This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
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]
