Talk:De Grey Technology Review debate

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Aubrey de Grey
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Aubrey de Grey

Chemical and Bio Engineering (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering articles

Medicine

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles

Skepticism

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory 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 articles

Comments[edit]

I don't know anything about the subject of this article, but it seems to be framed in very POV language. Ben Finn 20:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I am going to tag it as such... is this even an encyclopedia-relevent event? Or just a feud which is being perpetuated by this article? I read the early Tech Review articles and found them critical, but not a "controversy." Knotnic 16:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the tag insofar as the sources of information are referenced. I will listen to suggestions of alternate phrasing if someone feels there is excessive POV--Ben Best 21:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikklai, Why did you remove the section headings? The lack of an edit-comment makes your motivations a bit difficult to discern... Tjic 01:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The article reads very well as a single logical flow of the evolution of events. There is a general style advice against exsessive sectioning into microscopic pieces. The purpose of sections is to improve readability. IMO the article is perfect without fragmentation. mikka (t) 01:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er. On the second thought, the article lacks an intro that briefly states the case. I may try write it 2-3 hours later (or you may do this, since you know things better). mikka (t) 01:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have written an introduction--Ben Best 21:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, while I am here and you are here, how about addressing the concern about sources? mikka (t) 01:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following remark is very much POV and has no sourcing: "the story was much resented by those predisposed to take de Grey seriously." - no evidence of who "resented" it and "predisposed" is clearly biased language. --Tdent 13:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a bit off in details[edit]

While Pontin is not a proponent of SENS, the TR Challenge is a sincere effort on his and TR's part.

Dave www.mprize.org

What happened to the Challenge money?[edit]

The article reads that some $10k was "contributed" from each party, though only $10k was given to the "winner" of the Challenge. What about the other $10k ...What happened to it? Was it returned? Did Technology Review keep it? Seems to me that the Technology Review "writer" opened his mouth before he should have. ...Why are out-of-the-box thinkers still prosecuted in "science"? ...science in quotes there because it's just a method or process. ...One that needs to be updated. ...Oh wait, I forgot. Scientists think they know everything. ...Even though some crack comes by every few hundred years (or less) and shows them what fools they are. ...Oh my sad angry lost brothers, when will you learn?

Technology Review gave their 10k to the researchers because it was as good an attempt as was likely to be achieved (IIRC). The de Grey side didn't give their 10k because the requirements weren't met.--Nectar 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well kind of unproffesional in my opinion, The Review came of as unproffesional and a sore loser, the impartial agreed on panel of judges refused to endorse de Grey's ideas as nonsense (but also didn't endorse it as valid) so we "awarded" it anyway for failed "effort". Came of as a payoff, for "services rendered." Luckily the Metusehelah foundation came up with the idea to match it, otherwise the full amount would have been awarded and the Review would have "won". Also it should be made clear that the Review disn't consult all parties for the "consolation" prize, it awarded it out of the blue out of own funds not set aside for the challenge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alma-Tadema (talk • contribs) 14:14, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Notability[edit]

This particular event does not seem notable enough for an article, and i suggestthat it might be moved into a section of the article on de GreyDGG 05:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article itself could be easily merged with de Grey's, there are some excellent references that are inappropriate for de Grey's page. I, for one, did not mind zooming to the additional information. --Ian Lumsden (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. At the time of this writing, De Grey Technology Review controversy is 9,325 bytes and Aubrey de Grey is 20,120 bytes. If merged, 32% of De Grey's article would consist of a single controversy in MIT review. That's far too much information on an event where the subject is not notable exclusively for that single event; in fact, it would threaten to turn the whole article into a WP:COATRACK. De Grey Technology Review controversy is a standard article spinout (see: WP:CFORK); article spinouts do not necessarily need to be notable in their own right (see, as a random example, Objects from The Lost Room, which is almost certainly not notable in its own right but, as a spinout, borrows its notability from The Lost Room) --SierraSciSPA (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A disagreement between de Grey and Technology Review, where the only cited sources are from de Grey's organisation and Technology Review? Read WP:NOTABLE. This article fails:

Significant coverage - NO
Third party secondary sources - NO
Independent of the subject - NO

If merged, 32% of De Grey's article would consist of a single controversy in MIT review.

The merge doesn't have to reproduce this entire article word for word. Just summarise it in a couple of paragraphs. 78.105.234.140 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]