Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illness among Jews

Illness among Jews

Illness among Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copy & paste from >100 year old source with anecdotal data not examined epidemiologically, let alone including all data on health in Jewish communities (including genetic disorders) accrued since that time. Article could be recreated from scratch under Judaism and health if deemed useful. JFW | T@lk 23:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The article has existed for approximately half an hour. I've not even had a chance to wikify it yet. This seems absurdly hasty, and I feel JFW isn't extending WP:FAITH. Its from a public domain Encyclopedia. Its self evidently encyclopedic - its from an Encyclopedia (now in the Public domain). Obviously it doesn't include 20th century stats at the moment. How is a 19th century source supposed to include 20th century stats. There's nothing to stop 20th century stats being added. Newman Luke (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. As the author pointed out to me when I nominated as a copyvio, Wikipedia:Jewish_Encyclopedia_topics is a project dedicated to bringing this content into wikipedia. Therefore there is precedent (for inclusion). However, the nominator is correct that this particular article is dated. Just because the text can be included does not mean it should be - in this case, at least, the Jewish Encyclopedia does not appear to be a reliable source. I42 (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd like to point out to readers that the copyvio claim was subsequently withdrawn. The source - the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901) - is in the public domain. Newman Luke (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment' - We keep articles about Neurasthenia, Phrenology, Lamarkian inheritance, and Phlogiston theory. The Talmud's concern for haemophilia victims in relation to circumcision is still notable, even though its nearly one and a half thousand years old. Just because something is historic and superseded doesn't mean it ceases to be notable. Newman Luke (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, because this seems to be stretching the imagination violating WP:MADEUP (I.e.: In a nutshell: Resist the temptation to write about the new, great thing you or your friends just thought up.) The creator of this article seems bent on creating articles violating WP:POINT that border on controversy and that have no real basis in medicine, in history or in practical Jewish law. If this article remains, then prepare for articles about Illness among Hindus; Illness among Christians; Illness among atheists; and then each ethnic group can get one of its own Illness among Italians; Illness among Russians; Illness among Kenyans; or how about types of different people Illness among women; Illness among homosexuals; Illness among intellectuals etc etc ad absurdum making this the start of a series of ridiculous silly unencyclopedic non-articles. IZAK (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Jews are an endogamous ethnic group, and therefore share a number of particular and distinct genetic traits, such as the size of the nasal duct, for example, which have distinct health impacts. Hindus, Christians, and Atheists are not. Nor are Italians, Russians, or Kenyans, sufficiently endogamous for them as a group to be more affected by certain disease than by others - Kenya particularly is a mix of several ethnicities. Similarly Jews have a history of highly specific and distinct cultural practices which mark them out from society in general, and leave them open to occupational disease stemming from certain of these practices. Italians, Russians, Kenyans, Christians, Atheists, and Hindus, are each too culturally mixed for any particular occupational hazards to affect them as groups - they do not have sufficiently distinct behaviour as groups for noticeable discrepancies in their health. It is the great distinctness of Jewish culture and genetics which makes Jews have noteworthy discrepancies in their health, compared to the general population. This is not true for for intellectuals, etc. Women, however, are biologically distinct, and there is an article about Illness among women - it uses the greek word for women, hence its called gynacology. Newman Luke (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The primary source material is more than a century old and ignores the Sephardic Jewish population completely. Unless this can be updated with 21st century medical information and a more comprehensive understanding of its subject matter, this article has to be taken offline. Warrah (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't understand your vote. You seem to be saying the article needs to be updated with 21st century information, and information about the Sephardic Jewish population. Anyone can add this information into the article at any point. YOU CAN ADD IT YOURSELF. Nothing is preventing you. Yet you want it deleted, why? You can't update an article when its deleted. Newman Luke (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom and ISAK. While I am sure that the creation was made in good faith, the largest basis of this article is from a single out-of-date source. Alternately, incubate or userfy it for the considerable cleanup needed. As is, it is a mess. Bearian (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Articles don't start out as featured articles. I don't see why it should be approached as its not the quality we'd expect for an article to be featured article status, therefore delete it. See Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built.Newman Luke (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• In this case, the foundations are unsafe: following this analogy, deleting and starting over is the correct way to go. I42 (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Foundations are quite safe. It just needs redecorating to bring it in line with the latest fashions. Or to put it another way, it can be updated. Articles are frequently updated from their foundations to be uptodate with science/statistics. Look at all those electoral ones. Take Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 for example, the foundations were woefully out of date by the time it came to November 2008 - they don't even mention the guy that won; but no-one deleted the article, they updated it. Newman Luke (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The article you cite (which is anyway an irrelevance - WP:WAX) was correct at that point in time. The nominated article is based on significantly out-of-date and therefore unreliable information which is why it is not a safe foundation. I42 (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a source dump. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User has less than 200 edits. First edit was yesterday. Newman Luke (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Comment was struck by Newman Luke (in contravention of WP:TPO), not 76.66.197.2. I42 (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Note. Vote was struck in accordance with the policy that new users - indicated by less than 200 votes, or less than a week's [month's?] edits (in this case both) - cannot vote. Does anyone know the link to this?Newman Luke (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No such policy exists. Indeed, WP:AFD states "unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion". I42 (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have unstruck the vote. This is not WP:RfA, new users are perfectly within their rights to contribute here. "Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion." is the relevant bit here, and 76.66 is clearly acting in good faith. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This seems to be a question of whether the topic is better handled "vertically" (i.e. does it stand cohesively as a whole) or as a "horizontal" strand through Medicine articles. The article as it currently stands does not make the former case at all - it reads almost like a list, and no special insight is gained from having it collected in one place. Some of the material would be worthwhile as addition to the relevant disease article if it can be properly sourced. Similar data would properly be added for other identifiable racial and ethnic groups as well. --Scray (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. This topic is often treated vertically. See Dor Yeshorim, or http://www.jewishgeneticdiseases.org/index.htm?tgt=content/jgds-basepage.htm . --Arcadian (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep no valid reason given for deletion. The topics proposed, of illness in other cultural groups, would also make good articles. I am getting very bothered by the attempted deletion of articles about particular concepts in Judaism (and similar articles in some other religions). This is beginning to seem a little like a pattern. Two pattens, actually--one of the creation of articles about topics in religion that may appear a little unusual to the uninformed, the other the refusal to accept that they can be edited properly. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite. Consider as a model Finnish heritage disease. --Una Smith (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep or at least Incubate. As per Una & DGG. Needs substantial work but the foundational reasoning is correct: distinct patterns of disease can and do emerge in populations following ethnic/genetic lines, especially in endogamous groups. The subject can be treated vertically--enough literature should exist to do the subject justice. The title of the article needs to change, though. Sounds like some antisemitic tract from the turn of the century. Consider changing title to "Historic Patterns of Disease among Jewish Peoples" or similar. --Whoosit (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think using a very old source as the starting point was sensible, but it's got plenty more sources now and we can keep improving it. The topic of illness among Jewish people - particularly genetic disease - is definitely notable. Fences&Windows 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The above discussion doesn't seem to indicate strong reasons for deletion. However, the article should probably be flagged as potentially unreliable. Certain sections are a joke: the "mental health" section, especially, seems especially out of date by modern standards. Le Docteur (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)