Talk:Indigenous peoples in Canada/Archive 1

This page is an Archive of the discussion page for Aboriginal peoples in Canada. (May 7 2005 - Aug 2009) Please Do not edit!

Constitution Act indios marakos de la concha tu madrao people in Canada are Peoples recognized in the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, sections 25 and 35, respectively as Indians, Métis, and Inuit. Not sure what is that... certainly wasn't here yesterday when I started studying the article! Sorry, new to Wiki and not sure how to edit/ correct that. Xiaozhuli (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Xiaozhuli Ok so here's a deal You move all of the content from the "First Nations" article to this one and redirect. I dont really care which one has all the content, but there is no sense in two having the same content and topic. Either way, i cant help you out because i'm going to Scotland for a month. So, since "Aboriginal" is the "proper" term, please move all First Nations article content to this one and let the debate end. But whatever makes most sense to you. I just highly suggest that these two articles be merged in whatever way possible under your guidelines so that Wikipedia users will have one source for the information they will be looking for. Such a revision may mean a number of category changes as well (there is a First Nations in Canada category as well, i think). Good luck in the work. "Aboriginal" is only the proper term when referring to the First Nations, Métis, and Inuit in Canada collectively. Therefore, an article for each ethnicity must remain in some form. I don't disagree with you that better organization is needed, but this content on Wikipedia is a slow work in progress. Please see Aboriginal peoples in Alberta for an example of where I think the "Aboriginal" grouping works very well. I'll do my best to have the content in question as easily accessed as possible, but this will likely require some time for consultation with others. I would also be surprised if the consensus that develops is to eliminate the Category:Canadian First Nations as there are many articles that relate only to the First Nations, and not to the Métis and Inuit as well at the same time. Kurieeto 15:28, May 7, 2005 (UTC) Why the difference? I definitely respect the cultural differences between different people groups, but I do not understand why Métis and Inuit are not included as part of the term "First Nations". Were they not here before European colonization? Do what we currently call First Nations not also have cultural distinctions? I do not believe their relative size should be a factor. I don't think anyone would ever say "Russians and Europeans" or if they did (considering that much of Russia is in Asia), they would never say "Chinese and Asians". If they made a distinction, they would say "Chinese and other Asians". If we must make a distinction, why not "Métis, Inuit, and other First Nations"? Obviously, a talk page on Wikipedia has about 0% likelihood of changing terminology, and again, Wikipedia should reflect what is in use. But I still wonder: why the difference? Why are they excluded? If anyone has a good answer or a comment, feel free to leave it here, or on my talk page, where I will be far more likely to see it. On a side note, I, as a citizen of the United States and of European descent, consider the term "First Nations" vastly better than "Indian", which sounds a) like a term from the 1800s; b) offensive, derogatory, or at best disrespectful (due to the way the US sees and has seen the term, even though reactions by people to which the term is applied vary widely); and c) technically incorrect, since Indians, if not from India, are from the West Indies (another obsolete and problematic term), which makes them West Indians (though I would call them Haitians, Jamaicans, etc. or refer to them by their tribal names). Mainly, I guess, I feel the term "Indian" does not respect culture (including the culture of India and the culture of the First Nations, etc.), while terms like "Native Americans" and "First Nations", while being collective, still respect culture (like the term "Europeans" does), despite the fact that a significant percentage of Native Americans in the US call themselves Indians and another significant percentage see the term as neutral. This is why I think that the Indian Registry and other similarly-named government programs and institutions should change their names (as the US has done, though certainly not because the US has done so). Besides, a 600-year-old mistake by Columbus and company should not be perpetuated by us, nor should it decide our terminology. Accuracy, like cleanliness, is next to godliness, I think. --Cromwellt|Talk 00:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Actually, the Métis and the Inuit are also "First Nations"; but as their own groups, they have their own distinct names. Each of the other NATIVE tribes also has its own name; that is the name of its nation (Anishnabe, Hodenashone, Mi'kmaq, etc). But when you speak of the Métis as a group, and the Inuit as another group, then you want to speak of all the other NATIVE peoples as a third group apart from these other two, then they are called the "First Nations" by default, for want of a more exclusive term (even though the "First Nations" is really inclusive of all of these). ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Several points to make. First, none of the First Nations people alive today were here before European settlers. Get your history straight. Second, Metis were by definition not here before the Europeans, because they are at least 1/4 European (according to current legislature). Third, why shouldn't they be called Indians. The only problem I have with it is the ambiguity. After all, we call Deutsch people Germans, but they whine about it? Indian is widely recognized as refering to the so-called "Native" people (who are no less native, technically, than anyone else born in Canada). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.197.71 (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Not Helping Indigenous People By Use of the Phrase "First Nations" Look, I know people mean well, by trying to use the phrase 'First Nations' - but the phrase itself was only invented a decade or so ago, and when Aboriginal or Indigenous People or Government use it, it can do irrepairable harm to the claims of Aboriginal/Indigenous Peoples to push their case for Sovereignty, and settlement of Land Claims, via the UN. 'First Nations' have no legal rights under International Law Covenants. This term "first nations' is slowly being used to replace "Indians" -- and I know that it was invented and has been used in an attempt to be less offensive to Aboriginal/Indigenous peoples, however, it's a misnomer. If anything, if I had my druther's as an Indigenous person, who belongs to an Indigenous Nation that has, as of yet not signed a Treaty with the Crown, I'd rather see the "First Nations" wiki entry moved and replaced by the Indigenous Peoples and Aboriginal Peoples entry than the other way around. It's a small but very important legal and technical distinction being made here. One that can have far reaching consequences for Aboriginal/Indigenous Peoples. For those who seek assimilation, and the extinguishment of their rights, and to become nothing more than members of a domestic ethnic minority in Canada, I take no issue with them calling themselves "First Nations" -- that's what the term was invented for. But for those of us who would like to keep our culture, our statehood, and our rights intact, and unfringed upon, we must insist on the term "Indigenous Peoples" or "Aboriginal Peoples" and the term "Tribes or Nations being used interchangeably, just like with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Thanks for your attention to this contentious issue. Somena No, "First Peoples" is NOT "technically incorrect", nor a misnomer. It's "technically correct". They were sovereign nations long before there was a Canada, they NEVER abrogated that sovereignty, they fit every definition of the word "first" and the word "peoples", an as for your argument that it does not "help" or "international recognition", that is irrelevant becaue they don't need "help". It's simply a fact that they are sovereign, and you cannot point to the calendar date when they ceased to be. It is only "technically incorrect" in the eyes of the Canadian Government, I guess you can imagine how legitimate the First Nations consider that pointof view. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Further Explanation I'm just pointing out that when, for example my Indigenous Nation takes our case to UNPO or to the UN, if we use terms like "First Nations" or "First Peoples" we will have no standing, except to be seen as "domestic ethnic minorities" under International Law. I don't know what Nation you belong to, but my Nation has never signed a Treaty, has never signed away any of it's rights, our rights as a Sovereign Entity have never been extinguished and we will not consent to any attempt by the Federal Government of Canada or Colonizers to stick us in the little box of "domestic ethnic minority". Read the Royal Proclamation of 1763, (it's available on Wiki) Look at the words used by the King to describe the people whom he was dealing with. He uses the phrase "Tribes or Nations". NOT "First Nations". As such, protections that are afforded to us under the Royal Proclamation, which is enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, are only available to those of us who belong to "Tribes or Nations". "First Nations" was simply invented a decade and a half or so ago, and it holds no weight in the courts, or in the laws. Use it in common every day talk if you must. Use it in the privacy of your homes. But do not allow your Band, Nation, or Tribe to put forward any document that claims they are a "First Nation" instead of a "Tribe or Nation" or that they are "Indigenous Peoples" or "Aboriginal Peoples". The reasons for this are laid out in the Vienna Convention on Treaties, 1969, or which Canada and Great Britain are a signatory to. I don't know what you and your nation are doing to protect your rights, or to assert your sovereignty, but for those of us who are actually working to assert such rights, under International Law, NOT UNDER domestic law, we can't afford sloppy language that undermines our position in any way shape or form. I highly recommend you check out Janice Switlo's web entry, visit her site, and especially read her two articles there called "Apple Cede" as well as "Trick or Treaty". I understand why it is that my relations feel that "First Nations" is good, and I'll admit that it's slightly better than just "Indians" and "Indian Bands" -- but for extra gusto in asserting one's rights, and that of their nations Sovereignty... (not just talking about it -- actually doing it... we must be very very careful to make sure that the white, man's words are not used to "trap" us into a legal situation that we did not see coming. Switlo's articles should help you understand why I am explaining this to you. I fully understand your position, and I 100% believe that whatever Nation you belong to is a Sovereign Nation of Indigenous People. I got it. You don't need to convince me. But, collectively, we do at some point need to convince other Nations in the world to recognize this historical and legal reality, and the only way that is going to happen is under efforts made under International Laws. Feel free to chat me up more about this on my talk page. Cheers Somena 00:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Merge with Aboriginal peoples in Canada? Discuss at Talk:First Nations. --Ezeu 19:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Suggestion withdrawn. --Ezeu 20:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Merging with First Nations, Native Americans in the United States, Aboriginal Land Claimswithdrawn68.148.165.213 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC) and Indigenous peoples of the Americas These distinctions are only political, maybe it might be required to make the distinctions in the merged article, but defintely not by separting these & each of these articles. And if there are any articles along these lines please merge them. It seems to me that the articles were separted [if they were once a single article] because the how First Nations were treated differently in US & in Canada. If that was the reason the article was broken up, then the article title is off. I should be The Treatment Of First Nations In Canada, & The Treatment of First Nations In US. Also, First Nations Land Claims [it should also be renamed as] is a fundamental part of the history & politcal landscape of the First Nations; it just makes sense that it should merged with the article.withdrawn68.148.165.213 15:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 68.148.165.213 14:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Oppose merger. Conditions are entirely different for Native peoples in Canada than in the US or elsewhere, and have been ever since these were separate entities. This is a logical division of subject matter and there's no reason why all the articles should all be lumped into one mega-article, or why this article shouldn't exist as its own article because of what it addresses. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry, I'm not very sure if your experienced with Wikipedia. They are POLITICAL separate entities, obviously BECAUSE of the governments. They were their own nations as much as the Catalan & Basque Nations in Spain or the Gasgon Nation in France. Or the English Nation, refering to England and the English. They had their OWN govenments, their OWN sociologies, its only because of Coloniazation that they lost all this. This is a illogical division of of '...subject matter...'; this division ACKNOWLEDGES how they are only NOW politically divided, the 49th parallel or whatever did not divide the Original Nations rightly. You could include in the article how the HISTORY & how they are divided, between the US and Canada, & how they have affected them but because they are a group, like the Orientals, or Europeans are a group, they should have their one article. 68.148.165.213 16:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC) In fact, ethnically, they are not one homogenous group. There are Algonquians in both countries, who are socially and linguistically distinct from Hokan-Siouan, Athapascan, etc. Different nations not only had completely different languages, but different beliefs, customs, etc. There should be articles about each of these distinct subdivisions, and this article is specifically about the modern political situation which should not be confused between US and Canada. I actually agree that the boundary line was arbitrarily drawn and is essentially meaningless to First Nations Peoples from any historical standpoint. But reality is that conditions and legal status for First Nations today varies depending on what side of that border you're talking about. No matter how legitimate or not the means for establishing that border were, it is internationally recognised in the here and now. As for my experience with wikipedia, I've been around long enough to see several similar proposals for merging this page get shot down for this reason. Welcome to the article, and have a nice day! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Oppose: See my comments here.[1] --Kmsiever 15:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Which Aboriginal people are increasing in Canada? I heard that the Canada's aboriginal population is growing almost twice as fast as the rest of the Canadian population. Which aboriginal people are increasing in Canada? Homer33 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC) NPOV The controversy section in here makes no mention of the illegal activites that natives have undertaken. I will attempt to edit this section myself but it may be fairly bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stronghold1245 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Name controversy Although "Indian" remains in place as the legal term used in the Canadian Constitution, its usage outside such situations can be considered offensive. The confusion can likely trace its lineage to the European explorer Christopher Columbus who was thoroughly convinced that he had discovered a new route to India. It also refers to self-identification of Aboriginal people who live within Canada, but who have not chosen to accept the extinction of their rights of Sovereignty or Aboriginal Title of their lands. The terms "First Peoples" and "First Nations" have also been used synonymously, and are occasionally used as descriptive terms by U.S. Native Americans in solidarity with their Canadian relatives. This section has some problems. First, it doesn't clearly identify what is the controversy of the heading. It mentions "the confusion", but doesn't state who is confused about what, apart from Columbus. The sentence "it also refers to self-identification of Aboriginal people who live within Canada, but who have not chosen to accept the extinction of their rights of Sovereignty or Aboriginal Title of their lands" is completely opaque: what is "it", and how does any of this relate to "extinction of rights?" Finally, the paragraph implies that Indian and First Nations are synonyms for Aboriginal peoples, but they are not. —Michael Z. 2008-06-27 19:00 z Come to think of it, this whole section belongs in First Nations, not here. —Michael Z. 2008-06-27 20:04 z general inadequacy of the article Hi,Danika [Duh,neeka] is a popular name!! Leaving a comment here, hope this is the right way to go about it. There is so much oversimplification here. It's really frustrating. It's not that I don't appreciate that someone's gone to the effort of creating this page, it's just that the issues at stake here are far more serious and complicated than deciding when to, or not to, capitalize the world aboriginal. So, whenever possible, I will attempt to contribute to this page. I'm willing to discuss these changes and additions with whoever takes an interest. Hopefully you'll find them to be agreeable, I will hold myself to the best academic standard I can, but it's not going to be easy. Canada has done some utterly detestable things to the original inhabitants of this land and the farther back we look (into the actions of the Dominion Government, colonial administrations and the explorers who preceeded them, in turn) the worse it gets. Just a heads up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purist 284 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC) So couldyou explain when to, or not to, capitalize the word "Aboriginal"? I've been confused, and wouldlike to be clear, personally... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayniac (talk • contribs) 02:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Capitalize the term whenever it refers to Aboriginal people, or something of or relating to them, as in Aboriginal people, Aboriginal traditions, Aboriginal art. Treat it like any other ethnonym: Black, Nordic, Semitic, Slavic.  —Michael Z. 2009-01-22 17:41 z 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties The edit summary restoring mention of "Great Britain" (which is an island, not a state) to the page doesn't address the actual issue: The present wording of the article asserts that Canada and the UK are signatories to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Perhaps they are, but why is the UK's siging on to this treaty of importance to this article? Even the constitutional documents mentioned are now fully within the control of the Canadian parliament. --G2bambino (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Cross-relating names Is there a place in Wikipedia where tribal names can be cross-related? Samuel de Champlain allied himself with Montagnais who covered a good deal of southern and eastern Quebec and spoke a dialect of Cree.[2] Try to cross-relate them to whatever they are called today or in Wikipedia! Hard to do. Ideas? Student7 (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Well, Montagnais redirects to Innu-aimun (language), which prominently mentions the Innu people. It's a start. —Michael Z. 2008-12-04 01:54 z DNA Can someone add DNA information. BalanceΩrestored Talk 09:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Notable Aboriginal people in Canada Can I suggest removing this section or splitting it off? It's either going to be horrifically incomplete (as it is now), or ridiculously long. Frankly, I find the idea that there could be so few noteworthy aboriginal people that they all could fit on this page kind of offensive. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Black and White Thinking. Black and White Thinking. This topic, and many other social or political movements in Canada, or NOrth America for that matter, are often treated in 'black and white' terms. Polarization of discourse is often found. As racism is a half-truth that ignores inter race hatred, so is the issue of residential schools. While there were some incidents of abuse...perhaps many....there was also a great many strides in a system that educated some people to the point that they can involve themselves in contemporary society. There are many truths to this issue... --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC) New Article as of Aug 2009 The page has been redone ...it is the main page to all the sub articles now. The merge was not possible as Aboriginals in Canada are 3 distinctive groups of indigenous peoples from the Americas. The 3 groups now have their own History pages ......So now need to cram all info on this jumping off page. The term Aboriginal peoples of Canada can be confusing. Collectively, First Nations(Indians), Inuit, and Métis peoples constitute Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Indigenous peoples of the Americas or "first peoples". They are 3 separate distinctive groups as recognized in the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, sections 25 and 35. “ 35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. (2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada. (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. ” Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC) "Oldest" site I'm somewhat dubious that a single site can be indisputably claimed to be the "oldest" in Canada. See [3] pg. 45 for a number of examples of other locations that are claimed to be as old, or in some cases older, than Nanu. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Haida Gwaii or Hecate Strait is a vast area of land !! Shrinking of the Bering land bridge This was not an island in Pleistocene times, during the end of the last ice age between 13,000 and 11,000 years ago, events resulted in very low water levels around Haida Gwaii. What is now Hecate Strait, the body of water that separates Haida Gwaii from the mainland, was for the most part dry land.... We are talking settlement in Canada, not north America and Nanu is considered the site of the longest continuous human occupation in Canada not the first!! Anthony Island are also known as Haida Gwaii and the town of Ninstints were made a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2006. Haida Gwaii, known to the Haida as "Islands of the People", is a diverse archipelago of over 150 islands located on the Northwest coast of British Columbia, Canada. These islands are also known as the Queen Charlotte Islands. Nestled below the Alaskan Panhandle and separated from the British Columbia mainland by Hecate Strait. The melting of the glaciers, between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago, which coincides with the Siberian big-game hunters migrating inland on foot across the Bering Land Bridge, had two other significant effects on the level of sea and land. The first was the release of all the previously locked up water, causing a dramatic rise in sea levels. The second was the simultaneous rise of the continental edge and fall of the Charlottes. This rise in sea levels transformed the westernmost highlands and mountains of ancient BC into the archipelago of Haida Gwaii' and its inhabitants into the master seafarers of the West Coast. map 15,000 B.C. If people did cross the land bridge they would have come across this place first... as the evidence shows they did. Also known as The Bering Strait Theory or Beringia theory, Land Bridge theory has been widely accepted since the 1930s. This model of migration into the New World proposes that people migrated from Siberia into Alaska then Canada, tracking big game animal herds. Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC) _________________________________ Hello again Buzzzsherman, my comments below are based on the following material, which you added to the article: [...] "The earliest evidence of human settlement in Canada is found on the archipelago of Haida Gwaii in British Columbia.The site at Nanu is dated beginning from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago. Ice age hunters and gathers left fluted stone tools and the remains of large butchered mammals. Nanu is unique because it is considered the site of the longest continuous human occupation in Canada." I think there may be a misunderstanding of my intent here. To be clear, I am referring exclusively to locations within the present day country of Canada. Thank you for taking the time to provide the ample information that you've put forward, but I'd like to state that my objection to the present material in the article is being made in reaction to the apparently unequivocal claim(s) contained in it that the Haida Gwaii ("Queen Charlotte islands") region contains the "earliest evidence of human settlement in Canada" and is "the site of the longest continuous human occupation in Canada". I am in no way disputing the likely involvement of routes through the northwestern corner of North America in the peopling of the western hemisphere, I'm even open to the idea that the arrivals occurred earlier than the period we're discussing, by sea or by land for that matter. What I'm casting doubt on is the claim that a single (or cluster of) sites located entirely in the present day Queen Charlotte islands can be indisputably described, to the exclusion of all others, as being either the scene of the "earliest" or "longest continuous human occupation in Canada". To the best of my knowledge, that sort of claim for *any* site (or cluster) in Canada would be highly controversial. Although, it's interesting to note that the archaeology department within Parks Canada appears to be willing to 'stick out their necks' on the subject to the extent that they support similar claims for a site located within the present day Yukon Territory[4]. Other archaeologists have also put forward their support for the same Old Crow basin region as constituting the "earliest" in the country as well.[5] I'm not claiming that any of this is the final word in terms of correctness, I'm only attempting to offer counter examples to try and demonstrate that any such claim are far from a settled matter within Canadian archaeology. If I'm missing something, either in newer literature literature that I'm unaware of, or in the material you're offering as evidence for your claim, please let me know, I'm truly interested in this subject. I've examined what I presently can of the material you've posted so far, and in my opinion what you're espousing is an interesting hypothesis regarding where the "earliest" (or site of "longest continuous habitation) sites might likely be found, but I'm afraid (again in my opinion) that so far it seems to me to be based on your own extrapolation from sources and thus constitutes "original research". At least insofar as it contends that sites in the Queen Charlotte's alone unequivocally represent the earliest and longest human habitations in Canada. If possible,could you please provide a specific quote that literally and specifically supports either of these contentions, I've looked over the material you've offered and I'm unable to find an example that doesn't require an extrapolation to arrive at the conclusions that you're drawing here. thanks again Deconstructhis (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC) ________________________________ No problem ...thanks for info on Old Crow Flats. You are right much debate still...as i can now see!!! I think leaving the is best to let people see this discussion...I have much reading to do on this as i see that the books i have our not complete on there info.Geological methods for archaeology Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Series Sidebar Started this "Ethnic Series sidebar template" to bring together some of the main topics related to the aboriginal peoples of Canada so that the articles stand alone and do not overlap each other in content. What is your opinion? SriMesh | talk 03:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC) It has been added to the following articles, PLEASE ADD IT TO new and old articles about the topic.. {{Indigenous Peoples of Canada}} It is the finally addition to the new articles called Aboriginal peoples in Canada and one of the sub articles called First Nations. Pls fell free to copy edit WIKIFY or add any info that is relevant to the articles(unsourced or poorly sourced edits will be reverted immediately) Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Excellent job expanding the series side bar. ~:-)SriMesh | talk 03:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Assessment comment The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Indigenous peoples in Canada/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section. I have sorted the article to B-Class for the following reasons: NPOV dispute. The article simply cannot be rated better than B-Class, in my mind, while there is a dispute. Organization. The lead (see WP:LEAD) seems to simply be the beginning of the article, and not a true lead. Content. For an article of the magnitude of this one, 3 sections and your lead simply aren't enough, especially when one of them concerns whether or not the term should be capitalized. References. There are some. That's great. And they're even inline citations. However, there is a spot requesting a reference which does not have one. This needs to be fixed. -- PEPSI2786talk 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Last edited at 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)