This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The grammar, style and basic composition of the introduction and the entirety of this article needs some real help. There are run on and incomplete sentences, sentence fragments, undefined pronouns - the list goes on. Please help this article out by making it more readable. The basics are there, but whoever wrote it needs some real help in basic grammar and writing style. Not to be critical, but the work of one of the finest authors in history deserves some good basic grammar at the very least. It is a well intentioned start, so let's help make it excellent! The Moody Blue 16:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand this part:
-- Tarquin 11:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This whole paragraph:
is completely wrong. At the end of the first chapter, Doyle gives us the time at which the story takes place:
The 'twenty years later' in McMurdo's narrative should be taken as a rough estimate, and since (to my recollection) there aren't any precise dates given therein, we can take Watson's initial date as the canonical one. Presumably he wrote this entry in the Holmes archive before he wrote The Final Problem; the order in which Doyle published the stories is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.232.21 ( talk) 01:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Unlike other SH novels, this wiki entry has hadly any information at all, and no commentary or development. Is it generally not well liked? I would like to see more information, such as a discussion on Doyle's tendency to use Sherlock Holmes as an excuse for writing relatively disconnected stories from outside of England. 85.227.226.149 07:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, the plot summary only describes the action in the second part of the novel. The first part isn't even mentioned. Mawode ( talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
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 13:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stayed at the Hill House Hotel in Happisburgh, Norfolk on several occasions, most notably while writing "The Dancing Men".
See also Sherlock Holmes Society report
Gilbert Cubitt's father, Robert Thomas Cubitt was landlord of the Hill House Hotel from 1888 - 1892 Hill House Hotel on Norfolk Pubs web site. His widow, Emma Cubitt ran the hotel from his death in 1892, assisted by their eldest daughter Edith, who later married Herbert Thompson, a local farmer, and continued to run the hotel until at least 1934.
Robert Cubitt was a key witness in the trial of Patrick O'Donnell as this transcript of the trial shows:
There was apparently strong suspicion in the USA (particularly in the mining areas) that Patrick O'Donnell was in fact a US citizen and it is reported that the US authorities considered intercepting the ship taking him back to London for trial at the Old Bailey. (Butte Miner newspaper). Some aspects of that are reflected in the plot of The Valley of Fear.
Is there a clear enough link to make it worth boiling this down for the main page?
(On a personal note, Gilbert Cubitt was my grandfather.)
John Campbell ( talk) 09:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I just started what promises to be a major undertaking in rewriting the plot synopsis. Not only is the grammar and tense awkward throughout, but Parts I and II are discussed interchangeably instead of chronologically, with almost no description of the story of Part II (other than the major plot spoiler of Douglas/McMurdo's true identity, which I have to say ruined it for me, LOL). Not only that, Mrs. Douglas is inexplicably given the first name Vena (with the article writer emphasizing this as "Vena Douglas, his wife" several times), and the names of the servants, Ames and Mrs. Allen, are also mixed up, as well as various plot points. My head is spinning! What was this person's source? A TV movie adaptation? I've got the Wikisource of the text open in another window and I'll get to work on it, but would really appreciate some help! -- Magmagirl ( talk) 16:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
...suggested the Douglas to leave England. - is it grammatically correct? 80.232.117.32 ( talk) 12:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC) No Deipnosophista ( talk) 10:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Its only citation is of the full text of the book at wikisource. For one thing, you should never cite a wiki, and that citation ought to be replaced with a citation of the gutenberg version, or of the actual book. But even more important, is that there are no other citations. For example no source is cited to corroborate that it was released in 1915, I just have to take the article's word for it; and you can't safely take Wikipedia's word for anything without outside sources corroborating it. 149.160.81.112 ( talk) 18:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The user St o'hara keeps inserting the claim that the Valley of Fear is "biased", and talks some guy name Kehoe. The claim builds a blog (which fails WP:RS and an article in LA Times which never says the book is biased. I've tried to explain WP:RS in the edit reviews and I've tried to explain it to St o'hara at his/her user page, but s/he is not discussing. I'd appreciate some other opinions on the matter. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The lead sentence of this Wiki article states:
"The Valley of Fear is the fourth and final Sherlock Holmes novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It is based on the real-life exploits[citation needed]of the Molly Maguires and Pinkerton agent James McParland."
I inserted the "citation needed" in the above sentence because the "real-life exploits" of the Molly Maguires are disputed by historians.
I also responded to Jeppiz's communications to me by providing references to several scholarly sources on the Molly Maguires and US labor history, including Kevin Kenny's of which the LA Times article was a review. The blog I cited contained oral history from the coal region of Pennsylvania and was included because oral history is valid and important as an area of study and reference.
And though my references to scholarly works and additions were deleted, no documentation is yet provided or explanation given for what is meant by the article's lead assertion that Valley of Fear is based on the "real-life exploits" of the Molly Maguires. At the very least this article should be rewritten with updated and pertinent historical references included on the alleged Molly Maguires and the US labor movement (which I had provided and haven't time nor inclination to redo).
The guy named "Kehoe" (so called in a comment below) is John (Black Jack) Kehoe, one of the alleged Molly Maguires hanged in Pennsylvania on the hearsay evidence of James McParland the Pinkerton detective. The men accused and later executed proclaimed their innocence. In fact, many reputable historians since the time of Conan Doyle have come to see the unionized miners (called by the press and mine owners Molly Maguires) hanged in Pennsylvania in the 1870s as victims in a labor war. Some historians even doubt the very existence of Molly Maguires in Pennsylvania. After looking into his trial, Pennsylvania's Board of Prisons recommended a posthumous pardon for John Kehoe, the alleged Molly "ringleader," which was granted by Governor Shapp who called the men executed "heroes" of the labor movement. Renowned lawyer Clarence Darrow later exposed similar tactics used by McParland in Idaho when he went after a group of striking miners there. They were all acquitted.
Making credulous and uncritical assertions about Doyle's version of history, as exampled in the lead sentence, as if there could be no bias in his viewpoint, and then to delete scholarly references and additions to this article is not productive and certainly reduces the value of Wikipedia as a trustworthy reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I originally posted a reference to the Los Angeles Times which was a review of Kevin Kenny's scholarly work (his book was published by Oxford Univ. Press) on the Molly Maguires in which Dr. Kenny investigates the historical record and history of the Molly Maguires in the coal fields of Pennsylvania. I assume you do not really mean to say that the LA Times and Oxford University Press are unreliable sources for Wikipedia. I also added scholarly references to the disputed history, which fall under the category of US labor history. I did this because of the unsupported assertion in the lead sentence of the Wiki article that VoF is based on the "real-life exploits of the Molly Maguires and James McParland"--an unsupported and credulous statement which those concerned with editing the VoF page somehow see fit to stand though scholarly references are deleted. And you also have not answered my concerns on this point.
I did not post an essay of personal opinions but simply stated the fact that the history Doyle presents as factual in the Valley of Fear is disputed. I referenced Doctor Kenny's book where one can read about the disputed history, and there are others going back quite a way. Anyone mildly conversant with labor history in the PA coal fields is aware that the history of events there is disputed. Why not look into referenced books before deleting them?
And there is evidence supporting the innocence and the framing of the labor organizers known to history as the Molly Maguires. And that was why Governor Milton Shapp of Pennsylvania granted the alleged leader of the Molly Maguires, John Kehoe, a posthumous pardon in 1979--on the recommendation of the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons after an investigation of the original trial of the alleged Mollies, which was found by the examining board to be biased and unethical. I posted a reference to that information also. As further evidence of the sort of bias found by the PA commission on the trial of the Pennsylvania miners executed for crimes on the hearsay evidence of the Pinkerton agent James McParland, I also linked to scholarly material on the acquittal of miners in the West where McParland tried similar tactics on miners there. They were defended by Clarence Darrow; the Pennsylvania miners were not. Since this Wiki article is based on a book which purportedly relates the "real-life" exploits of McParland and the Molly Maguires, I fail to see how what I added is not germane. Cheers. St O' — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
In brief: I don't believe you or the other editors read the sources I referenced. You did not know the identity of John Kehoe, for example. How I misrepresented these sources you do not say. If you had looked into the references provided you would have learned that the history as Doyle relates it, according to this Wiki article "the real- life exploits," is disputed. John Kehoe was pardoned for a crime (he always said he did not commit) because his trial was a sham according to a government investigation. If you are interested in truth are you not concerned with facts? Why, for example, are you and other editors not calling for at least a re-write of the lead sentence of this article? As for bias, I could claim the same when people who have no scholarship in the history they are attempting to edit strike references and information they do not happen to agree with or do not understand. Instead of making such claims of bias against people, I would rather provide informative references to works that are known to historians of the topics concerned. If scholarly references and books are not respected as sources then Wikipedia is really in danger of falling to "digital maoism" and "bullying of experts" as Jaron Lanier forecast. Wikipedia might be improved but not with unthoughtful censorship. Only the future will tell. Cheers. St. O' — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara ( talk • contribs) 05:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Jeppiz. I will end our discussion with some observations. For the reasons I've already given above the Wiki Valley of Fear article as it stands now could be used as an example of why Wikipedia is disdained and mistrusted by scholars and others. That no one has bothered to correct a glaringly biased and unsupported statement purporting to be historically accurate after it was pointed it out months ago tells the story. You are right; it's not about being right or wrong but about what is true-- that is verifiable and factual-- that is the basis of encyclopedic writing and Wikipedia is no exception--unless it has abandoned all pretense of disinterested truth and become a site of majority rules opinion (which is actually what critics of Wikipedia already claim). The guidelines of Wikipedia surely do not include allowing mistaken or unsupported historical information to stand as truthful and accurate. And I can't take credit for "digital maoism" and "bullying of experts" I was quoting from Jaron Lanier's critique of Wikipedia and the Web. You might find his work interesting. Cheers. St. O' — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara ( talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Rms125a@hotmail.com please explain what's not extraneous about them? They repeat what's already in the plot section. Plus the previous paragraph before them ended with Douglas dead, yet suddenly these three paragraphs assume he's alive? Banedon ( talk) 10:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The writing style of the "Plot" section is awkward throughout, and omits important plot points in many instances. Additionally, the entire "flashback" story (the third-person narrative that begins after Douglas is revealed to be alive) is summarized in one sentence; in my opinion, the majority of the plot summary should in fact be devoted to the portion of the novel that takes place in Vermissa rather than to the introductory chapters which serve, to a large degree, as a vehicle for presenting the main narrative. If anyone would care to collaborate on this rewrite, please let me know either here or on my talk page. I intend to work towards improving both the style and substance of the plot summary here. Any comments are appreciated. Helmut von Moltke ( talk) 21:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The thing we want, if we look a work of literature up in an encyclopedia, is to find out something about what place it occupies in the history of its author's writings and of literature in general. Is it one of the author's best or worst works, important or unimportant? What have literary critics said about it? I look for the Valley of Fear on wikipedia and find not a hint that anyone thought these questions worth answering. Instead, I find only an absurdly long synopsis of the plot--which is what small children imagine a book review to consist of. Sorry, but anyone who wants to know that much about the plot of a story should just read the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.220.61 ( talk) 21:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The grammar, style and basic composition of the introduction and the entirety of this article needs some real help. There are run on and incomplete sentences, sentence fragments, undefined pronouns - the list goes on. Please help this article out by making it more readable. The basics are there, but whoever wrote it needs some real help in basic grammar and writing style. Not to be critical, but the work of one of the finest authors in history deserves some good basic grammar at the very least. It is a well intentioned start, so let's help make it excellent! The Moody Blue 16:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand this part:
-- Tarquin 11:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This whole paragraph:
is completely wrong. At the end of the first chapter, Doyle gives us the time at which the story takes place:
The 'twenty years later' in McMurdo's narrative should be taken as a rough estimate, and since (to my recollection) there aren't any precise dates given therein, we can take Watson's initial date as the canonical one. Presumably he wrote this entry in the Holmes archive before he wrote The Final Problem; the order in which Doyle published the stories is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.232.21 ( talk) 01:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Unlike other SH novels, this wiki entry has hadly any information at all, and no commentary or development. Is it generally not well liked? I would like to see more information, such as a discussion on Doyle's tendency to use Sherlock Holmes as an excuse for writing relatively disconnected stories from outside of England. 85.227.226.149 07:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, the plot summary only describes the action in the second part of the novel. The first part isn't even mentioned. Mawode ( talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
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 13:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stayed at the Hill House Hotel in Happisburgh, Norfolk on several occasions, most notably while writing "The Dancing Men".
See also Sherlock Holmes Society report
Gilbert Cubitt's father, Robert Thomas Cubitt was landlord of the Hill House Hotel from 1888 - 1892 Hill House Hotel on Norfolk Pubs web site. His widow, Emma Cubitt ran the hotel from his death in 1892, assisted by their eldest daughter Edith, who later married Herbert Thompson, a local farmer, and continued to run the hotel until at least 1934.
Robert Cubitt was a key witness in the trial of Patrick O'Donnell as this transcript of the trial shows:
There was apparently strong suspicion in the USA (particularly in the mining areas) that Patrick O'Donnell was in fact a US citizen and it is reported that the US authorities considered intercepting the ship taking him back to London for trial at the Old Bailey. (Butte Miner newspaper). Some aspects of that are reflected in the plot of The Valley of Fear.
Is there a clear enough link to make it worth boiling this down for the main page?
(On a personal note, Gilbert Cubitt was my grandfather.)
John Campbell ( talk) 09:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I just started what promises to be a major undertaking in rewriting the plot synopsis. Not only is the grammar and tense awkward throughout, but Parts I and II are discussed interchangeably instead of chronologically, with almost no description of the story of Part II (other than the major plot spoiler of Douglas/McMurdo's true identity, which I have to say ruined it for me, LOL). Not only that, Mrs. Douglas is inexplicably given the first name Vena (with the article writer emphasizing this as "Vena Douglas, his wife" several times), and the names of the servants, Ames and Mrs. Allen, are also mixed up, as well as various plot points. My head is spinning! What was this person's source? A TV movie adaptation? I've got the Wikisource of the text open in another window and I'll get to work on it, but would really appreciate some help! -- Magmagirl ( talk) 16:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
...suggested the Douglas to leave England. - is it grammatically correct? 80.232.117.32 ( talk) 12:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC) No Deipnosophista ( talk) 10:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Its only citation is of the full text of the book at wikisource. For one thing, you should never cite a wiki, and that citation ought to be replaced with a citation of the gutenberg version, or of the actual book. But even more important, is that there are no other citations. For example no source is cited to corroborate that it was released in 1915, I just have to take the article's word for it; and you can't safely take Wikipedia's word for anything without outside sources corroborating it. 149.160.81.112 ( talk) 18:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The user St o'hara keeps inserting the claim that the Valley of Fear is "biased", and talks some guy name Kehoe. The claim builds a blog (which fails WP:RS and an article in LA Times which never says the book is biased. I've tried to explain WP:RS in the edit reviews and I've tried to explain it to St o'hara at his/her user page, but s/he is not discussing. I'd appreciate some other opinions on the matter. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The lead sentence of this Wiki article states:
"The Valley of Fear is the fourth and final Sherlock Holmes novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It is based on the real-life exploits[citation needed]of the Molly Maguires and Pinkerton agent James McParland."
I inserted the "citation needed" in the above sentence because the "real-life exploits" of the Molly Maguires are disputed by historians.
I also responded to Jeppiz's communications to me by providing references to several scholarly sources on the Molly Maguires and US labor history, including Kevin Kenny's of which the LA Times article was a review. The blog I cited contained oral history from the coal region of Pennsylvania and was included because oral history is valid and important as an area of study and reference.
And though my references to scholarly works and additions were deleted, no documentation is yet provided or explanation given for what is meant by the article's lead assertion that Valley of Fear is based on the "real-life exploits" of the Molly Maguires. At the very least this article should be rewritten with updated and pertinent historical references included on the alleged Molly Maguires and the US labor movement (which I had provided and haven't time nor inclination to redo).
The guy named "Kehoe" (so called in a comment below) is John (Black Jack) Kehoe, one of the alleged Molly Maguires hanged in Pennsylvania on the hearsay evidence of James McParland the Pinkerton detective. The men accused and later executed proclaimed their innocence. In fact, many reputable historians since the time of Conan Doyle have come to see the unionized miners (called by the press and mine owners Molly Maguires) hanged in Pennsylvania in the 1870s as victims in a labor war. Some historians even doubt the very existence of Molly Maguires in Pennsylvania. After looking into his trial, Pennsylvania's Board of Prisons recommended a posthumous pardon for John Kehoe, the alleged Molly "ringleader," which was granted by Governor Shapp who called the men executed "heroes" of the labor movement. Renowned lawyer Clarence Darrow later exposed similar tactics used by McParland in Idaho when he went after a group of striking miners there. They were all acquitted.
Making credulous and uncritical assertions about Doyle's version of history, as exampled in the lead sentence, as if there could be no bias in his viewpoint, and then to delete scholarly references and additions to this article is not productive and certainly reduces the value of Wikipedia as a trustworthy reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I originally posted a reference to the Los Angeles Times which was a review of Kevin Kenny's scholarly work (his book was published by Oxford Univ. Press) on the Molly Maguires in which Dr. Kenny investigates the historical record and history of the Molly Maguires in the coal fields of Pennsylvania. I assume you do not really mean to say that the LA Times and Oxford University Press are unreliable sources for Wikipedia. I also added scholarly references to the disputed history, which fall under the category of US labor history. I did this because of the unsupported assertion in the lead sentence of the Wiki article that VoF is based on the "real-life exploits of the Molly Maguires and James McParland"--an unsupported and credulous statement which those concerned with editing the VoF page somehow see fit to stand though scholarly references are deleted. And you also have not answered my concerns on this point.
I did not post an essay of personal opinions but simply stated the fact that the history Doyle presents as factual in the Valley of Fear is disputed. I referenced Doctor Kenny's book where one can read about the disputed history, and there are others going back quite a way. Anyone mildly conversant with labor history in the PA coal fields is aware that the history of events there is disputed. Why not look into referenced books before deleting them?
And there is evidence supporting the innocence and the framing of the labor organizers known to history as the Molly Maguires. And that was why Governor Milton Shapp of Pennsylvania granted the alleged leader of the Molly Maguires, John Kehoe, a posthumous pardon in 1979--on the recommendation of the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons after an investigation of the original trial of the alleged Mollies, which was found by the examining board to be biased and unethical. I posted a reference to that information also. As further evidence of the sort of bias found by the PA commission on the trial of the Pennsylvania miners executed for crimes on the hearsay evidence of the Pinkerton agent James McParland, I also linked to scholarly material on the acquittal of miners in the West where McParland tried similar tactics on miners there. They were defended by Clarence Darrow; the Pennsylvania miners were not. Since this Wiki article is based on a book which purportedly relates the "real-life" exploits of McParland and the Molly Maguires, I fail to see how what I added is not germane. Cheers. St O' — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
In brief: I don't believe you or the other editors read the sources I referenced. You did not know the identity of John Kehoe, for example. How I misrepresented these sources you do not say. If you had looked into the references provided you would have learned that the history as Doyle relates it, according to this Wiki article "the real- life exploits," is disputed. John Kehoe was pardoned for a crime (he always said he did not commit) because his trial was a sham according to a government investigation. If you are interested in truth are you not concerned with facts? Why, for example, are you and other editors not calling for at least a re-write of the lead sentence of this article? As for bias, I could claim the same when people who have no scholarship in the history they are attempting to edit strike references and information they do not happen to agree with or do not understand. Instead of making such claims of bias against people, I would rather provide informative references to works that are known to historians of the topics concerned. If scholarly references and books are not respected as sources then Wikipedia is really in danger of falling to "digital maoism" and "bullying of experts" as Jaron Lanier forecast. Wikipedia might be improved but not with unthoughtful censorship. Only the future will tell. Cheers. St. O' — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara ( talk • contribs) 05:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Jeppiz. I will end our discussion with some observations. For the reasons I've already given above the Wiki Valley of Fear article as it stands now could be used as an example of why Wikipedia is disdained and mistrusted by scholars and others. That no one has bothered to correct a glaringly biased and unsupported statement purporting to be historically accurate after it was pointed it out months ago tells the story. You are right; it's not about being right or wrong but about what is true-- that is verifiable and factual-- that is the basis of encyclopedic writing and Wikipedia is no exception--unless it has abandoned all pretense of disinterested truth and become a site of majority rules opinion (which is actually what critics of Wikipedia already claim). The guidelines of Wikipedia surely do not include allowing mistaken or unsupported historical information to stand as truthful and accurate. And I can't take credit for "digital maoism" and "bullying of experts" I was quoting from Jaron Lanier's critique of Wikipedia and the Web. You might find his work interesting. Cheers. St. O' — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara ( talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Rms125a@hotmail.com please explain what's not extraneous about them? They repeat what's already in the plot section. Plus the previous paragraph before them ended with Douglas dead, yet suddenly these three paragraphs assume he's alive? Banedon ( talk) 10:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The writing style of the "Plot" section is awkward throughout, and omits important plot points in many instances. Additionally, the entire "flashback" story (the third-person narrative that begins after Douglas is revealed to be alive) is summarized in one sentence; in my opinion, the majority of the plot summary should in fact be devoted to the portion of the novel that takes place in Vermissa rather than to the introductory chapters which serve, to a large degree, as a vehicle for presenting the main narrative. If anyone would care to collaborate on this rewrite, please let me know either here or on my talk page. I intend to work towards improving both the style and substance of the plot summary here. Any comments are appreciated. Helmut von Moltke ( talk) 21:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The thing we want, if we look a work of literature up in an encyclopedia, is to find out something about what place it occupies in the history of its author's writings and of literature in general. Is it one of the author's best or worst works, important or unimportant? What have literary critics said about it? I look for the Valley of Fear on wikipedia and find not a hint that anyone thought these questions worth answering. Instead, I find only an absurdly long synopsis of the plot--which is what small children imagine a book review to consist of. Sorry, but anyone who wants to know that much about the plot of a story should just read the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.220.61 ( talk) 21:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)