The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> PHG: no foreign languages, please, we leaders of Wikipedia can't understand them
Proabivouac
post Mon 28th April 2008, 12:15pm
Post #1


Bane of all wikiland
*******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined: Thu 23rd Aug 2007, 8:25am
Member No.: 2,647

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Here PHG is instructed not to use academic sources which are not in English:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#...ify_his_sources.

Hello, Wikipedia? If the leadership can't read French and Japanese, and can't find anyone who can, the solution is for the leadership to step aside in favor of someone who can do one or the other. I'm no polyglot myself, but if this were real academia, there would be no debate that the problem is yours; not PHG's.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Mon 28th April 2008, 12:17pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Mon 28th April 2008, 12:22pm
Post #2


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 28th April 2008, 8:15am) *

Here PHG is instructed not to use academic sources which are not in English:

WP:AN#PHG is required to provide a means for the Community to verify his sources.

Hello, Wikipedia? If the leadership can't read French and Japanese, and can't find anyone who can, the solution is for the leadership to step aside in favor of someone who can do one or the other. I'm no polyglot myself, but if this were real academia, there would be no debate that the problem is yours; not PHG's.


Given that their English comprehension is already sub-literate, I think I spy an automatic answer to all our problems.

Jon cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Newyorkbrad
post Mon 28th April 2008, 2:22pm
Post #3


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri 29th Feb 2008, 9:21pm
Member No.: 5,193

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 28th April 2008, 12:15pm) *

Here PHG is instructed not to use academic sources which are not in English:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#...ify_his_sources.

Hello, Wikipedia? If the leadership can't read French and Japanese, and can't find anyone who can, the solution is for the leadership to step aside in favor of someone who can do one or the other. I'm no polyglot myself, but if this were real academia, there would be no debate that the problem is yours; not PHG's.


This is an example of a time when I wonder whether it's worth responding to a thread. I'm going to respond here, because the above summary of the decision that was taken is terribly unfair, and then I would like some honest feedback as to whether it was worth my time to do so.

In [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance]], it was alleged that a long-time contributor was misusing sources in articles concerning medieval history by citing them out of context or for propositions other than the ones they supported. The contributions appeared to be in good faith, but the result was that the history articles were being filled with either incorrect information or with minority viewpoints presented as accepted ones. This was not an easy case for the arbitrators to decide, because the sources in dispute were obscure ones. After a detailed review of the evidence, which included one of us spending a day in the library chasing down the sources and comparing them against the Wikipedia articles they were used in, we were forced to conclude that the allegations were basically true.

It fell to me to write the ArbCom decision. There were calls that we should ban this contributor, but many of his other contributions were worthwhile, and we concluded that would be an overreaction. The decision that was adopted was that the user was banned for one year from editing articles on ancient and medieval history, although he was welcome to make suggestions on talkpages and to contribute to other types of articles.

Unfortunately, the problems did not abate when the decision was issued. Allegations persisted that (among other things) the same contributor was now misusing sources or giving them undue weight in articles on other historical periods. In at least one instance, this proved to be true. In other instances, we couldn't tell because the sources were obscure and in foreign languages.

Stop for a moment. Suppose you were an administrator or arbitrator responsble for handling this matter. There were renewed calls for banning the user, because other editors were having to spend many hours checking on and cleaning up after his work, and of course, the user himself claimed to have done nothing wrong. What would you have done?

The motion that we adopted requires that in order to enable other editors to check on this user's sourcing, EITHER he should use sources that are in English and widely available, AND/OR he should work with another editor to assist with his sourcing. The point is that someone will be readily able to check the validity of the references being used by this particular valued but flawed contributor.

If, as I hope, everyone is concerned with the accuracy of our historical articles, this seems to me a perfectly reasonable step to have taken under the circumstances, and arguably is the least restrictive sanction appropriate to the task.

Can we agree that it is horribly misleading to summarize all of this by suggesting that one contributor was arbitrarily told that he should not use sources that are not in English, because "the leadership" can't read foreign languages. Proabivouac has made some valid criticisms of Wikipedia, but I fear this isn't one of them.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Mon 28th April 2008, 2:31pm
Post #4


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Erratic sourcing, mischaracterization of sources, and misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the content of sources came up in the articles I deigned to edit when I butted heads against the participants in the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design.

My take, Brad, is that it's a systemic problem, of which the anecdotal case cited above is but one instance.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Mon 28th April 2008, 2:35pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 28th April 2008, 2:33pm
Post #5


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th April 2008, 10:22am) *

This is an example of a time when I wonder whether it's worth responding to a thread. I'm going to respond here, because the above summary of the decision that was taken is terribly unfair, and then I would like some honest feedback as to whether it was worth my time to do so.

Brad, this was worth your time. I appreciate it.

I think the problem, though, stems back to something even more simple. You're talking about an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". Why people would sign on, without pay, for this perpetual headache is a wonder to me.

I mean, why not just edit here, for about the same experience?

Greg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Mon 28th April 2008, 2:47pm
Post #6


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Thanks also for taking the trouble to reply, Brad. However, you say

QUOTE
it was alleged that a long-time contributor was misusing sources in articles concerning medieval history by citing them out of context or for propositions other than the ones they supported.


But if the theory of Wikipedia is correct, some other editor will pop up out of the blue and correct the mistake, and Darwinian selection will ensure that verifiable information only is preserved in the encyclopedia. It works for Pokemon and Star Trek episodes. It clearly doesn’t work for medieval history. Aren’t you sort of admitting here that there are some fundamental problems with the model – it works well for the Pokemon stuff (also for pederasty and similar subjects), doesn’t work so well for, say Medieval philosophy and the like, for which a knowledge of Romance languages and Latin is prerequisite?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Mon 28th April 2008, 2:48pm
Post #7


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th April 2008, 10:22am) *

Can we agree that it is horribly misleading to summarize all of this by suggesting that one contributor was arbitrarily told that he should not use sources that are not in English, because "the leadership" can't read foreign languages. Proabivouac has made some valid criticisms of Wikipedia, but I fear this isn't one of them.


Those of us who have a heckuva lot more experience actually working in Wikipedia article space than you and your whole ArbClown Army know the vast practical difference between a Wikipediot Policy As Written (WP:PAW) and a Wikipediot Policy In Practice (WP:PIP). Unlike you, therefore, we can predict the actual consequences of Any Excuse To Delete Information That Makes Any Random Bafoon Feel Like A Bafoon (WP:ÆTDITMARBFLAB).

Jon cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Mon 28th April 2008, 4:52pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Mon 28th April 2008, 2:55pm
Post #8


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th April 2008, 3:22pm) *

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 28th April 2008, 12:15pm) *

Here PHG is instructed not to use academic sources which are not in English:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#...ify_his_sources.

Hello, Wikipedia? If the leadership can't read French and Japanese, and can't find anyone who can, the solution is for the leadership to step aside in favor of someone who can do one or the other. I'm no polyglot myself, but if this were real academia, there would be no debate that the problem is yours; not PHG's.


This is an example of a time when I wonder whether it's worth responding to a thread. I'm going to respond here, because the above summary of the decision that was taken is terribly unfair, and then I would like some honest feedback as to whether it was worth my time to do so.

I think it was worth it. I noted PHG from ANI. After initially having some sympathy that he might be being harshly treated (I believe he was subject to some abuse) it occurred to me that I didn't have enough knowledge, but it seemed that he was indeed pushing a novel view of history, and that the abuse stemmed from the exasperation of dealing with an intransigent person.

What is interesting about this is the danger of extending to a general case what might be appropriate for a special case. A couple of thoughts: yes, in this individual battle, Wikipedians are unfairly disadvantaged in their lack of language: however, is it appropriate to contemplate having an article on a subject where the most appropriate sources are likely to be in French or Chinese (my naive view considers that Mongol history is more likely to be related to Chinese sources than Japanese, but then again I don't know). It seems eminently possible that English sources may be unaware of this specialised corner of history, and therefore a common man's view may believe that this is all horrendous original research, whereas we might find that in the world of French or Mongol history, this is not original thinking at all.

So it may well be that PHG is wrong and simply a tendentious editor, but this is based on having no knowledge - or rather that the Wikipedian view is based on an English-speaking view of the world.

So, although I tend to be persuaded that Wikipedia has got it right with PHG, it does beg the question that if the sources are genuine sources, that the issue is that Wikipedia is not qualified to have an article on a subject at all, rather than PHG is right or wrong - there are no many eyes of Wikipedians that the system relies on.

So in believing PHG to be in the wrong, have I fallen into the Wikipedian trap of arguing from no knowledge and relying on (I hate this) ad hominem views - almost certainly. The only way I can fix that is hearing from reputable people in this area of history - I'll take the word of a history expert - not rely on my judgment.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Mon 28th April 2008, 3:03pm
Post #9


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This is interesting. I checked on the RFA and see that Adam Bishop gave an opinion. I respect Adam's view, and indeed I have asked his help on a couple of occasions for this interesting period of history.

On the other hand there most certainly was an alliance of sorts. The difficult question is how important it was in the scheme of things. PHG references a couple of books that I have, I will check when I get home.

This sort of dispute is always settled in the real world by having a panel of experts or referees on hand who can be referred to if necessary. But as I have already commented, that goes against the theory of Wikipedia, that experts are in fact unnecessary.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Newyorkbrad
post Mon 28th April 2008, 3:06pm
Post #10


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri 29th Feb 2008, 9:21pm
Member No.: 5,193

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 28th April 2008, 2:48pm) *

Those of us who have a heckuva lot more experience actually working in Wikipedia article space than you and your whole ArbClown Army....
Jon cool.gif


That the arbitrators do not include active mainspace editors is a myth. Several of the arbitrators have made huge content contributions. (For what it's worth, I myself have created somewhere between 50 and 75 article pages, and have designs on many more, although I keep getting distracted ... can't think why.)

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 28th April 2008, 2:47pm) *

Thanks also for taking the trouble to reply, Brad. However, you say

QUOTE
it was alleged that a long-time contributor was misusing sources in articles concerning medieval history by citing them out of context or for propositions other than the ones they supported.


But if the theory of Wikipedia is correct, some other editor will pop up out of the blue and correct the mistake, and Darwinian selection will ensure that verifiable information only is preserved in the encyclopedia. It works for Pokemon and Star Trek episodes. It clearly doesn’t work for medieval history. Aren’t you sort of admitting here that there are some fundamental problems with the model – it works well for the Pokemon stuff (also for pederasty and similar subjects), doesn’t work so well for, say Medieval philosophy and the like, for which a knowledge of Romance languages and Latin is prerequisite?


Although I am not an expert of the philosophy of the "Wiki Model," you are probably right that it works more weakly in more sparsely patrolled fields.

On the other hand, dispute resolution (culminating, where all else fails, in arbitration) is ALSO part of the system, precisely for the purpose of addressing otherwise intractible problems like this one.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Mon 28th April 2008, 3:11pm
Post #11


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th April 2008, 4:06pm) *

Although I am not an expert of the philosophy of the "Wiki Model," you are probably right that it works more weakly in more sparsely patrolled fields.

On the other hand, dispute resolution (culminating, where all else fails, in arbitration) is ALSO part of the system, precisely for the purpose of addressing otherwise intractible problems like this one.


But as I understand (not being a Wiki expert either) this sort of dispute resolution, as the name implies, is entirely aimed at behaviour, not content. Thus a highly qualified expert who tended to be rude and arrogant (as sadly many of them are) would lose out to an entirely unqualified but polite non-expert.

The solution would be a panel of referees, and also a reward system that rewarded the content contributors rather than the vandal-fighters.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Newyorkbrad
post Mon 28th April 2008, 3:15pm
Post #12


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri 29th Feb 2008, 9:21pm
Member No.: 5,193

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 28th April 2008, 3:11pm) *

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th April 2008, 4:06pm) *

Although I am not an expert of the philosophy of the "Wiki Model," you are probably right that it works more weakly in more sparsely patrolled fields.

On the other hand, dispute resolution (culminating, where all else fails, in arbitration) is ALSO part of the system, precisely for the purpose of addressing otherwise intractible problems like this one.


But as I understand (not being a Wiki expert either) this sort of dispute resolution, as the name implies, is entirely aimed at behaviour, not content. Thus a highly qualified expert who tended to be rude and arrogant (as sadly many of them are) would lose out to an entirely unqualified but polite non-expert.

The solution would be a panel of referees, and also a reward system that rewarded the content contributors rather than the vandal-fighters.


There's some ongoing discussion on-site, which has been noted here on WR, about taking our dispute resolution processes to the next level of usefulness. I haven't yet formed a view on the proposals but am watching the discussion with interest. As for the issue of "polite POV pushing," this has been raised as a concern in the pending RfAr/Homeopathy case, so stand by.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Mon 28th April 2008, 3:18pm
Post #13


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I didn't bother to check until I became surprised by all the n00bish things you say about Wikipedia, but when I did I saw that you have only 2245 mainspace edits in just over 2 years. That is not what I call very much at all.

Jon cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Mon 28th April 2008, 3:21pm
Post #14


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th April 2008, 4:15pm) *

There's some ongoing discussion on-site, which has been noted here on WR, about taking our dispute resolution processes to the next level of usefulness. I haven't yet formed a view on the proposals but am watching the discussion with interest. As for the issue of "polite POV pushing," this has been raised as a concern in the pending RfAr/Homeopathy case, so stand by.


I have followed this with interest, I hope it proves fruitful. I apologise for the attitude of Awbrey.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Mon 28th April 2008, 3:23pm
Post #15


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



One of the issues on the Lists of Jews controversy was that people refused to accept the (British) Jewish Year Book as a source because, being in America, they could not find a copy. And that's a book that's in English. It's all the "if I can't find something on Google it's not true" mentality.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Newyorkbrad
post Mon 28th April 2008, 3:24pm
Post #16


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri 29th Feb 2008, 9:21pm
Member No.: 5,193

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 28th April 2008, 3:18pm) *

I didn't bother to check until I became surprised by all the n00bish things you say about Wikipedia, but when I did I saw that you have only 2245 mainspace edits in just over 2 years. That is not what I call very much at all.

Jon cool.gif


My mainspace work so far is a heck of a lot less than some of the other arbitrators. I've fallen into the trap of too much administration/not enough content, and I regret that often enough. My FA candidate is at least a year overdue.

On the other hand, we all know that edit counts can be misleading. One can spend an hour or two creating a new page -- say, a biography of a largely forgotten judge as to whom my piece will become the major resource on the Internet -- one mainspace edit. Then one goes and does a bunch of administrative type stuff -- a dozen or more non-mainspace edits.

So, as we say often enough on the RfA type pages, one can't always judge by the numbers.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Mon 28th April 2008, 3:26pm
Post #17


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th April 2008, 11:06am) *
On the other hand, dispute resolution (culminating, where all else fails, in arbitration) is ALSO part of the system, precisely for the purpose of addressing otherwise intractible problems like this one.

I am curious to learn why dispute resolution failed to appear in my case, Brad. Twice I called for MedCab, and once for an Ombudsman. Neither appeared. A 3rd Opinion person appeared briefly to say that 3rd Opinion doesn't take cases where there are more than two editors involved. (The 3rd Opinion person appeared right after the first editor with whom I disagreed summoned an ally to join him.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Mon 28th April 2008, 3:30pm
Post #18


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th April 2008, 11:24am) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 28th April 2008, 3:18pm) *

I didn't bother to check until I became surprised by all the n00bish things you say about Wikipedia, but when I did I saw that you have only 2245 mainspace edits in just over 2 years. That is not what I call very much at all.

Jon cool.gif


My mainspace work so far is a heck of a lot less than some of the other arbitrators. I've fallen into the trap of too much administration/not enough content, and I regret that often enough. My FA candidate is at least a year overdue.

On the other hand, we all know that edit counts can be misleading. One can spend an hour or two creating a new page — say, a biography of a largely forgotten judge as to whom my piece will become the major resource on the Internet — one mainspace edit. Then one goes and does a bunch of administrative type stuff — a dozen or more non-mainspace edits.

So, as we say often enough on the RfA type pages, one can't always judge by the numbers.


That you say a lot of n00bish things about Wikipedia is a Fact. I was merely being charitable by seeking extenuating circumstances in your edit count. If you wish to plead less innocent on that score, then I will seek another explanation.

Jon cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Mon 28th April 2008, 3:30pm
Post #19


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th April 2008, 4:24pm) *

On the other hand, we all know that edit counts can be misleading. One can spend an hour or two creating a new page -- say, a biography of a largely forgotten judge as to whom my piece will become the major resource on the Internet -- one mainspace edit. Then one goes and does a bunch of administrative type stuff -- a dozen or more non-mainspace edits.

So, as we say often enough on the RfA type pages, one can't always judge by the numbers.


Totally agree.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Newyorkbrad
post Mon 28th April 2008, 3:33pm
Post #20


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri 29th Feb 2008, 9:21pm
Member No.: 5,193

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 28th April 2008, 3:26pm) *

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th April 2008, 11:06am) *
On the other hand, dispute resolution (culminating, where all else fails, in arbitration) is ALSO part of the system, precisely for the purpose of addressing otherwise intractible problems like this one.

I am curious to learn why dispute resolution failed to appear in my case, Brad. Twice I called for MedCab, and once for an Ombudsman. Neither appeared. A 3rd Opinion person appeared briefly to say that 3rd Opinion doesn't take cases where there are more than two editors involved. (The 3rd Opinion person appeared right after the first editor with whom I disagreed summoned an ally to join him.)


I'm not familiar with your case, other than the tail end of your successful review by ArbCom (which was before I joined the committee). If you e-mail me some links, I will take a look when I have some time.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th 7 17, 4:37am