Talk:Aubrey de Grey

Irony

Anonymous user 210.187.136.223, congratulations, your editing tests have worked. Continue such tests, and, under the discretion of Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, your domain may be blocked. --Nectarflowed 23:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed the 7 symptoms into a numbered list... Looks clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.35.31 (talk • contribs)

Cryonics

Is it true that de Grey has signed up with Alcor? The cited article does not mention support the claim made here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topotrivl (talk • contribs) 06:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence has an RFC

Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

2005 Criticism and More Recent Positive Comments

The article is misleading because there is extensive coverage of the 2005 criticisms but no follow-up on more recent positive comments. Brian K. Kennedy was a co-author of an MIT Technology Review submission criticizing SENS, but in a 2015 interview he was supportive of Aubrey's work and stated there was "convergence" . S. Jay Olshansky was a co-author of the EMBO Reports criticism, but in a 2021 interview he was supportive of Aubrey's research .

For the article to not be misleading, it should contain more up-to-date information. It is relevant and important that two authors from the 2005 criticisms have publicly made positive comments on Aubrey's research. I would invite a more experienced editor to make suitable changes to the article. Would something like the following be OK? Brian K. Kennedy and S. Jay Olshansky have made more positive comments about De Grey's research since their 2005 criticisms. (followed by references I've included) If not, please suggest what would be a suitable addition.

Apologies for any newcomer mistakes! 65.50.153.6 (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Would need reputable WP:RS as a start. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The source for each person is a publicly available, recorded interview on aging research. Kennedy stated in a 2015 interview with De Grey, "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." In 2021 in an interview with De Grey, S. Jay Olshanksy stated "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."

These interviews provide relevant, important, and up-to-date information. The article is incomplete and misleading if it only references older 2005 content and doesn't reference these more up-to-date statements. They are particularly relevant since Kennedy and Olshanksy were authors (among others) in the older 2005 MIT Technology Review and EMBO Reports, respectively.

How can we adequately include this more up-to-date information from Kennedy and/or Olshansky so that the article is no longer misleading by omission? 65.50.153.6 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, how are the statements from Kennedy and Olshansky in the interviews unreliable? They are interviews featuring Kennedy and Olshansky alongside De Grey as guests. Kennedy and Olshanksy were authors (among others) in the 2005 criticisms. Mendelspod (interviewing Kennedy) has interviewed scientists for years in its podcasts, and the Healthspan Show shows S. Jay Olshansky speaking in the interview video. Can you explain how Kennedy's or Oshansky's comments in the interviews are unreliable? 65.50.153.6 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Indian fiancee

re this 8 feb 2017 reference for his divorce https://www.ft.com/content/238cc916-e935-11e6-967b-c88452263daf do we have any more information on the person described here?

He has persuaded his Indian fiancée, a research biologist who is extricating herself from her current relationship and whom he asks not to be named, to move in with him.

This would be progress: his ex-wife — the geneticist, Adelaide Carpenter, whom he met at Cambridge university — insisted on staying in the UK when he founded SENS, leaving him spending half the year in a rented flat in Mountain View.

When his fiancée arrives he hopes, in time, to “retreat into glorious obscurity” with her, pulling back from a busy speaking schedule that takes him around the world to publicise his work. Her first request might be for central heating.

11 April 2015 article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3035091/He-s-old-Harrovian-multi-millionaire-wife-two-girlfriends-s-toast-California-despite-er-looks-says-s-cracked-biological-code-let-live-1-000.html mentions:

he cheerfully admits to having 'two younger girlfriends', aged 45 and 24.

Not sure if it might be one of those? Pg 9/18 (listed 7/16) of that september 10th PDF has a note 23 after "When I was much younger I had a couple of relationships with women who were very smart but, being teenaged, had not had time to demonstrate it" was referring to "referring to his first two girlfriends, whom he dated when he was in his 20s."

24 means born in 1991, while 45 means born in 1970

Aubrey (born in 63) was 20-29 from 1983-1992, during which time someone born in 1970 would be 13-22 years old. WakandaQT (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

What's the relevance to the article? This is bordering on irrelevant gossip, original research, and WP:SYNTH. Considering WP:BLP, I'm not even sure that your comments here are appropriate for the talk page... If you're trying to piece together the identity of a his fiancée, then I believe that is absolutely inappropriate and a clear BLP violation. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Pro-aging trance into Aubrey de Grey

Last AFD was closed as merge. It has been long, but I am seeing the same issues with this new attempt. Sources are either from Aubrey de Grey, or unusable pieces from anti-aging businesses like this one, whose tone alone is sufficient reason to think it can't be used as a source on Wikipedia. Because of the time that has passed, I am putting this up for a fresh discussion, in case there are more sources. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support if not delete. This seems like an easy one to me. I'm surprised that an article was made for "pro-aging trance" to begin with. This is nothing more than a phrase de Grey used in his talks and interviews. Since de Grey was surrounded by a cult of personality, I'm suspicious that one of his fans created the article. There's zero reason for it to exist. IMHO, either merge or delete. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The term pro-aging trance was not only used by de Grey in his talks, but has become a common term within the anti-aging movement for the often irrationally perceived attitude of the opposite side. "Stockholm syndrome" also refers to a psychologically unsubstantiated phenomenon, for which there is also almost no scientific material, but is accepted as a Wikipedia article in its own right, which is why I think it should be the same for the pro-aging trance. I also think that it is irrelevant what attitude the author of an article on a phenomenon first described by Aubrey de Grey has towards de Grey as a person, as long as the article is factual and verifiable. Aquarius3500 (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The partisan motivations of the authors are relevant when an article is created that clearly fails to meet WP:NOTE (which makes the comparison with Stockholm Syndrome a complete non-sequitur). There's near zero chance that Pro-aging trance will survive scrutiny and remain a separate article. That an article is "factual and verifiable" is not enough, otherwise there would be articles about everything and anything. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The motivations of the authors are only relevant if they clearly influence the neutrality of an article, which is not the case here. The term is primarily used by followers of the anti-aging movement to criticize society's often irrational view on aging compared to their views on diseases, for example, by convincing oneself that aging and age-related death are "natural", "inevitable" and "have always existed", which is why nothing should be done about it.

In connection with the treatment of (age-related) diseases, however, these people usually argue completely differently and would immediately be in favor of curing cancer, Alzheimer's or dementia, if possible.

This phenomenon is sufficiently covered, explained and sourced in the article.

I'm not certain whether the topic fails WP:NOTE. Sure, the article has very few independent sources in its current state, but that shouldn't pose a problem with regard to neutrality in this case, as explained.

As for notability, I would say that it is an important and notable topic in the still small, but ever-growing field of anti-aging movement, similar to Longevity escape velocity.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember claiming that the only thing that matters with an article would be that it is factual and verifiable. It's just that the particular motivations of the author(s) are beside the point as long as the impartiality of the article is not affected. "Pro-aging trance" is now used in a variety of papers, books, documentaries and discussions around the topic of anti-aging, which is why I approve of the text being kept as a separate article and eventually expanded with some more independent sources. Aquarius3500 (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Not only is every single reference for the article a primary source, each of these sources directly quotes the same single person regarding the "pro-aging trance," namely Aubrey de Grey. So WP:NOTE is not established, it fails WP:PRIMARY, and it weirdly includes a long list of published primary source material either authored by Aubrey de Grey, made in direct response to de Grey, written about de Grey, or written by a de Grey collaborator. If the article isn't merged, it should be nominated it for deletion. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It is clear from the outset in the article that the term originated with de Grey and is therefore used primarily by advocates of biomedical rejuvenation therapies. It is equally made clear that the meaning of the term or the establishment of the existence of this phenomenon in its description goes back to de Grey as well. I honestly don't think it's a good idea to only allow all phenomena first described by lone individuals, which have not yet received much scientific attention, to be mentioned exclusively in those individual's articles. As Maxeto0910 explained above, the term is becoming more and more known and plays a more and more important role for the whole anti-aging movement. WP:NOTE also states that occasional exceptions are legitimate, and such an exception seems appropriate to me here for the reasons mentioned above. In any case, I am strongly in favor of further substantiating the individual sections with more reputable and independent sources, but not merging it with Aubrey de Grey's article or even nominating it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.21.98.22 (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This isn't even a merge issue; there's nothing of substance to actual merge. Fails WP:NEO and more-importantly WP:N. Almost exclusively primary sources or trivial mention at best; essentially a vanity page. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)