User blog comment:Pluto2/Epstein list?/@comment-24970987-20160624224738/@comment-258494-20160630010936

Pluto2...I said that in 2011...times have changed.

Also, you don't seem to understand that there are different issues here.

1. There is the Wikipedia definition of "reliable" source

2. There is the Gerontology Wikia definition of "reliable" source

3. There is the personal opinion of people as to what is "reliable"

4. There is also a difference between how "reliable" a source needs to be, based on context

For example, if the goal is to cite a longevity myth/claim, a news report should suffiice. But if the goal is to cite the official WOP titleholder, a news report naming someone the WOP is not enough

Looking back, I will say this: considering that the Epstein list included junk cases such as James Henry Brett, Jr.; El Hadj Mohammed El-Mokri; etc., I no longer consider that just because a case is on the Epstein list, it's reliable.Ryoung122 (talk) 01:09, June 30, 2016 (UTC)