Talk:Gerontology

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nayjha Harris, Shunter12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Reply

What is the difference between this and biogerontology which was added a link to today? Fuelbottle | Talk 03:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gerontology explores biological, psychological and social aspects of aging. So biogerontology is its biological branch. Marcus Beyer 23:14, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

All well and good, but I will merge back biogerontology (which is currently a stub) which can be split out again when it gets too long. Otherwise we have two pathetic stubs which will simply diverge and duplicate information. --Lexor|Talk 12:46, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

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) Reply

Agreed - the section under "A Degree in Gerontology" is very poorly written 14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i think that such a section shouldn't even stay in Wikipedia :-) --LOdetti 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Reply

That seems like a mistake to me. Did someone mean "Branches of Biology"? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006年07月12日 13:04 (UTC)

We need a 'gerontologist' category, and some major effort to define the 'stars' of the field.→ R Young {^yak ł_talk } 09:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Reply

This page is woefully inadequate. Also, 'prominent gerontologists' should have their own article, not be listed just on this page. I think one problem is that many gerontologists are quite aged and not computer-savvy. I plan to work to close the gap.→ R Young {^yak ł_talk } 09:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Reply

Agreed on the need for more work here. Agreed on the merger with aging research, good call. And I draw similar conclusions about the likely socioeconomic background of the vast majority of Wikipedia self-proclaimed "editors". (It is ironic to me that in a project that splits so many hairs on the meaning of words and the application of fluid, sui generis rules, a new and loose definition of "editor" is used here. :-) )

I think the list of 'stars' should be deleted. It adds no information for the casual user. Who says that these researchers are notable? Few other scientific articles include a list of researchers - it actually detracts from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.213.29 (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Reply

I think it was a valuable feature. GirlForLife (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Reply

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) Reply

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 {^yak ł_talk } 14:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Reply

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 {^yak ł_talk } 20:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Reply

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) Reply

Ok, well provide a 'redirect' link and leave this page for the old-line researchers. Thanks.R Young {^yak ł_talk } 06:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Reply

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).Reply

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) Reply

NB - please note the potential confusion and the complications raised for any search engines by the use of different spelling - american - "aging" and british - "ageing" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Telos57 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 1 May 2007

(UTC).

If it were true that gerontology is a more specific field that the term "aging research" (incidentally, a highly debatable point, and I am not sure that all would agree that gerontology can really be defined as "the study of diseases associated with old age"), then surely, given that this article is under the auspices of multiple WikiProjects, then how much more so should the article aging, which is currently over seen by the Biology WikiProject group, should go in multiple Wiki projects at least as much as this one! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Reply

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) Reply

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) Reply

Is there a valid link? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Reply

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) Reply

Er, I notice what may be a conflict here at the top of this page:

HIGH: This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance assessment scale.

LOW: This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the [[importance scale]].

Can we unconfuse this? (or at least me?)

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Reply

Comment. The "importance" scale is based on the particular project...this article may be very important to the "medicine" field but only tangentially related to the "world's oldest people" project. Therefore, importance ratings don't have to be equal.Ryoung122 03:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Reply

I see. Reading it with that in mind makes sense.

Thanks. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Reply

Remarks on the history of Social Gerontology that highlight James Birren are correct but to overlook Warner Schia(?), Matilda White Riley and especially Bernice Neugarten is to misunderstand the history and development of the field. There have also been significant additional contributions in more recent decades and there are at least a half dozen others who have made significant contributions in either the material and political (Birren) or conceptual (Neugarten) development of the field. That said, Birren and Neugarten often seem to me to be at the center of things intellectually and in terms of development of the personnel and assets that have been so important for us all. They are our founders.

kr kaffenberger

OR, Has the acquisition of the journal happened???--222.67.215.33 (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Reply

See the info below http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/archive/

and

http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/contents-by-date.0.shtml click the HOME on the page, you will see what happens--222.67.215.33 (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Reply

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) Reply

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) Reply

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) Reply

Thank you for your revision, I shall start reviewing it as soon as I can. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

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.

[画像:check]Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Reply

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) Reply

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) Reply

This article is hella outdated to the point it misinforms the reader. Dynen (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Social asymmetry is a phrase that is used in a research paper. (The phrase has been picked up by at least one "non English-language science-writer", in North Europe.)--If there is a wiki-article, where that might belong, then please say so.--Sources include, Cornell: "Why feeling alone may matter more than being alone". ~2026-22001-29 (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Reply