 'neo-Wiccan'. 24.108.102.4 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability

How does the subject of this article meet the Wikipedia notability guideline for notability of people? I'm not seeing much on this article that is independant, third party material from quality reliable sources which establishes actual notability. The material may be out there, somewhere, but it's not currently in the article. -- 155.95.90.245 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe she comes under the criteria in WP:AUTHOR. She is a significant author for one of the major publishing houses in the Metaphysics, New Age and Occult field. The sourcing is the problem, however, I will agree. She is also notable for many of the areas of discussion on this page, most of which do not meet WP standards for inclusion. Ashareem (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

De-prod

Since my BLPPROD was contested on the grounds that there's a valid reference given, might I suggest turning this reference into an inline citation? This is what got me confused the first time. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, have done so- it needs more refs that are reliable sources though, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)