Talk:Human Appeal/Archive 1

explanation
I removed material that not only looked like an advertisement, but which also looked like a copyright violation. Geo Swan (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Charities accused of ties to terrorism
A previous version of this article identified Human Appeal International as a charity accused of ties to terrorism. A subsequent edit removed this claim. Should it be reinstated, since it is not certain whether the accusation is true? Please see the list at Charities accused of ties to terrorism. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say "of course". But then I started the article, and I inserted that text.  I am going to leave a message on the talk page of the contributor who removed that content without offering an explanation.  But I also intend to reinstate it.


 * Whether the accusation is true is not important. The material that was removed did not say the accusations were true.  The material that was removed merely said Guantanamo detainees continued to be held, in part, because American intelligence analysts considered the charity to be tied to terrorism.  That American intelligence analysts consider the charity to be tied to terrorism is verifiable from an authoritative source.  So, of course it merits inclusion in the article.


 * FWIW, the US intelligence and counter-terrorism establishment has numerous, inconsistent lists of organizations they regard as linked to terrorism. See SECOND REPORT ON THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES: Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy (.pdf), Denbeaux & Denbeaux, March 20 2006


 * No point asking User:Jimfarmer to explain his edit. His contribution record shows just 8 edits. The first four were unsourced and POV.  The last four, viewed together, seem clearly to be acts of vandalism.  And the user was subsequently blocked.

I haven't looked at this article in a long time. I see the Guantanamo based terrorism allegations have been removed again, without a meaningful explanation.

I am calling for an explanation now. Geo Swan (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I restored the section on the guantanamo allegations without waiting for the exciser to respond to my request. The exciser only made three edits to the wikpedia, over a year ago.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Hamas section text
On October 8, User:84.92.45.81 deleted nearly all the text in the "Hamas" section. The user's edit summary said: "Removing false information." I reviewed the text he deleted as well as the sources. The information presented in that section, in my assessment, was backed up with satisfactory supporting evidence. I believe the edit was improper and thus, am reverting it. Parvana fattahov (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A different IP address - reverted a large chunk of information claiming that some finding of the charity commission finding (not a criminal investigation body, intelligence agency, etc.), at present sourced to a source not even mentioning Human Appeal, making this false in some manner. Regardless - this is widely covered, and the organization being listed as "banned association" in Israel (in which it also operated) is factual.Icewhiz (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC).

On the contrary, this isn't factual. Human Appeal are not banned and have never been banned from Israel and operate there to this day. They run multiple projects in West Bank and Gaza that they would be unable to do without cooperation from Israeli government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs)
 * I don't know what they run and how they run it on the ground, however the Israeli announcement is quite clear - Defense Minister signs order banning Hamas-affiliated charitable organizations 2008 and refers to  Human Appeal International (UAE, Britain, Australia)  - referring to the UAE, Britain, and Australia branches as one collective entity. Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

That isn't clear - the Human Appeal International based in UAE could have branches in these countries, seperate from the Human Appeal of this Wikipedia page and as the UK Charity Commission shows there is no evidence that the UAE organisation are linked with this one. Also Human Appeal would not be able to operate in Gaza or West Bank if they were banned by Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 12:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Confusion over name of the organisation
Firstly there are a lot of sources being included in this page which refer to either Human Appeal International, an organisation based in UAE or another Human Appeal which is based in Australia - neither of these are the same organisation as Human Appeal. They have similar names. Unfortunately, journalists working for credible news sources have made this mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 12:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Human Appeal UK used to be Human Appeal International prior to changing their logo and name. In any event, absent a correction from the multiple WP:RS who associate this organization from Hamas funding - they are quite simply reliable. Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Human Appeal UK used to be called Human Appeal International, however changed their name (partly to differentiate themselves from the organisation with a similar name in the UAE) Human Appeal International are still running to this day and are completely seperate from the organisation that this wiki page is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 12:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The history of this article is also confusing with regards to Human Appeal vs Human Appeal International. So it looks like the article was originally written as Human Appeal International and then swapped-out/ changed somewhat to the same article with new name. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Appeal&diff=prev&oldid=758450749 TeeVeeed (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They dropped the International at some point, but the UK branch was known as "international" - see e.g. Here. As for claiming the UAE and UK orgs are different - well - this is refuted by - Telegraph - "According to Oborne, Human Appeal’s UK branch claims that it is a “separate organisation to Human Appeal UAE [United Arab Emirates],” to which the Wikileaks and FBI allegations refer. Wrong again. The UK branch’s own website states that they are divisions of the same organisation. The UK and UAE branches’ logos are the same, apart from the translation of the charity's name into Arabic. In any case, the 101 Days Campaign website and the Israeli ban specifically refer to the UK branch.". So - this particular attempt as obsfucation by claiming the UK branch is somehow separate in a meaningful sense has been dealt with by RS.Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you actually look at what Mr Gilligan claims in this article it is clear he is wrong. The logos were similar, but quite different. Human Appeal have since gone to lengths to make sure they are more different. ANd neither Human Appeal or Human Appeal International in the UAE claim they are the same organisation. I think we need to be careful of confusing a journalists attempt to dig himself out of a hole with facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * About the rebranding/logo I am finding it pretty interesting that the new chosen logo cannot be used when addressing religious aspects because it represents a human? https://www.designweek.co.uk/issues/24-30-september-2018/human-appeal-gets-a-new-visual-identity-designed-by-johnson-banks/ "“We also developed a series of patterns for when they carry out religious appeals and can’t use imagery,” he adds." is there any room in article space for this?TeeVeeed (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, it looks to me like Human Appeal and Human Appeal International are the same group or WERE the same group, so saying that they are "entirely different groups" is going to be a problem. If anyone wants to work on text that clarifies further the "split" differences/re-branding and submit it here for consensus I am good with that, but please let's try not to make confusing summaries or misleading article edits.TeeVeeed (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about edit comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Appeal&oldid=871019611 So this comment, "Please read the source - this is a claim made about a different organisation to Human Appeal. Human Appeal International who are based in the UAE. They are different organisations This is not relevant.)" REALLY has me confused. I DID read the sourced ref and it stated a large section about this. Editor later posts different source refuting, but when you tell us to "read the source" and the sourced material confirms what is said in article, that is a problem?

(from the source; "In leaked cables from the same year published by Wikileaks, the US State Department also accused Human Appeal of providing “financial support to organizations associated with Hamas” and alleged that “members of its field offices in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya had connections to al-Qaeda associates.”

In Britain, Human Appeal co-hosted a July 2011 event at Brent Town Hall in north London with a number of Hamas supporters and hate preachers, including Raed Saleh, who describes Jews as “bacteria” and “monkeys”.

A British court found that Saleh perpetrated the “blood libel” against Jews, claiming that they used the blood of gentile children to bake their bread.

In December of the same year, Human Appeal hosted an event at the extremist East London Mosque with one of Britain’s most notorious hate preachers, Haitham al-Haddad, who says that Jews are the “brethren of swine and pigs”.

In 2012 Human Appeal was banned from using public property, a school in Manchester, for fundraising after an intervention by the Department for Education’s counter-extremism unit.

Mr Moqbel and other MCF figures have been granted security passes for the conference allowing them to mix freely with MPs, ministers and the Prime Minister." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11910236/Terror-link-charity-was-due-to-host-joint-official-reception-with-Tory-party.html" TeeVeeed (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Please read the source was in reference to the CIA claim, which clearly refers an organisation in UAE and/or Jordan, not the Human Appeal set up in the UK in 1991 and is registered with the UK Charity Commission and is recognised by Israel and conducts work in Gaza and West Bank to this day (which would be impossible if it was banned by Israeli government) . Rebuttals to the rest of these "unsubstantiated" claims were provided by Peter Oborne and Human Appeal — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 13:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for coming to the talk page about your edits! And ty for clarifying. Unfortunately when you comment "please read source" and source validates the disputed content, we have no way of knowing that you mean some OTHER or more current source that was not thereTeeVeeed (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I am new to this. Thank you for being so understanding. It really is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay. Well, of course, I have to ask if you are related to this organization? And a request for page protection has been made, and also there are sanctions pointed-out so the talk page is where we should try to reach consensus here for now. It is much easier to understand each other here rather than edit summaries-thanks again. TeeVeeed (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No relations to organisaiton, except that I am a donor like I am to many charities. The latest edits by Icewhiz seem politically motivated. He cannot say Peter Oborne (a Daily Mail journalist) and the Middle East Eye are not reliable sources. It has been proven that this organisation is different to the UAE one and The Jewish Chronicle, who I am sure IceWhiz will say is a reliable source, has already apologised, retratched and paid significant damages for these claims. When a respected paper like the Jewish Chronicle has apologised for libel, why are we allowing Wikipedia to libel this organisaiton also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 11:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering. Well I do know that about a year or so ago, The Daily Mail was severely downgraded as a source here. Especially regarding news. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website . Also, the way that you keep saying that HA and HAI are not the same is problematic for me since they were the same and they are all boasting a 25+ year history (the same history) when they were the same organization? They both have the same history since there was a spit relatively recently, so the way that you keep implying that editors here are confused or mistaken is incorrect. We should differentiate somehow with example, (As Human Appeal International in 2003) or something?TeeVeeed (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
As evidenced in the talk sections above, there is clearly no consensus for this edit which furthermore uses an opinion piece by a WP:DAILYMAIL journalist in MEE (unreliable in unreliable). We stick to mainstream WP:RSes. Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The MEE is not unreliable. You seem determined to smear this organisation as some sort of Hamas front, even though organisations such as the Jewish Chronicle have been sued for make such false allegations and apologised. Do you not think the Jewish Chronicle are a reliable source? If you think they are, why are you repeating lies they themselves have claimed to be not true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 14:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The JC apologized for something very specific - " Human Appeal International, a British charity, had been designated as a terrorist organisation by the US government and had diverted donations to fund terror and to support the families of suicide bombers.". Human Appeal has indeed not been designated by the US (though it is mentioned by various US agencies). JC's apology - has nothing to do with The Daily Telegraph's reporting - which occurred afterwards. An article in the Telegraph - is a WP:RS. In contrast - an opinion piece by a WP:DAILYMAIL journalist writing in the Middle East Eye (a Qatari-funded website ) - is not. WP:IDONTLIKE or WP:OR (false OR in this case) is not reason to removed well sourced content.Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Peter Oborne is the associate editor of The Spectator, one of the most respected news magazines in the UK and just because you do not like MEE does not mean it is not a valid source. Meanwhile Andrew Gilligan is a suspected Islamophobe who is obsessed with "exposing" Muslim organisations who have nothing to do with terrorism. His article is much more reliable and than Gilligan's. CliveMilkychops (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * MEE is not a RS - but regardless you are citing an opinion column - The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. - which at most reflects Osborne's opinions on the matter. The Telegraph reporting (by Andrew Gilligan as well as another piece by Camilla Turner) - are bona fida articles by a NEWSORG. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I like the title I think--"Alleged extremist ties"but one of the warred versions keeps making the section all about refuting the ties, and the other one is disputed repeatedly, although I do believe the sources are good there. Is there some way to do a mash-up of both views there? It would be more encyclopedic and make more sense with the current section title anyhow. I would tend to like to see the (actual) alleged extremist ties as paragraph 1, and the refuting as paragraph 2 to make the most sense for our readers?TeeVeeed (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the better source tag edit as although the current Guardian reference may only mention the MCF (which Human Appeal is a member of - as mentioned on this article) the Telegraph article it links to and discusses specifically mentions Human Appeal. "in 2009 the Charity Commission had spoken to all the charities accused, except Islamic Relief", "confirmed they weren’t members and had closed the matter." This seems quite clear.

I have added a reference to a previously unsourced award from 2013 and removed the cn tag. I have also removed the ref improve tag as a lot of the fluff, unsourced content and COI edits seems to have already been removed a couple of months ago and been quiet since. The COI tag I will leave up for now (even though most of the content has already been removed and the issue looks to be over for now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PGB158 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Following my previous edits explained above, I have now also removed the COI tag. It seems the last of the edits was made in December 2018 and all the content has since been removed or reverted. If any questionable are edits are made following this, I will re-add the tag. PGB158 (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested edits
I'm doing some paid work for Human Appeal, during which they have asked me to review this article and suggest some changes. We've agreed that I won't edit on their behalf.

Over the coming weeks, I propose to make several independent suggestions, so that each can be judged on its merits. To start with:
 * 1) Please remove the external link to Human Appeal Australia which, as the article already notes, is a different organisation.
 * 2) ...change the tense of "will be repeated during the winter 2017/2018" to "would be repeated during winter 2017/2018"
 * 3) During the COVID-19 pandemic, the organisation has been working with boxer Amir Khan ; with Liam Byrne MP  and with Claudia Webbe MP . There is more on the organisation's COVID-19 work at, , ,.
 * 4) HA published a report. Risking Death to Give Birth: The consequences of conflict on the health needs of women and girls in Syria on 9 years of the Syrian conflict

If colleagues would prefer me to draft some wording for the latter points, and post it here, I'm happy to do so. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, user:TeeVeeed for making these edits - though unfortunately by user:Arjayay, to remove inline external links, has left the additions uncited; please will one of you restore them, formatted using citation templates? I did anticipate that someone would write up the above suggestions in their own words - note my offer to draft wording if required. In a similar vein, could I suggest that someone note the fact that HA raised and contributed £114,613 for victims of the Grenfell Tower fire, per ?  &rarr; ✅ Done (just the fire fund). Pelagic ( messages ) – (19:25 Thu 03, AEDT) 08:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)  HA launched their 2016 Ramadan campaign at a joint event with the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British  Understanding, which featured Jon Snow, Sir  Alan  Duncan,  Diane  Abbott and Angus Robertson  Also, they held an Eid Reception in Parliament in 2017, with Anna Soubry, Sir Keir Starmer and  Laura Janner-Klausner, a Rabbi, as speakers ,. Please can each of those events be added?  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I've had no response from user:TeeVeeed or user:Arjayay, so adding Request edit. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Andy - I don't remember your ping back in July, but having looked ay my alert history, I see that I did receive it - give me an hour or so and I will be able to have a longer look at this - Arjayay (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Andy I have re-formatted the ELs I deleted into references, and re-added them, however, I feel this is beginning to become more of a press-cuttings book than a balanced article. Furthermore I dislike self-published/primary sources e.g. facebook, although I have added it. I understand that you are following the correct channels by declaring your COI, but, perhaps inevitably the suggestions you are making still seem to reflect some degree of COI.  As you have, today, added the requested edit template, I will leave another editor to decide on the remainder of your request - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not my intention to request a "press-cuttings book", nor would that be my advice to colleagues at HA. However, the involvement of reputable politicians of various parties, and others, as named above, and an event held at Parliament in 2017, does enable the reader to see the fallacious allegations made in the 1990s in context. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Has the above edit request been addressed? If not, can you post the exact text you want added or changed below? This will help me understand your request and hopefully close this ticket. Z1720 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As there hasn't been a response in a week, I am closing this request. Editors may open a new request by following the instructions at Template:Request edit/Instructions. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for missing your ping; the request was satisfied by recent edits by User:Edwardtheeduard. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Further
Further to the above, the article currently says:

"In 2018, Othman Moqbel was dismissed as chief executive pending investigation. Moqbel says that he plans to appeal."

The judgment in that appeal has now been published ; and reads in full:

"The proceedings are dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant."

Please can someone update accordingly? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Done, Andy. Though unsure how best to format citation to a legal case, so please correct that if necessary. Pelagic ( messages ) – (18:46 Thu 03, AEDT) 07:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested edit: video
On 22 May, Human Appeal was featured on CNBC's Advancements with Ted Danson. The clip is available on YouTube. Could this be added to the external links section; or by using External media? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

❌ per WP:ELNEVER. Video was uploaded to YouTube by Human Appeal, and it is not clear that they own the copyright, nor does YouTube. We also try to limit the external links and should avoid listing media appearances. Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have determined that HA have the rights to host this video on YouTube; I will arrange a VRT (OTRS, as was) email to confirm that. I'm not suggesting that we produce a list of media appearances, but that we link to a single video (once the aforesaid has been completed), which is compliant with ELNO. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, here - https://vimeo.com/572548144 - is an alternative copy of the programme, hosted on Vimeo by the production company themselves. Perhaps we can link to that? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I've added an image; please review and edit the caption if required. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Per WP:ELMAYBE 2. 15 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested edit: Naming confusion
My contacts at Human Appeal tell me they are still hearing from people who are conflating their organisation with the separate UAE-based organisation also mentioned in the article.

Please can someone make the following changes, to clarify matters:


 * 1) (in the lede) "but was restyled in 2018" to become "but was rebranded in 2018"
 * 2) (in section 1) "Although it shares the one founder and organisational name, it is a separate organisation from Human Appeal UAE" to  "Although it shares the one founder, it is a separate organisation from Human Appeal International, in the UAE"
 * 3) (in section 5) "Israel listed Human Appeal as" to "Israel listed Human Appeal International as" (this is the name used in the cited sources)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ here 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 20:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested edit: Supporters
Would somebody like to add to the section on "Supporters" Kate Green MP and Shabana Mahmood MP

-- Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Pigsonthewing ✅ same edit as above. In the future, it's probably fine to just have 1 edit request :) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 20:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Globus Relief
Please add this sentence in a suitable location:

Note that while the former citation originates with HA, it is reported by ReliefWeb, operated by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA); the second is a straightforward news piece. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done WhinyTheYounger (WtY)  (talk, contribs)  23:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine
Please add:



My interest in this organisation is declared above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done PK650 (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Charity Times Awards 2022
HA has been shortlisted in the Charity Times Awards 2022, under the "Change Project of the Year" category. Can this be included? My interest in this organisation is declared in this page's archive. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I don't have anything against the award per se, but my concern is threefold: a) there's no independent sourcing; b) I'm unaware of this award's relevance; and c) it's a nomination, not an award. PK650 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is independent, because it's cited to Charity Times, not to Human Appeal. The awards have their own article, at UK Charity Awards (to which Charity Times Awards is a redirect). And we already have in this article "In January 2015, Human Appeal was nominated for the Charity of the Year award at the British Muslim Awards"; in a section called (my emphasis) "Awards and nominations". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Independent in the context of HA, but not the charity itself. What way do I have of gauging whether the award is notable if there's no third party reporting about it? Best, PK650 (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [Belated response, sorry] As this article is about HA and not Charity Times, it is independence from HA which is required. Independence from CT is not. That we have an article abut the awards tells you that the Wikipedia community deems them notable. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done! PK650 (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)