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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of cells.

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)

References

^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4964086/

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4964086/

[1]