Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk archives for Bill Cosby (current talk page)
<< 1		Archive 1	Archive 2 >

Contents 1 Wikispam 2 What about his biographic information? 3 The "Controversy" 4 Sondra vs Sandra 5 Rider 6 Ghettosburgh Address 7 Is it supposed to call him a n*g**r? 8 Editing wrong article 9 Pound Cake Neutrality 10 First man or first person? 11 Discography? 12 WhispertoMe 13 Picture Pages 14 Actual education + Playboy Jazz Festival 15 Sprotected 16 Movies 17 Racial Slurs 18 Andrea Constand 19 Unsourced edits 20 BIG Mistake

Wikispam

I believe the recently added link to *.entertainment-news.org is Wikispam. There are two headlines that mention Bill Cosby in passing at the top, followed by several articles billed as "News Related to Bill Cosby" that are obviously not. Anybody can go to Google News and search for Bill Cosby news. I'm probably going to go get rid of these links as I did to paperlessarchives dot com wikispam. For details, so my user page. If anyone disagrees, comment on my talk page.

I note that the user's contributions are all similar, on other actors' articles. Jdavidb 20:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How Funny is this?

Roland Arnall is Steeling our homes!

What about his biographic information?

I was hoping to find out about his life growing up, different jobs, if he was in the military or whatever. Any other information?

It said he was in the Navy. That's...about it. I thought the article covered it perfectly. Mike H (Talking is hot) 21:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

In one of his skits he talks about being in combat. I'm wondering if that's true or just made up for his funnies. I guess that was the question, which conflict, tours, any recognitions &/r remarks? --Duemellon 16:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he could have been in combat. He was too young for Korea and while Vietnam was going on, he was touring the world with Robert Culp on I Spy. I think he just made it up. Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

The "Controversy"

Okay, I balanced some of the commentary about his politcal views with other acts he has done. I did not elaborate on his philanthropic efforts for the Black Community which I wish someone else would. I was sure to include a link to the transcript of one of those controversial speeches. I feel the media has greatly misrepresented his words & many feel his speech was a divergance from his previous stances or withdraw of support.

I also created a new page for the "Ghettosburg Address" I'm not sure where the terminology came from but I liked it so I kept it. I've heard it referred to as the Pound Cake Speech, but the really long title can be a bit of a burden to spell out.

Any comments? --Duemellon 15:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you like that name for the speech is not reason enough to use that name. We have to verify that it is in common usage. How many hits does it get on Google?

Also, we don't reproduce complete texts in Wikipedia. You need to request that that page be deleted and go put it on the Wikisource project, preferably under a more common name. Jdavidb 16:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with creating articles in WikiSource. I tried to go there & add the speech but it points back to the Wpedia instead. I guess I'll have to figure that one out. --Duemellon 12:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Revised the latest version of the statements about his statements for these points:

• Him speaking about these views did not begin in 2004. He has always had these views and never hesitated to share them
• He did not berate or say the Black community needs to fix its own problems, he has repeatedly said that the Black community needs to take more responsibilities for their own problems. The limited soundbytes received by the public at large suggests that he is saying that Blacks can pull themselves out of it, he does not. He is just sharing the burden.
• The media's portrayal of his statements often set him up to sound divisive because they only show limited reinterpretations of his speeches. That is why I was sure to include the text of the speech for people to read it in context
• I further place the blame of the misrepresenting his intents in the speech with the media as their soundbyte-ism is creating the seeming conflict.

--Duemellon 12:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Does "The Controversy" need to be at the top? What other biography starts with controversy before going into a person's background? --Christophernicus 22:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The conroversy section seems far to defensive of Bill Cosby to me. It should really say something like, "many people were angered by his statements, while others saw them as blown out of perportion by the media," or something along those lines. As it is wikipedia is taking the latter position, which is a violation of NPOV. --Benna 20:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, most ppl were angered by what they read in the papers, not by what he said. The point was to demonstrate how the media "sound byted" him & framed the speech usng slanted words. The speech's text was once included to be reviewed in context, but it was later removed citing copyright violations. So, to say "many ppl were angered by his statements" is untrue as anyone who was angered at his statements in a recorded fashion were angered by the way it was portrayed by the media especially since the speech's text was not public domain (therfore, the speech was not able to be reviewed & the public-at-large was completely dependent on media representation). --Duemellon 16:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sondra vs Sandra

The latest anon edit seems to be accurate for the spelling of this character's name. As far as I can tell, while "Sandra" is used extensively online, "Sondra" is the spelling used by a numer of more authoritative sites on the show.

Sondra is the correct spelling for Sabrina LeBeauf's character on the show. Mike H (Talking is hot) 01:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rider

Somebody managed to dig up Mr. Cosby's rider. A link to this would be nice. Commking, 25 September 2005

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0923051cosby1.html

Ghettosburgh Address

What happened to the Ghettosburgh Address page? This wasn't a dead link a couple of months ago.

The previous version of the article turned out to be copied from a copyrighted source. It was deleted as a result --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've placed a question on Talk:Ghettosburg Address regarding the legitimacy of this term. If no one can provide a valid and verifiable source for what appears to be a neologism, I will put that article up for deletion and remove the reference here. —LeFlyman 21:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The phrase was coined by the website that hosted the full text of the speech. The speech was removed from Wiki resources & pedia due to copyright infringement. I would feel if you deleted the article itself you would be doing a great disservice as the text & context of the speech is very important. If you feel the need to rename it to "Pound Cake Speech" then please do, but don't remove it from Wiki. (entry duplicated in TALK for separate article) --Duemellon 15:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the end paren "(with the help of people who have experienced the 'ghetto life' and everyday critics)." as, if this has something to say it says it poorly. What was the intent of that addon? Also removed the "Ghettosburg" reference later in the text --Duemellon 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it supposed to call him a n*g**r?

In the opening...

"William Henry "Bill" Cosby, Jr., Ed.D (born July 12, 1937) is an American actor, comedian, n*g**r, educator, television producer and philanthropist."

Is the word n*g**r really needed?

It was vandalism placed into the article an hour before you took it out. Mike H. That's hot 03:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

==Wow i jsut did a test for this saying bill cosby was homosexual and it was instantly tooken off, good work(thumbs up)at least someone cares about this site I honestly must say that im impressed and you guys should keep up the good work :)

Editing wrong article

Made the correct edit on the wrong article, my apologies. Another user has reversed the changes.

Pound Cake Neutrality

I think section only presents the negative reactions to the speech. There should be some counter-arguments to that criticism.

the We Can't Blame White People statement & title, although a direct quote from the speech is still an out-of-context one-liner which skews the sentiment of the speech to make it seems as though the speech was intended to villify Blacks for not "doing it wholly by themselves". This is a gross mischaracterization of the speech & when comparing it to previous statemetns Cosby has said. I am removing the title as a header & removing the bulk of the text copied over as inserting a huge block of quotations like that in the middle of an article is inappropriate. Please be sure to direct the readers to the full item if you want to include that much. If you had an intent on including it please discuss it so we won't butt heads on this. --Duemellon 14:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

furthermore the clumsy insertion has mixed the observations & reports between different speeches. Thanks for forcing a rewrite *spoken sarcastically derisive* (reverted instead) --Duemellon 14:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"In the same speech he made scathing remarks about Christians and the police". I read the speech and I don't know where that came from. There needs to be arguments for both sides and some references for the criticisms he received. Jgold03 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Directly from transcript of the speech:

"I’m saying Brown Vs. Board of Education. We’ve got to hit the streets, ladies and gentlemen. I’m winding up, now , no more applause. I’m saying, look at the Black Muslims. There are Black Muslims standing on the street corners and they say so forth and so on, and we’rere laughing at them because they have bean pies and all that, but you don’t read “Black Muslim gunned down while chastising drug dealer.” You don’t read that. They don’t shoot down Black Muslims. You understand me. Muslims tell you to get out of the neighborhood. When you want to clear your neighborhood out, first thing you do is go get the Black Muslims, bean pies and all (laughter). And your neighborhood is then clear. The police can’t do it .

I’m telling you Christians, what’s wrong with you? Why can’t you hit the streets? Why can’t you clean it out yourselves? It’s our time now, ladies and gentlemen. It is our time (clapping). And I’ve got good news for you. It’s not about money. It’s about you doing something ordinarily that we do—get in somebody else’s business. It’s time for you to not accept the language that these people are speaking, which will take them nowhere. What the hell good is Brown V. Board of Education if nobody wants it?"

As for the references... The titles of the news articles are clear enough. The statements about how it's skewed is demonstrated by those examples (of a larger pattern). The comments about him making such comments about the police & Xtians was put as a "comment" not as a characterization of the entire speech. Having the title as "We can't blame White people" pretty much suggests the entire piece is about how blacks are solely responsible for their current situation & the only resource to get them out of it. It's a gross mischaracterization. --Duemellon 17:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

are those really scathing remarks about Christians and police? the "Christian" thing just seems part of black vernacular speaking, and the police comment isn't saying anything negative about the politce Jgold03 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To say it seems like a part of venacular would be contrary to the point that he made regarding the Black Muslims. He was made sure to emphasize their religion and to almost immediately summon the word "Christian" would seem poor semantics if he was not talking specifically about the religion itself. Saying "the police can't do it" isn't scathing? Making the statement that the police are incapable of doing their job? or that the Black Muslims are doing the job the Police wish they could but aren't legitamite law enforcement agents? That's pretty darn insulting. It'd be like saying "We have to run this country because we know the President isn't". That's pretty insulting/scathing. --Duemellon 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What? He is pointing out that, although they are Christians, they aren't acting like it. That isn't scathing towards Christians.

I’m saying Brown versus the Board of Education. We’ve got to hit the streets, ladies and gentlemen. I’m winding up, now -- no more applause. I’m saying, look at the Black Muslims. There are Black Muslims standing on the street corners and they say so forth and so on, and we’re laughing at them because they have bean pies and all that, but you don’t read, “Black Muslim gunned down while chastising drug dealer.” You don’t read that. They don’t shoot down Black Muslims. You understand me. Muslims tell you to get out of the neighborhood. When you want to clear your neighborhood out, first thing you do is go get the Black Muslims, bean pies and all. And your neighborhood is then clear. The police can’t do it.

That isn't scathing towards police! He is just pointing out that they have to do things themselves - that the police won't clean up their neighborhood. Furthermore, the theme of the entire speech is about blacks taking the initiative. Why then would he suddenly point fault at the police? Jgold03 00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If the police won't clean up their neighborhood then the police are not DOING THEIR JOB. The big theme was the Black community taking initiative but the media portrayed it as a scathing remark against all Blacks, which was a mischaracterization as noted by headlines. The statements he made about police & xtians were very directly insulting to their own accepted missions in this world. The inclusion of that statement was to compare how the media would misreport the intent of his speech in a way that created the perception of Cosby insulating himself from the Black community but dodge his criticisms of police & xtians. However, the main point of your disagreement is that he did not insult the job the police were (weren't, actually) doing. How more insulting can he get to say that an unofficial group of people untrained & unordained entity of controversial religious members is being more successful at the job they are paid, structured, & created to do. Since when is it NOT the polices' job to stop criminal activity? --Duemellon 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

it is not the police's job to "clean up" the neighborhood - they are there only to enforce the law. change comes from within. that is what cosby was trying to emphasize, and i dont understand how you dont realize that. like i said earlier, it makes no sense for him to bash the cops when he is trying to point out that only blacks can change the situation they are in. can you explain that? Jgold03 05:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What are the citizens responsible for cleaning up? If they're responsible for eliminating the criminal elements (ie: the drug dealers mentioned in Cosby's speech) then what role do the cops play? Last I knew, as a private citizen, I had no rights to pursue, apprehend, and detain a criminal. In fact, I had to call the cops to do such if I saw a crime. Even if I did not call the cops, the cops are the ones who are to do the investigation, persuit, apprehension, and detention of the criminals. When was the last time you heard of a White citizen in a White neighborhood persue, apprehend, and detain a criminal instead of the cops? it makes no sense for him to bash the cops when he is trying to point out that only blacks can change the situation they are in. It does: By pointing out the cops are failing in their responsibilities but stating the situation needs to be resolved, he suggests the law enforcement system is failing to protect Black neighborhoods, and because the law is failing them they need to take things into their own hands. You do NOT hear such a call to White neighborhoods because the cops don't fail White neighborhoods.

i really don't think you've read the Pound Cake speech. that, or you totally misinterpreted it. the entire theme of the speech is that America is now at a point where blacks can succeed, and yet they are not taking advantage of this opportunity.

Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic and lower middle economic people are not holding their end in this deal. In the neighborhood that most of us grew up in, parenting is not going on. In the old days, you couldn’t hooky school because every drawn shade was an eye. And before your mother got off the bus and to the house, she knew exactly where you had gone, who had gone into the house, and where you got on whatever you had one and where you got it from. Parents don’t know that today.

I’m talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was two? Where were you when he was twelve? Where were you when he was eighteen, and how come you don’t know he had a pistol? And where is his father, and why don’t you know where he is? And why doesn’t the father show up to talk to this boy?

he is making an appeal to the black community for change. that's why it makes no sense that he would suddenly do an about-face and start blaming the cops for their problems. also, a cop coming in and arresting people does not solve the deeper issues facing a community - it is only a short-term fix. for the black community to really rise up, they themselves have to get a hold of their kids and their communities. THAT is what bill cosby was arguing for. Jgold03 22:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Your issue with the article as it was is flawed. A simplistic review of the actual information in the text of the speech proves so simply using some common reading/subject comprehension skills. Declaring his clear statements praising the Black Muslims, ridiculing the police, and taunting the Christians. You point to the "intent" of the speech and use that to declare anything you find tangental to be contrary to it, but that's an example of you using your own view to alter the facts of the speech.

Point 1:

If a speech contains tangential information, regardless of the intent of the speaker, the tangential information IS THERE. Why would you go through & declare the information wasn't real simply because you determined it was irrelevent to the subject? Did he say it? Is it proven & sourced? Then why would you say it wasn't there or deny it's meaning?

This inability to get past it's meaning , whether or not you feel it's relevent or tangential to the intent of the speech, points to some other motivation you have to keep it out. What is that motivation? Are you defending the police? Are you trying to reenforce the view of the media that skewed his speech's intent?

Point 2:

The statements about the police, Chrisitans, and Black Muslims, was quite relevent to that portion of his speech which was focusing on crime. You come in & point to their relevence about his overall speech, when you could, in essence, go through & remove every single point he makes after the 1st and closing paragraphs as being "tangential" to the original subject because's he's hitting on points! In the speech, during the time when he says the Black Muslims are making a difference, he taunts the Christians by effectively saying "who call yourselves xtians" to draw a paralell with how little of an effect they're having in comparison to the Black Muslims. Then he does the same with the police after praising the Black Muslim's actions in reducing criminal activity, he says "The police can't do it." If you think those statements have no relevence to the "speech" because they don't fit under your limited view of what the speech was about, then your subject-comprehension skills are really poor. EVEN IF THEY WERE TANGENTIAL, as in Point 1' he DID say them, they DO exist, & to say they shouldn't be included because they're TANGENTIAL is insulting to everyone's intelligence regarding a FACT-BASED WIKI article! If Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, suddenly burst into a Showtune about the Moon before continuing with his speech, as tangential as that is, he STILL DID IT & it would be fact & could be included in a Wiki item regardless of it's relevence.

Why do you feel so compelled to exclude these clearly scathing remarks about xtians & police & also remove the praise for Black Muslims? What is your motivation? Even if you were to discredit their relevence to the speech, he still said these things.

Point 3:

The reasons for it's (the points about the Black Muslims, xtians & police) inclusion are much different than what you're making them out to be, but you still left the misleading information in there.

The media, immediately & overwhelmingly, reported the speech as devisive & all-inclusive of Blacks. The reports put out by the mainstream US media (ie: AP), when read separate of the text of the speech, makes it out to be a downright bashing of all Blacks for incompetance & apathy. Wiki is a place for FACTS, not alteration of facts through media reports, so it is QUITE RELEVENT to counter the media reports with ACTUAL TEXT of the speech. The intent of the inclusion of Cosby's derision of xtians & police, while praising the Black Muslims, was to demonstrate how the limited cut & paste methods of the press skewed the way the speech was received by the public-at-large! It demonstrates how the media chose to focus on aspects which chided the Black community, frame it as "sweeping" but overlook the areas where he bashed long-established "White" entities such as the police & xtianity WHILE also praising a long established "Black" entity.

Allowing the selective choices of media to determine the "facts" of the speech when those facts create a limited or skew view of the event creates a horrible Wiki-article & has no place in this open-source fact-based environment. Remember: That section about the Pound Cake Speech is as much about the speech as it is about how the media altered it's intent.

all-in-all

I'm stunned that you would chose such weak arguments as the "police bashing" being tangential to the speech as a reason to exclude it when the fact is that it was included THEN, when clearing that part out, you remove every statement that highlighted the limited media reporting & also important elements to Cosby's speech. What is your real motivation? --Duemellon 12:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Duemellon, nice long winded statement. Unfortunately you're incorrect. The point Cosby is trying to make is pretty obvious and I can't understand why you aren't understanding it. Unfortunately, your view has spread to both this article and the Pound Cake Speech article. It's basic common sense, when you look at the context in which Cosby mentions the police it becomes immediately clear that Cosby is speaking of the reform needed in african american communities, not the need for police reform or police inadequecy. Cosby is trying to say that the african american community can't be dependent on police - it is up to them to change their neighborhoods. You have to looka the context in which the sentence is made. --Jelligraze 19:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is one point being made is the way the media portrayed his speech. You continue to deviate from that. The media portrayed his speech as being "scathing" & "divisive" of the black community by taking parts completely out of context while, of course, selectively leaving out the portion that is insulting to more typical "white" things, ie: police & xtianity, while also skimping on the comments about his praise for typical "black" things like the Black Muslims. If you note the way that portion is written you'll see it talks about how the media didn't report those things. Whereas I agree that he was trying to put the focus on what the Black community can do, he ALSO derided the police, all of xtianity, while praising Black Muslims. --Duemellon 21:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the 5th day after the NPOV tag was put there & the latest comment was put in discussion regading that dispute. Removing NPOV tag as no longer being relevent because there is no discussion. Also removing "merge" tag as no discussion was attempted on it. --Duemellon 11:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First man or first person?

The article currently says that "He was the first African-American man to star in a television series". Is the qualifier "man" relevant? I would guess that no African-American woman did so before him, but I don't know one way or the other. Athenaeum 12:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you. Diahann Carroll is regarded as the first African-American woman to have a lead role in a TV series with Julia, but it didn't start till 1968. Not meaning to downgrade Cosby's accomplishment, but he is more correctly the co-star of I Spy, at least in the way his name is presented in the credits. There's no doubt that Robert Culp has top billing (which is only proper since he was the bigger star at the time). Technically, therefore, Carroll was the first African-American to get top billing on her own show (unless there's another claimant I'm unaware of). 23skidoo 23:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the word "dramatic," as there were two sitcoms starring African-Americans in the 1950s, which I'd just as soon not name. I think he also was the first African-American to star in a series named after him. Richard K. Carson 02:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction to my second sentence: Nat King Cole, for one, had a show named after him. Anyway, I did not put that in the article, and I still believe the qualifier of dramatic show is accurate. Richard K. Carson 03:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually there were 2 African American sitcoms that pre-dated Nat King Cole- Beulah (1950-53) about a black maid starring at various times Hattie McDaniel, Ehtel Waters and Louise Beavers and Amos and Andy (1951-53). In some circles both shows are/were considered perpetuations of racist stereotypes while I:Spy wasn't.

Those are exactly the two shows I was alluding to, but they were not named after their stars. I think Cole may have been the first African American to have a TV show of any kind named after him (please correct me if I'm wrong), but it was not a sitcom. Cosby was the first to have a sitcom named after him, a later example being Martin. Richard K. Carson 08:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Discography?

We have his books and TV shows listed -- what about his albums? Wasn't there a discography section in here at one point? 23skidoo 23:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The discography is, I think, slightly incorrect. I can't find /any/ reference to the `Stacie Weaver' album, and there were in fact two Badfoot Brown albums, both with the same name but different track listings -- one released on Uni in 1970, and on on Sussex in 1971.

WhispertoMe

u did somethings that someone who follows Wiki goals would do, but then u totally did something else (removing, without discussion, a discussion). I'm restoring that section & inviting u to discuss your reasoning behind it. --Duemellon 21:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture Pages

Bill Cosby was in Picture Pages promoting a play-along-at-home toy. A soundmaking bee-topped writing pen. His appearances were not limited to Capt. Kangaroo 'tho & they still pop up every now & then in syndication. Readding citation in the appropriate place it was before. --Duemellon 14:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also restored the 1980's tagline as it followed the convention around it. --Duemellon 15:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actual education + Playboy Jazz Festival

There is a passing mention that he received a doctorate from UMass, but there is no mention of his BA and Masters. The article mentions that he dropped out of Temple, but never mentions that he later got a degree from the same university. I think a better accounting of his actual education (as opposed to the honorary degrees) needs to be included.

Also, there is a small section on his envolvement with jazz, but no mention of the Playboy Jazz Festival or the ensuing criticism he has received for his envolvement with it. Cjosefy 17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected

IP vandalism -- Samir धर्म 03:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• and now fully protected for vandalism. -- Samir धर्म 04:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Movies

What about Bill Cosby's movies? I was trying to find references to the horrible "Leonard Part 6" movie. Let's not forget "Ghost Dad" either.

Racial Slurs

This article is full of racial slurs, especially in the first few paragraphs... someone should correct it.

• along the same lines, why does it say in the first paragraph that he is a racist? is there any actual evidence for this?-PF

Both are simply vandalism, which this page unfortunately sees rather a lot of. The best solution when you see vandalism in an article is to open the page history, click the last version before the vandalism was added, and save that. Use the edit summary "rv vandalism" (or simply "rvv"). —Angr 23:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Andrea Constand

Why no mention of her?

Unsourced edits

I had to revert the edits made by User:209.226.172.69 because they were unsourced. According to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, any negative information has to be well-sourced to be included. —Angr 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, the source has been added, and I restored the text. I'm not sure "Background" is the right section for it, though. —Angr 20:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

BIG Mistake

Bill Cosby's not dead people Kelan 09:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Who ever said he was? —Angr 11:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Who added "Bill Cosby is really fat" ?!

Please can somebody correct the spelling mistake in the first line about Bill Cosbys background. I do not believe it was meant to say "retarded" as mentioned but certainly most likely "regarded"! 86.86.245.33 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)