Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestral health

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 redirect to Paleolithic lifestyle. It's up to the consensus of editors to determine what, if anything, to merge from the history.  Sandstein  06:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ancestral health

Ancestral health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Advert for recent, non-notable health fad; all sources are SPS (the non-recognized "journal" is run by members of this movement to push its POV). No notability as a fringe movement as yet, that I can see. Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Could you tell us what in the world you mean by "non-recognized"? What kind of "recognition" of journals do you have in mind? Recognition by Wikipedia? Your word could mislead the naive into thinking there's such a thing as official "recognition" of scholarly journals. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Note: There is also a discussion about this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Ancestral health. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep/merge The topic is notable – see Chicago Tribune or New York Times, for example. The general idea seems to be a mix of lifestyle, exercises and diet. It may be that there are other headings for this concept – paleolithic lifestyle, for example – and so there may be some scope for merger or restructuring. Andrew D. (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

These two sources to me appear to suggest near equivalence with paleo lifestyle.

• Called Paleo, primal, caveman or — the umbrella term of the moment — ancestral Chicago Tribune
• "Ancestral health,” to use a term popular among Paleo followers, has gone mass. For them, Paleo is a way of life, a philosophical prism that colors everything from child rearing to sunscreen. New York Times

WP:NEO states that "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept." I don't think we've established adequate discussion in secondary sources about what exactly "ancestral health" is or how it differs or doesn't differ from a paleo lifestyle. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. "Scam" usually means an attempt to defraud people of money. No attempt to get money from anyone is involved. "Scam" also implies dishonesty, so this is a substantial accusation. It's the only time I seen an article proposed for deletion based only on an allegation of criminal intent. So professors interested in an area of research found an organization to run an annual symposium and publish a journal in their topic. That happens all the time. What exactly does "non-recognized" mean? There is no such thing as "recognition" of journals. One wonder if "Orangemike" regards all associations formed by professors to publish a new journal in a particular research area and to hold conferences on their research in that area as "scams". Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • — Note to closing admin: Michael Hardy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• I must say, the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Ancestral_health is not encouraging for this article's future. And Evolutionary medicine has also been suggested there as a less blatantly promotional target article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - While I haven't formally checked sourcing, it would appear that Ancestral Health Society is probably a notable organization, based upon a glance at the size of the web footprint. I don't think paleolithic diet is a good merge target. I do think the angle of a rewrite for the organization, which might include the phrase "Ancestral health" as a redirect, might be explored. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. It would be more honest about what this article is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep/Redirect As stated above, the topic is notable and it doesn't clearly fit into a merge target like paleolithic diet. I propose that the content is kept and expanded at a new target, such as Ancestral Health Society. Dane2007 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to Ancestral Health Society Notability needs to be established by outside sources discussing it, not by counting clicks on a webpage about it. There's no indication of such anywhere in this article. If the article were to be re-written to be about the organization, I might be able to get behind that. But right now, all it really says is that some people think that our ancestors were healthier than us, and want to mimic them for this reason. Well, I can get that from reading the lead of paleolithic lifestyle. Hell, just learning that the paleo diet exists tells me everything this article says. Furthermore, as of the last time I checked, the source used to support this description doesn't actually support the description! I don't doubt the accuracy of the description, nor do I doubt that some people actually do study our ancestor's health for practical purposes. But this article is like a miniature train wreck, and I've yet to see anything to indicate that this 'movement' may be notable in the slightest. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. It is extraordinarily irresponsible on the part of Orangemike to use the word "scam". That word implies dishonesty, usually for the purpose of defrauding people of money. A group of professors interested in a certain area of research formed an organization to run an annual symposium at which they gather and give talks on their research, and to publish a journal on their topic of interest. That is not unusual and does not constitute a scam. The association does not sell anything; it is a non-profit organization that accepts donations. Moreover, the subject matter --- the area of research, not the organization --- is the topic of the article. Not every academic theory that is not received dogma is a scam. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure, "scam" is the nominator's opinion and could probably have been left out of this nomination statement. Maybe he wants to strike through that, I don't know. There's no point getting sidetracked into that. Right now. this Afd seems to be going in certain direction -- away from keeping the article as is -- and it has nothing to do with whether or not this is a "scam." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Or may be going in a certain direction -- or maybe not! Not for me to prejudge. This is going to be a close one, perhaps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I also agree that the term scam is inappropriate, and would in general refrain from attaching disparaging labels to these groups. In general I support people's honest efforts to come together to learn and discuss how to improve their health. Although I do wish they didn't co-opt mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@M. A. Bruhn: What is it that they're doing that you consider to be an objectionable "co-opting" of mainstream scientific terminology? Why would they need to make some special effort to create an "appearance of legitimacy"? Do you do something in particular to give your Wikipedia edits an "appearance of legitimacy"? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I consider their usage of the term "evolutionary medicine" in general to be such cooptation. I believe they undertake these efforts to combat a lack of acceptance in mainstream scientific discourse. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@M. A. Bruhn: Are you creating an appearance of legitimacy for yourself by writing in standard English, co-opting standard words like "efforts"? When professors write about their topics of study, they normally use standard language (such as English, and such as standard terminology of their fields). Is there a reason for these ones to otherwise? What is your evidence of a "lack of acceptance"? Merely that their area of study is not currently popular? Why is a question of legitimacy involved? You shouldn't just throw around insinuations of questionable legitimacy promiscuously; you bear some responsibility when you do that. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not consider standard usage of discipline-specific jargon in their normal contexts to be what the Ancestral Health movement is doing. I do agree that there was no need of me to bring up the question of their legitimacy in this sub-discussion, however, since their legitimacy is being used in this AfD as a rationale for this article to be kept it is relevant to discuss in this AfD. The best evidence of their lack of acceptance in general scientific discourse, is the fact that all their discussion and collaboration takes place entirely outside of the forums of general scientific discoure. No publications in journals outside their own, no outreach or collaboration with established networks of researchers/healthcare professionals or professional organizations. Their history describes their community as emerging from the blogosphere, and that is where they have since remained. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Merge/redirect to Paleolithic lifestyle. "Ancestral health" appears to be a notable, albeit new, umbrella term for the palaeodiet/primal/eat-like-a-caricature-of-a-caveman movement, and is discussed in reliable external sources (an addition to those mentioned by Andrew:[1][2]). There is definitely a whiff of fringe about the "Ancestral Health Society", although the first issue of their journal looks respectable enough. That's not a reason to delete the article, though, just to monitor it closely for WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Joe Roe (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit: On second thoughts, Paleolithic lifestyle seems like the more notable term for the movement. Joe Roe (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I just had a look at one of the articles from their journal. The opening line appears to synonymize ancestral health with the broader paleo movement ("ancestral health (“paleo”) movement"). In addition they repeatedly refer to a “special kind of person” (which they put in quotes) that it takes to "transition from the Standard American Diet(SAD) to an ancestral health lifestyle" and that this "“special kind of person” might be described as someone who is self-directed, willing to challenge authority and the conventional wisdom, and who has access to education and resources, which allows him or her to explore alternative health paradigms." A lack of these traits in the general population, they argue, prevents mainstream uptake of the ancestral health movement. A third of their paper explores "a cross-generational sense of entitlement" which they explore by introducing terms such as "“I deserve it” syndrome" along with such commentary as: "feeling of entitlement and a desire to just have fun can be found among Millennials". They also identify "additional obstacles" that must be overcome including "large vested interests" such as "Monsanto", and "professional organizations, including the American Medical Association". They also introduce a mathematical model for behavior change: "In fact, behavior change is the product of a much more complicated equation: education + motivation + ability + the proper triggers = behavior change" M. A. Bruhn (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, not respectable at all then! Joe Roe (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The paleo movement is a diet movement; "ancestral health", on the other hand is the study of related topics, mainly by professors in the relevant fields. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete/etc until term has been covered extensively enough in secondary sources to discern a clear meaning. I would alternatively also support redirecting to Paleolithic lifestyle. I would not support renaming the article Ancestral Health Society unless it can be established that they fulfill the notability guidelines of an organization at WP:ORG. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

A lifestyle is one thing; the scientific study of it is another. Thus moving to Ancestral Health Society would make more sense than redirecting to an article about a lifestyle. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree a lifestyle and its scientific study are not the same, but disagree that the latter exists. While the paleo lifestyle may be the topic of individual scientific papers, there is no evidence of a respected field of study devoted to its research. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Paleolithic lifestyle, per M. A. Bruhn. As things stand now, it doesn't look like the Ancestral Health Society meets WP:ORG, and I'm not thrilled by what looks like badgering by the article's creator. Miniapolis 23:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the first time my participation in an AfD has been called "badgering". Which parts do you object to? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

As you should know (since you've been arguing in a number of places), I didn't mean just here. Please see WP:IDHT. Miniapolis 14:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: The primary fact about my discussions of this article elsewhere is that I encountered for the first time a user who presumed to order me not to express disagreement with him. But why are you bringing that up here? This is not the right place for discussion of that. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

OMG, will you please drop the stick? As an admin, I'm slow to scream for an admin's head but you are temperamentally unsuited for adminship. Being able to move pages over redirects is not a good enough reason for having the mop. Miniapolis 22:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete/merge with paleo diet per OP.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• delete. The only reference is from the 'journal of evolution and health', published by the Ancestral Health Society only once and not a reliable source. Seems as much about this society as any actual topic, and sourced to the society definitely does not belong on WP.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paleolithic lifestyle. The sources above seem to indicate that this is basically an interchangeable term. I don't see anything to merge at present, but if consensus is to mention the Society or its journal at the target article, that's alright with me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"Paleolithic lifestyle" pertains to diet and maybe some other hygeinic things. "Ancestral health", on the other hand", is the scientific study of some topics related to that, mostly be professors in relevant fields. Thus it's not synonymous. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. It's just not notable. P.S. Michael Hardy should never have created it. Look at all the disruption this has caused. Let's put an end to this disruption...oh wait, maybe I should be blocked! The gun run won (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Strike uncivil troll comment. Sro23 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per M. A. Bruhn and this and this state that Ancestral health was started after a seminar in Dec 2009 now going through the profiles one of the founders is currently a medical student per this .The organization fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG and this term is not yet a search term or notable.Further Paleolithic lifestyle and Ancestral medical studies come under Hereditary.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

“The Woodstock of Evolutionary Medicine” M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Paleolithic Lifestyle as they are substantially the same concept. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect to Paleolithic lifestyle. A couple of the citations I've found while searching for "Ancestral health" use the two terms interchangeably. A Train^talk 22:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paleolithic lifestyle Changing my vote. I should have voted this way from the beginning, but trying to be at least a little conciliatory has gotten me nothing but grief so far. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge to Paleolithic Lifestyle, leaving a redirect. The two terms are essentially interchangeable. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect to Paleolithic lifestyle, per others. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with an appropriate article. I don't think " Paleolithic Lifestyle" is an appropriate article that covers this subject well. Within the field of medicine there is some discussion in scientific papers about the way prior knowledge should be taken into account. The standard way of thinking is that you can always proceed with the same logic as used to evaluate drugs in RCTs. But for subjects related to nutrition, vitamin intake etc. this is often disputed. Take e.g. the dispute w.r.t. the IOM's vitamin D recommendation, the argument against these guidelines published here contains the sort of argument this Wiki-article is about. Count Iblis (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A discussion about the relevance of knowledge concerning past human lifestyles to modern human health could potentially be relevant to add to many articles, however, the content of this article includes no such a discussion, making its merger irrelevant for those purposes. The subsequent part of this reply is mostly me soap boxing, so feel free to ignore reading further. In my opinion the authors are being presumptuous when they state that "presumably" physiology is "fine-tuned" to the vitamin D intake that occurred in humans during evolution. If evolution is to be believed then vitamin D intake is selected for based off reproductive fitness which is not synonymous with optimizing an individual's long-lasting health, such as is the case when maternal and fetal needs conflict as is known to drive the stabilization of birth weight. It's not readily apparent that early humans, who lived very different lifestyles with the women perhaps being in near constant state of pregnancy, would have had sufficient selective pressure exerted on them to limit potential long-term health effects resulting from chronically high levels of vitamin D. Furthermore how finely evolution can tune something is limited by the mechanisms that it has to work with, and this fine-tuning only occurs on the population level and only in populations that have spent adequate time in a stable environment. It is likely the case that evolution led to an average population-level intake of vitamin D that is greater than what is optimum for individuals due to the apparently greater harm caused by vitamin D deficiency compared to excessive vitamin D intake. It is also not inconceivable that this intake could be significantly greater than what is optimal for an individual. But in our current state we just don't know. With all this in mind, stating as the authors did that evolutionary "intakes should be given the presumption of correctness" is representative of why the paleolithic lifestyle and the Ancestral Health Society are not scientific, because ultimately their ideas are dependent on the unfounded presumption that the theory of evolution automatically supports that modern humans should mimic the lifestyles of early humans in order to improve their health. That is not to say that no utility can be derived from comparing the lifestyles of early humans to modern humans. Such comparisons are likely a good source for generating hypotheses and guiding exploratory research, and have some usefulness in discussions about the health impacts of current human lifestyles (bringing up that early humans are believed to have such high levels of vitamin D is certainly relevant). But as it stands no coherent field of science devoted to applying knowledge of early human lifestyles and evolution to modern human health has developed, and I don't believe such a field will develop until significant advances are made in our understanding of the health and lifestyles of early humans, the rate and nature of evolutionary processes, and our understanding of human health in general. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Paleolithic lifestyle (which is what the only extant citation specifically defines it as in the first place [3]). The article is a redundant stub cited only to its own publication. Unless and until it is going to become a full-fledged article which significantly differs from paleolithic lifestyle, including citations which establish significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject, there is no reason for this article to exist independently. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as there's no reliable sources that indicate how this is distinct from Paleolithic lifestyle. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The distinction is that this is about the study of topics related to that mostly by professors in relevant fields. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Paleolithic lifestyle. A single issue of a journal which actually uses both terms is insufficient to create a distinct and entirely new and notable field of study. The article as written exists to promote ("advertise") a non-notable journal and its adherents. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 13 August 2016 (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.