Talk:Anti-aging

please[edit]

please discuss further on how to reverse the aging process

Doctors section[edit]

This section seems like an advertisement. The description of each doctor sounds like it was copied and pasted from their websites.Punkrockrunner (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)punkrockrunner[reply]

Agree, it needs cleanup. It sounde like the whole section came straight off of a pamphlet. I've removed a non-notable doctor with no wiki page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I removed another doctor without an article, and also Jack LaLanne who doesn't seem to be an anti-aging expert as such. How about just having the names and locations of the doctors? --Bonadea (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I went ahead and cut down the text, just keeping a sentence about where they are based and how they are relevant for the article. --Bonadea (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much cleanup needed[edit]

There is a lot of nonsense on this page. The majority of the endeavors currently mentioned are highly criticized or disproved by mainstream scientists (eg. R. Holliday), and few main mainstream researchers are mentioned. Any time by a scientist to weed out the garbage and cleanup with referenced criticisms would be much appreciated.--Xris0 (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really bad. Consider reducing it to a stub rather than letting it be used as a source of advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.147.74 (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some feeble attempts at cleanup. Unsurprisingly, most of the language in the article had been plagiarised from various "anti-aging" websites. I removed the more blatant stuff and added a recent AMA criticism of the anti-aging industry. There's quite a bit more work to do, and I would suggest merging with "life extension". I don't see any important (i.e. well-sourced) differences between the two. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with Life extension[edit]

See comments at Talk:Life_extension#Proposed_merger_with_Anti-aging --GirlForLife (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm renewing the proposed merger. I don't see any reason to have two articles on what is really the same subject. And with so few reliable sources for either article, and the very annoying tendency to WP:COATRACK for both, a single article would be much easier to maintain. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the two pages are focusing on the same concept, and one page is much better than the other. It is clear that the best thing to do is to delete the garbage page and move what little is of importance here. I think this merger/deletion of anti-aging is the only way to resolve this issue.

Stenemo (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still concerned that deleting the anti-aging page would make the life-extension page an even greater magnet for junk. --GirlForLife (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to merge the two pages under the name "anti-aging medicine" and present the claims of the industry alongside the views of the medical/scientific community. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]