Talk:Blue zone

This has been discussed a few times before already but 10.1101/704080 it not a peer-reviewed paper, it fails WP:RS. Veg Historian (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The study won an Ig Nobel Prize, so it's certainly notable now and has been covered in countless WP:RS. Also, it's not really making medical claims, just pointing out economic factors that explain why there's bad data. Asamboi (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The study was not peer-reviewed. The Ig Nobel Prize is satirical. We have had many discussions about this and there was a consensus not to include it until the study is published in an RS. Veg Historian (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have reviewed the talk page archives and I do not see such consensus. I do see the study's author getting involved, which is unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant.

The primary argument for not including seems to be that the Biorxiv preprint itself is not WP:RS, but the paper has received extensive coverage in WP:RS ([1] [2] [3] etc) and is clearly notable at this stage. The second argument seems to be that we would need not just regular news but WP:MEDRS for this, but criticism of the concept of blue zones is not "biomedical information": as Polygnotus stated, We need MEDRS to make medical claims, but not to say that a claim has been criticized. (To be clear, any claims that eating olive oil or whatever prolongs life would require WP:MEDRS, but the preprint in question makes no claims of this kind.)

An interesting comparison here may be LK-99, the supposedly room-temperature superconductor, where a preprint made global headlines. This particular case turned out be fake news, but the topic was sufficient notable that the study and its numerous rebuttals were covered by Wikipedia anyway.

I think the best way forward here would be to mention the study and ensuing publicity in the Critiques section, noting that it remains a non-peer-reviewed preprint. Asamboi (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A scan of the archives shows that: Myself, @Pyrrho the Skipper:, @Zefr:, @M.boli: and @Anastrophe: did not agree to put Saul Newman's research onto the article per lack of WP:RS and WP:NOTNEWS. So far the only users who have wanted this content on the article are Newman @Sauljnewman: who was reported for disruption, yourself and @Polygnotus: (I have pinged all these users), unfortunately Polygnotus is taking a break and has self-blocked for a month so they can't respond here. So yes there was a consensus not to include the material. I doubt Newman's vote would count per WP:COI issues. It wasn't a voted consensus but you can easily see that more users objected to including the content from Newman.

I said myself that Newman would probably qualify for a Wikipedia article. I am not opposed to mentioning Newman on this article but only if we have very good sourcing such as an academic publisher or in peer-review. Newman himself is a conspiracy theorist and has claimed incorrectly he can't get his research published in peer-review because all the journals are biased on favour of the Blue zones. He turned up on Wikipedia on an account and a number of IPs being disruptive to promote his views. Instead of turning to academic publishers and peer-reviewed journals; Newman heavily promoted himself to the media and did all sorts of interviews and podcasts to seek fame. His views on this topic was more of a publicity stunt, not genuine academic research. If his content is to be re-added to this article there needs to be a strong consensus agreed on this talk-page and impeccable sourcing. Veg Historian (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Users Wabi sabi method, Zipster969 also support adding this, but this is not a numbers game. And as noted, Newman's personal behavior on Wikipedia is irrelevant to the notability of the topic.

I also have to note that you did not actually engage with the substance of the arguments I put forward, so humor me: 1) is the study notable? 2) does criticism of blue zones require WP:MEDRS, and if yes, on what basis? Asamboi (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The intro of the article explains this: "A blue zone is a region in the world where people are claimed to have exceptionally long lives beyond the age of 100 due to a lifestyle combining physical activity, low stress, rich social interactions, a local whole foods diet, and low disease incidence". So yes we would need WP:MEDRS sources that talk about health effects of populations and longevity. Ecological studies are under MEDRS. Newman's paper talks about longevity and health effects but it wasn't peer-reviewed, therefore it fails WP:MEDRS. So far no academic publishers want anything to do with his material. I disagree with citing news sources on his material. Veg Historian (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The reason no academic publishers want anything to do with this material is that it is facially wrong and based on a gross misrepresentation of statistics and the data sources he is using. Katzrockso (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

And at the same time B.F. Skinner won the Ig Nobel Peace Prize for his work on pigeon-guided munitions. Nobody claims that this proves pigeon-guided munitions are a noteworthy contribution to world peace. Just that it's funny. -- M.boli (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]