Talk:Otto Heinrich Warburg
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theOtto Heinrich Warburg article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article is pretty POV. I'm gonna remove POV comments pending citation.Turly-burly09:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Otto Heinrich Warburg was an extremely interesting scientist, whose work, I am convinced, is not yet properly appreciated. As I have been able to, I've been adding to this article.
Eventually, I see his page as consisting of the following sections, or some variant thereof:
How long this will take, I do not know; other wikipedians are most welcome to add their input.$--Alterrabe16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warburg is regarded as some sort of a hero by the alternative cancer treatment lobby (e.g. Ralph Moss). Oddly, there is actually fairly little controversy about his experimental finding that cancer cells are highly metabolically active and absorb glucose preferentially. What is controversial is whether this is thecause of cancer. Like other outspoken early 20th century scientists, he may have been wrong.JFW | T@lk09:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source that I corrected is that listed in Worldcat for the ISBN number cited. There is no verification of the page citation (210). The multiple authors are not from the 3rd ed. (ISBN no. cited); Odelberg and the Nobel Foundation are listed by WorldCat and by other sources as the more recent editors of the book cited. Please investigate further. The citation format is not correct either. The link to the reference in the list is not to the proper reference source apparently. It was also incorrect in the other Wikipedia article. Please provide verification of the source being cited. A quotation from page 210 of the actual volume being cited would serve to verify the claim of the "rumor" being stated in that source. Because rumor is the subject of the statement, a reliable and verifiable source is absolutely required. Following the links in WorldCat (and other book sources online) do not go to the edition with those multiple editors. --NYScholar (talk)23:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have this book in front of me and the reference information that I've included is correct. Regardless of what Worldcat may state about it, the individual sections of the book was written by the authors listed and was edited by The Nobel Foundation and W. Odelberg, Coordinating Editor. So I've changed back the in-line ref for Otto Heinrich Warburg and added the editors to the reference in theNobel Prize andOtto Heinrich Warburg articles. But if there were other in-line refs that I missed, I would appreciate it if you could help change them back. Thanks for being thorough! –panda (talk)23:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me all of the bibliographical information and a quotation from page 210 from the article by a specific author or authors, I can try to put the reference citation in a proper format. It is not currently presented accurately. If you are citing an article published in an edition, there is a proper way to do that (article in a book collection of essays). The citation formatting in the Wikipedia article is not currently in a consistent format; ACS would be appropriate for an article in the sciences; MLA or APA or Harvard or some consistent format for Nobel Prize (a more general subject); there is not a consistent use of the unwieldy Wikipedia citation templates (which are not recommended in Wikipedia necessarily; just an option among several options for citation formats). It is not incorrect to cite a page in an edition by citing only the editor's or editors' names (last name and page ref.); unless using APA or Harvard, the date in parentheses is not nec. It is easiest just to key to last name(s) of editor(s) with a page ref. (p. or pp. no longer nec. either). --NYScholar (talk)23:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[I think that this exchange should be moved to the talk pages of the articles in question. (I will be copying and pasting it there shortly. Please carry on disc. on the talk pages of the articles. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)][moved here and toTalk:Nobel Prize. --NYScholar (talk)23:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Here is the info link for the3rd ed. from WorldCat:[1] --NYScholar (talk)00:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is or who are the author(s) of the particular article being cited as on page 210? What is the title of the article? What are the inclusive page numbers of the article? Is it in the 3rd edition of the volume published in 1972 (as being cited)? Or is the article from one of the editions published in the 1950s? Please look at the title page and back of title page for the information about the most recent edition that you are using. Please indicate if it is actually the 3rd edition. If so, it is not proper to cite the 1950s information. One needs the author(s)' name(s) and title of the article or chapter of a book to cite the particular chapter; otherwise, one just cites the whole book (the edition, volume title, ed. no. w/ the editor(s)' names). Other citations are incorrect as well, but I do not have time to fix them. You can correct them yourself if you have time by providing the parallel information to that just requested. Thanks. (I think that the citing of a "rumor" might be better documented by using an exact quotation from the source and documenting it as appearing in the article or chapter of the book per se, as just suggested.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC) [Please see also related recent section inTalk:Nobel Prize. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk)00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Image:Otto Warburg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is noexplanation or rationale as to why its use inthis Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent withfair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale. Using one of the templates atWikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk)15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Dr. Warburg was Jewish, how was he able to survive and even work as a scientist in WWII Germany?A2Kafir (and...?)03:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains the following: "...an ineffective regime claimed to treat cancer..." "Regime" should be "regimen".[1]72.250.140.128 (talk)15:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link onOtto Heinrich Warburg. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis 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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)17:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
