Talk:Pro-aging trance

Pro aging mindset
Pro-aging mindset might be better language than pro-aging trance (which might be considered stigmatizing and pejorative). Maybe someone can explore this idea at Wikiversity. Michael Ten (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems actually necessary to me that the phenomenon is called by its name here, as every reference and every person cited that talk about it also use the term "pro-aging trance". By the way, this does not mean being generally in favour of aging or not doing anything about aging, but only this particular phenomenon where people gloss over aging for obviously completely irrational reasons. Overall, then, the designation is - in my view - needed. Aquarius3500 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Comparison to the dog experiment by Martin Seligman
@EddieHimself and I are in disagreement about the comparison of the dog experiment to people's attitude toward aging. I have now edited the section to make it clearer that the article does not claim this comparison to be supported by psychological research or logic and that it only quotes the person in the source. However, I believe the comparison is relevant because it illustrates the argument anti-aging proponents make for why they think many people are in this "pro-aging trance". It would be helpful if other Wikipedians could make their opinions known, as we seem to be unable to agree on this point. Aquarius3500 (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Challenge of source by User:AncientWalrus
I note that AncientWalrus has elsewhere challenged the permissibility use of the Rejuvenation Research interview with Alex Zhavoronkov as a source in Wikipedia. Is there any reason why this concern is not applicable to its use in this article? BD2412 T 22:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Why has this never been merged despite the AfD concluding merge?
I noticed that this article was subject to an AfD that concluded merge in 2010, 13 years ago! However the merge seems to have never been done. I wonder whether the article should just be deleted now. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I see, it was merged after all in 2012 but got recreated in October 2021. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now proposed for deletion, discussion is here: Articles for deletion/Pro-aging trance (2nd nomination) AncientWalrus (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Forbes contributor article
I reverted this edit by @Aquarius3500 as it is sourced to a Forbes blog which per discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard is not a reliable source due to being essentially unedited/unfactchecked op-eds AncientWalrus (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wasn't aware of that - thanks. Aquarius3500 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of "The Next Web"
Per this WP:RSN discussion, "The Next Web" has questionable reliability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250#About_The_Next_Web I don't think "mediabiasfactcheck.com" overrules this as @Aquarius3500 suggests here. In any case, I think it's best to wait for the AfD conclusion to prevent waste of time. AncientWalrus (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)