This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miradre (talk | contribs) at 07:57, 10 October 2010 (→Should be merged with IQ and Global Inequality.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:57, 10 October 2010 by Miradre (talk | contribs) (→Should be merged with IQ and Global Inequality.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
 | Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence
The article IQ and the Wealth of Nations, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IQ and the Wealth of Nations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Geneal Suggestion
To write this as a full length wikipedia article is very very shameful. This is not even science, it is pedestrian level excersice which was traped by people who have evil attitude to wards other races than their own. Wouldn't it be better just to write about IQ test and give some examples of contoversial studies.
I believe the table is missleading, hs no scientific value and should be deleted.
Complete Nonsense. That article has nothing to do with reality!
Dude: Jews are not European origin. Which bible or book are you reading. Jews are more close ralatives of arabs, north africans, and all afro-assiatic peple. To think that so many scientific contrbution came from European origin is absurd. Look mathematics, algebra, carthography, alphabetes, numbers, ancient civilization. Recent technological discoverioes are vagoue discription for the contribution of basic sciences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.234.19 (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't a subject concerning the intelligence of people by nationality be written and edited by intelligent people?
Because whoever wrote that article and those supposed studies must have been high or something. Another explaination could be that it's all just some kind of propaganda.
In any case the article and those studies have nothing to do with reality and should therefore not be alowed on Misplaced Pages. Unless Misplaced Pages doesn't care as much about truth as one hopes.
For example, why is the nation, of which everyone knows or should know that it has the highest average IQ, not included? It doesn't take a genius to know which people is refered to here. Another hint, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Ludwig Wittgenstein and many other geniuses belong to that people. Jews have an average IQ of about 120.
Also, the people of Flanders (the Dutch speaking part of Belgium) have an average IQ of over 110.
According to that article the everage Chinese Japanese or Korean would be smarter than the average European or American of European ancestry. If that was true, then why is it that almost no important inventions or discoveries, no contributions to modern science were made by any Asian country. Almost no Nobel price winners and almost no known geniuses come from Asia in spite of the fact China, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and Korea alone have a combined population of over 1,500,000,000 which by itself is more than twice the number of all the people of a European ancestry in the World!
On the other hand almost all inventions and discoveries in the past 5,000 years or so where made by Europeans and Jews. Jews are of course basically Europeans as well. The distinction between Jews and other Europeans is made here only to point out the extraodinary intelligence of people who refer to themselfs as Jews.
Virtually all of mathematics, biology and medicine, chemistry, physics, archeology, almost all of science comes from Europe inspite of the fact that there are and always have been far fewer Europeans than Asians. About 99% of all Nobel price leaurets in history had/have a European ancestry.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Asians are even as smart as Europeans, let alone smarter. On the contrary, if Asians really were as smart as Europeans, then they should be able to achive more than just copying European ideas and passing some tests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandiagolo (talk • contribs)
- Complete bias and utterly wrong. I can't even begin where to start. Mathematics is from India, yes an Asian country which was later improved by the Arabs which was later used by Europeans. You know where algebra is from? Have you checked articles like List of Chinese inventions and List of Indian inventions and discoveries? Some places such as Europe don't refer the general people in the U.S. as very smart rather unintelligent and ignorant. Who won the Nobel has nothing to do with how intelligent a group of people or country are. Basing your thoughts on a selected group of people isn't even correct as minority does not represent majority. An example, celebrities do not represent what or how the people are. Flanders isn't a nation. Europe started copying Asia first (Ex: use of gunpowder). What a small group of individuals do does not show anything on how smart a nation is. Elockid ·Contribs) 02:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion this article is old world crap, generally imo IQ doesn't mean you're generally smarter. Actually "high IQ" just tells you learn faster or even become self-taught in area of X than others, perhaps master it in best case. Otherwise, like inventions you mentioned are like a passion, things interest you and you just like to do it, learn it and sooner or later you get the idea of it and complete it and you're considered as genius in that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.133.216 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- How can you lot live in denial? The way data was gathered may not have been very accurate, but just looking at that list will tell you that in general, countries with lower IQs are the ones that are violent, impoverished dungheaps.
Wicherts et al on African I.Q.s, Lynn Thesis
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm
Controversial Study of African IQ Levels Is 'Deeply Flawed'
ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2010) - The controversial study on African IQ levels conducted by psychologist Richard Lynn is deeply flawed. This conclusion is the outcome of studies by Jelte Wicherts, Conor Dolan, Denny Borsboom and Han van der Maas of the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and Jerry Carlson of the University of California (Riverside).
Their findings are set to be published in Intelligence, Personality and Individual Differences, and Learning and Individual Differences.
In an oft-quoted literature study conducted in 2006, Lynn concluded that black Africans have an average IQ of less than 70 (compared to an average western IQ of 100). Lynn suggested that these low IQs are indicative of a low intelligence level, claiming this offered an explanation for the low level of economic development in sub-Saharan countries.
Lynn's study is well known among psychologists, and has been referenced by academics such as Nobel laureate James Watson, and the authors of the controversial book The Bell Curve -- Intelligence and Class Structure in America (Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray: Freepress, 1994).
African IQ scores prove flawed
Wicherts and his colleagues examined over 100 published studies, concluding that there is no evidence to back up Lynn's claims. Amongst other flaws, Lynn used selective data by systematically ignoring Africans with high IQ scores. The researchers also claim that African IQ test scores cannot be interpreted in terms of lower intelligence levels, as these scores have different psychometric characteristics than western IQ test scores. Until now, the incomparability of Western and African IQ scores had never been systematically proven.
The scientists point out that the average African IQ is currently comparable to the average level in the Netherlands around 1950. However, IQ scores in Western countries have risen sharply over the course of the 20th century. In view of this trend, Wicherts and his colleagues claim there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that sub-Saharan countries are poor due to the lower IQ scores of their populations. As it turns out, the average IQ of African adults is seeing a similar rising trend, which is expected to continue if living conditions in Africa improve in future.
Story Source:
Adapted from materials provided by Universiteit van
Amsterdam (UVA).
Journal References:
Personality and Individual Differences
Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 91-96
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.028
Copyright c 2009 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
Review
Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence
Jelte M. Wicherts, Denny Borsbooma and Conor V. Dolana
aDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Received 16 February 2009; revised 19 May 2009; accepted 26 May 2009. Available online 24 June 2009.
Abstract
Kanazawa (2008), Templer (2008), and Templer and Arikawa (2006) claimed to have found empirical support for evolutionary theories of race differences in intelligence by correlating estimates of national IQ with indicators of reproductive strategies, temperature, and geographic distance from Africa. In this paper we criticize these studies on methodological, climatic, and historical grounds. We show that these studies assume that the Flynn Effect is either nonexistent or invariant with respect to different regions of the world, that there have been no migrations and climatic changes over the course of evolution, and that there have been no trends over the last century in indicators of reproductive strategies (e.g., declines in fertility and infant mortality). In addition, we show that national IQs are strongly confounded with the current developmental status of countries. National IQs correlate with all the variables that have been suggested to have caused the Flynn Effect in the developed world.
Keywords: Evolutionary psychology; Flynn Effect; Race differences
Article Outline
1. Introduction 2. Temporal constancy over the course of evolution? 3. Climate change 4. Changes in reproductive strategies 5. Migration and geographic distance 6. The temporal stability of IQ-scores 7. The many confounds of national IQ 8. Method 9. Results 10. Discussion Acknowledgements References
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 205257067.
Personality and Individual Differences
Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 104-106
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.020
Copyright c 2009 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
Short Communication
Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples around 3000 years B.C
Jelte M. Wicherts a, Denny Borsboom a and Conor V. Dolan a
aUniversity of Amsterdam, Department of Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Received 22 August 2009; accepted 26 August 2009. Available online 18 September 2009.
Abstract
In this rejoinder, we respond to comments by Lynn, Rushton, and Templer on our previous paper in which we criticized the use of national IQs in studies of evolutionary theories of race differences in intelligence. We reiterate that because of the Flynn Effect and psychometric issues, national IQs cannot be taken to reflect populations' levels of g as fixed since the last ice age. We argue that the socio-cultural achievements of peoples of Mesopotamia and Egypt in 3000 B.C. stand in stark contrast to the current low level of national IQ of peoples of Iraq and Egypt and that these ancient achievements appear to contradict evolutionary accounts of differences in national IQ. We argue that race differences in brain size, even if these were entirely of genetic origin, leave unexplained 91-95% of the black-white IQ gap. We highlight additional problems with hypotheses raised by Rushton and Templer. National IQs cannot be viewed solely in evolutionary terms but should be considered in light of global differences in socio-economic development, the causes of which are unknown.
Keywords: Evolutionary psychology; Flynn Effect; Race differences; Brain size
Article Outline
1. Introduction 2. IQ avant la lettre 3. Brain size 4. The Big picture 5. Conclusion Acknowledgements References
Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 205257067.
Intelligence
Volume 38, Issue 1, January-February 2010, Pages 1-20
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2009.05.002
Copyright c 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans
Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan a and Han L.J. van der Maas a
a Department of Psychology, Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Received 8 October 2008; revised 6 May 2009; accepted 12 May 2009. Available online 9 June 2009.
Abstract
On the basis of several reviews of the literature, Lynn [Lynn, R., (2006). Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary analysis. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.] and Lynn and Vanhanen [Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T., (2006). IQ and global inequality. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.] concluded that the average IQ of the Black population of sub-Saharan Africa lies below 70. In this paper, the authors systematically review published empirical data on the performance of Africans on the following IQ tests: Draw-A-Man (DAM) test, Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), the Wechsler scales (WAIS & WISC), and several other IQ tests (but not the Raven's tests). Inclusion and exclusion criteria are explicitly discussed. Results show that average IQ of Africans on these tests is approximately 82 when compared to UK norms. We provide estimates of the average IQ per country and estimates on the basis of alternative inclusion criteria. Our estimate of average IQ converges with the finding that national IQs of sub-Saharan African countries as predicted from several international studies of student achievement are around 82. It is suggested that this estimate should be considered in light of the Flynn Effect. It is concluded that more psychometric studies are needed to address the issue of measurement bias of western IQ tests for Africans.
Keywords: Group differences; Black-White differences; Flynn Effect; Race differences; Cross-cultural comparison; National IQ
Article Outline
1. Scholastic achievement surveys 2. A systematic review of the literature 3. Method 3.1. Search of studies 3.2. Our inclusion criteria 3.2.1. Norms 3.2.2. Standardized test administration of entire IQ test 3.2.3. No reported problems during testing 3.2.4. No measurement bias 3.2.5. Normal samples 3.3. Statistical analyses 4. Results 4.1. Draw-a-Man test 4.2. Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children 4.3. Wechsler Scales 4.4. Culture Fair Intelligence Test 4.5. Other IQ tests 4.6. Meta-analytic analyses 4.7. Publication bias 5. Conclusion Appendix A. Appendix References
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 205257067; fax: +31 206390026.
Intelligence
Volume 38, Issue 1, January-February 2010, Pages 30-37
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003
Copyright c 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers
Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan a and Han L.J. van der Maas a
a University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Received 13 October 2009; accepted 6 November 2009. Available online 3 December 2009.
Abstract
In this rejoinder, we criticize Lynn and Meisenberg's (this issue) methods to estimate the average IQ (in terms of British norms after correction of the Flynn Effect) of the Black population of sub-Saharan Africa. We argue that their review of the literature is unsystematic, as it involves the inconsistent use of rules to determine the representativeness and hence selection of samples. Employing independent raters, we determined of each sample whether it was (1) considered representative by the original authors, (2) drawn randomly, (3) based on an explicated stratification scheme, (4) composed of healthy test-takers, and (5) considered by the original authors as normal in terms of Socio-Economic Status (SES). We show that the use of these alternative inclusion criteria would not have affected our results. We found that Lynn and Meisenberg's assessment of the samples' representativeness is not associated with any of the objective sampling characteristics, but rather with the average IQ in the sample. This suggests that Lynn and Meisenberg excluded samples of Africans who average IQs above 75 because they deemed these samples unrepresentative on the basis of the samples' relatively high IQs. We conclude that Lynn and Meisenberg's unsystematic methods are questionable and their results untrustworthy.
Keywords: Systematic literature review; National IQ; Group differences in IQ
Article Outline
1. Introduction 2. The full database 3. Inconsistent rules to determine representativeness 4. What is representative? 5. Conclusion Acknowledgements Appendix A. Supplementary data References
Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 205257067; fax: +31 206390026.
Learning and Individual Differences
Article in Press, Corrected Proof - Note to users
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.001
Copyright c 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Raven's test performance of sub-Saharan Africans: Average5 performance, psychometric properties, and the Flynn Effect
Jelte M. Wicherts a, Conor V. Dolan a, Jerry S. Carlson b and Han L.J. van der Maas a
a Department of Psychology, Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
b University of California, Riverside, United States
Received 19 May 2009; revised 19 November 2009; accepted 3 December 2009. Available online 16 December 2009.
Abstract
This paper presents a systematic review of published data on the performance of sub-Saharan Africans on Raven's Progressive Matrices. The specific goals were to estimate the average level of performance, to study the Flynn Effect in African samples, and to examine the psychometric meaning of Raven's test scores as measures of general intelligence. Convergent validity of the Raven's tests is found to be relatively poor, although reliability and predictive validity are comparable to western samples. Factor analyses indicate that the Raven's tests are relatively weak indicators of general intelligence among Africans, and often measure additional factors, besides general intelligence. The degree to which Raven's scores of Africans reflect levels of general intelligence is unknown. Average IQ of Africans is approximately 80 when compared to US norms. Raven's scores among African adults have shown secular increases over the years. It is concluded that the Flynn Effect has yet to take hold in sub-Saharan Africa.
Keywords: Black-White differences; Cognitive abilities; Cross-cultural comparison; Measurement equivalence; Measurement invariance
Article Outline
1. Introduction 2. Is average IQ of Africans really below 70? 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Selection bias 2.1.2. Search of studies 2.1.3. Exclusion criteria 2.1.4. Converting raw scores to IQ 2.2. Results 2.2.1. Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices 2.2.2. Coloured Progressive Matrices 2.3. Conclusion on the average IQ of Africans 3. The Flynn Effect 3.1. Flynn Effect in Africa 4. Measurement problems and psychometric comparability 4.1. Reliability 4.2. Convergent validity 4.3. Factor analytical results 4.4. Measurement invariance 4.5. Criterion validity in educational settings 4.6. Conclusion on psychometric properties 5. General discussion Acknowledgements Appendix A. Appendix
Converting raw scores to IQs
Appendix B. Appendix References
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 31 205257067; fax: + 31 206390026.
"history" will trump "genetics / IQ" any day in their relationship with any nation's "wealth"
economic, cultural and political condition as well as the length / intensity / nature of hardship / goodluck in history being main components of history.
but there's no way to calculate and tabulate all these variables that produce the uniqueness of each nation...
so this IQ comparison becomes a total junk science,
though, as a south korean, i'd love to take the "honor" of the smartest group.
Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Misplaced Pages standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I look forward to thoughtful edits of this article based on reliable sources. Your suggestions about sources are very welcome. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
New projects
see: http://iq-test.co.uk/stats/
This online project has already teste more than one million people. One interesting result: women consistently score higher than men. It seems that these tests have more to do with being good students than anything else. Women are now better students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.41.147 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is no validation of that testing program. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, keep an eye on it, 1.000.000 people tested and counting. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.41.147 (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Statistics teachers take care to point out that a large sample can still be junk data if the sample is biased. Rather than count how many people have self-selected to be tested by an unvalidated test, I would prefer to read the professional literature on carefully gathered samples used to norm recently developed IQ tests for professional psychologists to use. Thanks for bringing up that example of mass media comment on IQ testing, which I'm sure must influence the opinions of some readers of Misplaced Pages articles. -- 14:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I added NPOV tag to article 23 August 2010
Till now I've only had this article on my watchlist because I posted a link to the Intelligence citations bibliography on this talk page. I've been busy reading all of the tens of thousands of keystrokes submitted to the Arbitration case on race and intelligence, and as that case winds down, I've begun actually reading articles and am dismayed to see how much more most articles on related subjects need to be sourced. I've put a NPOV tag on this article, to draw other editors' attention to the article, and I welcome discussion about how sourcing for the article can be improved, the better to ensure neutral point of view, a core Misplaced Pages principle. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused about "how the sourcing for the article can be improved". This article is basically the summary of a book with the title IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Any other sourcing I'm thinking would be just criticism on the book or possibly anymore related studies. What kinds of other sources are you suggesting? Elockid 01:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question. I've seen (just last week) a newly published criticism of one part of the data-gathering for this book, and there appear to be other specialized studies of errors in the book's analysis that it would be good to look for to see what's currently cited in the article, and what is not. I won't make that edit for a while, as I am busy with some other projects, but calming down of the recent ArbCom case should allow a chance to check this article for its current POV and what the broader literature says about the book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is bullshit. Just because you have a problem with the concept of racial/national variation in g/IQ which these and other scholars have painstakingly documented isn't a basis for the NPOV tagging. BTW are you aware that they rank Asians and Chinese at the top of the order? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't make this needlessly personal, 72.228.177.92. futurebird (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
And I removed it
Further, many editors have painstakingly maintained a NPOV in reporting the material and distancing the wikipedia report from the Lynn et. al's claimed matter of fact. The article actually is mostly dedicated to criticism so the tagging is especially egregious and spurious. Lycurgus (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- There was no consensus on removing it. WeijiBaikeBianji reasons are well supported. I would replace the NPOV tag. Can we at least talk about this? futurebird (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
New source for this article
The source The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers reviews the methodology involved in the sample surveys that lead to some conclusions about national IQ differences. I think this source cites some other literature that hasn't made it into this article yet. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Should be merged with IQ and Global Inequality.
I have a reliable source that goes farther than what this article says, that the second book was a follow-up to the first, and says that the two books, and also Race Differences in Intelligence (book) all rely on the same review of the literature, and can often be cited as just one source. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- This has merit. If there were a merge, it should be from the conceptual article here, since there's little in the other and the material from these authors ATM is the central material on the subject. Lycurgus (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that they should be merged. The criticism section for one would also apply to the other-- it would consolidate things greatly as I think that most serious scholars started ignoring this after the first book (hence so few reviews.) futurebird (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- No. The later book uses much more data than the first book. Which is why the IQ values differ to some degree. Also contains much more calculations on associations to other factors. Also the later book in response to the critique made corrections and provided additional evidence so the earlier critique does not necessarily apply.
- I agree that they should be merged. The criticism section for one would also apply to the other-- it would consolidate things greatly as I think that most serious scholars started ignoring this after the first book (hence so few reviews.) futurebird (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Furthermore, scientific books in Misplaced Pages are usually not merged this way.Miradre (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)