Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illness among Jews


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. A large number of delete votes here were disregarded. The article most defnitely does not fall under WP:MADEUP, as there is a source from over a hundred years ago. In addition, the fact that the article is imperfect is not a reason to delete it. In addition, much of this AfD has been overcome by events, as there has been a massive rewrite of this article since the AfD began. Another AfD may still be filed but I would recommend waiting at least a few weeks to see where the article goes first. NW ( Talk ) 20:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Illness among Jews

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

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, 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 * Comment - I'd like to point out to readers that the copyvio claim was subsequently withdrawn.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)
 * It's hardly a WP:MADEUP topic, is it, when the 1906 JE article Morbidity is precisely on this subject? And there is at least some significant modern research specifically into disease directly associated with Jewish ancestry, most notably Tay-Sachs disease.  My view is we should wait and see how the article develops. Jheald (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)  Update: whilst I haven't been able to check the latest (2007) edition, note that the 1970s Encyclopedia Judaica also treats the subject at length, in a three page article titled "Sickness". Jheald (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And for the record, I'd find an article on a subject like Disease trends in the U.K., looking at what diseases/conditions were particularly prevalent or not prevalent in the UK compared to international yardsticks, and how this may or may not have been changing over time, would be an extremely valid and valuable addition to the encyclopedia. Jheald (talk) 09:48, 15 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)
 * Newman, I have stopped your redirect of "illness among women" to "gynacology" because "gynacology" is not an "illness" as such, it is about treating women, a field of medicine, including ALL healthy ones, relating to the reproductive parts of their body. Healthy women go all the time to see an "OB-GYN" or don't you know that? I cannot believe that you even think that "gynacology" is an "illness"! Please stop creating fake connections and links where none exist thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that redirect should probably point to Women's health. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 16 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 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)
 * The original version was a cut & paste from a source dated 1906 which was lacking in even the basics, and I felt that it could not even serve as a proper springboard for a better article. The creator is now populating it with more recent content, but it is likely to remain unreliable until the 103-year old content has been removed. JFW | T@lk  18:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite. Consider as a model Finnish heritage disease. --Una Smith (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that a rewrite may enhance the article to the point that it can be kept, but only if the archaic junk is removed. JFW | T@lk  18:23, 14 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  &amp;  Windows  00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tim Vickers makes an excellent point, not all populations of Jews belong to the same ethnic group. I think it should be incubated to give time to think what to do with the article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The above discussion doesn't seem to indicate strong reasons for deletion.  However, the article should probably be incubated as suggested above, or at least 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)
 * Incubation (or quarantine) might be a good idea. To show how out-of-date some of it is, the "Mental health" section was titled "Insanity" until I changed it, which should never have been left in by the article creator. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait and see how the article develops, without prejudice to future nomination; particularly as there is at least some significant modern research specifically into disease directly associated with Jewish ancestry, most notably Tay-Sachs disease. But per the comments immediately above, it is certainly clear that in its present form the article needs extensive revision and bringing up to date.  Jheald (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Question Do we have an article on Attitudes towards illness in Judaism, or something similar? That might very well be worth an article.  Jheald (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I don't find the arguments for deletion to be the persuasive in the least, although I am sure they are made in good faith. Unencyclopedic is clearly not a valid concern, as the article was drawn from the illustrious Jewish Encyclopedia.  Out of date is a concern, but simply means that the article is not yet finished, but requires more work.  Jewish illness is a complex topic, clearly.  But if we delete every unfinished article on a complex topic, none will remain, and Wikipedia will be left as a steaming heap of TV and movie fluff.  We have to permit incomplete and out-of-date articles in order that they should eventually grow to become complete and up-to-date.  This seems obvious.  So I would just suggest to those who want to push the 'Delete' button to push instead the 'Edit' button and start updating.  Why not make a project of it, and a bunch of us can kick in to find more current info?  The publications on Jewish hereditary disease must be legion. —Dfass (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Perhaps the nominator was mistaken and thought that this s about the atitude of Judaism towards illness? The subject is well-research in medical literature, as can be seen from the many references in the article. Supprised at such a nomination! Debresser (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename. While I can appreciate the nominator's concerns, there are sufficient reliable sources for important subtopics in this article, though the content from the JE needs to be updated. However, the sources and NPOV require a rename, probably to Jewish genetic diseases though there may be grounds, which need to be shown, for Jewish diseases. So the problem here is a matter of editing not AfD per se. HG | Talk 12:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the 1970s Encyclopedia Judaica article also reviews social/environmental factors, not just genetic factors; which it suggests may be quite relevant to the fact that throughout the 20th century Jews in America and Canada had better remaining-years-of-life expectancy at all ages than the corresponding population average; environmental/social factors were also thought (at least in 1972) to be likely to be quite significant, alongside genetic factors, in accounting for the relative susceptibility of the Jewish population to cardiac problems, compared to the general population. They would also be important for reviewing historical sickness trends.  Jheald (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only the genetic info deserves its own Jewish subtopic article, given the unique and significant research on Jewish genetic diseases (plus, Jews and genetic screening, etc). (Needs to be updating, but that's an editing not AfD point.) The other Jewish material IMO could be put in subsections on demographics of each disease, though you are welcome to prove otherwise by bringing forth significant sources etc. There are some important new cultural studies on perceptions/stereotypes of (European) Jews as sickly and as healthy, but these also belong elsewhere. Thanks! Best wishes, HG | Talk 03:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article provides coverage of a range of diseases that are more prevalent among Jews than in the population as a whole, with reliable and verifiable sources supporting the article content. Alansohn (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep And of course every topic in Wikipedia will be just as out of date in time. All the living people will have died, science and technology will have moved forward. Many of the articles on computer software and hardware are out of date in just a few months. All that matters is that they be sourced and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per IZAK and I42 and violating Scientific standards. While the Jewish Encyclopedia printed 100 years ago might be a good source for 'timeless' material about people or places, it is not an RS for this subject and it is utterly ridiculous to use superstitious and primitive medical information as a base for an article in WP. The information is utterly out of date and not relevant anymore. Giving a platform about studies on mental disease or anything else over a hundred years ago is very misleading and making a farce out of Wikipedia. This is WP:COATRACK and WP:SYN. --Shuki (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not here to judge the article's current content, which I think everyone agrees is problematic. We're here to judge whether the topic is encyclopedic and has the potential for a sourceable article.  Given that Encyclopedia Judaica thought it worth devoting three pages of well-footnoted material to the subject in the 1970s, and there very likely is an updated article in the 2007 retread, the presumption has to be that yes, this is an encyclopedic topic; and yes, it should be possible to write an up-to-date well-sourced article on the subject.  Jheald (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course we can judge the current content. If, as you say, everyone agrees the content is problematic then the article should be deleted and there should be no prejudice against recreation using reliable sources. I42 (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggested name If the article is kept, renaming it to something like "Jewish ethnicity and health" or "Health issues among Jews" might be appropriate.  Judaism (a term suggested by the nominator) is generally understood to refer to the religion, not the ethnicity, and religious conversion does not change genetics.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do like the ethnicity and health, but the article also contains discussion of occupational disease - particularly bowel/intestinal disease which was thought in part to be related to eating food on shabbat which had been left on a low heat in an oven for the previous 12-24 hours (according to the Jewish Encyclopedia), and the historic prevalence of haemorrhoids, thought to be due to spending vast long hours studying the Torah while sitting on a hard bench - a prevalence so extreme that in eastern europe it was rare to find a Jew who didn't have them (at least historically - according to the Jewish Encyclopedia).
 * Health issues among Jews would be a good title, though I'm not sure why that's much different from the present one?
 * Newman Luke (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename per HG. Genetic disease amongst Jewish populations is well documented. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  11:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Either Rewrite with more timely sources or Delete. This is not an article on Jewish tradition, for which a century old text may be appropriate vis-a-vis the millenia old history of Jews. This is ostensibly an article about scientific phenomena, and as such, deserves to be written using the most up-to-date sources. It is well accepted that like any group which has not had a high rate of assimilation, there are unique mental/physiological strength and weaknesses. However, they should be discussed using the latest evidence, not 19th century understandnings. -- Avi (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Jewish people share a religion, but are not a homogeneous genetic group (see Jewish ethnic divisions). This is in contrast to defined ethnic groups such as Ashkenazi Jews or Beta Israel. I therefore think it is inaccurate and misleading to merge together horribly outdated "encyclopedia" content from the turn of the last century on, for example "tuberculosis in Jews", and modern studies on a particular ethnic group, for example, "Tay-Sachs disease in Ashkenazi Jews". It would be perfectly possible to write a good article on Medical genetics of Ashkenazi Jews, but you can't write an article on Medical genetics of Jews any more than you could on Medical genetics of Christians. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you read Who is a Jew, you'd be very much of the opinion that many Jews view Jews collectively as a comparatively homogeneous genetic group. Given the historic hostility to intermarriage, this is also a reasonable conclusion. Christians have intermarried frequently. Christianity has evangelised multiple fairly unrelated genetic groups. Judaism hasn't. Although modern more liberal strains of Judaism aren't so hostile to intermarriage, and don't view Jewishness as such a genetic/maternally-transmitted thing, such strains haven't been around for much more than a 150 years, so it hasn't had that much of an effect on diluting Jewish genetics. After all, most Jews all claim descent from the same person - Jacob. Newman Luke (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was basing my comment on the PNAS paper cited in that article, which demonstrated that although most Jews share a reasonably recent common ancestor and are genetically distinct from the rest of the population in whatever country you look at (except the Middle East) there are exceptions such as the Ethiopian Jews. I realise the question of whether "Jewishness" is a racial or religious construct is highly controversial in modern Judaism, i.e. is a converted Jew "really" a Jew? This controversy, and the few clear exceptions to the "racial definition", are the reason why I think you need to either rename the article to deal with the sociology of illness in Judaism, or deal with the genetics of illness in an uncontroversial ethnic group, such as Ashkenazi Jews. Presently, the article tries to do both, which is impossible. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Although interesting it is not really encyclopedic as that is understood on WP. A WP article should be about facts, not long rambling theories and speculations. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you followed that principle, all of the articles about religion would be deleted, except the only one that mentions how many people follow each religion. And Wikipedia would be all the poorer for it. Newman Luke (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The facts about what people of a religion believe and practice is perfectly fine for an encyclopedia article. When you start speculating about how different things affect each other, like religious practices and health you are getting out of encyclopedic range, however interesting such speculation is. (i.e. Jews don't keep pet snakes so are less likely to suffer snakebites. Mormons don't drink so are less likely to be in auto accidents caused by drunk driving. Etc.)Steve Dufour (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.