The contents of the Xenocatabolism page were merged into Aubrey de Grey on 16 November 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aubrey de Grey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Anonymous user 210.187.136.223, congratulations, your editing tests have worked. Continue such tests, and, under the discretion of Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, your domain may be blocked. -- Nectarflowed 23:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Last AFD was closed as merge. It has been long, but I am seeing the same issues with this new attempt. Sources are either from Aubrey de Grey, or unusable pieces from anti-aging businesses like this one, whose tone alone is sufficient reason to think it can't be used as a source on Wikipedia. Because of the time that has passed, I am putting this up for a fresh discussion, in case there are more sources. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The motivations of the authors are only relevant if they clearly influence the neutrality of an article, which is not the case here. The term is primarily used by followers of the anti-aging movement to criticize society's often irrational view on aging compared to their views on diseases, for example, by convincing oneself that aging and age-related death are "natural", "inevitable" and "have always existed", which is why nothing should be done about it.
In connection with the treatment of (age-related) diseases, however, these people usually argue completely differently and would immediately be in favor of curing cancer, Alzheimer's or dementia, if possible.
This phenomenon is sufficiently covered, explained and sourced in the article.
I'm not certain whether the topic fails WP:NOTE. Sure, the article has very few independent sources in its current state, but that shouldn't pose a problem with regard to neutrality in this case, as explained.
As for notability, I would say that it is an important and notable topic in the still small, but ever-growing field of anti-aging movement, similar to Longevity escape velocity.-- Maxeto0910 ( talk) 05:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I suggest removing the proposed merge tag now, as there is no clear majority for merging in the discussion, and the arguments given for it no longer apply, as the article now also contains numerous independent sources.
The article may still contain too many primary sources, and I cordially invite everyone to expand the article with more independent sources, but the article in its current form definitely contains more than enough independent sources, so the suggestion to merge is no longer justified.-- Maxeto0910 ( talk) 22:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Since no one has come forward in favour of merging for more than half a year, I'll remove the tag for now. Aquarius3500 ( talk) 19:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This is de Grey's idea, and it is probably not separately notable. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
It may be the time-honoured tradition of Cambridge to award doctorates on the basis of a prior body of work, rather than requiring the usual supervised writing of an original thesis based upon novel independent research, but how does that differ from the behaviour of 'degree-mills' which award dubious qualifications on the basis of 'life experience'? 92.14.41.137 ( talk) 08:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The contents of the Xenocatabolism page were merged into Aubrey de Grey on 16 November 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aubrey de Grey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Anonymous user 210.187.136.223, congratulations, your editing tests have worked. Continue such tests, and, under the discretion of Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, your domain may be blocked. -- Nectarflowed 23:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Last AFD was closed as merge. It has been long, but I am seeing the same issues with this new attempt. Sources are either from Aubrey de Grey, or unusable pieces from anti-aging businesses like this one, whose tone alone is sufficient reason to think it can't be used as a source on Wikipedia. Because of the time that has passed, I am putting this up for a fresh discussion, in case there are more sources. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The motivations of the authors are only relevant if they clearly influence the neutrality of an article, which is not the case here. The term is primarily used by followers of the anti-aging movement to criticize society's often irrational view on aging compared to their views on diseases, for example, by convincing oneself that aging and age-related death are "natural", "inevitable" and "have always existed", which is why nothing should be done about it.
In connection with the treatment of (age-related) diseases, however, these people usually argue completely differently and would immediately be in favor of curing cancer, Alzheimer's or dementia, if possible.
This phenomenon is sufficiently covered, explained and sourced in the article.
I'm not certain whether the topic fails WP:NOTE. Sure, the article has very few independent sources in its current state, but that shouldn't pose a problem with regard to neutrality in this case, as explained.
As for notability, I would say that it is an important and notable topic in the still small, but ever-growing field of anti-aging movement, similar to Longevity escape velocity.-- Maxeto0910 ( talk) 05:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I suggest removing the proposed merge tag now, as there is no clear majority for merging in the discussion, and the arguments given for it no longer apply, as the article now also contains numerous independent sources.
The article may still contain too many primary sources, and I cordially invite everyone to expand the article with more independent sources, but the article in its current form definitely contains more than enough independent sources, so the suggestion to merge is no longer justified.-- Maxeto0910 ( talk) 22:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Since no one has come forward in favour of merging for more than half a year, I'll remove the tag for now. Aquarius3500 ( talk) 19:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This is de Grey's idea, and it is probably not separately notable. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
It may be the time-honoured tradition of Cambridge to award doctorates on the basis of a prior body of work, rather than requiring the usual supervised writing of an original thesis based upon novel independent research, but how does that differ from the behaviour of 'degree-mills' which award dubious qualifications on the basis of 'life experience'? 92.14.41.137 ( talk) 08:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)