Jump to content

Talk:Blue zone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Blue Zone)


Ig Nobel award

[edit]

This edit was reverted because it is not a reliable source meeting WP:BMI, and its message is redundant with what already exists under the Critiques section.

While the criticism is likely valid, we do not need to treat the sources like this as anything more than WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing meeting WP:V is added to the discussion or sources. Zefr (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a "satirical" award offered to research that "found no traction in the scientific community." Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ig Nobel committee is not making fun of the researcher, but of the blue zones concept. The fact the researcher has won a globally-covered award ridiculing the blue zone idea proposed here is directly relevant to the blue zone wikipedia page, in the same way that e.g. the Blue Zones owner Dr Mehmet Oz has his three Pigasus awards for misinformation in science on his bio page.
It is appropriate to publish globally recognized criticism, which has been handed out by a Nobel prize winner. I don't know what is difficult about this for the wikipedia edits team, but if the ridicule of an established idea is sufficiently well received it wins a global award, that criticism should be seen on wikipedia. 2601:182:D000:C640:8C36:AA3D:EA4B:4A44 (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the note under 'pyrrho the skipper', and also please consider that the critiques are not redundant with those already stated: the paper is dozens of pages long and raises a huge number of points that are neither addressed by the blue zones proponents nor other (usually later) critics of the concept.
I again point you to the fact that notable awards raising awareness of msinformation in science, such as the Pigasus awards given to Blue Zones LLC owner Dr Oz, are typical and acceptable fare for citations on wikipedia. Please leave these edits up, thank you, as the curtailing of criticism here has gone on far too long. 2601:182:D000:C640:8C36:AA3D:EA4B:4A44 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Ig Noble Prize is given for research which is funny or unobvious, not because it has withstood scientific scrutiny. The first Ig Nobles went to the guy who kept trying to prove homeopathy, the inventor of the junk bond, the guy who promoted fake evidence of space aliens in ancient civilizations, and you get the idea.
So if Newman has a reliable critique, one would cite Newman's papers directly, or secondary sources which referred to Newman's papers. Using Google Scholar to search for papers by Saul Newman containing the word "centenarian" I find three, including the one in question. All three are unpublished preprints, they come with warnings they are not peer reviewed. So even if Newman is right, the reliable sourcing not wonderful. -- M.boli (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those critiques were given to people who were the butt of the joke. Now, Ig Nobels are given to people making the joke. The shift is pretty clear, especially in the change of the wording of the prize (from about 15 years ago) to supporting funny science. Also pretty clear is the attempt at evading the core critique I raised here.
That is, given other international prizes critical of other pseudoscience concepts are fairly and routinely cited as critiques on wikipedia, such as Blue Zone owner Dr Oz's three Pigasus awards in pseudoscience, why is this award gate-kept and excluded form this page?
The responses have not answered this, and many other, basic questions. 82.6.50.239 (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This year's Ig Noble Peace Prize to B.F. Skinner for pigeon-guided munitions is duly mentioned in the Project Pigeon article. But not to validate pigeon-guided munitions as contributing to world peace.
It may be that Newman has a valid critique. It would be helpful if there were either peer-reviewed published articles or secondary sources which validate Newman's work. I searched Newman's non-published papers in Google Scholar in part to see if citations to his work might lead to other properly published papers debunking blue zones.
Failing that, it might be possible to cite and describe Newman's critique, but I prefer leave that decision to more experienced editors in this area.
But citing the Ig Noble thingie as validating the correctness of Newman's work is nonsense. And Dr. Oz being recognized for pseudoscience seems utterly irrelevant. -- M.boli (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not irrelevant. The Blue Zones owner received three awards for pseudoscience, which are less-well-known than the one awarded here. These awards are cited on wikipedia. Why is the Ig Nobel, rewarding the ridiculing of Blue Zones as a concept and vitally - awarded by a panel dominantly composed of Nobel laureates - not valid?
You haven't answered that basic question. 82.6.50.239 (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, Dr Oz is the owner of Blue Zones LLC. There is a direct equivalence between these awards being cited on his page and the Ig Nobel being cited here. What is stopping the citation of this criticism? How widely acknowledged does criticism have to be? Are Moungi Bawendi or Esther Duflo not a 'trustworthy' source to you? Seriously? 82.6.50.239 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The paper by Saul Justin Newman was not properly peer-reviewed [1]. I have read his paper and it is good. According to Newman himself he was turned down by multiple journals so he couldn't publish his paper, he promoted some kind of conspiracy that he was being censored. I find this unlikely. He just seems to be lazy with the peer-review process. He could easily find a valid journal to publish his paper. The fact that he hasn't published his paper properly is not Wikipedia's problem, it is his. If he does manage to publish it in a good academic journal then we could cite it. Case closed.
All the content about his award is irrelevant to this article. As for recent sourcing on Newman and Blue zones there is a self-published piece here [2]. Again this is no good for Wikipedia. There is some other recent coverage here [3], [4], [5] which also isn't great. In a nutshell a wait and see position is best. It all depends if he gets his research to peer review. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are simply not answering basic questions and diverting onto your own unfounded qualitative judgements, on the basis of what seems to be your own lazy guesswork. The question was: why is a major award for disinformation citable elsewhere on wikipedia, but not here?
You have not answered that question. At all.
It seems this page is just a perching-post for fanboys.
The content of an award for debunking the blue zones is not 'irrelevant to this article'. The article is about blue zones. So please, inform us all,
why do you feel you can ignore the six Nobel laureates on the panel of this award? Do you not see the absurdity? Why is such criticism highly visible on other wiki sites, but not here? 82.6.50.239 (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your behaviour is problematic and you do not appear to have learned anything since the last time you were reported for disruption. Your paper was not peer-reviewed and you seem to be using Wikipedia to promote yourself. Also see WP:NOTNEWS which has already been linked above. This is the Wikipedia article for Blue zones not your award. Instead of attacking other users here perhaps you should spend more time trying to get your paper published. Like I said if there are WP:RS that mention your research we can include such information but this currently is not the case. This talk-page is for suggestions to improve the article. You have not listed any reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted this at WP:FTN Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fudging?

[edit]

I recently head that criticism of the concept includes the allegation that longevity claims were, in part, due to people give false ages or stating that relatives who had died were alive in order to get pension checks. Can any-one find a source for this criticism? Kdammers (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Justin Newman. e.g., https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2024/sep/ucl-demographers-work-debunking-blue-zone-regions-exceptional-lifespans-wins-ig-nobel-prize Jaredroach (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newman failed to get his research published in a peer-reviewed journal then promoted a conspiracy theory that everyone is out to suppress his research. He's been socking on this very talk-page and has threatened users with abuse. Due to all these facts I wouldn't support mentioning him on the article, only if we have very good WP:RS that documents his research. So far the sourcing is not that great. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Psychologist Guy: only if we have very good WP:RS that documents his research we do, see below. Polygnotus (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research being added

[edit]

@Zipster969

  • This paper [6] does not mention blue zones.
  • As above, Saul Justin Newman's research was not peer-reviewed or published in a reliable source. bioRxiv fails WP:RS.
  • This paper does not mention blue zones either [7]

Per WP:OR policy we can only include references that are on topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

This pseudoscientific idea should be described as what it is, a marketing gimmick.

Many more can be found by googling "blue zone pseudoscience".

Mister Newman probably doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, but that is no justification to not mention the criticism (or to describe a marketing gimmick as if it is real science). We need MEDRS to make medical claims, but not to say that a claim has been criticized. Polygnotus (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have that in the first sentence of the 'Critiques' section: "The concept of blue zone communities having exceptional longevity has been challenged by the absence of evidence-based information." The rest of the section sufficiently supports that position. Zefr (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding criticism in a section at the bottom of the article is not recommended. Aging (journal) is not a great journal. And since they are making medical claims their claims require sources that meet the WP:MEDRS standards, and it doesn't look like they do. This is near the bottom of WP:MEDASSESS; some statistical trickery based on incomplete and unreliable data. Polygnotus (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this bit from the article to the talkpage because it is not supported by MEDRS and "is proposed to be" is a WP:WEASEL word. Worse yet, these are not even reliable sources in this context.

[[Life expectancy]] in blue zones is proposed to be as much as a decade or longer, compared to the average world life expectancy of 73 years in 2019.<ref name="mikhail">{{cite web |author1=Alexa Mikhail |title=A look inside America's only blue zone city—home to some of the world's longest-living people |url=https://fortune.com/well/2023/04/02/longevity-tips-loma-linda-california-blue-zone-city/ |publisher=Fortune |access-date=2 January 2024 |date=2 April 2023}}</ref><ref name="ie">{{cite web |author1=Marcia Wendorf |title=People routinely live over 100 years in global "blue zones". Should you move? |url=https://interestingengineering.com/health/people-routinely-live-beyond-the-age-of-100-in-these-rare-blue-zones |publisher=Interesting Engineering |access-date=4 January 2024 |date=10 February 2022}}</ref>{{medcn|date=January 2024}}

Where did this a decade or longer claim come from? Scientists usually don't make such bold claims.

Since this is an article about a fringe theory which is not the scientific consensus we should present it as such. The criticism should be presented next to the claims, not in a separate section. It would also be unfair if we did it the other way around (starting an article with a bunch of criticism and then at the end an explanation of what it is actually about).

Polygnotus (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no MEDRS sources for this article because no such sources have been published, and the topic is WP:FRINGE for medical content in the encyclopedia.
It's not clear a) why you are disputing NPOV, and b) what you propose to change and support with a good source.
Please state your proposal: "change x to y" and provide a source(s). Zefr (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I answer your other questions, I am very curious, do you agree with the edit I mentioned above (moving that text from the article to the talkpage)? Polygnotus (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your dispute isn't clear. The Mikhail article says "up to 10 years longer" and the Wendorf article title says "live over 100 years". According to WHO, the 2019 world life expectancy pre-covid was 73 years. The unfounded blue zone benefit of living a "decade or longer" seems obvious from these sources.
Give us some text and a source to consider. Zefr (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me what is unclear to you. We seem to agree that Blue zones are not a real thing but just a way to make money. I listed quite a few sources that express various levels of skepticism. Currently, a casual reader would probably not even notice that this is an article about a marketing scheme and not about a scientific concept. I believe we should make that clear, and list some of the criticism. I am pretty sure more sources are available if we search for them. Polygnotus (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHANGEXY: what do you want to say, and what source supports that? The article seems clear to me that it is a marketing term. Zefr (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That page says that edit requests should ideally be in the form change X to Y. But this ain't no edit request. Polygnotus (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Polygnotus the sources you list are nearly all on Saul Justin Newman which runs into the issue of WP:NOTNEWS because many of those sources seem to be focusing on Newman specifically. He's been involved in a publicity stunt to promote his own research. The blue zone concept is much more than just some recent criticisms from Newman. There is another source on Newman here [8], I am not saying the sources are all unreliable. There is a reply to Newman here [9] which says all his criticisms are invalid. So I would rather wait and create a Wikipedia article for Saul Justin Newman (I will create it in a few days). We could mention Newman on this article but we do not want undue weight. Most of the sourcing would be better on his own article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reply to Newman here [9] which says all his criticisms are invalid yes, that was written by Dan Buettner and hosted on danbuettner.com. Dan Buettner is the dude who made a lot of money from this stuff. Unsurprisingly, when you google the names at the bottom, they all have a lot to gain by promoting this concept. I don't think its undue to mention the fact that something is untrue in a Wikipedia article about that thing. We either define it as a scientific concept or as a marketing scheme, and we gonna need those sources when describing it as a marketing scheme based on shoddy science. Usually pseudoscience only gets debunked by a few people and ignored by the rest of mainstream science. Polygnotus (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with what you are saying and do not oppose mentioning Newman's research, however, it needs to be done correctly and not read as overly promotional or with undue weight so we have an article that focuses too much on him and his award. What I am objecting to is poor edits like this [10] which is what we have had to put up with on this article. The Critiques section definitely should be expanded with good sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

The article uses Template:Location map many, so clicking on the thumb to get a larger view only shows a blank map. Does anyone object to width=500 and float=center, to make it easier to distinguish the locations and move it inline rather than as a side thumb? Schazjmd (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the map needed? It's based on false information perpetuated by marketers. Having it in the article gives credibility to the marketing story and myth that such zones actually exist. The content of the article and critique section are sufficient to describe the topic without a map. Zefr (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter to me if it's removed. If consensus is to keep, though, I'd like it easier to read. Schazjmd (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_zone&oldid=1262305656"