Talk:Cancer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Cancer was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Genetics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine / Hematology-oncology / Translation / Pathology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pathology task force (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was previously a Medicine Collaboration of the Month.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


To Maintaining Low Blood Sugar as a New Cancer Treatment[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilstriver (talkcontribs) 08:21, 23 September 2009‎

To the editors:[edit]

Can we please use more humanizing and consistent language when discussing people (in all medical articles)? Specifically, can we please use men/women consistently instead of male/female? They're people, not animals or objects. Some may find that dehumanizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.96.210 (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(We put new posts at the bottom). Won't boys and girls feel left out? Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I think males and females is sufficient clear. We do use "people with X" rather than "patient with X" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

== Oddly Human-centric ==

It seems very odd that this article reads as if cancer was some condition specific to humans. Even with the "Other Animals" section tacked onto the very end, one would think from reading it that the only animals affected are pets and rodents with cancer induced for study. Isn't cancer a disease observed throughout the animal kingdom? Even dinosaurs had cancer![1]

Deaths due to Cancer[edit]

World Health Organization observed that 13% of the worldwide population (8.3 billion people) dies each year from cancer[2].

Types of cancers that caused most deaths:-

Lung (1.3 million deaths/year) Stomach (803,000 deaths/year) Colorectal (639,000 deaths/year) Liver (610,000 deaths/year) Breast (519,000 deaths/year) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.208.132 (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Whitfield, John. "Dinosaurs got cancer". Nature. Retrieved 7 March 2016. 
  2. ^ symptoms of cancer

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2016[edit]

In subsection 6.1 Dietary, the first line says "[...] proposed to reduce caner risks [...]" where caner should be cancer. 31.208.78.23 (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016[edit]

See the "Five things Physicians and Patients should question" link is broken, here is the link that isn't broken - http://www.choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Choosing-Wisely-Recommendations.pdf.

2605:6000:3080:5500:8586:5975:FD53:5FB3 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but even though they give themselves 10 things, the point referenced no longer seems to be one of them (p. 114 I think). What a misleadingly titled source! it's 188 pages long, with no contents page! We need something better. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 23:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not really an "alteration", but we need a current ref for what seems like reasonable info:"People at all stages of cancer treatment typically receive some kind of palliative care. In some cases, medical specialty professional organizations recommend that patients and physicians respond to cancer only with palliative care." The 2nd sentence is certainly true (for late-stage cases) - not quite so sure the first is. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)