Thread:930310JL/@comment-258494-20161205020851/@comment-258494-20161206142225

930310JL wrote:

Ryoung122 wrote:

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) You are contradicting what you said here because if the unverified cases don't need documentation to be included, why should you post documents?

I'm not contradicting myself. I said unverified cases need "reliable sources". Why do you have to make every issue as if you are fighting a court battle? If you want to be suspended yet again, that's an option.Ryoung122 (talk) 14:22, December 6, 2016 (UTC)