Talk:Peto's paradox
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peto's paradox article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yannovember42 spamming a minor paper? edit
In Evidence, User:Yannovember42 inserted reference to a paper [1] that is conjecturing on a BMF hypothesis for cancer origin. Given this paper is NOT an evidence for Peto's paradox, I'm removing it from the section. Also I noticed that he did the same in DNA_damage_(naturally_occurring) so I'm wondering if user is promoting this paper with Wikipedia instead of providing useful references that are pertinent to the articles he is editing. Interestingly the only article where citation to this paper would be not completely out of topic is Cancer#Causes but likely the user knew this single minor paper had no chance to be accepted on a heavily reviewed page Slb 13:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slb (talk • contribs)
p53 edit
According to https://www.pnas.org/content/116/6/1825 extra copies of TP53 in some species like elephants might explain the paradox. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
A problem is unsolved until proven otherwise edit
In "History" section, somebody added a "citation needed" superscript in:
It remains unsolved to this day.[citation needed]
What is the logic of this demand? What sort of reference is expected? Reference to all sources that don't provide a solution? If a user doubts that the problem remains unsolved, she should provide the reference to its solution. Until then, a problem remains unsolved. I suggest that the "citation needed" tag be removed. --Klayman137 (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)