Talk:Sirtuin

message: I'm not sure of the wikiguidelines on accessibility, but this pages blurb at the top isn't accessible to most human beings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree,  it covers all the most important points quite clearly. Admittedly it uses a lot of specific language, but if you were to define all those terms the article would be twice as long and more difficult for people who have a reasonable understanding. If you have any specific suggestions though, we could try and adapt it. Abergabe (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessible 

message: I am sure it isn't nonsense (actually I'm not) but the blurb reads like every other 'miracle diet' I have seen during the last 3 decades.
I haven't followed any of them so don't know if they work but given that the newspapers in Britain are having a ball promoting what seem like disgusting menus I suspect someone is being taken for a ride Cannonmc (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This read like nonsense 

message: Please  do not apply MEDRS blindly to content that is unrelated. The Shetty reference is about resveratrol, and very indirectly about SIRT-1. So for resveratrol conclusions, of course it supercedes any previous content, but for SIRT proteins themselves, this gives little to no information, and for SIRT-6 specifically no information at all. Thus, animal studies are still useful there, and they do not conflict with the Shetty reference at all. --Signimu (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The animal study on aging is 7 years out of date, and I found no updated review, so WP:MEDANIMAL does apply. The Shetty source discusses the class of resveratrol-like compounds among which sirtuins are one, so is relevant. This article needs work, and you are not the sole editor for it. --Zefr (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for discussing. This content is not medical, so WP:MEDANIMAL is irrelevant. Furthermore, I don't know why you say that sirtuin is "resveratrol-like", from Resveratrol it reads like the Shetty source that "in vitro studies indicate resveratrol activates sirtuin 1, although this may be a downstream effect from its immediate biological target(s)". Looks to me resveratrol != sirtuin. Would need a source to allow to infer that results for resveratrol applies more widely to all sirtuins. --Signimu (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such thing as "applying MEDRS blindly". Sirtuins are implied to affect aging and health in humans, so are medical content on Wikipedia requiring the highest standard of evidence; see WP:MEDHOW, Importance of sourcing. Work toward better sources, less speculation and synthesis, and focused edits without multiple changes all at once, as needed in this article. --Zefr (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat: this is NOT biomedical content, and requiring WP:MEDRS would be Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Unreasonable_sourcing_demands. This WP:MED community consensus was reasserted at least twice in discussions you participated in. I can't see where it is implied that sirtuins affect aging and health in humans, please cite the sentence(s) you refer to. If you can't, I'm sure you can recognize then that this is not biomedical content. Remember that if we don't reach a consensus, we should revert to status quo ante bellum according to best community practices (and usually, we should do it during discussion as well, contrary to here). --Signimu (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I prefer to step aside from this discussion, I'll leave it up to anybody else (if any) to solve this issue. Please see . But just last bit of info: note that neither Sirtuin nor Sirtuin 1 are in the WP:MED project, that looks like a hint. --Signimu (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't apply MEDRS blindly 

message: See  --Signimu (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source: review on potential role of Sirtuin in Scleroderma 

message: Here are some reviews I did not use in my changes, may be interesting to exploit:  (explicits the "redox stress hypothesis"),  (Nature Reviews but old, from 2007), . --Signimu (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further review references 

message: The word Sirtuin or SIRT is not even mentioned in this reference.  How can it be a MEDRS for the statement? VoyagerJones (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect reference # 10