Talk:Gerontology

message: This article could use a re-write from someone who knows what they are talking about.  This is a backwater in its current form.68.219.235.65 08:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - the section under "A Degree in Gerontology" is very poorly written 14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, i think that such a section shouldn't even stay in Wikipedia :-) --LOdetti 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Page Needs A Re-Write

message: We need a 'gerontologist' category, and some major effort to define the 'stars' of the field.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 09:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was a valuable feature. GirlForLife (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: it makes what is a valid science look like you are desperately trying to legitimize scientific quackery. Look at any other scientific article - the scientists feel no need to state who is 'best'. Let the article speak for itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.102.133 (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Category: gerontologists

message: Unfortunately, most of the 'mainstream' gerontology and longevity articles on Wikipedia seem to be overrun with references to profit-making pseudoscientific entities. I strongly suggest a separate 'anti-aging research' article for those. Much of gerontology deals with aging and policy (such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) and aging and research (such as psychological) but pushes for '170-year-life spans' and to take 'pills' which happen to cost $$$ but with no proof of efficacy is really NOT what gerontology is about.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 14:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Real Gerontology vs Quackery

message: The two words aren't even the same. The former is mainstream social science; the latter is far-out scientism. If you must insist on deluding yourself, please do so by creating a separate article on gerotechnology.
Thanks.
R Young {yakłtalk} 20:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Gerotechnology is just another form for Gerontechnology, a (rather young but) existing field of interdisciplinary technological research, with its own Scientific Society, Journal (although not yet an ISI one) and International Conferences. The term Gerontechnology was born in Europe, but it is now becoming an internationally used word (e.g. in the US it is commonly used - among others - by Joe Coughlin, the director of the MIT AgeLab). --LOdetti 14:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gerontology vs. Gerotechnology

message: Not following Wikipedia guidelines against spamming is an embarassment to your institution.  It backfires.  The article is about gerontology, the (social-science) study of aging.  Contributions which help give an encyclopedic overview of the field are welcomed.  Public relations (marketing, spin, spam, ads) is prohibited.  Please stick to Wikipedia guidelines.  There might be a section, for example, that lists which universities have been recognized by peer societies as the best in the world, with a citation to the article(s) in which these rankings appeared. It will take some digging to make sure that universities in e.g. Japan, continental-Europe, and other non-Anglophone countries are included. If the Leonard Davis School appears in these peer-reviewed rankings, then one link to it is appropriate, as with all the other schools that are listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DocSven (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not spam for [[Leonard Davis School of Gerontology]]

message: One should not merge these two stubs. Gerontologyis the study of the diseases associated with old age, geared toward human clinic. Ag(e)ing and/or ag(e)ing research takes in a much wider context, not being restricted to  either "disease" states or just humans. From a certain perspective, one could say that "ageing research" is looking and analyses a process, while "gerontology" just defines and characterises the various instances associated with a state - the state of being old. 
::Comment: these are distinctions that are problematic. Terms such as 'gerontology' and 'aging research' are used interchangeably by some, but not by others. It is probably better to have two articles because 'gerontology' takes a more 'professional-minded' approach and 'aging research' is a more theoretical approach.Ryoung122 10:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geriatrics is "the study of diseases associated with old age". Biogerontology deals with the biology of the aging process itself rather than specific diseases, and is a subfield of the study of the social, economic, psychological and biological aspects of aging known as Gerontology. All of these three disciplines are sciences with scientific names, although Geriatrics is more a branch of medicine, in contract to Biogerontology which is more academic. Aging research is something done by Gerontologists, but Gerontologists also educate, write articles and do the things that people in any scientific discipline do. The content of the article Aging could as easily be included in the Gerontology entry, but I would not favor a merge. --Ben Best (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging "Gerontology" with "Ag(e)ing research" 

message: Would you be interested in proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COUNCIL/P#Gerontology
if you read this? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a valid link? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to start WikiProject: Gerontology

message: May I propose moving the history up to the beginning of the content sections?
For some reason, it doesn't "feel right" in the middle.
regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: OR, Has the acquisition of the journal happened???--222.67.215.33 (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of these websites, http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org and http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org, are legitimate. The publisher was recently changed to Oxford Journals, thus the two URLs. --Zach425 talk/contribs 08:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  being fraud before or after...??? 

message: A new section containing a list of academic programs in gerontology would be a source of encyclopedic information as well as consolidate many of the article's links. Unless there is a good reason for not including such a section, I will add it soon. --Zach425 talk/contribs 09:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of section on academic programs in gerontology 

message: A group of students at the University of Georgia has made significant changes to the Gerontology page, including modifications to the History section, Aging Demographics, discussion regarding biological and social theories of aging, and the addition of updated references. As a result, we suggest the talk box at the top of the page that indicates improvement is needed is no longer necessary, and can be removed. We hope these changes benefit everyone and promote further revisions to the page when appropriate. Thank you.Chad1419 (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your revision, I shall start reviewing it as soon as I can. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant Changes Made to Gerontology Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Gerontology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706155736/http://www.islam.org.br/al_jazzar.htm to http://www.islam.org.br/al_jazzar.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130716070713/http://gero.usc.edu:80/about/ethel-percy-andrus/ to http://gero.usc.edu/about/ethel-percy-andrus
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607042552/http://gero.usc.edu:80/about/leonard-davis/ to http://gero.usc.edu/about/leonard-davis
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927084817/https://catalogue.usc.edu/schools/pharmacy/graduate/ to https://catalogue.usc.edu/schools/pharmacy/graduate/#gero
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100711073154/http://www.bu.edu:80/igsw/who-we-are/ to http://www.bu.edu/igsw/who-we-are/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article states that there are many biological theories, but it doesn't say what any of them are. I plan on going into more depth by naming some of the biological theories and explaining what they are, and just talking about biological theories in general and where they come from.
https://libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S0011502915001467
https://libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=120836664
https://libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S1568163716300848  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayjha Harris (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological Theories of Aging 

message: The following sentence (under Biogerontology, Stochastic theories, Free radical theory): 
"Oxidative damage of many types accumulate with age, such as oxidative stress that oxygen-free radicals,[29] because the free radical theory of aging argues that aging results from the damage generated by reactive oxygen species (ROS).[30]" 
does not make sense. It seems that a phrase is missing after "such as oxidative stress that oxygen-free radicals" as that would not occur because a theory argues something.
I am not familiar enough with the content at this time to fix this. I'd appreciate it if someone with more expertise could revise this sentence.
Thanks, TheFauxFoe (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unintelligible sentence under "Free radical theory"