Talk:Blue zone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Venn diagram[edit]

Pretty meaningless. For example, plenty of sunshine in Loma Linda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.111.118 (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

biorXiv[edit]

This paper in biorXiv has not yet been peer-reviewed [1]. It's actually a good paper but it has not been published in a reliable source yet, so it cannot be cited on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand removing the preprint per wikipedia guidelines, but why are you removing the evidence based on references from the Japanses statistics bureau, EUROSTAT and the CDC? The CDC is literally the example given for a reliable source in the wikipedia "reliable resources" page. Sauljnewman (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is original research (WP:Original Research). None of those sources mention "Blue zones". Doing your own statistical research is against policy here. We need reliable secondary sources. What you were adding actually makes sense but it is not up to us to make connections, you need reliable on topic sources if you are going to add content about Blue zones. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources here are the Japanese government website that I cite, the CDC website that I also cite, and EUROSTAT regional lobgevity statistics. Which of these, precisely, is not reliable enough? You have not explained why you have taken them down. 192.76.8.90 (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear here, each if these sources provides statistical evidence that directly contradistc the blue zones claims in easily verifiable ways. These independent sources cut right to the heart of the matter, that Blue zones are pseudoscientific nonsense that do not match national statistics. I am citing national statistics to prove that.
Why is that against guidelines or unacceptable, precisely? 192.76.8.90 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to use sock-puppets, you are using an account and two IPs to edit war. I have told you, you are doing WP:Original Research, the sources you are adding are not peer-reviewed journals and the websites you are taking your statistics from do not mention "Blue zones". You are doing your own personal research and putting it onto Wikipedia, this is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not the place to do our own statistical research. If you have a reliable source that mention Blue zones and statistical data then that is great, but so far you have not provided any. Original research is not allowed here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not using sock puppets, and I clearly intended to identify myself: I used "that I cite" and then logged in to make it clear it was me. I was just not logged in.
They don't need to mention 'blue zones' they are government resources that directly contradict the blue zones claim. Again, you have not said why such sources are unacceptable.
If I said, for example, that " the red region hypothesis says that the average lifespan in Switzerland is three", and someone else showed that the Swiss government reported an average lifespan of 85, you would not need the swiss government to say the words "red region" for this to be valid evidence against my hypothesis. Neither would a direct quote of the Swiss govermnet would not be 'original research', it would just be a statement of fact.
I am stating facts here. The government of Japan directly refutes the blue zones claims. The CDC directly refutes the blue zone claims. The collective govenrments of the European Union directlyr efutes the blue zones claims. And I am using their resources to show that is the case. It's not orignal statistical research, it is a statement of fact from trustworthy sources.
Stop deleting these posts. They are valid and independent and factually accurate. Sauljnewman (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that they are factually accurate and that they refute the blue zone claims. However, what you seem to be having a hard time grasping, is that when you, or I, or Mr. Psychologist Guy, or any other wikipedian, looks at those statistics and say "look, these contradict the Blue Zone claims" we are the ones making the statistical analysis. This constitutes Original Research, which is not allowed in wikipedia, as he has been trying to explain to you. Have you read WP:OR? VdSV9•♫ 15:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The content this user is adding is indeed OR and also appears to be unreliable (stats-japan.com?). I suggest removing the content, see below for some more details. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am literally just reading a number off a website, citing that number, and linking to the website. Come on. Sauljnewman (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the article Blue zone, only sources that mention blue zones can be used. If you use other sources because you think they are relevant to the Blue zone article, you are doing OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. If (say) prominent author 'barry bodgeville' claims that the cosmological constant is four and that people in the UK only survive to age 3, I don't need Rishi Sunak to name-check the person to specifically refute the second claim, any more than I need to resurrect Einstein to refute the first.
The blue zones claim that people in these regions eat a lot of vegetables and live a long time, and the respective governments of Japan and the EU, and the CDC, provide data that directly refute those claims. It is not 'original research' to just link to the CDC and an english-language map of e-stats Japan. Oh, and before you get uppity about supoosed sock puppets, Im writing this behind the firewall at oxford and will have a funny IP. I'm not a sock puppet, I'm just wasting my time. 82.6.50.239 (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not quote 'barry bodgeville' because he is an idiot and talks nonsense. Unless, as I said, someone reliable takes notice and refutes him. Problem solved. Maybe you should familiarize yourself wih the rules. Start with WP:RS and WP:OR, then WP:FRINGE and then the rest. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia should not quote 'barry bodgeville'" - why does this article exist then? In this scenario, Dan Buettner is Barry. Anf your response reveals that you don't have a coherent answer.
I laid out, quite cleary, why these changes do not need to name check Blue Zones.
Why are you still deleting them? What is your actual rationale? They are clearly not original research: they are the directly relevant findings of several governments.
What are you, a Buettner tragic? Come on man, it's basic facts you are grappling with here. 82.6.50.239 (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If no reliable source refutes Buettner, then yes, his fringe claims should be deleted by all means. Maybe that kills the article, I don't care.
Since you are starting to invent silly motivations for me instead of trying to actually listen, there is no point in talking to you any further. I have no idea what a "Buettner tragic" may be, and I do not want to know. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said many, many times: the reliable source that refutes Buettner are -
The collective governments of Europe
The CDC
The Japanese Government, including via the largest national survey of nutrition in the world.
I have repeatedly asked you why these are not reliable sources, and you are obstinately refusing to answer.
I am listening. I am responding. I am not, however, receiving an answer. The claims I am posting are NOT original reseach, they are the direct evidence supplied by global governments. Why are these not suitable for inclusion in refuting this page about a fad diet?
Stop blocking my edits. 82.6.50.239 (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that these sources need to explicitly contradict Buettner; you can't simply take one instance where they say something different from Buettner and extrapolate from it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
82.6.50.239 has restored this unreliable content quite a few times now and on their other account as well, in total about six times. I will be filing a case against them at the edit warring noticeboard. I have no doubt they will be blocked. Their attitude is unacceptable, they have ignored advice from several experienced users here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already addressed this.
I explainedthat these sources do not need to explicitly name-check blue zones. As I said before:
1 - a quack fad-diet proponent suggests that a region has a certain longevity,
2 - the statistical bureau of that nation explicitly lists a shorter lifespan,
3 - I cited it.
Why -on earth- do I need the government to name-check the quack diet proponent? Do you seriously want EUROSTAT and the governments of Japan, and the CDC to have to explicitly point out that he's wrong? What do you want, a signe guarantee from von der Leyden? It's a joke.
To repat myself, ad nauseum, why are you removing sources that explicitly refute Buettner's claim?
Where in the Wikipedia guidelines does it say that a refutation needs to name-check somebody?
You pointed me to WK:OR but I am literally just citing the CDC and government statistics. So it's not 'original research', it is reading. Basic literacy. Do you understand?
Second, you pointed me to 'trustworthy sources'. The CDC, which directly and explicitly contradicts the blue zone of Loma Linda, is one of the reliable sources -on that page- and I am using it to debunk this nonsense. So you cannot claim unreliable sources.
Third, you attempted to insult me by pointing me at fringe theories. Which is absurd as, like I have said, I am citing governemnt statsitics to debunk a fringe theory.
What are your explanations, given that these three objections are utterly baseless?
Why are you blocking my edits? 192.76.8.75 (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable content[edit]

Having looked over Sauljnewman's edits. Not only are the sources original research, some of them are actually unreliable.

  • biorXiv is not peer-reviewed, but Sauljnewman had re-added it 4 times.
  • The text claiming Okinawa has the "worst diet in Japan" is sourced to stats-japan.com (this specific weblink does not work and I doubt it supports this claim). stats-japan.com would not be considered WP:RS nor is it a reliable source to be commenting about diets.
  • The text "According to the Centres for Disease Control's small-tract estimates, Loma Linda does not have an above-average lifespan for the USA and has a below-average life expectancy for California" is original research, the citation listed does not support these claims [2].
  • The text "Sardinia only ranked 72nd-highest for life expectancy, while the region containing Ikaria (Voreio Aigaio) ranked only 62nd. Sardinia was not even the longest-lived in Italy, which contains no less than eleven longer-lived regions", [3] this is indeed original research.

Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let's make thios clear. The page i directed you to in Japan is the largest, longest-running national nutritional survey in the world. It states definitively that Okinawa has the lowest vegetable intake of any prefecture, and has maintained that spot since the beginning of the records. It even has a map and an english translation. What exactly is hard for you to follow here? Sauljnewman (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the small-tract survey, all you have to do is click the link or put the Loma Linda postcode into the search box and the CDC will supply you with the LL average lifespan. 77 years. It is right in the link. Sauljnewman (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is reading the rankings off the EUROSTAT website. I am literally just reading a number. Again, this is not 'research' it is basic numeracy. Sauljnewman (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing to ignore WP:OR. None of the sources you are adding mention Blue Zones. Your own research is not improving this Wiki. Cut it out. You have been told several times about policy. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sauljnewman: Wikipedia isn't where you get to publish your discovery debunking "blue zones". You are a professional demographer, then you find some demographers or other scientists who have questioned it and published in the peer-reviewed literature. Essentially you are asking Wikipedians to be your science paper reviewers. We aren't. No editor of a journal on geography or public health, for example, is going to ask me to review a paper on this topic. You should be able to find journals in your profession where you can publish. For Wikipedia, find papers that have already done it which you can cite here. What you are demanding is that we be the journal reviewers for your research. -- M.boli (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is patently untrue. I am just posting government numbers, with a citing link. That's all. You want to remove the preprint? I agreed to that immediately.
I am objecting to the removal of CDC figures stating that the blue zones claims are incorrect. The same for EUROSTAT and the Japanese government. These are not MY claims. THey are the relevant, peer-reviewed and published statistics of several governments and the CDC. Why are these claims being removed?
It doesn't take effort, or peer review, to just read the government figures I linked. They don't need peer review: they are a statement of fact. For example, the CDC claims Loma linda has a lifespan of 77.6 years. That claim is already peer reviewed, and supplied online under the USALEEP project. Why would *I* have to republish that, when I can just cite it and inform the public? 192.76.8.75 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been told about this many times now. None of the links you are adding mention "blue zones", so you are doing original research. The claim that Loma Linda has a lifespan of 77.6 years does not "debunk" the blue zones. Dan Buettner says that the vegan/vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists following specific health principles live longer in Loma Linda (he is right about this), he is not talking about everyone in Loma Linda, only a specific minority. There is less than 9000 Adventists in Loma Linda. The total population of Loma Linda is around 30,000. Only around 30-40% of Adventists follow a plant-based diet and if you looks at the principles Buettner mentions only 10-20% will be following that. The government figures do not show any of this. It is ridiculous to be citing those figures. But this is all original research. If you do not have a reliable source that mentions the blue zones then it will not be put on the Wikipedia article. Please stop citing CDC figures and your own statistical research. WP:OR will not be put onto the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I have repeatedly demonstrated tat I am not doing orignal research, and you have not supported your reasoning that citations on wikipedia have to name-check blue zones.
I am citing the only independent estimates for lifespan in these regions. The only ones. For the blue zones, independent estimates of longevity in the regions are far below exceptional. Not just Loma Linda, all of them.
The central claims of the Blue Zones are that people in these regions live a long time, and I am showing sources that dispute those claims. It is not original research: it is the testing of a private claim against public data.
In what sense is it 'ridiculous' to cite government figures for these regions, when the claim is that people in these regions live an extremey long time?
I asked you repeatedly where, in the wikipedia guidelines- where does it say that independent trustworthy evidence has to name-check the theories they refute? This seems to be your only line of (very flimsy) defense, but you have not backed it up with any evidence.
For example, if Dan Buettner claims the moon is made of cheese, why would I need NASA to name-check him to refute such nonsense? The idea that independent sources have to do this, ion order to be cited on wikipedia, is clearly a lie.
Stop blocking the edits, my guy. It's deeply wrong, and you are contributing to misinformation that harms the vegetarian community. 82.6.50.239 (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have filed a case at ANI about your behaviour [4]. At this point you are not assuming good faith and you deserve a block. You are saying the same thing over and over. You have not provided any good sources that mention the blue zones. You are ignoring Wikipedia policy and advice from other experienced users. As I said to you in an early post some of what you are claiming actually sounds accurate but you have failed to support that with reliable sources. We will not cite websites with statistics that do not mention the blue zones. It's obvious the blue zones are largely a publicity stunt from Dan Buettner to sell his books, we have one reference from Science-Based Medicine that notes his claims lack support.
I am not sure why you are talking about the "vegetarian community". Apart from a minority of Seventh-day Adventists in Loma Linda, none of the Blue Zones are vegetarian, nor does Dan Buettner claim they are vegetarian. The Wikipedia article does not mention vegetarianism. I guess that is more original research from you. If you want to debunk the blue zones you need good sourcing. Unfortunately there is not much good sourcing on this topic. Most of the medical community do not take the "blue zones" seriously (this is why there is a lack of peer-reviewed papers on the topic). I see no reason to continue this conversation, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. You are disruptive. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not crazy about wading into this, however, this stands out: User:82.6.50.239 wrote "where does it say that independent trustworthy evidence has to name-check the theories they refute?"
X: "Hybrid Tea Roses have long stems"
Y: "Roses in general have short stems"
Z: "Therefore there are no long stemmed roses"
Does Y "refute" X? Nope. Both X and Y are true, but one set overlaps the other which is not a negation. This is fundamental logic. 82.6.50.239 is using independently true information to make the synthetic claim Z that one set "negates" the other, when the sets described are different. That's not how it works - long stemmed roses don't cease to exist because of the fact that most roses have short stems. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trademarked term and for-profit business[edit]

This page, titled Founder's Statement, https://www.bluezones.com/founders-statement/#section-1, seems to contain some information glaringly missing from this article. It starts with:


BLUE ZONES is a brand and certification mark developed by Michel Poulain, Dan Buettner, and Giovanni Mario Pes when investigating people around the world living longer and better. BLUE ZONES is now a registered trademark owned by BLUE ZONES, LLC, and used by Mssrs. Poulain, Buettner and Pes under license.

Although it has been here for a while, this page seems to be an attempt to present a proprietary term — used by a for-profit company to sell some sort of diet plan (along with motivational speaking?) — as a _real thing apart from that_.

The page as it exists clearly associates all of the people who claim trademark ownership of the phrase with its invention and use, yet — in apparent neutrality — sets it up as if it were a common or general term.

It isn't.

The trademark owners seem to want to have their "this is our thing" protections while also using Wikipedia as marketing device to pretend a universal idea. Matthew Miller (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sufficiently neutral and does not, and should not, mention a Blue Zones brand; WP:PROMO. The public concept of "blue zones" having anything to do with longevity appears to be waning as there is no good science for a lifestyle, diet or geographic zone influencing longevity. Zefr (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems incredibly disengenious for the article to not mention that the inventors of the term are engaged in a commercial venture around it, and claim exclusive use and control of the phrase globally. The "public concept" is not really a thing except due to their promotion, and by omitting that, the article serves to obscure reality rather than clarify.
In other words, as it stands, the article is promotion — free and apparently-credibile evidence for the importance and "neutrality" of this actually-propriety term. Matthew Miller (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we give a US trademark grab oxygen? The article is pretty clear that scientifically the Blue Zone concept is a load of tosh. Bon courage (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I see where we have a disconnect here. I don't think that this is a "trademark grab". In fact, quite the opposite -- the people who invented the term, and the for-profit company they've created around that, and therefore the trademark, are all that actually exists. A Wikipedia article which appears otherwise is part of a campaign to create the illusion that this is a popular concept (and thereby hopefully make that true). In other words, I think the only article should be one about the company. Matthew Miller (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There are independent sources. And the term exists before the trademarks were registered. Bon courage (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that BLUE ZONES LLC and partners registered a vast number trademarks. (Not a complete list, and some on that list were abandoned.)
  • A) I don't see that the trademarks are relevant to this article.
  • B) Possibly there could be another hatnote saying this article is not about the company BLUE ZONES LLC? But I think nobody would be confused into thinking this article is about a company. It isn't clear that the company is notable and deserves an article by itself.
  • C) Possibly there could be a sentence or two in this article saying that the concept has been commercialized?
Anyway, interesting find. I'm thinking that C) would be reasonable, if a reliable source could be found. But not so important. -- M.boli (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the group behind the trademark also a key source of the supposed scientific basis (and broader press coverage) of this concept? For example, Dan Buettner is founder of Blue Zones LLC and is author of a 2010 book with the title "Blue Zones", postdating the introduction of the term, but also playing a key role in its popularization. Theswampman (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore[edit]

The official Blue Zones website states that Singapore has been added as the sixth Blue Zone. It's also in the newest Blue Zones book. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war over the topic, but did want to point this out. See link here: https://www.bluezones.com/press/singapore-is-the-newest-blue-zone/ -Classicfilms (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but that's a promotional and commercial site, evidently trying to broaden its market. If a WP:SCIRS review were to expand the analysis, we can reconsider. But let's be clear: there is no existing science, and there is zero chance of a scientific analysis, to prove longevity or better health in a Blue Zone location. As it stands, the article is borderline WP:PROMO and could be warned/deleted as an advertisement. Zefr (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it makes sense to add, since it's getting at least as much coverage in RS as any of the other blue zones. Here's the Telegraph source. I don't think this needs an exceptional amount of sourcing, since it's clear in this article what the blue zone concept is, and its limitations. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is useful to distinguish between the initial set in the scholarly work by Michel Poulain, Anne Herm and Gianni Pes (whatever its flaws may also be) and subsequent additions, generally appearing in work by Dan Buettner and Blue Zones LCC. Note, however, that Poulain and Pes are apparently founders of Blue Zones Institutes (https://www.bluezones.com/founders-statement/), part of Blue Zones LCC, though I guess current involvement is not yet clear to me. Theswampman (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but for right now, the sources are apparently not making these distinctions, and are referring to Buettner's Singapore addition as a "new Blue Zone". This doesn't seem like a controversial addition to me, just adding a new thing to a defined group of things, as reported by RS. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_zone&oldid=1204782917"