Talk:The Lancet

message: Is The Lancet peer-reviewed?
-Jess
:It certainly is. Most medical journals nowadays are peer-reviewed. Is there anything specific you'd like to know about this? JFW | T@lk 21:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer-reviewed?

message: Someone inserted that a study on NSAIDs in oral cancer was a hoax. The only corrobation I have is this in the Grauniad, but nothing from the journal itself. We should not be listing every incident where research data is falsified. Only if the peer-review process comes under pressure - and only if there is evidence for this - should we be thinking about including this factoid. JFW | T@lk 14:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, like the recent South Korean case, a major scandal, and has been dominating the news in Norway for several days now as well been widely reported in other countries. According to Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet, the article will have to be retracted, which has only happened one time before when he was an editor. The Lancet's "fast track" review process has been criticized ever since it was introduced in 1997. Wolfram 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've mostly read about the case in Norwegian newspapers, like this one, which states that the article was published after a "fast track review" process, and that this practice has been criticized by for example the British Medical Journal (Dec. 2004). Also, today Lancet editor Horton told leading Norwegian daily Aftenposten that this is the biggest research fraud the world has ever seen.  English. I don't see why we shouldn't write about the case now. Many people will be looking for information and expecting to find something about it. Wolfram 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax 

message: I have not seen the reports about death toll in Iraq being outspoken, so why do you guys write that the it has been outspoken ?
"The second survey estimated that the death toll in Iraq was somewhere between 426,000 and 793,000 people - with 601,000 being the agreed upon mid-way estimate." Is not right. From the paper "601 027 (426 369–793 663) were due to violence," but the number of deaths is 654 965 (392 979–942 636) (Bracketed terms are the 95% CI.)
Also the phrase "being the agreed upon mid-way estimate" is a shocking choice of words. It sounds like the number is the result of some consensus of interested parties. 654 965 is the estimated value.
Thirdly, I wonder if it's premature to mention the Iraq Mortality Studies as controversial at all yet?--RobinGrant 15:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq Mortality Studies 

message: Horton has now published his expression of concern. JFW | T@lk 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horton's expression of concern 

message: As there is a fixed policy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy saying that the Beatles has to be written with a lowercase 't', I wonder what your thoughts are about using that policy for this page, and if you would agree or disagree. I thank you. andreasegde 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A question

message: This case undermines importance of power abuse in a power pyramid owned by publishers over ideas expressed by top level employees in medical journals such as The Lancet.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/05/senior_lancet_editor_sacked_in.html
--Nevit (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is happening?  

message: I'm curious why a medical journal discussing the medical fact that homeopathy is bogus would be considered political.  It's like saying a geology journal discussing the age of the Earth being billions of years is political.  Given the other subjects listed in that section are where the journal was used to express an editorial opinion rather than fact, I believe that particular entry to be misplaced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolrahnaes (talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics section 

message: The text was removed as it was an allegation and there was no reference quoted to backup the claims of the author.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutonline (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Lancet Infectious Disease Article Criticism

message: Former Lancet editor accused of cover-up. The British Medical Journal has published a detailed account of the failure of The Lancet editor Richard Horton to properly investigate the complaint made by Brian Deer about Dr. Andrew Wakefield's now infamous 1998 article. [Deer B. "Secrets of the MMR scare: The Lancet's two days to bury bad news." BMJ 342:c7001, 2011] This is the third article in the BMJ series about Wakefield's misconduct. Casewatch has posted the transcripts from the General Medical Council's hearings that ended with the revocation of Wakefield's medical license.
Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Lancet editor accused of cover-up 

message: At the moment, only the impact factor for The Lancet has been updated. I will take care of the other Lancet journals in aprox. 4 weeks time. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New impact factor 2012 

message: We should probably cover this story, perhaps as a section in the controversial articles area. 
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11112930/Lancet-hijacked-in-anti-Israel-campaign.html
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/22/leading-british-medical-journal-refuses-to-retract-open-letter-on-gaza-written-by-authors-concerned-that-jews-control-the-media-politics-and-banking/
* http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2014/aug/04/propaganda-instead-of-peer-review
* http://www.city-journal.org/2014/eon0918jz.html
* http://www.nationalreview.com/article/384580/poisoned-lancet-dennis-prager
* http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Science/Israel-advocates-get-little-space-to-respond-to-epistle-in-The-Lancet-369648
* http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.607618
* http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/responses_to_the_lancet_letter_
* http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/israel-middle-east/adl-says-the-lancet-sullied-reputation-by-publishing-open-letter-on-gaza.html
Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaza issues 

message: The first two lines are the most laughably emotional arguments, this page must have been edited by a Zionist. Considering every single news article linked is locked in step with the Israeli agenda, it's pretty ironic that someone linked to the "Jews control the media, politics and banking" canard considering this 'controversy' has yet again proven that it's literally impossible for academics to discuss poor, innocent Israel's war crimes without a bunch of tools freaking out and spreaing misinformation to discredit the Cassandra truth speakers.
 
"no mention of Hamas' atrocities." Israel is the actively illegal occupier, they are the ones responsible for the incivility of the situation. Violence is the language of the unheard and oppressed.
"are apparently sympathetic to the views of David Duke, a white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard." HAHAHAHAHAHA nice propaganda, anyone who actually read the thing without going into a knee jerk conniption can tell it's filled with compassion, nationalists are too offended by the truth apparently: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)61044-8/fulltext
"The transparent effort to conceal this vicious and substantially mendacious partisan political diatribe as an innocent humanitarian appeal has no place in any serious publication" #NotAllIntellectualsAreUselessAmoralScum. Seriously how much of a piece of garbage do you have to be to see war crimes happening, but spend your time complaining about the people who are speaking truth to power in order to help the victims? These disgusting "intellectuals" are literally worse than worthless. Omgtotallyradical (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The information about the authors of the letter is correct and damaging, although I basically agree with the content of the letter. Some people who are anti-Zionists are indeed anti-semites, and that is just the sad truth. You might rebalance the section by discussing the content of the letter, but there is no reason to remove sourced material about its authors. 81.88.116.27 (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The Open Letter For The People of Gaza section is embarrassingly pro-Israeli apartheid. 

message: "The Vatican defended itself by pointing to an earlier Lancet article published in 2000 which asserted that condoms could not possibly be sufficient in solving the AIDS crisis" The source for this sentence is a dead link. I wasn't able to verify that this actually happened.137.82.157.147 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Source missing

message: This article probably needs a bit more about the history of the journal - this and this look like useful sources. No time to do it myself right now, might come back, but if anyone else fancies having a go ... PamD 21:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History needed 

message: === Labeling Taiwan as a province of China (2019) ===
In June 2019, The Lancet published a medical paperMortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 The Lancet. 24 June 2019.  that lists Taiwan as a province of China. After the publication The Lancet was criticized, with tons of comments crammed on its Facebook pageThe Lancet's official Facebook reply. Facebook. 27 June 2019. , and The Lancet responded by saying: “This paper follows the guidelines and protocols of the United Nations and World Health Organisation, which reference Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic of China.”, but Ministry of Health and Welfare spokesman Wang Che-chao said "The content of the study is inconsistent with the fact that Taiwan is not a province of China.”"Taiwan to protest against Lancet for labeling it part of China". Focus Taiwan. 28 June 2019. 
Another controversy is that Taiwan’s medical system does not belong to part of China’s but the paper includes Taiwan in charts for comparison. The Taiwan Medical Association said “The paper has strayed from the truth, as Taiwan and China have separate medical systems.” The Lancet responded by saying: “The paper was written with the scientific rigor and thorough data analysis required by editors of The Lancet.”, adding that “The Lancet stands behind this study and its robust estimates of health in China.”"Ministry to protest ‘Lancet’ over paper denying statehood". Taipei Times. 29 June 2019. 
: Not done: You have directly copied and pasted several chunks of your proposed edit from the sources (e.g. "its Facebook page has been inundated with angry comments from people with Internet connections demanding that the journal change its designation of Taiwan, with some asking the journal to withdraw the paper, claiming that its methodology is problematic and the results are therefore biased." and "follows the guidelines and protocols of the United Nations and World Health Organization" and "replied in a Facebook comment Thursday that it stands behind the study and its robust estimates of health in China." from  This is unacceptable on wikipedia. Please see WP:PLAG and WP:CLOP. NiciVampireHeart 15:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Very appreciate for your help. I've done many revisions as to WP:PLAG and WP:CLOP issue. Perry520 (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? 

message: In June 2019, The Lancet published a medical paperMortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 The Lancet. 24 June 2019.  that lists Taiwan as a province of China. After the publication The Lancet was criticized, with tons of comments crammed on its Facebook pageThe Lancet's official Facebook reply. Facebook. 27 June 2019. , and The Lancet responded by saying: “This paper follows the guidelines and protocols of the United Nations and World Health Organisation, which reference Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic of China.”, but Ministry of Health and Welfare spokesman Wang Che-chao said "The content of the study is inconsistent with the fact that Taiwan is not a province of China.”"Taiwan to protest against Lancet for labeling it part of China". Focus Taiwan. 28 June 2019. 
Another controversy is that Taiwan’s medical system does not belong to part of China’s but the paper includes Taiwan in charts for comparison. The Taiwan Medical Association said “The paper has strayed from the truth, as Taiwan and China have separate medical systems.” The Lancet responded by saying: “The paper was written with the scientific rigor and thorough data analysis required by editors of The Lancet.”, adding that “The Lancet stands behind this study and its robust estimates of health in China.”"Ministry to protest ‘Lancet’ over paper denying statehood". Taipei Times. 29 June 2019. 
: Not done: You have directly copied and pasted several chunks of your proposed edit from the sources (e.g. "its Facebook page has been inundated with angry comments from people with Internet connections demanding that the journal change its designation of Taiwan, with some asking the journal to withdraw the paper, claiming that its methodology is problematic and the results are therefore biased." and "follows the guidelines and protocols of the United Nations and World Health Organization" and "replied in a Facebook comment Thursday that it stands behind the study and its robust estimates of health in China." from  This is unacceptable on wikipedia. Please see WP:PLAG and WP:CLOP. NiciVampireHeart 15:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Very appreciate for your help. I've done many revisions as to WP:PLAG and WP:CLOP issue. Perry520 (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labeling Taiwan as a province of China (2019) 

message: This issue has been published in Taiwan and foreign media. Taiwan medical association (中華民國醫師公會全國聯合會) is the association of all physicians in Taiwan, whose statement about this event is thus representative. The vise president of Taiwan is also included in this issue, which stands the official point of view in Taiwan. As such, this event is by no means non-significant, at least it's no less significant than the existing controversies listed, in which the different POV is only held by only a few people.
Related references are all included in the latest edit. --111.243.232.158 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *WP:NOTNEWS. --Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Its massively undue, has this caused any real controversy outside Taiwan?Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This was seriously undue. That's a massive section for what boils down to, "nationalists in Taiwan were angry online at a medical journal." Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labeling Taiwan as a province of China (2019) is NOT [[WP:UNDUE]] 

message: Is this really a controversy?  Haven't everyone criticized the administration's poor handling?  —PaleoNeonate – 23:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure that it isn't really noteworthy. There's another section which is more problematic in the "does this really belong here" sense, I've commented it for the time being to see if anybody agrees. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  00:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the Trump administration 

message: This was touched upon by PamD six years ago on this talk page on the need of a history section. While one has been added, it is very brief at only four short sentences, especially compared to the much lengthier sections on speciality journals, political controversies, and scientific controversies. Given that plenty of information on several landmark papers and historical details from peer-reviewed sources are available in TWL, IMO overall it would be due to expand the history section. Therefore, I have added a expand section tag. However, if anyone objects to my tag please discuss here. VickKiang (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand history section? 

message: The redirect LancetGate has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 18:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:LancetGate]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]