Talk:Illness among Jews

This article is likely to remain of doubtful reliability unless all references to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia have been replaced by more reliable and up-to-date sources. I would also strongly encourage the main contributor to use citation templates, which are likely to make his sources easier to access. JFW | T@lk 18:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia template is perfectly adequate. If it wasn't they'd have changed it by now.

With regard to references, 19th century statistics don't suddenly become fiction merely due to the passage of time. They do reflect the case in the 19th century, and just because its now the 21st century doesn't make them inaccurate for the case in the 19th century. The historic situation is notable, just as much as the present day reality. For example, the greater TB immunity attracted great attention at the time, but they didn't have the knowledge (about genetics) to exploit it. One day we will have cured most of those diseases, but that doesn't mean we should delete all the articles about disease populations. We still talk about the spread of the black death, even though its no longer around. Newman Luke (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the deletion discussion, no attempt has been made to cover diseases common in non-Ashkenazi Jews, such as G6PD and FMF. JFW | T@lk 18:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't hope the house will build itself. Newman Luke (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the {{Jewish Encyclopedia}} certainly is not adequate. You need to be using a citation template that helps identify more precisely where the information was sourced from. Common sense ought to tell you that no template incapable of showing a page number could be considered for citations. That template is a single-use information template designed to place articles in the hidden category Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Frankly, if the article can't be sourced properly, it needs to be stubbed back to whatever is sourced, or sent back to AfD. --RexxS (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging and condensing this article into the "History" section of the Medical genetics of Jewish people, using the 1901 encyclopedia material to provide some background to the modern work on inherited disease. This article would then become a redirect. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. A good way to make use of this outdated material. Fences&Windows 22:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I see a lot of sourced material in 6 large subsections apart from the section related to 'Medical genetics of Jewish people'. Debresser (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of of material yes, but all from a single source published in 1901. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Outdated and mostly very similar to Medical genetics of Jewish people. Dogposter 11:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Remove all the crud, which although sourced is very doubtful and historically inaccurate and has in many cases not been confirmed by epidemiological methods. JFW | T@lk 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think it highly unlikely that todays medicine would consider what is written in this article as true. Shlomke (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be consensus for this, so I'll go ahead. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)