This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Just reading the section on climate in Phoenix. As it is getting hotter I find this sentence hard to believe, "The summer months of May through August bring a dry heat ranging from 90–100°F (32–38°C)". The website weather.com has a projected high temperature of 98°F tomorrow and it's only May 1st. Being a native for over 20 years I'd have to say the summer temperature range is usually more something like 95°F-115°F. Maybe 15°F doesn't seem to be that big of a deal but you can definitely feel it.
Agreed, I adjusted it to 120 being more accurate..
GRAND CANYON
How about adding a creationist viewpoint on how the Grand Canyon was formed? Or just leave how it was formed out all together and leave that up to the Grand Canyon article?
No, this would be inappropriate. The vast majority of people (not just scientists) agree that the Grand Canyon was not formed in a matter of weeks. This viewpoint belongs neither on Arizona or Grand Canyon but on Creationism. Jeeves 00:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Arizona has nothing to do with religion. I would recommend finding a religious wiki to share your viewpoint. --Kahnadex06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's New Mexico. Arizona as a whole has no official language, although large chunks do, for example the official language of the Navajo Nation, which includes a very significant portion of Arizona in the north, is Navajo; the official language of the Tohono O'odham Nation, which takes up a very significant portion in the south, is Tohono O'odham, the official language on Hopi, an enclave in the Navajo reservation, is Hopi. Other large tracts of land with official languages include the San Carlos Apache and White Mountain Apache reservations which border one another, whose official language is Western Apache ("Coyotero Apache"), the Havasupai reservation whose official language is Havasupai, and the Walapai Nation whose official language is Walapai. In fact, the Havasupai Reservation is to my knowledge the only Indian reservation in the US where every single person knows the language fluently, this is partially due to the fact that most of the people there live at the bottom of a canyon. --Node 22:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Arizona's official language is English (Article 28 of the Arizona Constitution) but most of the provisions of Article 28 is unenforcable. The Arizona Supreme Court deemed the English enforcement sections of Article 28 unconstitutional on First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment (US Constitution) grounds. KeoniPhoenix 22:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As of November 8th 2006, English is the official language for Arizona. This was decided by Arizona Proposition 103 which was passed. --Kahnadex06:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Important cities and towns
I think it could use some major trimming. :-)
What might be some qualification for this list?
Population over 100,000.
Significant agriculture, industrial or tourisms to the world/USA and or Arizona economy.
Military, school/educational and or geographical importance.
Has access to a international border, airport, interstate highway and or major railway.
OR leave it as is, someone put it there, they most have thought it important.
Do you feel BOLD? Buster 15:38, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
--I put the list there. It is essentially every place, urbanized area or urban cluster with a population over 10,000 identified by the Census Bureau. Suburbs over 10,000 population are listed as sub-points.
How about the Ghost-town of Christmas, AZ?
removed text
I removed Ballet Arizona is the most notable and only professional ballet company in the country. This is eye-poppingly untrue. Joyous 21:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
I think it was meant to be in the state. And I don't know why you took out the Irish dance stuff; was it untrue also? Blair P. Houghton 05:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article on the Irish dance thing just went through VfD, and consensus seemed to be that it was an advertisement. We usually delete links (or at the very least de-link) to deleted articles. Joyous 12:11, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Removed:
Spanish words "árida zona" ("arid zone"). This would be grammatically incorrect however, since in Spanish, the noun precedes the adjective
In Spanish it is possible for the adjective to precede the noun. "Árida zona" would sound old-fashioned, but it has always been correct. With some adjectives it is even mandatory to place them before the noun (the translation of "a great man" into Spanish is "un gran hombre". "Un hombre grande" would mean "a big man").
This comment does not belong on this page, but on the main page for Mormonism or a page about Mormon temples. The construction of the temple in and of itself may be an effect of Mormon settlement, but it is not really relevant to state history as a whole. Mormon settlement has already been described in the preceding sentence. This "ta-da" about the temple is self-congratulatory — notice that the grammatical subject is the temple and not the state of Arizona's history or any other relevant item. Jeeves 18:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Image that may be useful
Just uploaded public domain image of Arizona valley shrouded in fog that may be of use.
File:Arizona valley.jpeg
Nahuatl?
Removed:
Nahuatl word "arizuma" ("silver bearing"). In 1736, a small silver-mining camp called "Real Arissona" by the Spanish was established near Arizonac.
I find this suspect, both because the Nahuatl word for "silver", IIRC, is iztacteocuitlatl, and because Nahuatl does not use the letter r. --Ptcamn16:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
People
Should Glenn Spencer, a anti-illegal alien advocate be added to Arizona's Famous People ?
His organization,American Patrol is located here. It is dedicated to the deportation
of illegalaliens, especially of aliens who commit crimes in the US, belong to racist,
even terrorist organizations.Martial Law06:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Glenn found a racist site, and had published it. That site is:
http//:www.mexica-movement.org, and it has Mexican racists telling Whites to go back to Europe.Martial Law06:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Arizona suena en ingles como arid zone, pero en uso comun seria simplemente aridland o secarral, zona no es sinonimo de zone.[reply]
I clicked on the red link in the infobox for list of Arizona senators. I then proceded to make the list of Arizona senators. I saved and everyting but the link in the infobox still shows red. What's up with that? List of Senators of Arizona Everything in it seems to be fine. ONEder Boy08:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Daylight savings
I could be wrong, but I don't see a mention in the article about how the state doesn't observe Daylight Savings Time. If it isn't there, PLEASE INCLUDE IT! -Amit
Almost all of Arizona doesn't observe daylight savings time. (Exception is the part of Arizona in an Indian reservation that crosses state lines.) There's a great recent article from one of the Arizona papers that can easily be found on google news; but there would be copyright issues. Joncnunn20:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been around on a military base and with military personnel. That "Flare dropping" story may work with the average Joe and Jane, but NOT with ex-military personnel and "military brats". Martial Law07:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC):)[reply]
I'm near a Command Base and I've seen fighters, A-10s, bombers, tankers, transports, and NOT one had to drop flares to land at all. I am referring to the article in which a US National guard unit had to drop flares to land each and every time to land a plane. Martial Law07:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC):)[reply]
I was in Phoenix
While investigating this matter ( The Phoenix UFO Incident )myself, I was told that the National Guard "explanation", the govt. approved "explanation" were all lies. Some of the citizens insisted that they were ridiculed. I was also told other things as well, some of which may indicate sedition and rebellion should there be alien contact. Martial Law21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC):)[reply]
IPA/Arizona
the IPA pronunciation of Arizona is only in English, a Spanish one needs to be added, Arizona is 1/4 latino and alongside english, spanish is the offical langauge.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs).
Arizona does not have any official languages, though Spanish is spoken by 20% or more.
please dont remove the spanish transliteration. english and spanish are cooficial in arizona. it is in line with other articles see Louisiana or Bolivia
I can find no referencing indicating that Spanish is an official language of Arizona. Unless you can find one, there is no reason to have the Spanish name. Bolivia has the Spanish name because Spanish is an official language there. Louisiana is debatable; it doesn't have an official language, though it does officially recognize French. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. I was told I could request links in manner, and that if other editors chose to add them, then that was fine. A number did so, even without my request. The person who deleted the links even says he likes the site and only deleted them because I added them myself.KelvinSmith (talk·contribs)
Sorry folks, if I've incurred Jamie's wrath. As it stands it's not for Jamie or Kelvin to decide if this link belongs in this article. Please try it out. I think you'll find it unique and entertaining. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KelvinSmith (talk • contribs).
This section needs to be updated with the recent November 2006 election results.
Split?
This is a quite long page, im sure that there might be a way to split it into other pages.
Arizona Centennial 1912-2012 & Planning
As today being the day after Arizona's 95th year as a State, I think we should begin incorporating the planning of the 2012 Arizona Centennial Celebrations, as information is released. However, I'm not sure if just a brief paragraph should be placed here on this page and an entire new article developed on the Arizona Centennial. Anyone else's thoughts? CascadiaTALK|HISTORY21:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vieja California?
Although I haven't spent too much time studying the historical political geography of Mexico, I do not recall in my geographical studies and private research hearing about Vieja California. Could Jinmex please quote (translated and untranslated) direct and unadulterated quote from the source mentioned regarding Vieja California. I request both so that I can do a private translation of my own to make sure they jive. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY04:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering the same thing, the editor who added it seemed to have some trouble with the wording, eg. he kept duplicating the sentence about the cession, when it turned out his real intent was to blank out the mention of the fact that the US paid Mexico a small sum for the land in 1848. (Why blank this info?) But looking at the history, the very first incarnation of his edit said the name of the Mexican state was 'Sonora', then after it wa reverted and it reappeared a minute later, it read 'Vieja California'... Maybe 'Sonora' is what he meant, and he somehow got confused? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure on the editors reasoning on blanking that info. I do have some theories based on my own personal research, but I'll hold back on sharing that per WP:AGF. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY13:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now it is changed to Nueva California aka Alta California, and the citation has changed yet again (still nothing that can be clicked and verified instantaniously). I'm beginning to think the assertions are somewhat dubious. All other references to the area that I've read in the past refered to this area as the Mexican Frontier, as it was sparsly populated and loosly organized. I'm going to have to request a quote from User:Jinmex yet again. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY14:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These were not mere territories, but states with their proper governments. In Nueva España, the province in question was called Sonora. After the foundation of independent Mexico in 1821, the State was called Nueva or Alta California. The purchase of 1853 was of the State of Sonora. For easy reference, see in the Wiki-Files, where it is called Alta California. Also, it is incorrect, that Mexico received 15 Million US-$ for the purchase of Arizona, the money was received for the entire State of Alta California as well as the State of Nuevo México. Jinmex14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I repeatedly received the request from user Cascadia to quote web-based sources. I believe mere web-based sources are inadequate documentation. As happens with the reference to the wiki-article Mexican-American War, editors begin to quote each other back and forth, without adding new information. The books I quoted are standard reference books also published in English (The Historia de México is originally published in English), and I believe that to be a more adequate source than a wiki or any other webpage. Jinmex15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jinmex for the map, that is a good source. However, please stop removing information regarding payment for land after the cession, you can reword it a little, but there was a monitary transaction for the land aquired.
I fear the issue was a little more complex than a "monetary transaction for land acquired". Depending on the historical and political view point, it was not a purchase, but an occupation of a sovereign nation that was later "compensated" with a ridiculous amount. By the way, this was a viewpoint shared by many US citizens at the time, and Henry David Thoreau even went to prison over this war. But this issue really does not have to be resolved here, does it? I would suggest just dropping it and leaving it to pages like "Mexican Cession" and "Mexican-American War". Ulises Criollo15:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The arguement, though is not whether it is considered a ridiculous amount or not, but simply the fact that a monitary transaction took place for the land. Removal of this information is simply attempting to rewrite history.CascadiaTALK|HISTORY15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But the editorial question is -- do you really need to solve this issue here? This is an article about Arizona, it need not do justice to complex historical issues that can be represented elsewhere.Ulises Criollo16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, because the way the passage reads now does not accurately reflect the reality of the event. In my opinion, this removes a Neutral Point of View. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this aspect seems to be of such importance to you, may I invite you to familiarise yourself at greater depth with this episode of U.S. history? An interesting starting point might be Howard Zinn's publication "A People's History of the United States", which has a readable chapter on the U.S.-Mexican War. Jinmex18:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I may not be able to quote verbatim the timeline of the U.S.-Mexican War, I assure you that I do have a good understanding of the events that unfolded. I only questioned your use of the Mexican state names because until today I do not recall seeing them elsewhere. I stood accurately corrected with a good source (your posting of the Map). Thank you for the suggestion, but I will respectfully decline in reading that publication. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY19:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if my remark sounded rather snide -- it was not meant to be. I believe that in light of the wall the U.S. are building along its Mexican frontier and in light of the present situation of Latinos in states like Arizona (see the incredibly biased section on "Illegal Immigration"), it is highly illuminating to take a look at the historical aspects of the relationship between the two countries. It's not about timelines and military moves, but about a historical context that reaches into the present and puts such seemingly irrelevant details as a token payment for an annexed territory into a larger perspective. Jinmex19:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there are issues about the War that have a much more historical context and bring up certain opinions depending on which side of the issue one is on. I recognize this in it's entirety, and respect the fact that those are there. If I recall correctly, the US Army in the Southwest was nearly obliterated and had not Santa Cruz (name not 100% sure of) been called back to Cuidad de Mexico to restore order, would've been able to hold off much longer against the US Army. Had that event not happened, I wouldn't be a Phoenecian. The point I'm making with this is just pointing out I understand the historical aspects, however, when an event happens, it happens, and to cover it up is doing an injustice. That is why when I rewrote the sentance, I tried not to say anything to the effect of "Mexico recieved a hefty sum" or "Plenty of cash for the land" because the facts are that they did not. However, the event did occur. Whether someone feels for or against it is irrelevent, per WP:NPOV. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me disagree one last time, then I'll shut up. 1. You are not a Phoenician because one general won and another lost a battle, but because successive US-adminstrations in Washington DC systematically worked to enlarge the US-territory at the cost first of Nueva España (Florida) and then of the new-founded Mexican Republic (Texas, California, Arizona, Nevada, etc., etc.). 2. There is no such thing as a historical fact. History is a narrative told from a certain viewpoint with certain interests regarding the present and the future. To realise this is to be able to articulate one's own interests in the present and the future. This is a rather far excursion, given the insignificance of the original intervention, and before it goes even further, I will leave it at that or suggest that we move it to a private discussion. Jinmex21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Illegal immigration is a highly contested issue. The section on the subject does not cite any of its sources and makes speculative connections, for instance on the relationsip between illegal immigration and crime. It remains unspecific in giving no numbers and few facts. It could be improved trying to name (and cite) different social groups and their positions on the matter to make it clear that the issue is debated and to be able to see who says what on the matter, by citing official statics on numbers of illegal immigrants and by naming the measures the state as well as racist organisations take against illegal immigration. Jinmex20:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The use of professional smugglers to ferry people across the border illegally is also increasing, see: people smuggling. Such smuggling operations are known to also often be associated with the cross-border illicit drug trade and have caused a wave of crime in Southwestern states." This portion, which you've refered to, does not make a direct relationship between illegal aliens and crime, instead the fact that Coyote organizations are frequently associated with illicit drug trade and other criminal activities. I'll see if I can dig up some statistics that will show the factual information. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be helpful to be more specific about who says what. "Proponents of the changes in policy argue..." neither makes it clear what the actual policy is, who these "proponents of changes" are, and what they propose instead. "Accurate numbers that can effectively support either side of the argument are rare..." -- from the text it did not become clear to me that there actually were two positions, and what they consisted in. In general, it seemed to me that the section takes one thing for granted: that illegal immigration is a problem that has to be dealt with. But that in itself is a disputed political position, isn't it? Since I am not from the area, I cannot contribute to improving this section, I can merely draw attention to these deficits and their implications. Jinmex20:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The general consensus is that yes, illegal immigration is a problem that has to be dealt with. That is merely the general consensus. There is a vocal oppostion to this, primarily consisting of people from Hispanic decent, who feel there should be open borders. There is even an element of that latter group that wish to return Aztlan to Mexico. I'll see about making it less ambiguous. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY20:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism RE Mex/Am war
Looks like we've got some ideological fighters on our hands, folks. Another editor reverted several attempts to POV Vandalism in an attempt to proliferate a common misconception. You can check the diffs for yourself, I'll keep watch the best I can to help out the other editor. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY13:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you so beautifully detailed in the discussion above, there are some historical facts not to be ignored. One of them being that the US occupied Mexico City and forced Mexico to give up almost half its territory. "Taking possession" is a nice euphemism that glosses over some inconvenient historical facts, and we are not going to do that, are we? Especially if the sadly misnamed article "Mexican-American War" spells out these very same facts. And please beware of the word "vandalism": the way you use this word is worthy of the best ideologue. Centauro del Norte20:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is supposed to remain adherent to WP:NPOV. Historians refer to the war as the "Mexican-American War". Although those south of the border may see it a certain way, and those north of the border see it another, an attempt to add anti-American rhetoric adds a POV. Stating the facts, that the US took possession of the land after the conflict is neutral, as it implies nothing more than the facts of the situation. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is US historians and US historians only who refer to this war as the "Mexican-American War", though it is good international custom to name the aggressor first. I believe en.wikipedia is an international project and a medium for all who speak English as a first or second language and should therefore make a serious attempt to take international historiography into account. Accounts that the US offered to buy territory from the Mexican government before occupying it have been greatly exaggerated and it represent a century-long attempt by US-historians to beautify a war of aggression that apparently continues to cause great uneasiness. Mexican historians represent the matter in a very different light which is just as legitimate as the US point of view -- Francisco Martín Moreno's México mutilado is only one recent booklength study of the matter. Historical facts are always positional. I believe it is the task of an international encyclopedia to integrate these conflicting positions and get beyond the various parochialisms to post-nationalist estimations that reflect the interests of a reader in India, Australia or Great Britain as much as those of a US reader. Ulises Criollo16:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such "good international custom" you speak of to "name an aggressor first" when naming wars! Where did you get that idea? There isn't even "international custom" on who the aggressor is for many wars! I think the name has more to do with euphony, for example Franco-Prussion war just rolls off the tongue more readily than "Prusso-French war" or "American-Mexican war" which sound awkward. The term "Franco-Prussian war" isn't meant to slight either side or to make any implicationabout who started the war, whatsoever. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also from what I can tell from the interwikis, the Slavic languages and French are the only languages that call it "American Mexican war", all other languages with the exception of Iberian ones call it "Mexican American war". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Franco-Prussian War is correct, because it was Napoleon III. who declared this war. And as you can see from your own list, the number of languages that use the term US-Mexican War is quite considerable. British historians, by the way, also call it the US-Mexican War. Ulises Criollo20:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as highly hypocritical that you seek to promote Mexican historical account as accurate, and US historical account as inaccurate. I believe, from evidence I have seen both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, that there is a calculated effort to assert certain beliefs that are held in Mexico as being accurate, and the United States accounts as inaccurate and highly biased (evidenced by the continued attempt to refer to the Mexican-American war as the "War of Northern Agression"). Although I am compelled to WP:AGF, I am further compelled to prevent any further effort of Reconquista (Mexico), whether it be by preventing Wikipeida from being a launching point of historically inaccurate or increadibly biased viewpoints, or by physical means. I am not assuming you are engaging in this sort of activity, merely that your actions mirror and come close to actions I have encountered in the past. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may point that out to you, I have been calling for a non-nationalist viewpoint, not the substitution of one form of provincialism for another. And please, do refrain from name-calling, misguided speculation about my motivation and the promotion of conspiracy theories. And by the way, what do you mean that you are "compelled to prevent Reconquista ... by physical means"? I am compelled by WP:AGF to not raise any further questions about your motivation for editing. Ulises Criollo20:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appologize if I came off harsher than intended, if I may clarify by "physical means" meant in the physical world, not threat of violence, etc., and I retract the statement. I do not recall where I called you a name, only stated I saw some hypocracy in your previous statement. My motivation for editing is to make sure that the article is as truthful as possible, and not edited in a way to assert any incorrect notion that the United States=Bad, Mexico=Good, ie leaving political opinions out of it as much as possible. Again, I appologize if I sounded much harsher than I intended. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 20:30, 23 March
2007 (UTC)
We are talking about an AMERICAN STATE here! We call the war what AMERICANS call it. Plus, those who win wars get to name the wars in my opinion. This should not be an issue at all. Mexican-American War is the name. Jeffaz02t11:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
War always has a cost, so the notion that a war has been 'won' requires a judgement based on some sort of cost-benefit analysis and the benefits are usually not mutual (hence the war). Therefore, 'winning' a war cannot be supported based on fact alone and cannot be neutral. This can't therefore be used as a dictum for establishing neutral content. 199.104.151.13107:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time to shorten the article
This article is getting quite long, and per WP:Article size, I think we could chop it down or condense it. I have the following suggestions:
Move Transportation section to a new article; leave behind a condensed version (1-2 paragraphs).
Delete the giant list of cities in the Important Cities and Towns section. All of those cities are listed in the see also page, and many of the cities listed are mentioned elsewhere in the article.
Delete the Top 25 Cities by Wealth table. It's interesting, but it isn't all that necessary to a general article on Arizona. Perhaps it could be moved to another page.
Figure out what to do with the Miscellaneous topics section. All of the info in that section could be integrated with the rest of the article. Some subsections (UFOs) could be deleted entirely, while other sections (pop culture) could be vastly condensed, as they are redundant with the see also articles.
I trimmed out the UFO and Illegal Immigration sections. The UFO stuff is "fun trivia" that doesn't really belong, and the info on illegal immigration is both unsourced and inappropriate, placing it on an article about a state is putting far too much undue weight on a single topic. It is better suited to an article about immigration, or perhaps a small mention in the state history section but as it's own section, it really doesn't belong. Arkyan • (talk)15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arizona threatens secession
Someone should mention this
Got a reference for us? Unless you're talking about the bill that came up 6 years ago, I'm at a loss for any "secession threats". Arkyan • (talk)15:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Props to editors for such wonderful images on this wiki
Thanks to whoever uploaded them; they really add something to this article and definetly leave me feeling more informed about the state. 24.251.84.22123:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
