Talk:Johanna Budwig/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edits

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)

I presume that you're referring to these edits. The largest chunk of text was removed because it was apparently copied directly from an external site. Just providing a link to the site from which it was copied doesn't allow Wikipedia to reproduce a substantial portion of another author's work, I'm afraid. The link to the full copy of the information is preserved in the External links section of the article, as is usual Wikipedia practice.

The degree of wikilinking is somewhat subjective, though it seems to be traditional to link the first reference to a country.

It is normal for encyclopedia articles—those in Wikipedia included—to describe the opinions of relevant experts. The vast majority of oncologists don't believe dietary changes (Budwig's or any others) can cure cancer, and this is worth noting.

In general, it's not appropriate to include personal opinion or anecdotes, which is why those passages were removed or edited. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You know what, the entire world of "medicine" is being written by those who have a vested interest in the status quo. Of course oncologists don't like the Budwig Diet because they get all their money from the drug companies and by prescribing chemotherapy.

I just think your edits were overly negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.212.244 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

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.)

• Being nominated for the Peace Prize is an honor, but it is not official and not necessarily prestigious. Any national legislator or about a third of the university professors in the world can make a nomination, and there have been as many as 160 some years. Rumored nominees have included a Brazilian psychic (nominated twice) and an unscrupulous businessmen from Ohio. Nominators are requested to keep their nominations secret, so it's only those wishing publicity who make announcements. In most instances the reports of prize nominations seem to just be unattributed rumors. Altogether, I see no reason to keep it. No offense to the subject, this is a general Nobel Peace Prize "nominees" issue. -Willmcw July 7, 2005 07:58 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree, for the reasons stated. (Chief among them are the verifiability issues, since the Nobel committee keeps the official list of nominations secret for fifty years.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 7 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)

In fact, I'm almost inclined to leave this intact, just as an indicator of how totally meaningless a nomination is. But we can keep it here on the talk page. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Expansion beyond a stub

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)

Clearly she has written books and papers, which is the bulk of what you deleted, including the references in PubMed. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But this fact in itself does not make the subject notable. Secondary references will secure this. Seriously, if we cannot find good references then this is a meaningless article of the sort that clutters Wikipedia with unverified nonsense. I move to delete the article. If no good references are found soon, I will propose deletion. 81.109.241.87 (talk) 21:14, 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)

The papers you just deleted (along with much else) were taken from the PubMed database, which is a database of peer-reviewed journals. That she had these papers accepted indicates that (at least at one time) Budwig had some scientific credentials. More importantly, Twiga, if this is a biographical article about Budwig, then it should list her scientific papers and books as they are clearly part of her life's works. If, as I suspect, you think that there shouldn't be an article on Budwig at all, then there is a procedure you should follow. Follow it. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Having 'scientific credentials' (are these established? e.g. where did she earn her qualifications, what institutions did she work at?) or even having published papers is insufficient to establish notability. Would everyone ever to have a paper published be notable enough for an entry? I cannot see a justification for listing papers when they are not established as notable and neither is the subject. We have no reliable, independent sources that give any significant coverage, Am re-adding the notability tag. Can anyone make a case for notability? What subject experts could one call upon here? Twiga Kali (talk) 00:29, 30 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)

Alternative Cures Will Never Have "Acceptable" Citations

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)

Unfortunately, this reasoning borders conspiracy theory. Yes there exist commercial pharmaceutic scandals and lobbying, as well as sponsored research, and even political party funding. However, if this diet proved unequivocally to help prevent or cure cancer, it would most likely be more notable, be part of common dietary reccomendations of various governments and organizations, etc. Biochemists are not necessarily part of a global conspiracy, and modern biochemistry is far more advanced than that of Budwig's time... I decided to answer because this is a common argument, and I don't think that the article should subscribe to a conspiracy worldview. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

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)

The references are clearly unreliable as has been pointed out to you on the deletion page. The references make the make of asserting that Budwig discovered EFAs in the 1950's. This is obviously untrue as EFAs were discovered in the 1930s and not by Budwig. The article clearly has not undergone the fact-checking required to make this rs. Given the nature of the academic and medical claims being made, one would expect suitablty academic sources to cite. None exist. The ACS article gives no references to what they state - and as such the claims made about Budwig are clearly spurious.

The references fail WP:MEDRS and should not be included. Twiga Kali (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the flaxseed one that does not include the phrase you seem to be objecting to. Rod57 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

External Links

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)

Third Opinion Request in progress:

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)

No discussion having developed, I am no longer going to watch this page. If the dispute over the External Links should continue and discussion is developed here on the talk page, please feel free to re–list your dispute at the Third Opinion Project. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring (March 2010)

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)

I see Numquam Dormio wishes to make joke edits by highlighting that some people claim Budwig has been nominate for the Nobel Prize. Given the contentious nature of this post at the moment I can only assume that this a provocative edit design to elicit an edit war. I suggest that this is removed and discussed. Putting imaginary and unreliable content in here based on unreliable sources is hardly constructive towards the goal of either improving the article or deleting it.Twiga Kali (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits on Nobel Prizes etc

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)

It seemed clear from the AfD discussion and decision that only you disputed notability and regarded the sources as unreliable. Rod57 (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What is a shame is that despite a few other editors thinking that the subject was notable on the AfD thread, none could respond to my request to provide RS from which to base the article. I would see this as a rather large failure of process. But moving on. The one ACS source would appear to be offer some level of RS. In my opinion, a few source paragraphs do not an encyclopedic entry make. But to move on, it would appear to be the best route forward until other sources are found. I do this with some hesitation, and should the subject of deletion come up again, I would still argue that this is an unsubstantial basis from which to base an article.Twiga Kali (talk) 16:45, 8 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)

'basic stub' should not exclude list of papers and books, but should IMO exclude mention of possible Nobel nominations (until verifiable). Rod57 (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be absurd. You could use such an argument to put any unreliable information anywhere in Wikipedia in the hope that one day a source will appear. Twiga Kali (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTCRYSTAL Twiga Kali (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The list of papers and books seems reliable, and I said to exclude mention of Nobel nominations. I think you misread me. Rod57 (talk) 03:29, 8 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)

I have asked Twiga Kali on talk to say if 86.31.30.2 was him/her. Rod57 (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Lard

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)

For the fourth time Twiga Kali, you have, inter alia, deleted the five papers by Budwig listed in the PubMed database on the same spurious grounds. Your recent edits have been almost identical to those on 22 October 2009 where you first tried to delete them. That she wrote papers in peer-reviewed journals listed in PubMed doesn't fit in with your espoused opinion that Budwig was a "writer of a few non-notable cookbooks". In that same series of edits, you added the false information: "She died of cancer in 2003.", which is no more than vandalism. Further to your vandalism, you subsequently proposed the deletion of the entire article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Budwig and convinced absolutely nobody of your views. Now that your Plan B has failed so dismally, you seem to be going to back to Plan A, deleting as much text from the article as possible. You are a vandal: don't expect to be taken seriously. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand it is not good form on Wikipedia to attack the editor rather than their arguments. I have given substantial reasons why these edits are valid in my opinion and you fail to engage with them. If you cannot provide a reason for a paper being there then I cannot see how it can be justified as being included. If you wish to be constructive, I would suggest you do provide an argument for inclusion. As I have repeatedly state, mere listing in pubmed does not make a paper notable. Indeed, most of these listings are not even papers. Twiga Kali (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand it is not good form to vandalise Wikipedia articles with false statements such as "She died of cancer in 2003." Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you incapable of addressing substantive points about the quality of this article or are you just playing games here? Twiga Kali (talk) 18:08, 12 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.

• Do you believe that articles on scientists should list all their paper'articles/books/letters or just those that are of notable quality?
• Let us take an example, the Kaufmann, et al letter where Budwig is the second author. This was added fairly recently. Is this reference notable in line with the subject of the article? Can you give a synopsis of what the article is about and why it should be included?

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)

Please note I suggested to keep the books that are still in print and obviously have something to do with the (marginal) notability of the subject. The translations of similar books are redundant as far as I can see and just create the impression of a greater publication list than is really there. The papers need to stand on their merit. If you actually look at the papers, most are not original peer reviewed research at all, but letters or notes to editors. I am asking that they be removed unless they can be shown to be relevant to the article. Notable scientists on wikipedia do not have simple lists of anything they ever wrote - this looks like barrel scraping and puffery. I suggest we only inlcude material in this article that can be justified on normal WP terms. This is not the place to try to create a greater sense of notability than really exists - especially on such a sensitive and contentious issue as pseudomedical cancer cures. Plus it is worth noting that I have questioned her status as a academic precisely because we can find no reliable sources that discuss her as an academic. We might infer that from various texts, but to do so would be OR. Twiga Kali (talk) 17:37, 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...

• Peer reviewed papers by the author, that are;
• directly related to the notability claims of the subject.

Other references included should be

• In English, if possible;
• Not a foreign language version of another English article/book;
• directly related to the notability of the subject;

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)

Comment moved here from Talk:Johanna budwig

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)

Comment moved here by User:Snowolf. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Substantial trimming

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.

Flaxseed oil, as one of the highest sources of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, combined with cottage cheese, one of the highest sources of sulphur-based proteins, bind together, resulting in optimum transport of the fatty acids to cancer cells.

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).

Recent testing of flaxseed (the highest source of mammalian lignans) on rats led to reduction and regression of tumours. This led to a formal randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study involving 32 postmenopausal patients confirming that 25g flaxseed daily intake significantly reduced cell proliferation, increased apoptosis and reduced c-erbB2 expression of human breast cancer cells. The preliminary research into flaxseed indicates that it can significantly change breast cancer growth.

Keep up the good work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, that's a disingenous approach - removing all cited and uncited information that you disagree with, for differents reasons. Yes, it should be cited. The cited information on the efficacy of flaxseed oil is directly related to the Budwig Diet. The problem for alterative approachs is that, when they are verified through conventional sources, they are not longer considered "alternative." Nonetheless, this is the Budwig Diet being applied. I'm not convinced either way on most alternative approaches, but I definitely want to see cited relevant information if it can be included - core to what Wikipedia is about.Aristillus(talk) 17:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Who said I disagree with the information about flaxseed oil? I note only that the information belongs in a different article, not here. Flaxseed oil is only one component of the Budwig diet; as far as I know none of the studies cited address the efficacy of Budwig's protocol in its entirety, nor do they support the assertion that the diet is curative.

I see, incidentally, that you've also restored uncited claims about Nobel Prize nominations (inherently unverifiable, as nominations are sealed for decades) and for some reason chosen to duplicate a couple of external links. (Diff)

Unless you're prepared to provide sources for the uncited material, please stop blanket reverting my edits. Unless you're prepared to add sources to indicate that the possible benefits identified flaxseed oil studies apply specifically to Budwig diet patients, please stop reinserting material that properly belongs in a different article where it might be on point. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:15, 5 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)

Johanna Budwig: RfC

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)

Normally , in a list of works of an academic, we includes all the books of an author, with full publication data, in the original as well as in translations, including as many languages as we can find. Whether they are in print is totally irrelevant. Such a bibliography is not a list of references, and there is no reason to prefer English. We generally do not include a list of all the papers by an author, but we do include the most important ones, which are usually defined by he ones most cited; unfortunately, for the journals she published in and the time period in which she worked, there are no citation indexes. A better way of handling hem in this case would simply to use them as references to the text, saying that she studied thus and so, with the reference being the paper--they are unquestionably legitimate references; I think it would do better than a list for them. The books can also be used as references in this manner, as well as being listed in the bibliography of her works. Normally we do not include book chapters, [pamphlets, and other miscellaneous publications, unless for some reason they are important, or relevant as references. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that listing an academic's work isn't unreasonable. My worry, however, and where I agree with Twiga Kali, is that the secondary sources for Johanna Budwig herself are pretty minimal on the page - all we have is a reference to the America Cancer Society website, which itself lacks in-line citations for its claims about Budwig. I suspect would be a much stronger artice if we had a couple of strong references about the subject of the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 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)

I've done a quick GoogleBook and GoogleScholar search; there are plenty of secondary sources out there for Budwig which would support the statement "Budwig is notable as an alternative medical therapist, who designed the Budwig diet in the 1950s..."; the conventional, vice alternative, sources I could find noted that she had claimed to "cure" cancers, with the cure in speech marks, and drew attention to the lack of evidence, potentially supporting the possibility of stating that "...but her claims to be able to "cure" cancers have not been widely accepted within the conventional medical community". There may be more conventional sources out there, of course; I'm not claiming to be a medical expert! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful if you could list such sources as, yes, there are a lot of sources out there, but finding reliable source is very hard - and comprehensive rs, impossible. I would also be troubled about using a phrase such as 'conventional sources' as this implies their beliefs are by convention rather on the basis of scientific evidence. Twiga Kali (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability

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.

References in general

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.)

American Cancer Society references

Editor Rod57 added in two references from the American Cancer Society as references for this sentence:

“She developed and promoted (from 1952) the Budwig protocol/Budwig diet, which is based on the regular consumption of foods rich in linolenic and linoleic acids, such as Flaxseed oil, low fat cottage cheese and vegetable juices. Budwig claimed this diet would cure or prevent many forms of cancers.”

The relevant passages in the references read

“A German biochemist, Johanna Budwig, first brought attention to flaxseed oil as a treatment in the 1950s through a diet she devised for cancer patients. The diet was a strict regimen that avoided sugar, animal fats, salad oil, meats, butter, and margarine. The patients were given flaxseed oil, mixed with cottage cheese and milk, and meals high in fruits, vegetables, and fiber. She claimed that within 3 months, some patients on this diet had smaller tumors, some had no tumors left, and all felt better.”

and

“In the 1950s, a German scientist named Johanna Budwig, PhD, discovered essential fatty acids and developed a diet that she said would fight cancer. Dr. Budwig claimed that many of her patients experienced tumor reduction within 3 months, and she stated that some experienced even more dramatic results. Dr. Budwig has reportedly used omega-3 fatty acids in combination with other nutrients to treat thousands of people with cancer and other diseases.”

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.

Books

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.

Papers in PubMed

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:

• Remarks on Homann and Otto's, Treatment of cancer patients with positive-pressure ether
• Cytostatic or cytodynamic control of cancer?
• Photo-elements of life as an anti-carcinoma factor, successful as a preventive and in the progressive state of the illness
• Zur Biologie der Fette V: Die Papier-Chromatographie der Blutlipoide, Geschwulstproblem und Fettforschung [The biology of fat V: The paper chromatography of Blutlipoide, tumor problem and fat research]

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.)

Nobel Prize canard

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.

• It's been added in again today, (20 April 2010) the reference being an advertisement in a newspaper. I've reverted this bit.

I therefore added in the following text:

Proponents of the Budwig protocol often claim that she was nominated for a Nobel Prize either six or seven times. However, the names of the nominees are never publicly announced, and neither are they told that they have been considered for the Prize. All nomination records for a prize are sealed for 50 years from the awarding of that prize.

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.

I'm sorry, I didn't notice the advertisement bit when I added it in. There's also this. Silverseren^C 18:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it is 50 years from the time of nomination, not 50 years from the time of death. So might not have to wait until 2053 ;) See here 129.78.233.212 (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Quick thoughts. The issues I'm seeing raised above seem to me to be:

• Is Budwig notable? My view is yes; she is widely cited in secondary sources, and this has been debated before.
• Should all her books and major articles be referenced? I'd argue yes, but I'd also argue that if there's a debate over whether something was a letter or an article, it would be good if we could find someone who'd read it. (NB: I'd agree that 9 pages sounds like an article; two pages doesn't to me, but I'd still feel happier if we could find someone who'd read the items concerned.)
• Was she nominated for a Nobel Prize? None of us really knows, I'd suggest a variant on the wording above, namely: "Proponents of the Budwig protocol claim that she was nominated for a Nobel Prize either six or seven times, although the nature of the nomination process means that this cannot be confirmed." That would neutrally capture the fact of the belief by many of her supporters that she was nominated, without asserting the event itself to be fact.
• Did Budwig create a diet and claim that it would cure cancers? I'm seeing a lot of references asserting that she did create such a diet and did claim that it would cure cancer, and not a lot suggesting otherwise. Could we perhaps cite an article or two from the American Cancer site? (e.g. "Basch E, Bent S, Collins J, Dacey C, Hammerness P, Harrison M, Smith M, Szapary P, Ulbricht C, Vora M, Weissner W.... cited in American Cancer... etc.)? (unless one of us has read the originals, which I haven't)
• Did her diet actually cure cancer? I haven't seen anything so far that looks like that. Do some alternative practitioners (NB: accepting that the term can be challenged) claim that it does? Probably yes.

Happy to be contradicted!

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)

Further discussion

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)

You mean all of the links show in this version of the article, that were all recently removed by User:Nunquam Dormio. Not to mention the references that are shown in the section above? I do not believe this article should be merged, there are sources for it, people just keep removing them. Silverseren^C 00:41, 28 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)

Budwig and Light

Can something be made of this? Silverseren^C 04:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And this. Silverseren^C 04:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Another. Silverseren^C 04:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And another. Silverseren^C 04:20, 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)

Funny thing

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)

They "claim" no such thing. Quack/altmed diets don't work, but there's a well-acknowledged interplay between diet and cancer generally. See here for example. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(Add) And we have an entire article on the subject: Diet and cancer. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:41, 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)

Nonsense. We will not be implementing your poor, non policy compliant, badly researched suggestions. You appear to have no idea at all about sourcing or accuracy. Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100329054117/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Flaxseed.asp?sitearea=ETO to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Flaxseed.asp?sitearea=ETO
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608234220/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Omega-3_Fatty_Acids.asp?sitearea=ETO to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Omega-3_Fatty_Acids.asp?sitearea=ETO
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303184041/https://portal.d-nb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&query=Johanna+Budwig to https://portal.d-nb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&query=Johanna+Budwig

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Arrogance

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)

We reflect accepted knowledge in reliable sources, and this is such. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 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)

See PMID 23152069. Alexbrn (talk) 01:33, 24 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)

We follow the source. There is no such thing as an "anti-cancer diet". It's obvious bullshit and we're not going to pretend otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The trouble with things that “may be published tomorrow” is that they tend to lack reliable sources. Brunton (talk) 11:46, 27 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)

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. Wikipedia is a reality-based project which reflects accepted knowledge as published in reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The source cited only mentions the Budwig diet, so I’ve removed the mention of other diets, per WP:STICKTOSOURCE.Brunton (talk) 12:24, 27 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)

That is not a scientific reference, it is a promotional website. There is no reliable evidence from independent peer-reviewed scientific papers that Budwig's diet can cure cancer and is massively effective. She had some good ideas, i.e. eating flax seeds and juicing up some fruits every morning and this sort of thing does keep us healthy (Budwig lived to 94), but get a reality check on this, some seeds and fruit is not going to cure cancer patients. If it was this simple hospitals all around the world would have cured cancer by now on this simple diet. It would be great if it was true, but sadly it isn't. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Johanna Budwig.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)