Talk:Aubrey de Grey

Irony

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)

I changed the 7 symptoms into a numbered list... Looks clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.35.31 (talk • contribs)

Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence has an RFC

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.

Proposed merge of Pro-aging trance into Aubrey de Grey

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)

• Support if not delete. This seems like an easy one to me. I'm surprised that an article was made for "pro-aging trance" to begin with. This is nothing more than a phrase de Grey used in his talks and interviews. Since de Grey was surrounded by a cult of personality, I'm suspicious that one of his fans created the article. There's zero reason for it to exist. IMHO, either merge or delete. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The term pro-aging trance was not only used by de Grey in his talks, but has become a common term within the anti-aging movement for the often irrationally perceived attitude of the opposite side. "Stockholm syndrome" also refers to a psychologically unsubstantiated phenomenon, for which there is also almost no scientific material, but is accepted as a Wikipedia article in its own right, which is why I think it should be the same for the pro-aging trance. I also think that it is irrelevant what attitude the author of an article on a phenomenon first described by Aubrey de Grey has towards de Grey as a person, as long as the article is factual and verifiable. Aquarius3500 (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The partisan motivations of the authors are relevant when an article is created that clearly fails to meet WP:NOTE (which makes the comparison with Stockholm Syndrome a complete non-sequitur). There's near zero chance that Pro-aging trance will survive scrutiny and remain a separate article. That an article is "factual and verifiable" is not enough, otherwise there would be articles about everything and anything. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:00, 27 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 don't remember claiming that the only thing that matters with an article would be that it is factual and verifiable. It's just that the particular motivations of the author(s) are beside the point as long as the impartiality of the article is not affected. "Pro-aging trance" is now used in a variety of papers, books, documentaries and discussions around the topic of anti-aging, which is why I approve of the text being kept as a separate article and eventually expanded with some more independent sources. Aquarius3500 (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Not only is every single reference for the article a primary source, each of these sources directly quotes the same single person regarding the "pro-aging trance," namely Aubrey de Grey. So WP:NOTE is not established, it fails WP:PRIMARY, and it weirdly includes a long list of published primary source material either authored by Aubrey de Grey, made in direct response to de Grey, written about de Grey, or written by a de Grey collaborator. If the article isn't merged, it should be nominated it for deletion. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It is clear from the outset in the article that the term originated with de Grey and is therefore used primarily by advocates of biomedical rejuvenation therapies. It is equally made clear that the meaning of the term or the establishment of the existence of this phenomenon in its description goes back to de Grey as well. I honestly don't think it's a good idea to only allow all phenomena first described by lone individuals, which have not yet received much scientific attention, to be mentioned exclusively in those individual's articles. As Maxeto0910 explained above, the term is becoming more and more known and plays a more and more important role for the whole anti-aging movement. WP:NOTE also states that occasional exceptions are legitimate, and such an exception seems appropriate to me here for the reasons mentioned above. In any case, I am strongly in favor of further substantiating the individual sections with more reputable and independent sources, but not merging it with Aubrey de Grey's article or even nominating it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.21.98.22 (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This isn't even a merge issue; there's nothing of substance to actual merge. Fails WP:NEO and more-importantly WP:N. Almost exclusively primary sources or trivial mention at best; essentially a vanity page. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, although the article has already improved (see sources such as BBC and The Guardian), you are right that it certainly needs more (independent) secondary sources. Help and contributions for improvement are therefore always welcome.

Secondly: I, at least, cannot understand the insinuation of "nothing of substance" though. What exactly do you mean by that? Maxeto0910 has already explained the definition of the term above. Without clarification, accusations like "nothing of substance" and "a vanity page" are unfortunately rather worthless.

Thirdly: I rather don't think the article still fails WP:NOTE. The concept of the pro-aging trance, as has now been mentioned several times, is now finding more and more space in both scientific literature and reporting on the topic of combating aging, which is also relatively easy to find out with a little research. The reason for this is that the topic itself has received increased attention in recent years - especially in the Anglo-Saxon world. Pro-aging trance, like longevity escape velocity, is an important idea of the movement and should not be deleted simply because it is unique. Because of this notability, instead of discarding the article, I suggest once again giving constructive feedback so that the weaknesses of the text can be ironed out. Aquarius3500 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2022 (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)

Proposed merge of Xenocatabolism into Aubrey de Grey

This is de Grey's idea, and it is probably not separately notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I concur (as I noted on WT:MED.) The term seems to be de Grey's invention, and he seems to be just about the only one who uses it. The article's only citations are to de Grey's own publications. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge Doctorates

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)

Well, universities are academic institutions, and "life experience" is not academic, but "novel independent research", if considered worthy of the award of a doctorate... IS academic, or at least is deemed of sufficient value TO academia. Seems fairly cut-and-dry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.234.212 (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)