![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm not crazy about the editing job someone did to this page. I had links to the diet. I also don't think you need links to "diet" and "German" but I quibble.
Not sure why we have to point out that oncologists don't believe in it and why they edited out my entries regarding people who have had their leukemia and cancers CURED from this diet, amazing even their doctors.
The leukemia cure was my wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.209.168 ( talk) 20:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Budwig's supporters have on at least six occasions nominated her for a Nobel Peace Prize (she has never been considered for a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, however.)
Unfortunately, I have had to revert Nunquam Dormio's edits yet again.
If we are to expand this article, it does require some good secondary references and so far we have none. It maybe that if we can find none that deletion is the prefered option.
Nunquam Dormio: can you help build this properly? Twiga Kali ( talk) 17:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The lists of papers here are simply not notable. This person, if indeed an academic, has not made ant significant contribution beyond a dubious alternative medicine cancer diet that few still promote. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for the simple promotion of fringe ideas and this is indeed what this article reads like. I will again remove the lists of books and papers as we have no references to assert their notability.
If you wish to add entities back in then please ensure that these edits are discussed and full effort is made to find secondary sources. Simply asserting points about Budwig is not sufficient. Twiga Kali ( talk) 13:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the French, German, Hungarian, Italian and Spanish Wikipedia editors have all independently produced articles on Budwig, which rather suggests some notability. You know this perfectly well, of course, as you deleted the interwiki links in the edit you made four days ago. If you think you have a case, follow the procedure. Nunquam Dormio ( talk) 08:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Nunquam Dormio - you really need to provide a justification why these claims can remain uncited. A citation needed marker is the least that this article needs at the moment. 86.31.6.33 ( talk) 00:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It is very clear that any alternative cure will never have acceptable citations due to the resistance of the "medical" community that is paid by the drug companies. This encyclopedia is a public forum for information. It doesn't have to reject the anecdotal evidence of tons of people like all the other "traditional" crap information sources out there. You who are taking out the information from this article will never be satisfied with anything other than a Squibb lab test.
This article can save peoples lives, like my sister, if she sees that there are alternatives to the standard drug-to-kill medical policies. What you think is irrelevant may be the most important part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaxeater ( talk • contribs) 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I added two sources [2] [3] from the American Cancer Society to back up the mild assertions in the intro of this article. Someone deleted both of them because one source made an ambiguous statement that was used to claim the source was unreliable. so I have reverted. Rod57 ( talk) 10:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Whilst we debate deletion of this article I will be removing the 'External Links' section. If we cannot astablish rs for this article then it is unfitting to include links to unreliable sources as an alternative. The first link is merely a link to a search engine and serves no purpose over and above what is listed here already. The second links to a front organisation for mexican pseudo-medical cancer cure clinics and Wikipedia should not be used to redirect traffic to such bodies. The third is to a clearly commercial outfit that trades off claims made about flaxseed diets and again is completely inappropriate. Twiga Kali ( talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting a third opinion to see if we can move this along. It would help if an independent eye could best advise about how to move this article along. From my perspective, after many months of requesting this article be better sourced, nothing has been forthcoming. I have placed the article on consideration for deletion. This has brought forth some material, but it (to me) looks inconsequential and not reliable. In addition, the editor Numquam Dormio is minimally engaging in discussion of what can be done and is blocking what appear (to me) to be obvious quality improvements. Twiga Kali ( talk) 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Disclaimers:I am responding to a third opinion request made at
WP:3O and am currently reviewing the issues. I have made no previous edits on Johanna Budwig/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. (Please let me know immediately on my talk page if I am incorrect about either of those points.) The
third opinion process
(FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and can not be "counted" in determining whether or not
consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed
here.
Discussion: I've examined the discussion here and at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johanna_Budwig and find no discussion specifically about the content of the three links in the External Links section other than what Twiga Kali ( talk · contribs) has said above in this section. The Third Opinion Project guidelines say, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." I am, therefore, going to watchlist this page for 2–3 days to see if discussion develops. I would note, however, that in light of the edit war going on over this and other points, along with the AfD, this doesn't really seem like the kind of friendly, low–importance dispute that's likely to be settled through a Third Opinion. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 18:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC) |
Concurrent with the recent (at the moment, ongoing) AfD, there has been significant edit warring on this article between Nunquam Dormio ( talk · contribs) and Twiga Kali ( talk · contribs). Both editors have breached WP:3RR today, however I have opted not to block them. Instead, I have cautioned both that further reverts by either – whether within this 24-hour period or in the future, and whether adhering to the technical limits of 3RR or not – will likely draw blocks. Other administrators should be aware of these terms, and should feel free to enforce them if I am unavailable. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 18:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a question as to how to move this article forward now. My preference is for deletion as notability cannot be established and there are no reliable sources. Twiga Kali ( talk) 18:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
However, if the article is to stay in the hope that a robust article can be created then it should evolve at a pace consistent with the available sources. Recent edits have tried to introduce unreliable information. In particular, the edits introduced by Nunquam Dormio ( talk · contribs) have not been helpful as they appear to be introducing unverifiable material (Nobel Prize Nominations) by the side door of discussing their unverifiability. Since these nominations are almost certainly fictitious (contradictory unreliable sources), I can see no scope for including any such discussion here. The references designed to support this edit are clearly not rs and unsuitable for an article. In addition, Nunquam Dormio ( talk · contribs) has also introduced and prevented the removal of commercial links and other irrelevant links over the past week or so, leading to the above 'edit war'.
I would hope that Nunquam Dormio ( talk · contribs) would now engage in debate on these pages about the suitability of inclusion. It is disappointing, given the disagreement about content here, that no attempt to justify these inclusions has been made.
I propose to re-work this article back to a basic stub, if deletion is not to happen, so that we have a basis for building up should rs come to light. I welcome constructive views on what are good sources and why any there at present should remain. Twiga Kali ( talk) 18:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous user 86.31.30.2 seems to be behaving like Twiga Kali and attempting to censor content and use of sources. I had used the quote= part of the cite template as recommended by WP:linkrot but 86.31.30.2 objects. Rod57 ( talk) 13:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
As discussed above, I am trimming back the papers and works section as this looks like a clear case of WP:PUFF. The 'papers' on the whole are not: they are letters/articles without even abstracts being listed. They also appear to have nothing to do with the (marginal) claims of notability of the subject - her flaxseed diet. Scientists in wikipedia do not have a complete listing of papers: I see no reason why this is appropriate here.
Again, the books listing and multiple language duplicates look like WP:BOMBARD and add nothing to the article. As such , I see no reason for keeping anything other that the (English) books that are obtainable today. I would suggest that if you feel other papers are notable then you provide a synopsis of of what is said and why it is pertinent. Twiga Kali ( talk) 17:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
In order to make some headway while the page is protected, perhaps I could prompt you Nunquam Dormio to outline your position here, rather than just your attacks on me.
It is my understanding that not all letters/papers/books etc by an author should be listed as many will not be notable in themselves. If Budwig had produced a grounbreaking paper that formed the fulcrum of the article, then I can see every reason to list it, otherwise it looks like WP:PUFF. Twiga Kali ( talk) 14:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Twiga Kali's attempt to remove lists of publications (academic articles and books published) by refering to WP:PUFF and WP:BOMBARD does not seem to be justified by the text of either guideline. The books especially seem to have been notable or influential, and the academic papers attest to her being an academic (which TW tried to deny). Rod57 ( talk) 15:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
In order to attempt to achieve some sort of concensus on this, I will spell out the criteria I believe should be used to see if the references should be included...
Other references included should be
So, the letters and articles all appear to fail because they are not related to the notability of he subject or we simply cannot establish what the texts are about. On this basis, I see no reason to keep anything other than the cookbooks I suggested. Twiga Kali ( talk) 18:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I would welcome some wise heads to look at the issue of what I believe to be undue prominence in this article by the inclusion of comprehensive lists of all known papers, letters, articles, foreign language translations by a subject involved in pseudo-medical theories. Almost all references appear not to be due to the marginal notability of the subject and so look like some form of WP:PUFF. Twiga Kali ( talk) 00:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've just pulled a bunch of the unsourced assertions from the article ( [4]), and tagged it as {unreferenced}. When claims, assertions, or even anecdotes are inserted that are not statements of 'common knowledge' please try to remember to include sources. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's getting better, but I'm removing some more stuff. The following statement about cell biology is referenced to a very fringe book; statements about cell biology need to be backed up by peer-reviewed biochemistry.
I'm also taking out the big section about the possible benefits of flaxseed oil. The studies don't address Budwig's work directly; the information belongs in our article on flaxseed oil. As well, I do worry about WP:WEIGHT here—all five cited papers supporting the benefits of flaxseed come from one lab (Lilian U. Thompson's).
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
[1]
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
Keep up the good work. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest that this article is trimmed back to the briefest ofstubs until some proper referencing is included. Budwig is a fringe character who promoted unproven cancer cures. Without a proper NPOV discussion of the subject this article is merely a repetition of unfounded claims made by this person. Twiga Kali ( talk) 10:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Given that no progress has been made in a year on finding sources for this article, I will trim it back to a brief stub until more rigorous work can be done. Twiga Kali ( talk) 18:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
To Nunquam Dormio: I have undone your revert. The trimming to a stub was done for sound reasons: this is an unreferenced bio of a fringe character who developed a minor alternative diet for cancer. Without good references, it would appear to be reasonable to assume that is just humdrum quackery and undeserving of a fuller treatment. I would be happy to see the article expand if good references can be found to substantiate what is being written. Twiga Kali ( talk) 09:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I would welcome some wise heads to look at the issue of what I believe to be undue prominence in this article by the inclusion of comprehensive lists of all known papers, letters, articles, foreign language translations by a subject involved in pseudo-medical theories. Almost all references appear not to be due to the marginal notability of the subject and so look like some form of WP:PUFF. Twiga Kali ( talk) 00:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. That then does indeed look like a good guideline for way forward. The problems then to be anticipated are that a) it does not look as if there are any reliable secondary sources (and that is why I have questioned the notability of the subject) and b), the books are not academic books but subjects on a fringe pseudomedical hypothesis that is unsupported by evidence, and c) it will be difficult to weave the papers she did write into the text as they are not notable, or connected with her marginal notability and, as stated, unavailable as abstracts are not indexed. These is more subtle problems need to be resolved amongst a more experienced set of editors. Twiga Kali ( talk) 07:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
So as a proposal, the book lists are a reasonable stay. The papers though are doubtful. The first is definitely not a paper, but a letter to the journal. The other three have undetermined status as their are no abstracts for them. It looks most likely that these too are articles and not papers describing original research. As DGG describes above, they may be suitable if they could be woven into the article narative, but otherwise there would appear to be no justification for keeping them here. Twiga Kali ( talk) 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
We had a week (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Budwig) discussing Budwig’s notability. Only the proposer of the deletion opined that she was not notable. This matter should be closed.
There’s a general problem in that most online articles about Budwig are by her proponents and are of variable reliability. (See Nobel Prize canard below.)
Editor Rod57 added in two references from the American Cancer Society as references for this sentence:
The relevant passages in the references read
and
Both these passages are neutral in tone and hardly a gushing endorsement of Budwig.
The proposer of the deletion continually kept deleting both these references on the ground that “discovered essential fatty acids” is untrue. This is clearly poorly phrased: Budwig investigated essential fatty acids, but did not discover them. However, the Wikipedia article does not make the discovery claim but was using them as a reference for the diet. The American Cancer Society pages are as good references as we’re likely to find in the near future and I propose we reinstate both.
Listing the books written by, or about, a subject is standard practice in all Wikipedia articles.
The proposer of the deletion has continually kept deleting some or all of Budwig’s books from the Wikipedia article.
The latest argument seems to have been that although Budwig was a German who wrote 11 books in German, we should only list the four books that have been translated into English. Absurd.
Another argument seems to be that the article should only list books in print. Given that many Wikipedia articles are about people who died a long time ago, many books by, or about, a subject will be out of print. To use that as a criterion is equally absurd.
There’s a general problem as Budwig did her work in German as long as 58 years ago. Therefore, the PubMed database does not give us abstracts.
The proposer of the deletion has continually kept deleting all Budwig’s papers from the Wikipedia article on some ground of irrelevance.
However, if we look at the translated titles, these include:
These are all relevant to Budwig’s work in the fats and cancer field. This last paper
(Prof. Dr. H. P. Kaufmann, Dr. J. Budwig: Zur Biologie der Fette V: Die Papier-Chromatographie der Blutlipoide, Geschwulstproblem und Fettforschung Chemischen Landes-Untersuchungsamt Nordrhein-Westfalen und dem Deutschen Institut für Fettforschung. Münster i. W., Artikel erschienen in Fette und Seifen Nr. 54, S. 156-165, 1952.)
also establishes that she had a doctorate and that she worked for the Deutschen Institut für Fettforschung. [German Institute for Lipid Research].
The proposer of the deletion further asserts that these are not papers at all but merely “letters” or some such. However, if we look at the page ranges listed in the citations (156-165, 600–1, 605–12, 115–7 and 34–6), these are generally quite long articles. (Letters rarely exceed a page.)
The almost certainly false assertion that Budwig was nominated for a Nobel Prize keeps being re-added to this article. This assertion has been made on several occasions, including 29 April 2005, 23 July 2006, 6 July 2007, 27 October 2007, 5 May 2008 and most recently by Flaxeater on 23 December 2009 (which I reverted).
(Claims like this are not uncommon in ‘alternative’ health circles. It’s claimed for Joel D. Wallach and neatly debunked at Joel D. Wallach, the "mineral doctor"). The ‘nomination’ in these cases often amounts to getting your mates to send a letter to Stockholm.
It is inevitable that some Budwig enthusiast will add in this assertion again* so it is better if this article tackles the issue head-on.
I therefore added in the following text:
which is as near as you can get to saying it’s false. (It is, of course, impossible to prove that she wasn’t nominated for a Nobel Prize until 50 years after her death (2053).)
I propose that we reinstate something like the above text to forestall people from adding in this canard again.
Nunquam Dormio ( talk) 09:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
OK. We have had two weeks of discussion now so I'll start to make changes that reflect the above. Nunquam Dormio ( talk) 12:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
A problem with this article is a lack of reliable secondary sources. If none can be found then I suggest merging the article with flaxseed, where there is a section of nutrients and clinical research. [5] TFD ( talk) 23:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
None of the sources I removed were really top-grade: indeed two of them were advertisements. Other than to prove that her diet still has its supporters, they don't add much. The Four Deuces, I can't see merging a biographical article with one about flaxseed is ever going to be an option. Nunquam Dormio ( talk) 15:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Can something be made of this? Silver seren C 04:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
And perhaps you should add this:
Paper Chromatography
The foundation of lipid science- the development of paper chromatography
In the late 1940s, Dr. Johanna Budwig succeeded in developing a process by which fats could be broken down and analyzed based on their smallest components. A great achievement for both Dr. Johanna Budwig as well as for the entire scientific community.
“It was through the development of paper chromatography in the field of lipid research- in other words, through novel examination of fatty substances on paper- which I (Dr. Budwig) initially carried out in 1949 without any idea of how great an impact it would have on the entire field of medicine, which allowed a thousandth of a milligram of fat to be analyzed on paper. One thousandth of a milligram of fat, taken from approximately one drop of blood, could now be separated into its various constituents and could accurately characterized according to its various fatty acid components. “ - Dr. Johanna Budwig
from https://www.budwig-stiftung.de/en/dr-johanna-budwig/her-research.html
Arydberg ( talk) 04:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
how http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/what-is-the-budwig-diet can claim there's no proof of diet/cancer relation as if they reviewed all the published work. here's a simple counter example: Prof Campbell, a Cornell University academic who grew up milking cows and slaughtering animals on his family's Virginia farm, began his research to back up his belief that traditional Western diets rich in protein from dairy and meat "was the best you could get". Instead, he told The Sunday Telegraph, after studying diets, lifestyle and disease in 2,800 counties across China and Taiwan, he concluded the opposite - that plant-based diets dramatically and rapidly reduce heart disease, diabetes, cancer and obesity. [6] 178.221.220.214 ( talk) 07:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
If you, "Alexbrn", have any opinions about the interaction between diet and cancer, then you can just keep it to yourself. Johanna Budwig's Wikipedia page should not be used for black painting of her work. Budwig's hypothesis is confirmed by research teams who found the Budwig diet very effective with 90% efficiency. Do you call that "not proof that the diet is effective"? Please remove these two sentences in the intro: "Based on her research on fatty acids she developed a diet that she believed was useful in the treatment of cancer. There are no evidences that these or other "anti-cancer" diets are effective." It sounds like personal statements and degrading attitudes, and this is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. It's all about being a good fellow here on Wikipedia too, "Alexbrn". To speak indirectly degrading about other people's work is really not allowed here on Wikipedia. I will continue with this case until these sentences is removed. VictoriaAve ( talk) 08:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
https://www.budwig-stiftung.de/en/dr-johanna-budwig/her-research.html VictoriaAve ( talk) 08:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is a link of some documentation on research in this area, if that is necessary for the sentences to be removed. VictoriaAve ( talk) 08:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Johanna Budwig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
You did it again. Your statement "There is no evidence that this or other "anti-cancer" diet is effective."[2] is totally absurd. You can say what you want about the Budwig Diet but to extend that statement to everything in the entire world is supreme arrogance. You are extending your argument to things you have no knowledge of. Please try again. Arydberg ( talk) 03:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Please could you tell me what are your sources for "OTHER anti cancer diets" Do they include those that you have no knowledge of? 108.34.143.147 ( talk) 23:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
If you said "many other diets" at least it would have been a correct statement but to use the term "other" is way too far ranging. It is simply wrong. Have you looked at the diet that may be published tomorrow? Arydberg ( talk) 17:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Right, You obviously know much more about this than the 25,000 members of the FlaxSeedOil2 Yahoo Group. You must be a very smart person way beyond us mere mortals. 108.34.143.147 ( talk) 21:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
It is quite strange to write that there is no evidence that this is an effective diet, when there is certainly documented research in the area that shows that the diet is effective! Here it is well described: https://www.budwig-stiftung.de/en/dr-johanna-budwig/her-research.html VictoriaAve ( talk) 08:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm not crazy about the editing job someone did to this page. I had links to the diet. I also don't think you need links to "diet" and "German" but I quibble.
Not sure why we have to point out that oncologists don't believe in it and why they edited out my entries regarding people who have had their leukemia and cancers CURED from this diet, amazing even their doctors.
The leukemia cure was my wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.209.168 ( talk) 20:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Budwig's supporters have on at least six occasions nominated her for a Nobel Peace Prize (she has never been considered for a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, however.)
Unfortunately, I have had to revert Nunquam Dormio's edits yet again.
If we are to expand this article, it does require some good secondary references and so far we have none. It maybe that if we can find none that deletion is the prefered option.
Nunquam Dormio: can you help build this properly? Twiga Kali ( talk) 17:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The lists of papers here are simply not notable. This person, if indeed an academic, has not made ant significant contribution beyond a dubious alternative medicine cancer diet that few still promote. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for the simple promotion of fringe ideas and this is indeed what this article reads like. I will again remove the lists of books and papers as we have no references to assert their notability.
If you wish to add entities back in then please ensure that these edits are discussed and full effort is made to find secondary sources. Simply asserting points about Budwig is not sufficient. Twiga Kali ( talk) 13:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the French, German, Hungarian, Italian and Spanish Wikipedia editors have all independently produced articles on Budwig, which rather suggests some notability. You know this perfectly well, of course, as you deleted the interwiki links in the edit you made four days ago. If you think you have a case, follow the procedure. Nunquam Dormio ( talk) 08:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Nunquam Dormio - you really need to provide a justification why these claims can remain uncited. A citation needed marker is the least that this article needs at the moment. 86.31.6.33 ( talk) 00:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It is very clear that any alternative cure will never have acceptable citations due to the resistance of the "medical" community that is paid by the drug companies. This encyclopedia is a public forum for information. It doesn't have to reject the anecdotal evidence of tons of people like all the other "traditional" crap information sources out there. You who are taking out the information from this article will never be satisfied with anything other than a Squibb lab test.
This article can save peoples lives, like my sister, if she sees that there are alternatives to the standard drug-to-kill medical policies. What you think is irrelevant may be the most important part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaxeater ( talk • contribs) 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I added two sources [2] [3] from the American Cancer Society to back up the mild assertions in the intro of this article. Someone deleted both of them because one source made an ambiguous statement that was used to claim the source was unreliable. so I have reverted. Rod57 ( talk) 10:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Whilst we debate deletion of this article I will be removing the 'External Links' section. If we cannot astablish rs for this article then it is unfitting to include links to unreliable sources as an alternative. The first link is merely a link to a search engine and serves no purpose over and above what is listed here already. The second links to a front organisation for mexican pseudo-medical cancer cure clinics and Wikipedia should not be used to redirect traffic to such bodies. The third is to a clearly commercial outfit that trades off claims made about flaxseed diets and again is completely inappropriate. Twiga Kali ( talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting a third opinion to see if we can move this along. It would help if an independent eye could best advise about how to move this article along. From my perspective, after many months of requesting this article be better sourced, nothing has been forthcoming. I have placed the article on consideration for deletion. This has brought forth some material, but it (to me) looks inconsequential and not reliable. In addition, the editor Numquam Dormio is minimally engaging in discussion of what can be done and is blocking what appear (to me) to be obvious quality improvements. Twiga Kali ( talk) 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Disclaimers:I am responding to a third opinion request made at
WP:3O and am currently reviewing the issues. I have made no previous edits on Johanna Budwig/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. (Please let me know immediately on my talk page if I am incorrect about either of those points.) The
third opinion process
(FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and can not be "counted" in determining whether or not
consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed
here.
Discussion: I've examined the discussion here and at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johanna_Budwig and find no discussion specifically about the content of the three links in the External Links section other than what Twiga Kali ( talk · contribs) has said above in this section. The Third Opinion Project guidelines say, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." I am, therefore, going to watchlist this page for 2–3 days to see if discussion develops. I would note, however, that in light of the edit war going on over this and other points, along with the AfD, this doesn't really seem like the kind of friendly, low–importance dispute that's likely to be settled through a Third Opinion. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 18:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC) |
Concurrent with the recent (at the moment, ongoing) AfD, there has been significant edit warring on this article between Nunquam Dormio ( talk · contribs) and Twiga Kali ( talk · contribs). Both editors have breached WP:3RR today, however I have opted not to block them. Instead, I have cautioned both that further reverts by either – whether within this 24-hour period or in the future, and whether adhering to the technical limits of 3RR or not – will likely draw blocks. Other administrators should be aware of these terms, and should feel free to enforce them if I am unavailable. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 18:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a question as to how to move this article forward now. My preference is for deletion as notability cannot be established and there are no reliable sources. Twiga Kali ( talk) 18:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
However, if the article is to stay in the hope that a robust article can be created then it should evolve at a pace consistent with the available sources. Recent edits have tried to introduce unreliable information. In particular, the edits introduced by Nunquam Dormio ( talk · contribs) have not been helpful as they appear to be introducing unverifiable material (Nobel Prize Nominations) by the side door of discussing their unverifiability. Since these nominations are almost certainly fictitious (contradictory unreliable sources), I can see no scope for including any such discussion here. The references designed to support this edit are clearly not rs and unsuitable for an article. In addition, Nunquam Dormio ( talk · contribs) has also introduced and prevented the removal of commercial links and other irrelevant links over the past week or so, leading to the above 'edit war'.
I would hope that Nunquam Dormio ( talk · contribs) would now engage in debate on these pages about the suitability of inclusion. It is disappointing, given the disagreement about content here, that no attempt to justify these inclusions has been made.
I propose to re-work this article back to a basic stub, if deletion is not to happen, so that we have a basis for building up should rs come to light. I welcome constructive views on what are good sources and why any there at present should remain. Twiga Kali ( talk) 18:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous user 86.31.30.2 seems to be behaving like Twiga Kali and attempting to censor content and use of sources. I had used the quote= part of the cite template as recommended by WP:linkrot but 86.31.30.2 objects. Rod57 ( talk) 13:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
As discussed above, I am trimming back the papers and works section as this looks like a clear case of WP:PUFF. The 'papers' on the whole are not: they are letters/articles without even abstracts being listed. They also appear to have nothing to do with the (marginal) claims of notability of the subject - her flaxseed diet. Scientists in wikipedia do not have a complete listing of papers: I see no reason why this is appropriate here.
Again, the books listing and multiple language duplicates look like WP:BOMBARD and add nothing to the article. As such , I see no reason for keeping anything other that the (English) books that are obtainable today. I would suggest that if you feel other papers are notable then you provide a synopsis of of what is said and why it is pertinent. Twiga Kali ( talk) 17:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
In order to make some headway while the page is protected, perhaps I could prompt you Nunquam Dormio to outline your position here, rather than just your attacks on me.
It is my understanding that not all letters/papers/books etc by an author should be listed as many will not be notable in themselves. If Budwig had produced a grounbreaking paper that formed the fulcrum of the article, then I can see every reason to list it, otherwise it looks like WP:PUFF. Twiga Kali ( talk) 14:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Twiga Kali's attempt to remove lists of publications (academic articles and books published) by refering to WP:PUFF and WP:BOMBARD does not seem to be justified by the text of either guideline. The books especially seem to have been notable or influential, and the academic papers attest to her being an academic (which TW tried to deny). Rod57 ( talk) 15:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
In order to attempt to achieve some sort of concensus on this, I will spell out the criteria I believe should be used to see if the references should be included...
Other references included should be
So, the letters and articles all appear to fail because they are not related to the notability of he subject or we simply cannot establish what the texts are about. On this basis, I see no reason to keep anything other than the cookbooks I suggested. Twiga Kali ( talk) 18:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I would welcome some wise heads to look at the issue of what I believe to be undue prominence in this article by the inclusion of comprehensive lists of all known papers, letters, articles, foreign language translations by a subject involved in pseudo-medical theories. Almost all references appear not to be due to the marginal notability of the subject and so look like some form of WP:PUFF. Twiga Kali ( talk) 00:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've just pulled a bunch of the unsourced assertions from the article ( [4]), and tagged it as {unreferenced}. When claims, assertions, or even anecdotes are inserted that are not statements of 'common knowledge' please try to remember to include sources. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's getting better, but I'm removing some more stuff. The following statement about cell biology is referenced to a very fringe book; statements about cell biology need to be backed up by peer-reviewed biochemistry.
I'm also taking out the big section about the possible benefits of flaxseed oil. The studies don't address Budwig's work directly; the information belongs in our article on flaxseed oil. As well, I do worry about WP:WEIGHT here—all five cited papers supporting the benefits of flaxseed come from one lab (Lilian U. Thompson's).
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
[1]
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
Keep up the good work. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest that this article is trimmed back to the briefest ofstubs until some proper referencing is included. Budwig is a fringe character who promoted unproven cancer cures. Without a proper NPOV discussion of the subject this article is merely a repetition of unfounded claims made by this person. Twiga Kali ( talk) 10:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Given that no progress has been made in a year on finding sources for this article, I will trim it back to a brief stub until more rigorous work can be done. Twiga Kali ( talk) 18:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
To Nunquam Dormio: I have undone your revert. The trimming to a stub was done for sound reasons: this is an unreferenced bio of a fringe character who developed a minor alternative diet for cancer. Without good references, it would appear to be reasonable to assume that is just humdrum quackery and undeserving of a fuller treatment. I would be happy to see the article expand if good references can be found to substantiate what is being written. Twiga Kali ( talk) 09:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I would welcome some wise heads to look at the issue of what I believe to be undue prominence in this article by the inclusion of comprehensive lists of all known papers, letters, articles, foreign language translations by a subject involved in pseudo-medical theories. Almost all references appear not to be due to the marginal notability of the subject and so look like some form of WP:PUFF. Twiga Kali ( talk) 00:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. That then does indeed look like a good guideline for way forward. The problems then to be anticipated are that a) it does not look as if there are any reliable secondary sources (and that is why I have questioned the notability of the subject) and b), the books are not academic books but subjects on a fringe pseudomedical hypothesis that is unsupported by evidence, and c) it will be difficult to weave the papers she did write into the text as they are not notable, or connected with her marginal notability and, as stated, unavailable as abstracts are not indexed. These is more subtle problems need to be resolved amongst a more experienced set of editors. Twiga Kali ( talk) 07:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
So as a proposal, the book lists are a reasonable stay. The papers though are doubtful. The first is definitely not a paper, but a letter to the journal. The other three have undetermined status as their are no abstracts for them. It looks most likely that these too are articles and not papers describing original research. As DGG describes above, they may be suitable if they could be woven into the article narative, but otherwise there would appear to be no justification for keeping them here. Twiga Kali ( talk) 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
We had a week (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Budwig) discussing Budwig’s notability. Only the proposer of the deletion opined that she was not notable. This matter should be closed.
There’s a general problem in that most online articles about Budwig are by her proponents and are of variable reliability. (See Nobel Prize canard below.)
Editor Rod57 added in two references from the American Cancer Society as references for this sentence:
The relevant passages in the references read
and
Both these passages are neutral in tone and hardly a gushing endorsement of Budwig.
The proposer of the deletion continually kept deleting both these references on the ground that “discovered essential fatty acids” is untrue. This is clearly poorly phrased: Budwig investigated essential fatty acids, but did not discover them. However, the Wikipedia article does not make the discovery claim but was using them as a reference for the diet. The American Cancer Society pages are as good references as we’re likely to find in the near future and I propose we reinstate both.
Listing the books written by, or about, a subject is standard practice in all Wikipedia articles.
The proposer of the deletion has continually kept deleting some or all of Budwig’s books from the Wikipedia article.
The latest argument seems to have been that although Budwig was a German who wrote 11 books in German, we should only list the four books that have been translated into English. Absurd.
Another argument seems to be that the article should only list books in print. Given that many Wikipedia articles are about people who died a long time ago, many books by, or about, a subject will be out of print. To use that as a criterion is equally absurd.
There’s a general problem as Budwig did her work in German as long as 58 years ago. Therefore, the PubMed database does not give us abstracts.
The proposer of the deletion has continually kept deleting all Budwig’s papers from the Wikipedia article on some ground of irrelevance.
However, if we look at the translated titles, these include:
These are all relevant to Budwig’s work in the fats and cancer field. This last paper
(Prof. Dr. H. P. Kaufmann, Dr. J. Budwig: Zur Biologie der Fette V: Die Papier-Chromatographie der Blutlipoide, Geschwulstproblem und Fettforschung Chemischen Landes-Untersuchungsamt Nordrhein-Westfalen und dem Deutschen Institut für Fettforschung. Münster i. W., Artikel erschienen in Fette und Seifen Nr. 54, S. 156-165, 1952.)
also establishes that she had a doctorate and that she worked for the Deutschen Institut für Fettforschung. [German Institute for Lipid Research].
The proposer of the deletion further asserts that these are not papers at all but merely “letters” or some such. However, if we look at the page ranges listed in the citations (156-165, 600–1, 605–12, 115–7 and 34–6), these are generally quite long articles. (Letters rarely exceed a page.)
The almost certainly false assertion that Budwig was nominated for a Nobel Prize keeps being re-added to this article. This assertion has been made on several occasions, including 29 April 2005, 23 July 2006, 6 July 2007, 27 October 2007, 5 May 2008 and most recently by Flaxeater on 23 December 2009 (which I reverted).
(Claims like this are not uncommon in ‘alternative’ health circles. It’s claimed for Joel D. Wallach and neatly debunked at Joel D. Wallach, the "mineral doctor"). The ‘nomination’ in these cases often amounts to getting your mates to send a letter to Stockholm.
It is inevitable that some Budwig enthusiast will add in this assertion again* so it is better if this article tackles the issue head-on.
I therefore added in the following text:
which is as near as you can get to saying it’s false. (It is, of course, impossible to prove that she wasn’t nominated for a Nobel Prize until 50 years after her death (2053).)
I propose that we reinstate something like the above text to forestall people from adding in this canard again.
Nunquam Dormio ( talk) 09:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
OK. We have had two weeks of discussion now so I'll start to make changes that reflect the above. Nunquam Dormio ( talk) 12:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
A problem with this article is a lack of reliable secondary sources. If none can be found then I suggest merging the article with flaxseed, where there is a section of nutrients and clinical research. [5] TFD ( talk) 23:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
None of the sources I removed were really top-grade: indeed two of them were advertisements. Other than to prove that her diet still has its supporters, they don't add much. The Four Deuces, I can't see merging a biographical article with one about flaxseed is ever going to be an option. Nunquam Dormio ( talk) 15:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Can something be made of this? Silver seren C 04:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
And perhaps you should add this:
Paper Chromatography
The foundation of lipid science- the development of paper chromatography
In the late 1940s, Dr. Johanna Budwig succeeded in developing a process by which fats could be broken down and analyzed based on their smallest components. A great achievement for both Dr. Johanna Budwig as well as for the entire scientific community.
“It was through the development of paper chromatography in the field of lipid research- in other words, through novel examination of fatty substances on paper- which I (Dr. Budwig) initially carried out in 1949 without any idea of how great an impact it would have on the entire field of medicine, which allowed a thousandth of a milligram of fat to be analyzed on paper. One thousandth of a milligram of fat, taken from approximately one drop of blood, could now be separated into its various constituents and could accurately characterized according to its various fatty acid components. “ - Dr. Johanna Budwig
from https://www.budwig-stiftung.de/en/dr-johanna-budwig/her-research.html
Arydberg ( talk) 04:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
how http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/what-is-the-budwig-diet can claim there's no proof of diet/cancer relation as if they reviewed all the published work. here's a simple counter example: Prof Campbell, a Cornell University academic who grew up milking cows and slaughtering animals on his family's Virginia farm, began his research to back up his belief that traditional Western diets rich in protein from dairy and meat "was the best you could get". Instead, he told The Sunday Telegraph, after studying diets, lifestyle and disease in 2,800 counties across China and Taiwan, he concluded the opposite - that plant-based diets dramatically and rapidly reduce heart disease, diabetes, cancer and obesity. [6] 178.221.220.214 ( talk) 07:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
If you, "Alexbrn", have any opinions about the interaction between diet and cancer, then you can just keep it to yourself. Johanna Budwig's Wikipedia page should not be used for black painting of her work. Budwig's hypothesis is confirmed by research teams who found the Budwig diet very effective with 90% efficiency. Do you call that "not proof that the diet is effective"? Please remove these two sentences in the intro: "Based on her research on fatty acids she developed a diet that she believed was useful in the treatment of cancer. There are no evidences that these or other "anti-cancer" diets are effective." It sounds like personal statements and degrading attitudes, and this is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. It's all about being a good fellow here on Wikipedia too, "Alexbrn". To speak indirectly degrading about other people's work is really not allowed here on Wikipedia. I will continue with this case until these sentences is removed. VictoriaAve ( talk) 08:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
https://www.budwig-stiftung.de/en/dr-johanna-budwig/her-research.html VictoriaAve ( talk) 08:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is a link of some documentation on research in this area, if that is necessary for the sentences to be removed. VictoriaAve ( talk) 08:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Johanna Budwig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
You did it again. Your statement "There is no evidence that this or other "anti-cancer" diet is effective."[2] is totally absurd. You can say what you want about the Budwig Diet but to extend that statement to everything in the entire world is supreme arrogance. You are extending your argument to things you have no knowledge of. Please try again. Arydberg ( talk) 03:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Please could you tell me what are your sources for "OTHER anti cancer diets" Do they include those that you have no knowledge of? 108.34.143.147 ( talk) 23:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
If you said "many other diets" at least it would have been a correct statement but to use the term "other" is way too far ranging. It is simply wrong. Have you looked at the diet that may be published tomorrow? Arydberg ( talk) 17:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Right, You obviously know much more about this than the 25,000 members of the FlaxSeedOil2 Yahoo Group. You must be a very smart person way beyond us mere mortals. 108.34.143.147 ( talk) 21:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
It is quite strange to write that there is no evidence that this is an effective diet, when there is certainly documented research in the area that shows that the diet is effective! Here it is well described: https://www.budwig-stiftung.de/en/dr-johanna-budwig/her-research.html VictoriaAve ( talk) 08:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)