Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 3

Verified?

I find it paradoxal amusing that a list, that specified highlights that this is supposedly a list of oldest verified people, has a question mark for the age of placeholder number two (Shigechiyo Izumi). I’m familiarly with the case, in that I understand why there is a ? mark, yet obviously he is not undisputed verified. By some maybe, but obviously other does not consider it verified – which consequentially makes him unverified, and not suited for this list. So on the integrity of this list; is this a list of semi-verified people or actual verified people? Twthmoses 01:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Wikipedia reports what is reported by others. The Izumi case was 'verified' by Guinness and later disputed, and the dispute was not resolved. It's like asking "Why is Barry Bonds on top the Home Run list"? You know why...Ryoung122 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course wiki is not a place for original research, you don’t have to upper case that for me (never mind that wiki’s constantly up-to-date list of old people is in fact live original research,- which i like). Wiki does indeed report what is reported by others, and that is the whole point. How can a list were the intro says, highlighted, oldest verified people in world history, contain people that are not verified? What good is the list then, when there are in fact unverified or at least disputed people in the list? So I naturally question the integrity of this list. It does not say Guinness oldest verified people, or xxx’s oldest verified people,- it says oldest verified people in world history, - which I naturally understand to be regardless of source. People where there are zero questions about birth and death, undisputed cases, at least so little that the vast majority of sources consider it a closed case. That does not strike me as being the case with Shigechiyo Izumi.

The factual accuracy of the list is compromised already at number two spot! Even wikis own article of oldest people, states that several of these cases are disputed, what are they then doing on a verified list?, when they are not verified?

I did not make the list; I’m simply question the integrity and factual accuracy of a list that conveys to lists the oldest verified people in world history, when it is in fact not doing that. Twthmoses 04:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the previous entry in here under "Verified" (number 19 in Contents) covers this. There is also what seems to me to be an adequate explanation for Izumi's continued inclusion in the list.DerbyCountyinNZ 04:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I like these questions because my main objective here is to educate others as to what the maximum observed human life span really is. Jean-Marie Robine explained it as the concept of 'metadata.' Data from England and the U.S. is not strictly comparable in quality or depth (penetration) but the ages are still roughly comparable. A birth certificate written at the time of the birth event is more solid than a census match (for example, Maggie Barnes is listed as '115' but may have been '116', whereas we know that Charlotte Hughes was 115).

Also, data over time is not strictly comparable, either. In the 1960's very few supercentenarian cases have been identified, but by the 2000's there are so many cases that we have the opposite problem: some may go by unnoticed.

One thing I do want to address is your statement that "the factual accuracy of the list is compromised already at number two spot". I disagree. For one, the very existence of a ? mark lets the reader know right away that the case is not as solid as the Calment case. Second, like the Barry Bonds case...he took steroids, he claims that he 'thought it was arthritic balm.' So like the Japanese government, MLB won't admit GUILT. So Bonds stays. But his homerun record is devalued in the eyes of those who know about the case. Likewise, most readers will quickly skip over the ? cases. The real purpose of this list is to get away from over-reliance on #1. It doesn't take a genius to quickly realize that reaching age 113, while quite rare, certainly happens over and over again (every year for the past 20+ years). We can see that there's still a lot of 114-year-olds but by age 115 the list is thinning; by age 117 there are an extremely small (exceptional) number. So we can realize that, EVEN IF CALMENT WERE REAL, SHE IS AN OUTLIER (the "Michael Jordan of Aging"). Thus her age needs to be discounted a bit too--not on believability but on the fact that it doesn't happen regularly (can we expect every player that comes along to have the ball-handling ability of Michael Jordan? A definite NO. Can we expect someone to break Nolan Ryan's strikeout record any time soon? A definite NO). In other words, hitting a hole-in-one in golf is seen as like winning the lottery; it can be true and it can happen. But the best players go for birdies, not holes in one. So likewise we can see that the 'average maximum' world's oldest person is 114-116 years old. Age 114 can be expected every year. Age 122 cannot be expected to happen again any time soon, though it may become gradually more common in the next century.Ryoung122 10:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don’t see what this has got to do with the issue here. This wiki article deals with verified people, meaning little or no doubt.

The comparison of Barry Bonds and Shigechiyo Izumi is not at all the same thing, on the contrary. Barry Bonds is comparable to the Canadian Ben Johnson. There is no question about whether Ben Johnson ran the fastest 100m in 1988; because 2 billion people saw it live on TV. He did do it. If I was to make a fastest 100m ever list, surely Johnson should be on it. Where I however to make a list of 100m world records, Johnson should not be on it, because it is a disqualified WR. Essentially no different then if there had been too much wind. It too would have been a disqualified WR.

Both Barry Bonds and Ben Johnson did do their deeds; the dilemma here is what list they should be featured on, which depends only on what the list wants to convey.

Shigechiyo Izumi is on (a) list(s), here the essential question is; did he actually do the deed? Does he really deserve to be on any list to begin with? Not at all comparable to the above two, the reverse in fact.

This list is not any list of old people, this is the top one hundred oldest verified people in world history. Apparently it is only me that sees the absurdity and paradoxical in placing semi-verified people on such a list. It is irrelevant whether he is historical important, Guinness favourite or “approved” old style, or the Japanese government won’t admit guilt (as you put it), if enough doubt exist, he is not verified, automatically disqualifying him from a verified list, and no amount of appeal to tradition will change that.

All articles on wiki in some way involving Shigechiyo Izumi states unanimously that there is doubt with his case. Either they are all just overreacting the amount of doubt that exists (quite possible, which makes them sort of faulty), or there is really enough doubt disqualifying him from a verified list. Negative proof has no place in old people talk (“we cannot 'confirm' that Izumi is not 120”), and as a consultant for Guinness you are well aware of that. Twthmoses 09:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you: all cases with at least some reason for doubt should be deleted, leaving only 100 % certain ones. Extremely sexy 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But...where exactly is this "evidence" that casts doubt on the veracity of the Izumi claim? If there was a younger brother, where is the evidence that he died? If the Izumi who died in 1986 was born later than 1865 where is the evidence for this? At the moment we have little more than a case of "We may have made a mistake". The original verification has not yet been disproved only questioned and should therefore be allowed to stand (but with the addition of a question mark indicating some doubt, as in other cases on the list).DerbyCountyinNZ 01:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Update timing

The dates on this page update automatically. But they do not seem to update at 00.00 hours (Wiki time). It seems to happen later. Can anyone explain why? Alan Davidson 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There are time-zone issues. I notice that usually the updates happen BEFORE the end of the day (EDT). Ryoung122 06:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed so, whereas over here in Belgium it's already 2 o'clock in the morning apparently. Extremely sexy 15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that at time 0:00 according to the Wiki time (which I understand is universal) the ages would be automatically updated. But I have found that after 0:00 time (wiki time) - there is a lag. (For me it should be 10:00 am local time; even when the wiki clock shows 0:30, sometimes the ages have not been updated???) Alan Davidson 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Leap days

On the discussion page of the List of living supercentenarians there has been a discussion regarding the impact of leap years and thus the accuracy of the day count. For this page there are three people on equal 39th position at 114 years and 183 days. This is calculated by the number of years and then the number of days to the date of death. But all years are treated the same whether on not they are 365 or 366 days. In fact for the three people in 39th position (where 114x365=41610):
Lydie Vellard LV lived 41610 + 28 leap days + 183 = 41821 days
Wilhelmina Kott lived 41610 + 27 leap days + 183 = 41820 days
Adelina Domingues live 41610 + 28 leap days + 183 = 41821 days
I don’t know whether we need to do anything as it is a relative minor matter. There may be other examples, but I have only look at this one.
I suspect that this list does not take into account the fact that the Gregorian calendar was not adopted by Romania until 1919, China until 1912 and 1929 (and some others). I suspect the respective ages of such individuals may be inflated by 13 days.
Note that the year 1900 had no 29 February. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you use {{Age in days}} or {{Age in years and days}} both of which use {{Gregorian serial date}} (although the latter does have some leap-year manipulation which I cannot vouch for) and both of which accept a start and end date. The 1st one should be fine though. If they're wrong, I suggest talking it to Template talk:Age in years and days. —Moondyne 04:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lydie Vellard 41821 days. 114 years 183 days

Per {{age in days}}: 41821

Per {{age in years and days}}: 114 years, 183 days.

—Moondyne 04:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I compared your example with Wilhelmina Kott (which above I calculated manually as 41820 days). The results using your two templates are:

Per {{age in days}}: 41820

Per {{age in years and days}}: 114 years, 183 days.

(You need to go into edit mode to see how the dates were inputed.)

This shows the correct number of days but still treats all years equally. I must repeat that this is a minor matter, as the problem will only ever be one day - but it would rank the three people above in my example differently. Alan Davidson (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Martha Graham is another example - she has lived one less day than the other two in 43rd position. Alan Davidson (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This also applies to the two in 78th position. Alan Davidson (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but how on earth could Bertha Fry not be equal (apart from five days, not six) to Fred H. Hale, Sr., both having been born on a December 1st and dying somewhere in November: explain this to me (if you can that is)? Extremely sexy (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that it's because Fred Hale died in a leap year after Feb 29 and therefore had an extra day added for that year only. And btw, isn't the DoB for Martha Graham just a nearest guess estimate?DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Fred Hale Sr, the number of days are calculated from 1 Dec 2003 until 19 November 2004 - and this includes the 29th Feburary 2004. (Indeed it is possible that two people could be born on the same date and die on the same date, with the same apparent interval - but in different years - and not live the same number of days.) Alan Davidson (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for clearing this up with a good explanation: thumbs up. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Might I give a hypothetical example. One person was born 1 February 1890 and died 1 March 2003, and a second person was born 1 February 1891 and died 1 March 2004. They appear to both have lived 113 years and 1 month. Hower, the first one lived 113 years and 28 days, and the second person 113 years and 29 days. Or put another way: the first one lived for 27 leap days and the second person lived 28 leap days. Alan Davidson (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand: logical. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Gregorian adjustment

I suspect that this list does not take into account the fact that the Gregorian calendar was not adopted by Romania until 1919, China until 1912 and 1929 (and some others). I suspect the respective ages of such individuals may be inflated by 13 days. On this list it would impact Anitica Butariu. If the birth date is a Romanian date then the Romanian year in 1919 was 13 days shorter, so she lived 13 days shorter which would put her in 17th position. The automatic calculator would treat all years equally - including leap years and 1919. Perhaps she should be put in 17th position with a footnote explaining that her total number of days is in fact less that the two above her. (Note the Gregorian calendar was adjusted in Europe in the 1580s, in England (and thus the US and other colonies) in 1752 - for other dates go to Gregorian calendar). Alan Davidson (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Shigechiyo Izumi, who is number 2 on our list, was born in 1865. Japan adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1873. For Japan 1873 was 12 days shorter (not 13). Hence Shigechiyo Izumi has lived 12 days less; but his place on this list would not change. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bart - what do you mean by "three more than stated"? Alan Davidson (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Moreover, Emiliano Mercado del Toro actually lived 42,159 days, Bettie Wilson 42,156 and Anitica Butariu 42,147 days (three more than stated)" => well: just look at the templates for all three of them, Alan. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bart - I still do not get it - unless you mean the last three figures are 147 which is three more than the 144 - but that is merely a result of the fact that 115 years is 42,003 days (365x115 + 28 leap days).

Also, might I suggest we put in the original birth date - but leave in the calculation from the corrected Gregorian date for consistency with the rest of the table. For example AB 17 June but still 115 years 144 days. I believe the protocol is that such people still have there birthday on the original date even though one year was shorter. Hence she would have celebrated her 116th birthday on 17 June even though the total number of days would not reflect this. The footnote can state why. Pending your comments I have noted the birth date in the footnote. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Alan. Extremely sexy (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What is (three more than stated) in footnote supposed to mean? Please explain further.- no correlation that I can see. Regarding Shigechiyo Izumi, the protocol should be to adjust both Anitica Butariu and he for uniformity regardless if it affects the place standing. No? (Unsigned comment - 72.209.33.95)

If it OK with everyone, I will put in the birth date; make the year and counter reflect the Greogorian date so that the number of years and days appears comparable. I will also remove the three day statement (but please put it back if I am missing something). Alan Davidson (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I was confused, but those three lived for 115 years and some days, equalling 42000 days and the same days + 3. Extremely sexy (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that no one actually cares that all of this is blatant original research and has no place here. We report what the sources say, not what we think may or may not be right and may or may not have been taken into account. It is even admitted that you have no clue if this was already adjusted for or not! If the sources say that the person was born on day X and lived a total of Y days, then that is what we reproduce. Wikipedia is NOT I repeat NOT a place for original research. I am undoing all of these changes. Cheers, CP 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Alan were you the 1 who posted this a couple months ago on Robert's WOP forums? Someone presented a list. Now, what you could do, is go to the Shigechiyo Izumi article and etc., and present the discrepancy. But you can't change the data in the tables. Neal 01:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

I am happy to leave it to others. To me it is the accurate collating of information from three sources - We all seem to know about these people on Wikipedia; and we know about Gregorian caledar on Wikipedia and we know about leap days on Wikipedia - you seem to be saying we cannot put it together. There's nothing original it; simply accurate reporting of known facts. To answer your question directed at me - I have made no postings to WOP forums - indeed I have not visited the site. I believe the accurate information should be in place. But, I do not engage in edit wars. If it is deserving of inclusion - others can deal with it. It really took some collation from those three Wikipedia sources only. Alan Davidson 07:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I should also add the the footnotes for Kott, Graham and Fujisawa were also deleted. That involved merely being able to read a calendar correctly. Alan Davidson 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this reversal. There is no original research. It is a culmination of existing facts already known to Wikpedia. And if this list did actually show "that a person was born on day X and lived a total of Y days," then there would be no discrepancy, but the list doesn't- it shows years which are arbitrary follwed by days. So if the purpose of the list is to show the 100 longest lived supercentenarians by rank, then the list is once again most probably inaccurate.

And do we all know that this hasn't been taken into account already? No, which is why the note of "assuming this hasn't been taken into account already" was in the note. Not to mention that if people are dedicating their entirely scholarly life into discovering the world's oldest people and, where a difference of a day can mean everything, are ranking them, they're probably very aware of these things. And if they're not, it speaks poorly on their research. Not to mention that while you changed all the information on the tables, you didn't change it in the articles, so the information contradicted itself across Wikipedia. Finally, an original synthesis is still original research. Cheers, CP 20:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I remain in disagreement. Will someone please correct the article for Anitica Butariu which was changed and now by reverting back has apparently caused the contradiction. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.33.95 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul, in light of your comment "do we all know that this hasn't been taken onto account already?" Because the answer is no, I believe the two entries should have a footnote saying so. Either it has been previously adjusted or not. The amendments chose the more likely of the two and contained the notation. The reverted version contains information which is most likely incorrect with no notation for readers about its inaccuracy. I still suggest that being able to read a calendar for Kott, Graham and Fujisawa is OK. The two issues should be separated - as I believe you have a point regarding the Gregorian calendar amendments - but do not regarding the leap day issue. But I will leave any amendments to others. (PS This is all meant to be quite civil and I appreciate the way this debate is taking place).

Paul, would you agree with a footnote stating "It is unknown whether this birth date has taken into account the impact of the late adoption of the Gregorian calender by ... This person may be 13 days younger." Alan Davidson 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, yes, that note would be fine and I don't care whether you attach it to the individuals themselves or put it in the introduction or whatever. As for Kott, Graham and Fujisawa, I would be more comfortable with a similar note, rather than messing with the table again. Here the assumption is that the Gerentologists, in their research, have not already corrected for this, which they may have. Cheers, CP 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alan, you can also try to submit to Guinness the mistakes. And this could be another reason supporting if Guinness was not a reliable source: if they refuse to correct mistakes. Japan adopted the Gregorian calendary in 1873? Then use that as a source in the Shigechiyo Izumi article where his date of birth discrepancy is listed. If we can get sources like Guinness to correct their data, and other sources to follow, then we can change Wikipedia. Neal 06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

A point of interest, refer to Igor Alexandrovich Moiseyev who recently died on November 2, 2007, his date of birth was noted with both the Julian and the adjusted Gregorian dates. I don't know if this is a precedent, but it has been done. Regarding Kott, Graham and Fujisawa there really is no Gerentology research at hand, it is a simple matter of counting days- some having lived more leap years than others and thereby having outlived them as well. I don't feel the additional day should be discounted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.33.95 (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I will put the footnotes in - please let me know what you think. But I will have to do it tomorrow (unless someone else beats me to it.) Many thanks. Alan Davidson 13:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now put in the two footnotes regarding the Gregorian calander - and have not changed the table.

However - can I discuss Kott, Graham and Fujisawa. While the source states these people lived for X years and Y days, it can be established by looking at a calendar that each lived a day less then others on the table (the leap day anomoly). The Gregorian Calendar was most likely Original research (something I put together myself) - but I think it would be proper to use the source for each of the these and correct the positions because we know for a fact the correct number of days. So, I would like to not only footnote this, but change the positions on the table to remove the inaccuracies. But, I would like a consensus first. Comments? Alan Davidson (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicely worded on the footnotes for the 100 oldest list. Regarding Kott, Graham and Fujisawa, I am in agreement with changing the positions in the tables as well as the footnotes. It is a verifiable fact that one has outlived the other in all said cases simply by counting days. So adjusting the tables corrects the errors and including the footnotes regarding leap years explains why. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.33.95 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to correct the table for the leap day issue. CP mentions that the gerentologists in their research may have already corrected for this. I can't see how that is possible. Presumably they have used the actual birth date and date of death. The only way to adjust it is to change one of these dates. I believe it is a simple oversight. Two people living (for example) 111 years can in fact live a different number of days, and so should be in a different position on the table. If we put down the total number of days, it would be most apparent; but most people understand years and a handful of days much better. It is user friendly). Whilst this idea may be mine, I don't think it is original research - it is just one person pointing to a calendar. Alan Davidson (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: While we know the dates in which a country accepted the Gregorian calendar, how do we know that Japan's 1873 was 12 days shorter? And such. I'm assuming you compared with their previous calendar? Neal (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC).

Neal, the note says Japan adopted the Gregorian Calendar on 1 January 1873, and thus the shorter year is 1872. To bring itself in line, Japan decreed it would coordinate the calendar from 1 January thereby jumping over the last 12 days of 1872. This is explained on the Wikipedia site Gregorian calendar. This does assume that the person did not adjust their own birthdate; but first, the custom seems to be to retain your stated date of birth, and second, the note qualifies this.

As a side note, imagine being Captain Cook in 1752 when at the age of 23 he observed that in Britain (and its colonies - ie American colonies) Wednesday, September 2, 1752 was followed by Thursday, September 14, 1752. Captain Cook would not (did not) alter his date of birth and of course neither did the Kings and Queens of England nor did they alter any of the historical dates. The status quo of the dates beforehand was maintained. Many countries chose curious dates to come into line, but some, like Japan, made it January 1st next. Alan Davidson (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in putting a note about adjustment for the "gregorian accident" while the whole listing of living times is expressed in "X years Y days", a unit of measuring which disregards the exact compute of the days; also, while it is true that Japan did not adopt the Gregorian Calendar until 1873, there is no clue that the questioned date is according to any other calendar, in particular the Julian Calendar (from which the "12 days missing" argument is presumably taken) that has never been in use in Japan!!!!!!! Gbnogkfs 25 December 2007, 17:14 UTC

I agree with your point that "there is no clue that the questioned date is according to any other calendar" - which is why the footnote is necessary. In the discussion we have agreed that we can only cite the orginal source. But the footnote can clarify the issue with the comment in brackets "(This assuming the date of birth has not been otherwise adjusted as no mention of this anomaly is made in the source.)" Secondly, whilst we do put it in the form "X years Y days" it makes sense to mention the possibility that the "years" may not be equal (again for clarification and accuracy). Alan Davidson (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmmh... I tend to reason this way: the phrase "This assuming the date of birth has not been otherwise adjusted as no mention of this anomaly is made in the source" does make the semi-unwritten assumption that there indeed exist an "anomaly": that is, that the date has been in the first place transformed from an originally Japanese Calendar date to a Julian Calendar date, and then at a different time this Julian date may or may not have been converted to a Gregorian Calendar date. This assumption of an intermediate Julian conversion is, at least, unverified, and gratuitously added to the text (a consideration that alone should make it unviable considered the agreement that has been reached in only citing sources): there should be some clue to make such an assumption, and no reason really exist to state that a conversion from the original Japanese date has been made to a Julian date, a calendar which hasn't ever been used in Japan; for what we know there could have been a conversion from Japanese date to Chinese date, then to Hindu date, than to Persian, than to Islamic before being finally expressed with the Gregorian Calendar... From my point of view the note should either be rewritten more neutrally as to simply say that the method of conversion is not known or totally excised, as such conversion issue is not in the sources (again, due to the reached agreement on this subject).

As regarding the fact to make clear that the years are not equal I am totally in favour of writing a note in the article, but this note cannot be limited to addressing the Gregorian conversion only and not the leap-days count. Gbnogkfs 29 December 2007, 17:55 (UTC)

When quoting dates before the Gregorian change, the rule is that no adjustment is made (I will find a source for you). The 1st July 1750 in England is still recorded as 1st July notwithstanding that in Rome and elsewhere the Gregorian date was different. This is a problem for historians who must deal with conflicting records using different calendars. Similarly when dates of birth are quoted, the original date is used. We do not change the dates of birth of (for example) the kings and queens of England before the change. It is a paradox reminiscent of the Pirates of Penzance. There are other historical anomalies - such as the fact that the beginning of the year changed from mid March to 1st January. For example this resulted in the English year of 1751 be only 282 days long. In calculating the age of a person who lived over this time it would be spurious to disregard this. I would even be so bold as to state it would be wrong for any source to find the date of a person and then change it without comment. What I have said is unsourced. So, I should find an authority that states - dates pre Gregorian are not adjusted – I think this would back the extended footnote accordingly. One more point. I don’t think this refers to an “error” in the source; just a curious historical anomoly. I agree with Gbnogkfs last comment. The introduction would be a good place to state both. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)