Thread:930310JL/@comment-258494-20161205020851/@comment-258494-20161205232610

930310JL wrote: I do not agree with you on this since this is becoming Wikipedian where you can be included on lists just by having a claim. If every unvalidated case is to be included, they will heavily outweigh the validated claims and these lists will become worthless.

It's POV/discriminatory to make too many presumptions here (for example, if we "presumed" that since we have no validated cases from the Philippines, then cases from there should be removed prima facie). If it's abundantly clear that the case is frivilous, that's O.K. to remove it. But if you you're just using "Unverified" to mean (Unverified because the GRG hasn't gotten to the case yet), that's not really the only purpose, or major purpose, for the "Unverified" category. By definition, we would expect the validated and pending data to be more reliable, and the "Unverified" cases aren't ranked. To self-censor is "original research". Ok, I understand that sometimes you can find a document and it's apparent that the case is probably true. But you can add the source(s), then. And for extreme claims, claims to 115-130 can go to longevity claims and those to 130+ can go to longevity myths.

This is not Wikipedia. We aren't "ranking" "Unverified" cases here, as Wikipedia is.

Ryoung122 (talk) 23:26, December 5, 2016 (UTC)