This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Longevity Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Lists List‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Annual readership

Talk:List of oldest living people/Archives

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

Editors have continued removing Emilia Maria Quesada from Cuba off this list. I would like to remind everyone that Maria Emilia Quesada has been sourced by reliable sources falling within the criteria of the consensus as outlined by DerbyCountyInNZ and others. Continuing to remove Emilia from this list without discussion on the talk page is disruptive in nature. Please respond on the talk page, even to the RFC for content dispute, if you have issues with Emilia being on this page. As far as I am aware there is no valid reason for her removal. Thank you. JasonPhelps (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Could you please add who you said to the other pages about oldest people? Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5D47:EC19:CD01:65E9:2155:1186 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate to put Maria Emilia Quesada onto the other Oldest People pages because while she is reliably sourced (the requirements for this page), she is not verified by the GRG. The other oldest people pages require individuals be verified by the GRG. JasonPhelps (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on whether non-GRG sources should be allowed, but it seems kind of odd to me that different pages would have different evidentiary standards. 96.59.35.98 (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference is whether or not there is the word "Verified" in the title of the page. When it's just oldest living people, they don't have to be "Verified" or "Validated" by the GRG. Validated might be the more correct term to use. JasonPhelps (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed anyone, but having someone on the list that in all likelihood does not belong here, makes Wikipedia look bad. I would be very surprised if she ever gets verified. Lowenan (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments / notes under Archive 16#The GRG only POV. Peaceray (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the past about ten days since March 5th, Maria Emilia Quesada has been removed at least 6 times. There is no valid reason for her removal as this is not a "Verified" or "Validated" page, meaning it's not required she be validated by the GRG. There are reliable sources backing up Maria Emilia Quesada. DerbyCountyInNZ stated that it's not appropriate to use only GRG for sourcing on this page. So, the continued removal of Maria Emilia Quesada from this page is disruptive. I'm not super familiar with all the measures that can be used to protect against such disruptive editing--I haven't used Wikipedia enough to know the ins and outs. However, I suspect that some people have been using multiple accounts to remove Maria (since some of the IP Addresses are at least somewhat similar to each other), but I don't really have a way of proving that for certain. If people continue to remove Maria over and over again when it has already been clarified that she meets the criteria for this page, is there anything else that can be done beyond to protect against that? Maybe it could be required that people have a verified Wikipedia account in order to make edits? It seems like a lot of the removals have been occurring from IP Addresses instead of verified wikipedia accounts. JasonPhelps (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I doubt the IPs will read this, unless they're previously warned/blocked longevity-fans. Secondly, the protections for this page will get longer and longer until either Tajima or Quesada dies. Thirdly the protections will be applied more speedily each time the disruption occurs; for instance if I log on in about 24 hours and there have been 2 more removals of Quesada I will be immediately requesting a 2 week semi-protection. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that makes sense. I guess that's probably true that the IPs won't see this, unless they're previous warned/blocked longevity-fans using different IP addresses. Thanks. JasonPhelps (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One issue to point out is that whilst Quesada is one this list, she is not on the 'Oldest People' list. Surely for consistency, she should be on both, or none. Mike Hocks Hucker (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If she is on Oldest Living People, she should also be on the Oldest People list, as well as the List of the Oldest Verified People and the List of the Oldest Verified Women. If she doesn't qualify for some reason to be on those lists, she shouldn't be on the Oldest Living People list. She could be on Longevity Claims--although under current standards, she wouldn't qualify; the standard for inclusion there currently is people older than the oldest verified living person-130. I would support changing that to 117-130, though. Maybe 116-130 or 115-130.Ryan Reeder (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if this is such an issue for people with the confusion why this page has it that the supercentenarians don't have to be validated by modern standards, it would be good to create an extra column on the righthand side of the table for this page that denotes whether each person is validated by GRG, pending with GRG, or not validated by GRG. Perhaps this would lessen some of the confusion, contention, and disagreements on this page about including people like Maria Emilia Quesada, and others not validated by GRG. If people were able to visually see that the person is able to be on this list due to the consensus for this page but at the same time that they're not validated by GRG, maybe that would lessen the confusion and disagreement. Just an idea. As for Oldest People List if you read the description in the first part, it is for people validated by GRG only, whereas this page is for anyone reliably sourced. JasonPhelps (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 things: 1. Promoting the GRG on Wiki is viewed with considerable disfavor among many non-longevity Wiki editors. 2. Oldest people is NOT "for people validated by GRG only" it is for " people whose ages have been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research". The fact that we are stuck with the GRG being the only such body which publishes this information is most unfortunate and we can only hope that a serious alternative eventuates. Again I would reiterate that continually pushing the GRG as the ONLY source of such information will only result in another backlash its use on Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you for the clarification. I will try to be more careful how I word the usage of GRG on longevity pages/talk pages in the future. JasonPhelps (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I've mentioned in another section, there is currently no consensus for the inclusion of Quesada in this list. Hopefully the RFC will resolve this. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DerbyCountyinNZ:. Do you know what's going on with that RFC: was it incorrectly formatted or something? It's been a few weeks since the RFC was started and we still have no consensus on the inclusion of Quesada. I'm very tempted to go and start a proposal to create a new policy regarding reliable sources for longevity-related articles, and will probably do that soon if there's no progress towards a consensus on this topic. So, any idea what's going on? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the link for Reference #3 broken? If you click on the link for Reference #3 directly it gives a page saying you are not authorized to access this page. Not sure if the link no longer exists or if it is broken or something. Someone might want to take a look at it. JasonPhelps (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. If payment is required as well, please change to |subscription=yes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link still didn't work. I tried a couple things with changing it to subscription=yes and |subscription=yes, but neither of these made the link work either. Someone with more expertise will have to take a look at it. JasonPhelps (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was not to make it work, it was to add some text to the reference thus "(Registration required (help))". This serves as a warning that the webpage might not be accessible unless you have registered with that website. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that they are listed here but not on the verified oldest people of all time list. If she is not verified shouldn't she be listed in the claimed page? Not trying too cause a debate, jut looking for clarification.Bbonds775 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this is a list for adequately referenced oldest living people, not validated or verified oldest living people. So, this argument is the same for Magdalena Oliver Gabarro as it is for Quesada. Magdalena should remain on this page until she either dies or becomes older than the oldest verified person. JasonPhelps (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference? Georgia guy (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have faith that Gabarro one day will be proven to have actually been this age. But it's a shame that we have a Wikipedia article with clearly inaccurate information here regarding a couple of other less reliable cases. Lowenan (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a verified page. If this were a verified page then it would make sense to only include cases verified/validated by modern means. However, the title of this page is "Oldest Living People" not "Oldest Verified Living People" JasonPhelps (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since she died "in the night of Friday going into Saturday" can we say that she died on her 113th birthday? Extremely sexy (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of interest, there is some precedence with this. The exact same thing occurred with Astrid Zachrison of Sweden. She was born 15 May 1895 and died between the night/morning of 14/15 May 2008. Initially she was listed aged 112 years, 365 days, with a death date of 14 May 2008, then changed to aged 113 years with a death date of 15 May 2008. I think partly this was because it was a leap year and 112 years, 365 days seemed strange.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well: indeed so, and that's exactly what I meant, i.e. whom I was thinking about actually, my friend! Extremely sexy (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our French "GRG" correspondents have meanwhile got her death certificate saying that she died at 3 AM, so she made it anyway: that's great news (although she was born at 11 AM apparently, but that doesn't count at all)! Extremely sexy (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.supercentenariditalia.it/renata-bianchi https://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/cesena/cronaca/renata-compleanno-anni-1.3466072https://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/cesena/cronaca/renata-compleanno-anni-1.3466072 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.170.120 (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people#Difference_between_2_articles which could use input from interested editors of this page, as it concerns information found on this page. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should Maria Emilia Quesada be listed as the world's second oldest living person? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No Quesada has not been vouched for by the Guiness Books of Records, the GRG, or any internationally respected news source. The fact that such a sensational claim - the second oldest person in the world has just been discovered! - has been totally ignored by the wider international press and only repeated by Granma and TeleSur (Cuban and Venezuelan propaganda outlets) and a dingy collection of obscure websites shows what this claim is worth. Sometimes the silence of RSs is just as meaningful as words. There's a ludicrous interpretation of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT that reigns in this dank corner of wikipedia: if even one cheap tabloid no one's ever heard of, that has no reputation for factchecking, let alone gerontological verification, announces that someone has just celebrated their 114th birthday, then it's a reliable source that must be solemnly respected. It inevitably produces absurdities like this. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No (Summoned by bot) Current sourcing, as footnoted in the article, is not adequate. Only multiple, high-quality secondary sources will suffice. Coretheapple (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No (Summoned by bot) Not prudent. needs more sources. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. For what its worth. Meets the requirements for conclusion in this article as per current consensus which is line with standard Wiki policy and guidelines as stated numerous times previously. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No (Summoned by bot) The sources are not adequate, and the likelyhood of this being a false claim is far higher than the opposite. This is proven by countless other such cases in the past.Lowenan (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Multiple reliably sourced articles siting Maria Emilia Quesada. Wikipedia wants to stay away from GRG only, so good idea to use these different sources. One of the sources mentions that she has at least an Identity card verifying her birth, so this source that mentions her age of 117 seems at least pretty believable. Other people are also on this list with similar or lesser levels of validation, so you would need to consider removing other people from this list if you removed Maria Emilia Quesada. Also, why are we asking about listing Maria Emilia Quesada as second oldest living person when Ida Troupe is on the list as second oldest person and Maria Emilia Quesada as third oldest person? JasonPhelps (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Please see my comments / notes under Archive 16#The GRG only POV. Despite the clamor to limit it to the GRG, WP:RS still applies. P.S. The Guiness Books of Records is based on the GRG, so bringing that up is meaningless. Peaceray (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In contrast, an equally reliable source that Scholastic Book of Records is based on is... Georgia guy (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unfamiliar with the Scholastic Book of Records. I am not sure what the point is ... Peaceray (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're saying that GWR depends on the GRG, and that GRG is not the only reliable source. What other perfectly reliable sources are there?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any source which passes WP:RS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do you determine which sites pass WP:RS?? Please explain in detail. Georgia guy (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Read the link. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I mean for determining who has verified longevity and who is a rumor. Georgia guy (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Irrelevant. Wikipedia relies on verifiability not truth. It is not up to Wiki editors to place any reliable source(s) above any other reliable source(s). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • That doesn't answer my question "What sources besides GRG are totally reliable??" Georgia guy (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Your question is addressed under my comments under Archive 16#The GRG only POV, starting with "There are two consensuses clearly governing inclusion" ... Peaceray (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No Not until she is verified by a source that the community has agreed on to recognize. Ida Troupe and any others that do not meet this criteria should also be removed. I think the lower limit on the 'Longevity Claims' article can be decreased to say, 115 years old, and they can be put there. Having a lower limit based on the age of the current oldest person is arbitrary, and Nabi Tajima being the oldest person in nearly 20 years leaves out some candidates that would normally be included. A Wikipedia user should be able to go to different pages about similar subjects and not get conflicting information.Ryan Reeder (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page and Longevity claims are currently synchronized in terms of criteria, there is no conflict. The reasons this article and the "verified" oldest people page differ have been detailed elsewhere (I don't have time to repeat them here, they are in the relevant talk page archives). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see my comments at Archive 16#The GRG only POV, starting with "There are two consensuses clearly governing inclusion" ... Peaceray (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No - a local newspaper article is not a reliable source for an extreme age claim. A useful analogy to follow would be the List_of_tallest_people article, where people whose claimed height has not been verified by a recognized international body such as Guinness World Records are either displayed differently or not at all, but certainly not on equal footing to those who have been verified scientifically. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles are considered reliable sources on wikipedia pages. The local newspaper article mentions an ID card showing her birthdate right on it. So, it seems like the newspaper article may have some validity JasonPhelps (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that ID cards can be issued late in life, so they aren't necessarily reliable sources for confirming the true age of someone. As for newspaper articles, thye're definitely not always reliable. Per WP:SCIRS#Popular press, "The popular press is readily accessible and can contain valuable supplemental information of a social, biographical, current-affairs, or historical nature. However, news articles should be used with caution when describing scientific results, studies, or hypotheses. Science news articles may fail to discuss important issues such as the uncertainty range of a conclusion, how a result has been received by experts in the field, the context of related results and theories, and barriers to widespread adoption or realization of an idea." Given that the field of studying extreme longevity is scientific, we need to bear in mind that the popular press may not always be a reliable source for claims such this one, and why it's important to draw up a longevity-specific reliable source policy. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 05:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chessrat: You are making an unfounded assertion about the List of tallest people article. The John Rogan & Väinö Myllyrinne entries neither have citations in the list, nor are they disputed. If one clicks on through to the respective articles, neither Guinness nor any other "recognized international body" is the source. A Finish source is the citation for Myllyrinne & The Ultimate Book of Top Ten Lists is the source for Rogan. Peaceray (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, sorry. I'll retract that analogy then– on close examination the analogy to tall people isn't very clear because very tall people can have their height measured by a reliable doctor even if a specialist organization like GWR doesn't get involved. In hindsight introducing the tall people analogy was confusing, and I should have instead used the athletics analogy to demonstrate my point. Sorry bout that. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 05:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes per my comments at Talk:List of oldest living people/Archive 16#RFC for content dispute. She meets as objective as a criteria as we have at the moment. If consensus is to change it to GRG-only sources (which is problematic as I suggest in that link), then we can remove her, but otherwise removing her is ultimately an arbitrary decision that strays dangerously into WP:BLP territory, as it essentially asserts that her claim is false (or at least questionable). It is our job to report what is in reliable sources, not to place value judgments on them (outside of the boundaries of Wikipedia policy of course). Canadian Paul 12:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's in limbo according to the Gerontology Wiki. Timothy McGuire (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerontology Wiki is not a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. If I find a reliable source confirming she has died then I can remove her. Timothy McGuire (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern,

I notice my grandmother has been removed from this list.

She is still alive and Living in Utrecht, Netherlands. She was born 16th July 1906 and her name is Anne Brasz-Later.

Can she, please, be added back to the list?

http://gerontology.wikia.com/wiki/Anne_Brasz-Later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.18.28 (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is also mentioned here as the 2nd oldest in the Netherlands:

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Simer/Oudste_Nederlanders — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.18.28 (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerontology wikia and other Wikipedia are not appropriate sources. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned here:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the110club/anna-brasz-later-110-t16577.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.18.28 (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 110 club is a discussion forum and isn't a reliable source either. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am her grandson and my father (Her Son) is currently in the Netherlands looking after her! How much more do you need? What is the point of having this Wiki entry if you only accept people in the "limelight" - not all people of this age want the publicity? My grandmother went on holidays with family last birthday (111 years old) to escape the media... so elderly like this do not have many "internet public" records floating around.

Anyway - up to you guys - you can have wikipedia full of miss-information or you can have relevant entries - your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.117.58 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the only way she can be listed is if an article is published for every birthday she celebrates. Dorglorg (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it good to delete Ida Troupe? She does NOT belong on this chart. Please Listen To Me. No More Ida Troupe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5D47:EC19:C540:6B1C:9B80:B6DD (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Medwenitsch #91 passed away on April 1st per GRG list of supercentenarians who died in 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromleychuck (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If by the GRG list you mean the Gerontology Wiki, this is not a reliable source. CommanderLinx (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the GRG (sic) has a list of super-cs who died in 2018, please provide a link. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The GRG listing includes her obituary. What more is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromleychuck (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This man from Ecuador is apparently born 11 January 1901 and is still alive [1]. Should his case be on this list or in Longevity claims section?188.238.205.188 (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since he is younger than the oldest verified person, he belongs on this list. I'm assuming your source is a reliable source. JasonPhelps (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's younger older than the oldest verified living man so he should be excluded. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @CommanderLinx: Don't you mean that he is "older than the oldest verified living man so he should be excluded"? Peaceray (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. eah that's what I meant. CommanderLinx (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought anyone younger than the oldest verified person (whether man or woman) was included on this list. Is there another requirement that says for men that they must be younger than the oldest verified man? JasonPhelps (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also another man Djafar Behbahanian from Iran who lives in Basel, Switzerland and he claims to born 14 December 1902 and is still alive [2]. His case should be on list too. 109.240.39.103 (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Men older than the World's Oldest man should be left off by the same logic that we leave off anyone older than the oldest person. By declaring someone the oldest, one reliable source is contrasting another (i.e. Guinness vs. whoever reported the older person's age), which means we rely on consensus to determine what we should do with these conflicting sources. Consensus has been in the past to exclude (although that could, of course, change) the older claims. Canadian Paul 12:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]