Talk:Gene therapy trial for skin cancer cures two terminal patients

Sources

Another source or two should be added to avoid copyvio. Jason Safoutin 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Title too exuberant

Based on the one source, it seems the bbc exaggerated the success of the trial, then wikinews exaggerated it even more. There wasn't a cure, and it isn't a proven success. Maybe "Gene therapy trial cures 2 of 17 patients with terminal cancer." TRWBW 23:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

ok point taken, i found a source on CNN that has an actual interview - this seems in need of a rewrite too me now :D as to the name - maybe treatment instead of cure would be better. Or even trial(s). --Errant 23:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just spotted you suggestion for a title, Im not sure I like that - mentioning the nuumber is pretty unnecessary IMO. Although i think maybe it whould be made more prominent in the article! How about: Gene therapy trial results "show promise" or Initial results show gene therapy may fight cancer or Initial results of gene therapy trials released: experts say more work needed --Errant 23:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Id also like to say I may be slightly biased and sensationalist over this (personal connection) so please ruthlessly check any of the edits I make if you would :D --Errant 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I know my proposed title "2 of 17" doesn't fit the normal style of headlines, but the problem is to communicate the significance of the trial. I think stating the facts, that it cured 2 of 17 people who were terminally ill, is a reasonable middle ground between "shows promise" and "cures cancer". TRWBW 00:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I take your point there - it does get it clear cut. What do you think to my last few eidts to the article - better? Also what about adding details about Origer's ability to go to his daughters wedding? I realise this is a bit of media spin to put the thing in bigger and better light (sensationalism) but it is a personal touch which might be good for the article - and it IS fact. Opinions? I ma not too sure myself... --Errant 00:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ive done as much as I can now (and am dead on my feet - its 2 am here) what doe people think of the article now? --Errant 00:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it just needs a new title that balances how significant this is with avoiding hyperbole. BTW, I'm on wikinews chat if you want to talk, or you can post here. TRWBW 00:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe I went ot bed, new title looks good though :D cheers --Errant 10:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

I realize the need and agree to an image...but a little POV on my part here...Being the first thing I see in an article if, assuming there is an image, this one just grossed me out instantly and honestly, I never made it to the first sentence. Jason Safoutin 00:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I did look for an image for this and actually rejected (personally) all the images of melanomas on commons. Mostly for 2 reasons. 1) its not too nice as you say 2) it adds nothing to the aritcle and really is off topic as the article is about the cure not the disease (thats just a minor part). I did try to look for some PD images of the research centre, the guy mentioned in the article, the professors involved or some general lab type pics but couldnt :( I'd support removing the image --Errant 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. you should close your eyes and read the rest Jason! its quite interesting ;-)

I don't agree. Cancer is not a pretty thing, and most people don't know the difference between a black spot on their skin and a melanoma. Furthermore, I think this is really important for skin cancer and not just for cancer in general, so it's not off topic IMHO. Look at the Wikipedia article on melanoma, maybe that first picture is more suitable? Although the one you refer to is a textbook example... What if we just make that picture smaller?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well yes it isnt a pretty thing, the argument that most people dont know what a melanoma is is defunct. That image doesnt really illustrate it and if they dont know they will look at the article! It could conceivably scare some people if they do have a black spot on the skin. --Errant 08:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It illustrates it perfectly because of it's asymmetry, irregular border, heterogenous color and diameter. So it illustrates the crucial differences between a simple mole and a melanoma. I don't think we should look for a cancer image that is "pleasing to the eye".--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So if we write about a soldier being killed or something to that nature, should we show his blood and guts all over the place? Do we need to see it to believe it? Jason Safoutin 19:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not a medical context. But seeing so much objections to the image, and admitting that I'm biased because I'm a med student, I won't oppose to anyone changing it.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)