Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance


 * 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. Consensus is not to delete (Bearian's opinion was not taken into account, as it appears to consist solely of an entirely inappropriate expression of personal prejudice), and whether or not a merger is appropriate can continue to be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  07:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The neoligsm appears to have been a mis-translation from Russian military jargon. The concept almost certainly exists in western military operations, however the phrase "Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance" is rarely used in English and when used refers to the non-military concept of routine searches for infectious or toxic agents. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. If the "neoligsm" is a mis-translation, could you, please, contribute to it correction? 2. It sounds offensive when anybody calls a notion academically recognized (in Russian Academy of Sciences) as “Russian military jargon”. Can you prove your points about "mis-translation" and "Russian military jargon"? 3. If the concept exists in western military operations, might you, please, be more specific and provide the community with a reference/link?  4. You significantly exaggerated the rumor about rare use of the notion. I've got 934000 responses for "Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance" in Google search engine and 680000 responses for "Sanitary-epidemiological reconnaissance". 5. Doesn't it contradict the Wikipedia's policy when somebody nominates for deletion anything that (s)he doesn’t know, understand or recognize, does it?
 * 6. Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance is a literally translated name of an academically recognised notion & practice that has existed & was successfully tested and applied in field conditions for decades on vast expanses of Russia beyond Ural mountains and Asian part of the USSR, military operations included. The notion is a staple word in Russian school of Epidemiology for decades. In every Epidemiology textbook entire chapter is devoted to the notion, undergraduates spend many hours practicing their skill in conducting sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance. Unfortunately, the notion looks as hardly known and imagined by western professors in the densely populated West. Everybody should keep in mind that there are still many uninhabited places and areas of pre-planned deployment of valuable personnel 7. It seems no wonder that essentially the similar practice is recognized by the WHO and in Australia as a part of a wider application, encompassing chemical and radiological hazards as well. They call it “All-hazards approach” US Department of Health and Human Services  in the page 300 of speaks about other surveillance systems to collect data on indicators of disease or disease potential: animal population (animal morbidity and mortality by a disease that can affect humans, the presence of a disease agent in wild and domestic sentinel animals, vectors of a disease) and environmental data. The book calls it as early-warning systems of disease potential.  8.I wonder,  a) if English Wikipedia should be an anglo-saxon one with practices recognized by the West or it might be an internationally friendly one as well?  b) if we should neglect history stretching into the XXI century?GenOrl (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Reconnaissance. The author of this article has already inserted information on the subject into that article. This jawbreaking phrase (one that only a bureaucrat could love) is virtually never used in English according to my search (I found just one usage at Google Scholar, and Google itself turned up pretty much nothing but this article). --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note that the nominator and another editor above have directed their arguments at the phrase "sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance" rather than the concept described in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so the fact that the title is a rarely used phrase in English is not in itself a reason for deletion. It would make it easier to look for sources if the article creator could tell us the Russian name of this concept if it doesn't have a common name in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. It was probably incorrect of me to call this a neologism. GenOrl more correctly describes it as a literal translation from Russian. I do know that Western militaries have invested billions into research into how to detect and protect themselves from biological and chemical threats. Is it possible that this is a uniquely Russian perspective? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Really, I couldn't have found a common name for the concept in English. For decades Russians were obsessed with epidemiology of infections and had huge biological warfare program. The concept and the routine of ‘Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance’ is known in Russian medicine, military including, as санитарно-эпидемиологическая разведка. An academic dictionary gives also эпидемиологическая разведка as a synonym. I agree that the name has more than one syllable and looks unusually long for the busy English. But in Russian the name completely describes what the concept means and encompasses. I wouldn’t call it a unique Russian perspective rather than a different, ideologically and theoretically motivated, approach. In Russian medicine and military strategy prophylaxis of infectious diseases is a corner stone of management.GenOrl (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that the Soviet Military Encyclopedia has the equivalent of a redirect from this phrase to "medical reconnaissance". Maybe that would be a better title for this article, as there seems to be quite a few sources using that term for the concept described in our article (as well as plenty of false positives using the phrase in different senses): . Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The title of “medical reconnaissance” would sound great, but the latter notion has a more general meaning, although bulk of it will form the old known “(Sanitary) epidemiological reconnaissance”. I have no objection for a wider title but it will suppose the description of “medical reconnaissance” in the beginning before slipping to “(Sanitary) epidemiological reconnaissance”. Wikipedia doesn’t provide any information on the wider subject, Google gives just unsystematic references. I’m not a professional in “medical reconnaissance” as it implies specific terms and notions so I’m able to give but a few trivial sentences in the foreword. Editors will be uncompromising and won’t tolerate such platitude.GenOrl (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This appears to be what Russian call one school of epidemiology as they practice medicine.  They also prescribe enemas and yogurt for everything.  English Wikipedia ia not a compendium of second-world health remedies. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I find such bigotry breathtaking, especially from someone trusted with admin rights. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the comment about yogurt was just a joke. If this is a major branch of Russian epidemiology then it probably is notable. Lets keep things on topic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wont object from the deletion. At least I've tried. But prejudice & misinformation don’t promote exchange of ideas. Bearian made a remarkable judgment on a tool for preventing the spread of highly contagious and communicable infections. It’s an example of an English Wikipedia administrator judging beyond his sphere of competence. In Russian Wikipedia authors struggle with administrators from FSB and Stalinists, honorable Bearian has demonstrated that English Wikipedia has its problem too. Some people don’t suspect that even the best heart surgery clinic in Albany, New York can’t be guaranteed from a quack doctor with something more sophisticated than enemas & yogurt.GenOrl (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I am appalled at Bearian's frankly offensive comments. This is a perfectly notable foreign-language concept, and he appears to be insulting it just because he's not familiar with it. This is the *point* of wikipedia, to spread free access to all the world's information, not just to shut down stuff in accordance with our WP:Systemic Bias. Bearian, seriously, do you say these sort of things frequently? Should I file an RFC? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2012 (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.