Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 3

This page 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.

I suspect that this list does not take into account the fact that the Gregorian calendar was not adopted by China until 1912 and 1929 (and some others). The respective ages may be inflated by 13 days. On this list it would impact Nicholas Kao Se Tseien. If the birth date is a Chinese date then the Chinese year in 1919 (or 1929) was 13 days shorter, so he lived 13 days shorter which would put her in 64th position. The automatic calculator would treat all years equally - including leap years and these shortened years. Perhaps he should be put in 64th position with a footnote explaining that his total number of days is in fact less than the one above. (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) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Old Style Gregorian calendar birth dates should be adjusted to the correct number of days to coincide with the New Style Julian calendar with a footnote explaining why. This should be done for both uniformity and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.68.121 (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I will add such a footnote. Please comment. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now made the change. But on reflection, perhaps I should change his date of birth to the "standard" date; and then footnote his local date of birth, explaining why. The advantage of this is that the list will look in tact. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did that. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That does make more sense and appears to be the standard elsewhere as well. Well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.33.95 (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that no one actually cares that all of this is blatant

Per the discussion on

Talk:List of the oldest people, a similar note may be appropriate here as well. Cheers, CP

01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed Italian (female) supercentenarians are mostly indicated by two family names, and don't think this is correct. My guess is the second surname belongs to their (dead) husbands, as apparently confirmed by an article I found, in which Lauria Vigna is mentioned as simply Lauria, Ruberto D'Anna as Ruberto, Grotta Marinozzi as Grotta, Pizzinato Papo as Pizzinato, and so on. Anyway, no dash between surnames is generally used, though I think few exceptions exist.

Since the reform of Italian family law, in the 1970s, all women hold their maiden name forever. In case of marriage (no matter when it took place) they add the husband's family name, in the sense that they're allowed to use it (e.g. in signatures).

It's true that older women still prefer to introduce themselves by their husband's surname, but this doesn't match the legal usage. For example, it is likely that former "First Lady" introduces herself as Franca Ciampi, and probably signs "Franca Pilla Ciampi", but on her ID card is written Franca Pilla. Even the common usage generally avoids the double surname. On newspapers you may often encounter Flavia Franzoni or Flavia Prodi, very seldom Flavia Franzoni Prodi, and never Flavia Franzoni-Prodi.

In Italy we ironically say people with two surnames are either noble or bastard. :)

Thank you for attention. --Erinaceus Italicus 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think as few names as possible are desirable. I remember reading the Guinness Book of Records when I was young and I didn't have the attention span for some of them. And judging by some of the edits we get, certain people don't seem to have moved on from that level. I know that in Spain both the paternal and maternal names are taken, but beyond that I only know how it works in English. 80.2.16.73 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Captain celery

Even if somebody has since set up a bot (or is planning to) to check this page every day, look up each person on the list to see if he/she is still alive and remove anybody who has died, such a bot can be made to update the current date as well. Today's date as the "as of" date would still be bogus if the bot fails to run for some reason or has not yet run today (not to mention the time zone ambiguity). -- Smjg (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This list needs a clear criteria for inclusion. Right now it seems to be "everyone on the GRG list and anyone else we feel like unless it's challenged" That is simply unacceptable. As the World's Oldest People forum has been discussed and dismissed as a reliable source, much of this list is questionable anyways, especially in light of

1. Only people officially validated by the GRG and on their big list will be included on this one.
2. The above and anyone whose claim is reported in a
   reliable source (local or national news would count) and whose claimed age is less than that of Jeanne Calment
   (the longest lived scientifically verified human) — note that this would include ANY claim under 122, whether or not the GRG, the World's Oldest People forum or anyone else thinks it's plausible or not UNLESS a reliable source has disproven the claim.
3. ANY claim reported in a reliable source (including the GRG list), minus those that have been debunked by a reliable source.

This list either needs to have a set, objective set of criteria that can be placed in the lead and used to define who is included on this list, or it needs to be deleted as arbitrary and unencyclopedic content. Since I feel that the latter would be a loss, let's form a consensus on the types of people who stay and the those who go. Cheers, CP 23:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been over a week since I raised this issue. If no one steps in to discuss or object, I will

resolve it myself within a few days. Cheers, CP

21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Paul, verily indeed, so exactly what strategy do you favour yourself, please: tell me? Extremely sexy (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a favourite in particular, they all have their charm. #1 guarantees (as much as reasonably possible) that no false cases are introduced. #2 gives us a wider range of selection, but forces us to accept claims that probably aren't true. #3 forces us to accept claims that are utterly ridiculous (my unbridled optimism fails to embrace

Moloko Temo), but frees the list from all judgment of the claims thus making it, effectively, neutral. It also depends on who's willing to help. If I'm the only one who cares, the #1 is getting chosen because it's the easiest for me to do myself (though I'd wait until Beatrice Favre was verified to save me some work). If others are going to help, #2 seems like a better compromise to me, though we'd have to accept questionable cases. Cheers, CP

05:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is not about original research, we can only include material from other sources, but it is appropriate to include comments that some sources may be questionable. This can be domne in the introduction and as a footnote to each entry (as we already do. I would include a broad range of "reliable" material. The problem is that we often disagree about what is reliable. Provided we source the material with an appropriate notes (as we do) the reader can judge the "reliability". I am interested in the comment above "Oldest People forum has been discussed and dismissed as a reliable source, much of this list is questionable anyways" - can you explain? Alan Davidson (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

By "Oldest People forum has been discussed and dismissed as a reliable source, much of this list is questionable anyways" I meant that since about two dozen individuals on this list are sourced by the forum, then about two dozen individuals could be deemed questionably sourced. They should be replaced with more reliable news reports if possible. No matter which solution is chosen, all will have to be sourced more reliably than the WOP forum. Cheers, CP 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from Spain,

I have added María Díaz Cortés as the oldest supercentenary. I thought that this was sort of a legend, but it looks like the age of María has been properly verified through her national identity card and birth documents. MaeseLeon (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this highlights my point. An editor has, in good faith, added a name to this list. Then, an anonymous editor removed the name with the sole explanation of "sorry." By what criteria was the name removed? By my suggestion #1, she should be removed, but then so should a lot of others. By my other suggestions, she should have not have. I can only take this to mean that people feel that option #1 is the safest. I will therefore within a few days re-write the lead paragraph to explain the criteria, then structure the list accordingly. In addition, unless someone objects, I will take up Geometry Guy's suggestion and remove the rank numbers. Cheers, CP 21:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The quoted source for this person, El País, could hardly be considered a definitive source of proof of age, even less so than the yahoo group or other supposedly "official" sources for some of the longevity claims. Personally, I would prefer the numbering be kept, it's not THAT difficult to update them manually, there seem to be enough people who are capable and willing to do so!DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbering vote is one-one now if you consider me abstaining or two-two if you consider my statement below having voted for both. In any case, we can't simply arbitrarily decide that one site is allowed to be reliable source in general, but not for this issue. That's subjective picking and choosing. A source is either reliable or it's not and if we decide it's not, then we have a reason to exclude Cortes. Do we declare El Pais a reliable source for nothing? Maybe it might be helpful to expand on what can be considered a reliable source before we revamp the list, but I can tell you now that consensus has generally leaned towards WoP not counting and most national, even local newspapers counting. Perhaps a request for comment might be appropriate here? Cheers, CP 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

CP, you once changed an article's name to verified. I think we should do the same here. The media consensus has been that only Guinness cases are accepted as 'verified' (and by extention, the GRG cases are accepted by Guinness). This list should be renamed 'list of verified living supercentenarians.' Neal (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

I (or anyone else) can do that here, and it would essentially be the same thing as choosing option #1 above. That would, however, essentially make this list a clone of the GRG one. I don't mind that personally, especially as it creates an objective (for Wikipedia) criteria for inclusion, but I just want to make sure that everyone knows that it would mean chopping everyone not on the GRG list (WOP forum would not count for various reasons). I like this one the most, as it creates the best balance of objectivity and accuracy, but I figured if I just did this without asking, there'd be some resistance to removing ~30% of the names on this list. Then again, a lot of things don't get done on Wikipedia unless people are

bold. Cheers, CP

21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to intentionally put a spanner in the works. But why is GRG reliable. It is not a recognised emperical body. It is just that on the Administrator's site (talk) in response to comments by Bart it was stated:

"The material on the GRG website does not indicate sources, authors, dates of publication, or any of the other verification features which are to be found in an academic publication. There may be some decent scholarship behind it (though personally, having seen Young's approach to sourcing, I think that's doubtful), but the site as presented gives no evidence of being anything other than a hobbyist's site. It's also not helped by exceptionally poor site design and labelling of pages (which makes it very hard to find material) and by the weirdly non-standard HTML which prevents the huge table pages from displaying in Mozilla Firefox — one of the features of academic sites is that they pay some attention to usability, because they are are subject to the quality control applied by universities and other scholarly ventures, and the presentation of www.grg.org is clear evidence that it lacks that sort of scrutiny."

Putting aside her altercation with R Young, does this nevertheless have validity? Alan Davidson (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What is true is that Guinness uses the GRG as their source for "verified" supercentenarians and their annual top 10 lists. So while anyone can have their reservations about the quality of their work, the fact remains that Guinness uses them as a source for their "verified" oldsters. To deny their scholarship for their lists of verified supercentenarians would be akin to original research in itself. Thus, while I wouldn't use it for a lot of things, I feel safe using it for a list like this. As I said, some criteria is needed, and the GRG provides the best balance of objectivity and inclusiveness. It gives us a definite criteria for who is on the list. All sources are reliable for something it just depends for what. My personal website is reliable for my opinion, but not facts on, say, the Arab-Jewish conflict. Louise Glover's Myspace page is reliable for her personal activities, but not her personal controversies. The GRG list is reliable for a simple list of supercentenarians considered "living" and "verified" (good enough for Guinness, good enough for us), but not for other things. Cheers, CP 19:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - thanks for that. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the rank numbers from the table. They require too much manual mantainance. Any objections?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No objection or support here. While I don't think that they add much, I also don't think that it's really all that hard to maintain either. Cheers, CP 19:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that the rank numbers be kept b/c otherwise people are going to be confused on the counting since the list won't quite match up with the GRG list.74.140.136.51 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With the vote 2-1 (or 3-2), Georgia guy gets his point proved upon the Canadian Paul's realization that the list is currently numbered 1-2-3-4-5-7. Cheers, CP 06:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We're [Wikipedia] is not required to follow exactly as the GRG. Otherwise, we would just be a clone or mirror of their table. I vote keep for the numbers. Neal (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

I think the numbers are useful (when they are correct!). - fchd (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the numbers are useful and should stay. Alan Davidson (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

numbers must be —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vypolzen2 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why, but as the page has been changed to verified living supercentenarians, it no longer serves any purpose and is merely a clone list of the GRG List. Therefore, it should be reverted back to list of living supercentenarians, or deleted, as maintaining it would be a waste of time, when a link to the GRG could alternatively be provided. XZT (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have

own this page, revisions or even a complete restructuring based on a new set of criteria is welcomed and encouraged. Also, my computer is acting up, so I haven't been able to clearly express the criteria as I would like to, so please help me improve that as well. While modifications are welcome, any reversion creates a version that does not adhere to any criteria will be reverted. Per the discussion above, we cannot have a list on Wikipedia with absolutely no criteria, as it was in its original state. You may be bold yourself and institute a better one if you think you have it, but the previous version was unacceptable. Cheers, CP

23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I note that by the criteria that I defined, it does not have to be a clone list. Entries would be accepted from any international body that deals primarily with longevity research. Cheers, CP 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the list needed to be re-structured, as dubious cases were listed and the length of the list was sometimes too much for the format of the page. However, our guidelines should definitely differ from merely GRG defined cases to prevent this list from becoming defunct. Therefore, I think that we should take all the GRG cases, as well as most media reports, especially those from developed countries and that are plausible. Cases that enter the media from poorer, less well-documented regions should not be included, except if absolute proof is given. For inclusion of a new case, our criteria should be:

1. Supercentenarians on GRG list.
2. Media reports from countries with well-documented birth/death records. The more articles to support the case the better.
3. Only plausible cases should be added. We should adhere to the GRG with regards to the Oldest Person and not add anyone claiming to be older than, at present, Edna Parker, unless the GRG confirms their claim.
4. We should include people already known to be 110, who have not yet been added to the official GRG list.
5. Do not include, or delete, people who have not been heard of for over a year, or had their last birthday go completely unreported and have been deleted from the GRG list or reported as deceased.

If we begin by sticking to these guidelines, this should clear up the list and remove all those anomalies that are slipping in, while keeping it independent of the GRG list. Also, it would help if any new cases could be discussed here before being added, or removed. XZT (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this criteria is that it violates Wikipedia's

For my second point, we can take the 34 MEDC countries of the world, as recognised by the CIA World Factbook, as having well-documented records of births/deaths and population changes. Media reports from those countries can be included in the criteria (as long as they are not ludicrous). Whilst I agree with your point about plausible cases, I think the threshold of Jeanne Calment's age is still too high, as her age was exceptional. The closest verified case was Sarah Knauss, 3 years younger than Jeanne Calment. I don't want to see 120+ cases enter the list just because one verified person reached that age before, without sufficient proof. However, provided we stick to the GRG and MEDC media we shouldn't get 120+ reports, at least not for several years yet. What I meant by the fourth point is if someone widely reported and verified by the media reaches 110 and is not added to the GRG list for several months due to a backlog of cases that should not stop them from being included here, in case such a situation comes about. And 5, we both agree on, I just included that as part of my criteria - it will depend on the sources. XZT (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's still some subjectivity in that. "Media reports from those countries can be included in the criteria (as long as they are not ludicrous)" Who decides what ludicrous is (aside from over Calment's age of course)? Calment is used as the upper bound for human lifespan in many scientific circles, I would think it to be original research to set it at any other point for the purposes of this list because it's a subjective judgment. If one person made it to 122, why is it implausible that another person could be 120 today? Unlikely, yes, but it's OR to apply our subjective probability assessment here. "It's not likely that so and so is 120, so we'll discount them." That's original research and subjectivity. #4 then is redundant, since we would be including all 110 cases published in the 34 MEDC countries (under Calment's age), so they would already be on the list whether or not the GRG added them. Cheers, CP 18:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. You have my attention. That was certainly bold. Is there any possibility of having the "verified" list as currently presented- following GRG standards, and having a separate list of "known persons" similar to how individuals are listed in

Surviving veterans of World War I? TFBCT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.71.166 (talk

) 18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's say we stick to cases on the GRG list, plus cases reported in the media of the 34 listed MEDC countries, as long as they are below the age of Jeanne Calment (122 years). That will keep this list much more concise, filter out dubious cases and prevent it from becoming an unnecessary clone of the GRG list. Hopefully this will mean it will be of much more use throughout the future. XZT (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I like TFBCT's suggestion, although we would still have to abide by a (relatively) objective criteria for that section. It basically means the difference between including them in the main table or having two separate tables, either of which is fine with me. I slightly prefer the two table solution so that the "official" world record holder doesn't get drowned out by a dozen "claimants", but that's just me. XZT's criteria is great and within Wikipedia policy as far as I can tell (I'm sure some may disagree, but I feel that it's reasonable). I think the next step, while we decide whether or not we want two separate tables or one integrated one, is to figure out all the cases that will be included. We should be able to rescue most of the cases that I removed (they can be found in the edit history) and we will have to include some of the claims from the

deadline

. When we do finish the list, we can also move the page back to its original title.

As a note, the 34 countries are Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See (Vatican), Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States and can be viewed in colourful flag form

here for ease of reference. Cheers, CP

05:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with either the one or two table system. Would having two tables prevent the formatting issue which arises when more than 103 people are listed? I'll have a look at the cases we had and present a list of those who I think should be included. XZT (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, under the new criteria the following can be included:

Josefa Punzon of Spain (8th August 1896) http://www.granadadigital.com/gd/amplia.php?id=63248&parte=Provincia

Rosa Rein of Switzerland (24th March 1897) http://www.epochtimes.de/articles/2007/03/19/99710.html

Cora Gentry of the USA (14th April 1897) http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20070416/NEWS/704160311/1007

Viola Koch of the USA (24th May 1897)http://www.weeklycalistogan.com/articles/2007/05/24/features/community/doc46564e3d0c614934796789.txt

Annie Butler of the UK (4th June 1897) http://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/features?articleid=2935658

Mary Brown of the UK (5th September 1897) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/05/nold105.xml

Louis de Cazenave of France (16th October 1897) http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22600357-5005961,00.html

Stella Cooley of the USA (6th November 1897) http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=384754

Harvey Hite of the USA (15th November 1897) http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/11122176.html

Minnie Smith of the UK (5th January 1898) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7172882.stm

Antonio Fernandes de Castro of Portugal (6th January 1898) http://ww1.rtp.pt/noticias/index.php?article=317710&visual=26&rss=0

Antonia Plaat-Kolenbrander of the Netherlands (6th January 1898) http://www.ad.nl/denhaag/article1942151.ece

Wally McBride Baker of the USA (9th January 1898) http://cbs3.com/delawarewire/22.0.html?type=nplocal&state=DE&category=News&filename=DE--110thBirthday.xml

These cases meet the criteria for inclusion. That means we are cutting out of the list the following:

Frieda Borchert of Germany

Teresa Hsu Chih of Singapore

Ludwika Kosztyla of Poland

Choe Pu Yong of South Korea

The above cases do not meet the criteria, not having sufficient evidence and will be removed from the table, until they do meet the new criteria.

As well as those cases to be included, we should include Maria Diaz Cortes of Spain and Virginia Call of the USA. There may well be others, but that's all I can think of at the moment. XZT (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, as far as I understand the problem, no, a second table wouldn't solve the problem that we encounter with over 100ish entries, although I still slightly favour the option, especially given the names I list below that would trump Edna Parker. The easiest way to solve that, in my opinion, is to convert the flag templates to regular image format, which would give us an extra 100ish templates to work with, but that's just my opinion. Also, I could have sworn than Ponticelli had a mention in the Italian press, because I remember taking him off of this list until someone showed evidence that he made it to his 110th birthday...

Other names may include Fan Shee Hoo (born in China December 14, 1895, but age reported in Canada) (no update since December 2006), Noninji Elizabeth Bete (born May 21, 1886 in South Africa) (no update since December 4, 2005), Pearl Gartrell (born April 1, 1888 in the US) (no recent updates, and I saw once source that claimed she was only 105 in 2007), LaJean Smith (born June 23, 1889 in the US and I'm not sure why we have an article on her) (I can't find any source for this claim), Elias Athanasiades (born May 14, 1891 in Turkey and age reported in Greece) (I can't find and source for this claim), Rebecca Lanier (born March 24, 1892 in the US), Elizabeth Johnson (born December 25, 1892 in the US) (I can't find any source for this claim) and Richard Washington (born April 13, 1893 in the US) (no update since April 2006). Per our criteria, however, all of these people have to be verified as having been alive within the last year, which I haven't done yet. Once I do, I'll list them below with a reference or strike them from the list. Cheers, CP 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Take Ohtawara was validated by the GRG, so she doesn't have to be cut — I have added her accordingly. Cheers, CP 17:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So in the end, out of all the above, only one individual qualifies:

Rebecca Lanier (March 24, 1892) http://www.louisdb.org/documents/cr/2007/jn/28/cr28jn07-10.html Cheers, CP 17:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard Washington qualifies now as well, and I also updated Lanier's citation for her claimed 116th birthday. Cheers, CP 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Ponticelli appeared for 11th November, but that was 3 weeks before his 110th birthday. XZT (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what a second table would look like without references.

Rank	Name	Sex	Birth	Age	Country
1	María Díaz Cortés	F	January 4, 1892	132 years, 135 days	Spain
2	Rebecca Lanier	F	March 24, 1892	132 years, 55 days	United States
3	Virgina Call	F	January 4, 1894	130 years, 135 days	United States
4	Josefa Punzon	F	August 8, 1896	127 years, 284 days	Spain
5	Rosa Rein	F	March 24, 1897	127 years, 55 days	Switzerland
6	Cora Gentry	F	April 14, 1897	127 years, 34 days	United States
7	Viola Koch	F	May 24, 1897	126 years, 360 days	United States
8	Annie Butler	F	June 4, 1897	126 years, 349 days	United Kingdom
9	Mary Brown	F	September 5, 1897	126 years, 256 days	United Kingdom
10	Louis de Cazenave	M	October 16, 1897	126 years, 215 days	France
11	Stella Cooley	F	November 6, 1897	126 years, 194 days	Spain
12	Minnie Smith	F	January 5, 1898	126 years, 134 days	United Kingdom
13	Antonio Fernandes de Castro	M	January 6, 1898	126 years, 133 days	Portugal
	Antonia Plaat-Kolenbrander	F	January 6, 1898	126 years, 133 days	Netherlands
15	Wally McBride Baker	F	January 9, 1898	126 years, 130 days	United States

We would of course need a small introduction to this table, explaining what it is and what the criteria are. Cheers, CP 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I really like how the separate list is presented. It does not interfere at all with the "verified" list. And I think having the second table listed as "unverified" gives it the proper distinction regarding credibilty. TFBCT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.71.166 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)