Talk:Blue zone

10.1101/704080

This has been discussed a few times before already but 10.1101/704080 it not a peer-reviewed paper, it fails WP:RS. Veg Historian (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

The study was not peer-reviewed.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)

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 ( 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Section needs work

This highlighted section reads like WP:SYNTH, with WP:BLP issues. Rewrite is necessary, with more references, before restoring.-Classicfilms (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Dan Buettner trademarked the term "blue zone" in the United States in 2005. In 2008, he established the marketing company, Blue Zones LLC, with the intent to "[create] healthy communities across the United States" by partnering with municipalities to implement programs and policies based on principles derived from blue zones; cities deemed to have successfully enacted such changes receive a "Blue Zone Community" certificate.

The company recognizes Loma Linda, California as a blue zone after it was featured in Buettner's 2008 book, The Blue Zones, which described the city's Seventh-Day Adventist community as having unusual longevity due putatively to a healthy lifestyle and plant-based diet. However, Buettner admitted to featuring Loma Linda to his 2005 National Geographic article on blue zones because his editor wanted a U.S. location and Buettner "never bothered to delist it". In 2020, Blue Zones, LLC was acquired by the Seventh-Day Adventist health care system, Adventist Health, with Buettner remaining a consultant.

Classicfilms (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

References

I don't follow your issues with the "business ventures" section, which I restored to the article. It uses several WP:RS sources and addresses what appear to be goals of Adventist Health and Buettner to exploit the blue zones concept for commercial gain. Zefr (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Hello Zefr - I'm starting from the vantage point of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. If the material is written in a way that states specific people saying that the "goals of Adventist Health and Buettner [are] to exploit the blue zones concept for commercial gain," then that can go under the criticism section. The Wikipedia itself is neutral, otherwise it is WP:OR and creates WP:BLP issues. I took the section out to discuss how it can be rewritten to fulfill WP:NPOV. It may just be a matter of tweaking the sentences then and moving to the criticism section.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  It's okay for you to go ahead with editing for accuracy and neutrality. I don't see how BLP applies here - this is not Buettner's or Poulain's article. Zefr (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  • 1) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons pertains to ANY Wikipedia article: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living[1] persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies."
  • 2) I'll log in a bit later with some editing suggestions.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    • I'll work on the article for a bit, which will include moving some of the text to other areas. This one reference is used 17 times in the article, so I'll search for additional refs. It may take some time:

-Classicfilms (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Okinawa section

This section is also confusing and based on dated references:

It has also been questioned by the substantial decline of life expectancy during the 21st century in Okinawa, with the analysis concluding that "male longevity is now ranked 26th among the 47 prefectures of Japan". Michel Poulain, one of the authors of the original paper about blue zones, conducted a study in 2011 to validate the claims of longevity in Okinawa, and was unable to verify whether residents were as old as they reported due to many records not surviving World War II.

Classicfilms (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

In Poulain's 2025 review, a section entitled "Okinawa" is used to clarify that Okinawa may have been a blue zone before 1945, but since that time, it is not.

Further addressed in a 2024 Poulain publication, "The excess mortality of the younger generations... is definitively higher compared to mainland Japan." Sufficient to say that Okinawa no longer meets blue zone criteria. Zefr (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

References

So again, it may be an editing issue. What you wrote made more sense than the original post, and I would not have had a problem with it.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)