Talk:Lung cancer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Lung cancer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 18, 2007.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 22, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
August 10, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
September 29, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Translation / Pathology / Pulmonology (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-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 Translation task force (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pathology task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

alternative medicines[edit]

This article is very well written, it is a featured article for a reason. All the information is well cited, it is presented from a fair and balanced point of view, and it is well organized. The one suggestion that i can make for this article is that it needs to expand more on the management heading. there should be a subheading for alternative medicines. While this aspect of treatment is highly debated, it still should have a few sentences about the different kinds, and which ones may have credibility. Jacobhutchinson95 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

none of them do. That is why they are not medicine. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some benefit for symptomatic treatment. [1] & [2] I shall keep looking for a decent source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Lung cancer: the facts (3rd ed., page 106) has a very brief mention of hypnosis & acupuncture. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
none of those are treatments for lung cancer per se. they are alt med approaches to try to help people deal with anxiety, nausea etc that follow from having lung cancer and side effects of actual treatments. All the sources you have brought are very very clear on that. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Chart[edit]

The chart showing a rise in cigarette use followed by a rise in lung cancer in US males [1] is misleading because it does not show other countries where there is no such time lag , such as in Sweden for example [2][3],. While these sources (both obtained from my blog) may not be considered a good enough to appear on this lung cancer wiki page, the data used are publicly available data. The lung cancer statistics are obtained from the WHO [4] and the cigarette statistics obtained from P N Lee Statistics and Computing [5]. Anyone can check these data and see that Sweden had its male lung cancer epidemic at the same time as the US despite the fact cigarette use became popular in the US decades before Sweden.

The current chart should be removed as it misleading because it is contradicted by publicly available data from reputable sources.

References

82.23.33.195 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.33.195 (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes that blog is not a sufficient source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
This is a good source though http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/18/21_Supplement/S1/F33.expansion.html Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not arguing that my personal blog is a sufficient source, I am arguing that the publicly available data referenced on my blog is reputable and contradicts the fallacy that lung cancer epidemics follow rises in cigarette use with a fixed time lag.
The source you have provided is also contradicted by publicly available data. Smoking prevalence remains high in the former soviet union [1][2] and yet lung cancer rates fell inline with countries such as the US at the same time.[3]
The chart is misleading and contradicted by data provided (verifiable by anyone) and should be removed.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.33.195 (talkcontribs) 10:52, 14 May 2016‎ (UTC)
You are making arguments in which you interpret primary sources, and you are asserting your interpretation should prevail over the interpretation made in reliable secondary sources. That is not how Wikipedia works. You need to bring reliable sources that make the same interpretation as you, that are stronger than our current sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The secondary source that the chart in question comes from is an archive engine [1] and the link that it is reported to come from is no longer active [2]. The text of the archived source makes no reference to primary sources or any other source and unlike the chart in question and makes no reference to male lung cancer rates in the US. It is therefore, arguably, weak secondary evidence. I am not asserting that my interpretation should prevail over the interpretation made in the secondary source. I am asserting that the emperical evidence available on the reliable primary sources contradict what is available on the unreliable archived secondary source and that any moderator from Wikipedia or any other person can verify that the numbers from primary sources contradict the source from the archive (see Sweden & US for example). Surely there are exceptional circumstances where the available primary empirical evidence is so strong and that the interpretation of the data is such a trivial exercise that the secondary evidence could be discarded on the grounds that it is clearly misleading?

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.33.195 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You are interpreting the data you used in your website; when you say "asserting that ..." you are saying that you interpretation of your collation of data should outweigh the interpretation in the chart provided by a 'major health authority, the strongest kind of secondary sources we have in the medical field, per WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions. Also you are performing a kind of peer review and per WP:MEDASSESS we don't do that. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)