Talk:The China Study: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:20, 8 August 2012

Food and drink C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Books C‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Deletion discussions:
No consensus, 21 January 2008, see discussion. Keep, 27 September 2009, see discussion.

Archives

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Is the "Reception" section of this article censored?
All information in this article has to be based on sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Any information that is not based on reliable sources will be removed.
Should criticisms published on blogs and websites be included in this article?
Self-published sources are generally not considered reliable sources, so authors' personal blogs and websites are not included as sources for this article.
Can criticism be added to this article?
Any criticism that meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources can and should be added to this article.

Why is the reception section so heavily biased in favour of the book? There is no criticism to balance the opinion. Denise Minger's statistical analysis should be added here. Someone do that, please. 121.74.155.219 (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Something's mission

I read the following sentence several times; it still makes no sense:

"The study collected diet and lifestyle variables (ignoring all other factors) approximately 10 years later, and found that one of the strongest predictors of Western diseases on a county level in 1973-75 was the fact that different people ten years later had blood cholesterol with a statistical significance level equal to or exceeding 99.9 percent certainty."

The part that says "with a statistical significance level equal to or exceeding 99.9% certainty" simply means that the researchers were pretty sure: pretty sure the person had blood cholesterol. But everyone has blood cholesterol. I say that with a statistical significance of 100% certainty. Sooo... apart from pointing out that people in general are more likely to contract Western diseases than, say, rocks, what was actually intended here? Fuzzypeg ★ 14:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's just a typo. It's referring to blood cholesterol levels. Here it is in context:

The study included a comparison of the prevalence of Western diseases ... in each county, using 1973-75 death rates. ... [It] found that one of the strongest predictors of Western diseases on a county level in 1973-75 was the fact that different people ten years later had blood cholesterol with a statistical significance level equal to or exceeding 99.9 percent certainty. The study linked lower blood cholesterol levels to lower rates of heart disease and cancer. As blood cholesterol levels decreased from 170 mg/dl to 90 mg/dl, cancers of the liver, rectum, colon, lung, breast, leukemia, brain, stomach and esophagus (throat) decreased.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your quote above is accurate then the typo exists in the original context, not just in the WP article. He's talking about different people having serum cholesterol ten years later, and this being a predictor of Western diseases. But everyone has serum cholesterol, so the only "different people" who have serum cholesterol but didn't have it ten years earlier are children aged 9 or under! I presume he means high serum cholesterol, rather than just 'serum cholesterol'? Fuzzypeg ★ 06:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote above is from this article, not from the book. I've edited the page to make it clearer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot|age=30}}
 {{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
+Why is the reception section so heavily biased in favour of the book? There is no criticism to balance the opinion. Denise Minger's statistical analysis should be added here. Someone do that, please.
+[[Special:Contributions/121.74.155.219|121.74.155.219]] ([[User talk:121.74.155.219|talk]]) 05:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 == Huh? Something's mission ==