Talk:Complex partial seizure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Unassessed	rated as Unassessed-Class on the assessment scale
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] POV

The entire creativity and epilepsy section is troubling. Paul the Apostle retroactively diagnosed as being creative and epileptic? With no citation? --Markkidd 06:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While I suspect creativity and a number of other positive traits are correlated with manageable cases of mental illness, anything to that effect must be cited, and cannot be the focus of an article on complex partial seizures. "List of people with epilepsy" should be a link without the qualifier that many of them are creative. Many people on virtually any list of people will be. Zuiram 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous people who had TLE

Socrates, Alexander the Great and the like were never offically diagnosed with TLE during the lifetimes, at least not to the best of my knowledge. Yes, it is expected that they did have complex partial seizures during their lifetime but this article states that they were diagnosed with it. I have therefore changed the section and make it clear that these people were only suspected of having a form of epilepsy. We must be careful with diagnosing people who have been dead for two to three thousand years! --hedpeguyuk 15:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

See List of people with epilepsy and Talk:List of people with epilepsy regarding the above people. Colin°^Talk 16:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Colin, after reading your comments on my talk page (which seem like they should be on this talk page instead, I think) I can't quite figure out your perspective on the inclusion of famous historical figures in this article's section on creativity and epilepsy. I am very incredidulous, as in portions of your comment, about including any posthumous diagnoses in the article at all. In particular, claiming the Paul the Apostle was epileptic without presenting evidence seems to be clear evidence of bias from some place. Would there be any question of that sections inappropriateness had it been Mohammad instead? What function do you believe this article should serve? --Markkidd 17:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Here's the essential bits from your talk page:

I'm puzzled why you reverted to a version you found "troubling". Yes, I did read the talk page. If you read the article carefully, it doesn't actually say that St Paul is "creative" - he is included in a separate list of "great historical figures". I have already added links on the talk page that you if follow, would include discussion of St. Paul, Napoleon, van Gogh, Socrates, etc. IMO, such speculation regarding historical figures is fit only for a Sunday magazine, not a serious encyclopedia. The reasons for my edit were:

1. There is no need for a general list of people posthumously "diagnosed" with epilepsy in this article. This is an article about complex partial seizures, not the history of epilepsy.
2. The list of "creative" people with epilepsy does not include anyone with a firm diagnosis of epilepsy other than Dostoevsky. Indeed, of the creative people in List of people with epilepsy, it is only Dostoevsky that could be argued to have found any creative source from his epilepsy. Finally, it is not possible to be sure that he had complex partial seizures - which is the purpose of this article and the argument regarding creativity. PMID 16194626 reckons he had "an idiopathic generalized epilepsy with minor involvement of the temporal lobe" - but that is also just speculation.
3. Rather than attempt to repeat the work of List of people with epilepsy, the reader can follow a link to that article and make their own mind up as to whether there are a significant number of "creative types" with epilepsy.

I think we both agree that the current version of the article is unsatisfactory. Naturally, I prefer my previous edit, but there is room for improvement if you are willing to contribute.

I am now doubly puzzled since I think you are in agreement with me, yet reverted my edit. I removed the stuff that you also regard as inappropriate.

Wrt creatitvity and complex partial seizures, the research that was referred to in the text is fine and I kept it in my edit. Any attempt to include historical figures in the argument had better be grounded in hard facts. As far as I am aware, no such facts exist and so it remains speculation. Journalists can engage in speculation, editors of encyclopedias cannot.

Both St Paul and Mohammad have been associated with epilepsy, and this is not a recent thing. There is more on this on Talk:List of people with epilepsy and Talk:Epilepsy#Muhammad had epilepsy?. Doing a Google will turn up lots of sites that claim those and many other folk had epilepsy. This is despite the fact that there isn't any evidence and that such claims are very likely to cause offence.

Colin°^Talk 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Google search results are not a positive indication that either Muhammad or Paul the Apostle suffered from epilepsy. I've read the talk page, and it seems that both names have been removed as being only conjectural. I reverted your edit because you removed the POV tag with no explanation and no justification for the inclusion of the names. I still don't understand your positition, but I'd like to propose that we remove the list of noteworthy epileptics from this article and restructure that section to discuss only potential links between creatity and epilepsy with a link to the article with its list of epilepsy sufferers -- and a good talk page that has been peer-reviewed. What do you think about that? --Markkidd 15:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that a Google search would indicate what you suggest - merely that it shows lots of other people make this claim, not just the earlier editor of this article (which wasn't me). It seems to me that you wanted an explanation for the inclusion of St Paul in the original text. You won't get that explanation from me since I didn't write it and wouldn't have written it. You will have to ask the author.

Wrt to the POV tag. The text that you tagged wasn't POV, merely unreferenced. The text neutrally stated that those people had been posthumously diagnosed with epilepsy. This is true. They have been. By many people. Whether that diagnosis is correct or should even have been attempted is a POV. My opinion is that such "diagnosis" is so speculative that it doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia.

I've restored my edit since it seems meet most of your requests. If you want to expand on the "potential links between creatity and epilepsy" then be my guest. However, if you are considering all epilepsy and not just complex partial seizures, then this article might not be the right place. The edit I made removed "unreferenced material", which is totally in keeping with WP:CITE.

I don't understand what you mean by "a good talk page that has been peer-reviewed". We don't link to talk pages, they aren't written for "readers" - just used by "editors", and talk pages don't get reviewed.

Colin°^Talk 17:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we link to an article which deals specificially with noteworthy people who have been diagnosed (while living or posthumously) with epilepsy, rather than somewhat duplicating that effort here without the benefit of a peer review. And I also think this wouldn't be half the encyclopedia it is if readers couldn't and didn't look at the talk pages. Sometimes those are a lot more enlightening than the actual article. --Markkidd 01:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plaigarised text

Almost all of this article has been plaigarised, and not even from a very good source! I have removed most of the text and will gradually improve this article over the coming days --hedpeguyuk 15:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did you think it was plaigarised from? Lots of web sites are just Wikipedia mirrors. Colin°^Talk 16:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)