Talk:Otto Heinrich Warburg

This article is pretty POV. I'm gonna remove POV comments pending citation. Turly-burly 09:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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:

• 1 His origins
• 2 His education & service in the First World War
• 3 His scientific endeavors (with subsections)
• in cell physiology
• in cancer research
• scientists he mentored
• scientists with whom he collaborated
• scientists who enlarged on his discoveries
• 4 Warburg as a person
• 5 The honors he received.
• 6 An overall evaluation of his work
• 7 Works by Warburg and their import
• 8 Works about Warburg and perhaps critiques of them.

How long this will take, I do not know; other wikipedians are most welcome to add their input.$ --Alterrabe 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you there...I've been slowly adding to this page (mostly anonymously before I created an account) since it was in infancy. I was so surprised/disappointed upon checking this article for a bit more info after reading about Warburg...it was so small...If I remember correctly, the first time I checked there wasn't even an article. Glad to see it's gotten to where it is and I hope (and will do what I can to make sure) it gets to the complexity you're talking about. Warburg really has done some great work that everyone should be aware of. Thanks to everyone who's contributed. --JohnDoe0007 09:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Was he right?

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 the cause of cancer. Like other outspoken early 20th century scientists, he may have been wrong. JFW | T@lk 09:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of Warburg's work is not that he claimed that anaerobic respiration was the ultimate cause of cancer, but rather that he claimed that the cure to cancer lay in finding the ultimate causes of cancer's anerobic respiration, and reversing them. He was adamantly against the theory that viruses cause cancer.--Alterrabe (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect sources

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)

Nobel: The Man and His Prizes, 3rd ed

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 the Nobel Prize and Otto 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)

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)

[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 to Talk:Nobel Prize. --NYScholar (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)]

Here is the info link for the 3rd ed. from WorldCat: [1] --NYScholar (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)