Talk:Strategies for engineered negligible senescence

message: I suggested adding material about this topic to regenerative medicine, you might be interested in discussing it here. Paradoctor (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a subtopic of regenerative medicine? 

message: I have been notified that I should not remove text that I added and my change was reverted. My reading of the listed primary literature had led me to understand that the position of Aubrey deGrey had been softened based on the cited evidence, and after receiving an email stating that the paragraph was incorrect, and that I had read the wrong conclusion into the article, and was asked directly by Aubrey deGrey to remove the text which had misattributed his position, which (apparently) has not changed or softened. I don't know why this was reverted to readd text that I think might be incorrect, particularly since I added it in the first place. I don't know what rule of Wikipedia I am not following, as stated on my talk page- making bold edits and removing potentially incorrect or misleading information are the rules I am attempting to follow. MatthewEHarbowy (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one owns any article, it does not matter who added the information. Here is what you removed - it looks like a well-sourced paragraph to me and Wikipedia is typically not improved by the removal of good cited material.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the info based upon my reading of the sourced material, which on second review and additional discussion seems to present an inaccurate view of the situation. I had originally added this summary of the primary literature, and it was unchanged since I had added it. If I summarize primary literature and then decide later the summary is inaccurate, why shouldn't I remove it? I don't claim ownership of the words, but I do take accountability for what I add. If you would like to review the referenced material and provide your own summary of it, please do so. I don't understand why you oppose, in this case, what is effectively me reverting myself, attempting to remove what is potentially a poorly sourced statement. MatthewEHarbowy (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

text: The burden of proof is on me, as the person who added the original material. WP:BURDEN MatthewEHarbowy (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Great explanation. I just brought this up because it always looks strange to me when I see someone remove a lot of sourced content without making a note on the talk page.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted my own edit after email discussion with AdG 

message: Turtles can live to be about 100 or more. That is because they do not experience cell loss and atrophy. Their organs do not break down as they age.
Anonymous173.57.44.147 (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why do they die? —Tamfang (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is partially our fault. Human activity has been causing trouble for them. -Anonymous173.57.44.147 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RepleniSENS in turtles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090225054539/http://mfoundation.org:80/UABBA/ to http://www.mfoundation.org/UABBA/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dr. Kverndokk has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Kverndokk has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Gjerde, Jon & Grepperud, Sverre & Kverndokk, Snorre, 2009. "On adaptation, life-extension possibilities and the demand for health," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2001:7, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Kverndokk's comment on this article 

message: About the content added:
# here
# here
# here
The source is not MEDRS and the formatting is invalid - we don't do embedded URLs.  It also being added only to the lead and not in the body.  Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mouse 

message: The table in the article is from 17 years ago and is different from The table in the SENS website that describe their strategies for fighting aging.--ThunderheadX (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The strategies table is extremely outdated  

message: *Yes: as I explained in the thread above, SENS is a fringe theory (,,) that needs to be treated with care, which includes WP:DUE criticism by the medical community. The sources currently used in the section could be better or more current. Still, they are not so doubtful or easily contradicted that the entire section merits blanking. I'm open to proposals that weave that criticism into the article in a way that doesn't violate WP:CRITS, but I don't think the information should be taken out. —Wingedserif (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: To reflect some of the RfC consensus that a section title should not contain "controversy", I changed that section to "Scientific reception". However, the more research into the the 2005 MIT Technology Review contest I do, the more skeptical I become that it meets that description. First, the contest was partially funded by de Grey's Methuselah Foundation. Second, obviously, a popular, judged contest is not consistent with the academic standard of peer review. Finally, of the judges panel, several were computer scientists or entrepreneurs—not exactly qualified for judging biomedical claims. I'm thinking of splitting that subsection off into something else. What do others think? —Wingedserif (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your editing, Wingedserif. To keep the article neutral, I think it's also important to note how the reception has publicly changed for some writers since 2005. Brian K. Kennedy was an author (among others) in one of the MIT Technology Review submissions, but in a 2015 interview alongside De Grey, Kennedy said, "I think that at least superficially there was a significant difference in what we were saying ten years ago - and in reality there was some difference too - but there has been a lot of convergence on both sides so that I doubt that our messages are that much different now."https://mendelspod.com/podcasts/brian-kennedy-and-aubrey-de-grey-their-converging-approaches-aging-research | timestamp=03:46 Kennedy is also now a member of the SENS Research Foundation research advisory board. S. Jay Olshansky was an author (among others) in the 2005 EMBO Reports article, but in a 2021 interview alongside De Grey, Olshansky said, "There's a lot of exciting work that's going on right now including work that's going on in Aubrey's lab and some of the folks that he's been involved with."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDIUCywerf8&t=1400s I think this updated information is relevant and important, but I don't know how to best include it. Any thoughts 65.50.153.6 (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This merging/growing closer of positions is definitely something that came up in the RfCs. I think we'd need at least a reliable-source news story to be able to discuss it in the article. Do you know of any unaffiliated news or published articles that reflect this more recent consensus? A Youtube video is not citable for WP articles; I am not familiar with Mendelspod but if they are unaffiliated with any of the research centers / researchers mentioned, it might be usable. I'm going to review WP:Interviews and some related RS pages to think about it. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of published articles, and I'm only aware of these two interviews. Mendelspod is unaffiliated. The interview with De Grey and Kennedy by Mendelspod took place at a conference organized in part by SENS Research Foundation, but Mendelspod interviews different researchers every month in its regular podcasts. It caught my attention since Kennedy contributed to the cited 2005 MIT criticisms yet made the statements I mentioned above. The interview with De Grey and Olshansky took place on The Healthspan Show, owned by LSX Ltd, which hosts events on topics in biotech. It's also unaffiliated. I noticed that interview because Olshansky was an author of the cited 2005 EMBO Reports criticism but made those positive statements recently in 2021 in the interview. Is it unusable if posted/accessed on youtube? If you have the time and inclination, they're both interesting interviews to listen to. The quotes above are transcriptions of comments by Kennedy and Olshansky (who themselves are reliable sources) from those publicly available, recorded, unaffiliated interviews. I think they reliably show an important, relevant evolution of opinion by Kennedy and Olshansky compared to 2005 on the value of medical research on age-related damage repair from Aubrey and SENS. Do you think this should be in the article in some way? 65.50.153.6 (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:RSPYT, YouTube videos as sources are discouraged, although they can inherit the reliability of the verified account that posted them. I'm not familiar with The Healthspan Show, but since they are a non-news business, I don't know how much editorial oversight and independence they would have. I agree that Olshansky changing his opinion about SENS would be notable and worthwhile including in the article (esp. given his 2013 article "Science Fact versus SENS Foreseeable"), but I think we'd need to find a higher quality source than the interviews, given the WP:FRINGE status of the page. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

text: After the amount of RfCs and discussion on this page about this topic—I don't think this meets the "non-controversial" criteria of WP:ABOUTSELF; we need to use the best sources for this page. An informal interview published to YouTube or an another commercial podcast is just not the same quality/reliability as an academic journal. As soon as there's a reliable, secondary source, preferably a literature review, that updates the field's view of SENS, those views can be included. Until then, we have to WP:WAIT and follow the existing reliable sources. —Wingedserif (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should MIT Technology Review contest be in the Scientific Reception section?