Talk:List of people with epilepsy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of people with epilepsy is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

List of people with epilepsy has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Previous discussions have been archived here: Archive 1.

Contents 1 Ethics problem 2 Biographies of living persons 2.1 Audit 3 Expansion 4 Title move 5 Muhamad

[edit] Ethics problem

I oppose detailing living persons, I find it offensive - A hypothetical event such as the following might happen; If any one of the listed living epileptic people Does NOT want this information to be published - It is their own choice , and we must respect them - Although the sources for that info comes from interviews with those persons, Yet in some cases They listed might have regrated publishing this .. I Removed it for those reasons. If anybody wants to revert back - Please think about it, revert and comment me here to start a discussion on the ethics of this subject. As for the dead people, Why are there NO scientists included ? --Eshy .L —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.24.199 (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2006.

I didn't make the change yet, because the introduction text refers to living people, and It just didn't feel right to delete somebody's text without notice. Does anybody have any comments? I say we start a discussion on the ethics of this article right here: (Go ahead.. I said my share) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.24.199 (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2006.

Thanks for your comments. I'm glad you didn't make any major changes without discussing first. You are right that we have take extra care what we say about living people. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is given at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. We do have a duty to respect privacy. Thefore, IMO, a living person should not be on this list if

• The information cannot be verified in a reliable and reputable source.
• The information was clearly not fairly obtained by the source.
• The person has stated that they do not wish the information to be public.
• The person is not notable.
• There is any doubt as to the accuracy of the information – no speculation allowed.

Here are my views on why living people should be included in the list:

• The sources for all the living people in this list have been audited (see below). I think that all these sources are good, but anyone is welcome to correct/disagree.
• A large number of the living people in this list actively promote epilepsy charities and are very open about their condition. They wish to bring epilepsy "into the open" and remove any stigma attached.
• Most of the sources are interviews, which is really the fairest way of gauging whether the person is open about it. I accept that someone may later regret what they have said. That is part of the burden of celebrity. Read the interviews and judge for yourself whether the person is shy about it.
• It is not shameful to be included in this list. If we were to exclude living people, we are effectively saying "Here is a list of dead people who had epilepsy. It doesn't mention living people in case they are ashamed of it". What kind of message is that sending to someone with epilepsy?

If you still have strong feelings about this, I suggest you try to bring more people to the discussion by mentioning this elsewhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons is a possible place, though the Wikipedia:Village pump may be better.

There are a few scientists: Don Craig Wiley was biochemist and Minakata Kumagusu was a naturalist (who studied slime moulds). Emanuel Swedenborg, a scientist, is speculated to have had epilepsy. There are two problems with scientists. The first is that, by and large, they are not notable. An actor can become a notable in a soap opera, whereas a scientist with hundreds of important published papers will be ignored by the public. The second reason is perhaps that epilepsy is much more common in those with learning difficulties than it is in the general population. Such people don't tend become notable scientists.

Colin°^Talk 10:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living persons

After some prompting by Rune.welsh, I've been studying WP:LIVING and have some thoughts about its affect on the epilepsy list.

• We need to be much more careful with negative statements than positive or neutral statements. Is listing someone in this list a negative thing? We're clearly not saying someone has a personality defect. However, I can see how someone might be upset by their inclusion if it is wrong.
• If it appears that the person is open about their epilepsy (e.g. appeared on videos, attended conferences, etc) is it safe to assume that they don't find it to be negative and therefore could include a less sturdy source?

For example, Hugo Weaving has done a video for Epilepsy Queensland Inc where he (and others) "talk openly, positively and with humour, about their epilepsy, and the way it affects their lives, and how they have learned to accept and live with it." However that link only tells me that Hugo Weaving has epilepsy, is open about it, and I think I have a reliable source.

I get more information from his interview in "West of Oz" magazine. I'm really not sure how big or reliable that mag is. However, I'm comfortable using a little non-controversial info from that article because I've got the other one to back the main criteria up.

• Does the kind of article matter? For example, an interview in a celebrity magazine, where the subject talks openly and freely about their epilepsy sounds safe to me even if the magazine isn't of the highest quality. If the same magazine merely had a throwaway line "XYZ, who has epilepsy, did ..." then really we couldn't trust it. I'm thinking here possibly of the MTV News sources.
• The tone of the source article also matters. Clearly the WP:LIVING is concerned about libelous remarks and Wikipedia repeating such remarks. It would be quite unusual to find an unreliable source using epilepsy as a means to insult someone.
• Some sources are trustworthy for certain things but not others. I've used several epilepsy charity web sites as sources when they have an article about a celebrity or their attendance at a conference, for example. But I've not found any of their lists of "Famous people with epilepsy" that I would use as a reliable source.

Colin°^Talk 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audit

I've gone through all the still-living people on the list and looked at the sources given. These range from matter-of-fact to glowing tributes. I don't think there is a negative comment among them and it is clear that the majority of these people are quite open about their epilepsy.

• Danny Glover – International Bureau for Epilepsy. Respectable international charity. News report on the 33rd Annual Epilepsy Foundation National Conference where Danny Glover gave a speech.
• Rik Mayal – Interview in The Observer. Respectable newspaper.
• Hugo Weaving – Description of video sold by Epilepsy Queensland Inc featuring Hugo. Clearly indicates that he is open about his epilepsy. Other source is an interview in West of Oz magazine. Uncertain how reliable this source is but have lifted only uncontroversial info and main fact is backed up by the first source.
• Neil Abercrombi – National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke conference proceedings. Big US government org. The other source is an Epilepsy Foundation press release on a government briefing.
• Rabbi Lionel Blue – Details of a fundraising dinner for Epilepsy Research Foundation. You can actually here an audio recording of the advert by Lionel Blue.
• Tony Coelho – A book from a big publisher.
• Lindsey Buckingham – A big article in Rolling Stone. However, the actual text I read is reproduced on a fan site. Is this an issue? The other sources is a book from a specialist music publisher.
• Adam Horovitz – Details and quotes on the source are archived this talk page. No web reference.
• Richard Jobson – Big interview for the Sunday Herald, a respectable Scottish newspaper.
• Geoff Rickly – Two sources, both ultimately from MTV News. Rickly is directly quoted talking about his epilepsy. This probably compensates for this not being the most serious news source.
• Mike Skinner – Interview in The Observer.
• Neil Young – Biography by his dad. The text I quote was read via Google Books.
• Buddy Bell & Hal Lanier – Book on disability and major league baseball players.
• Alan Faneca – Two substantial articles/news stores from Epilepsy Foundation.
• Tony Greig – Epilepsy Action (Austrailia) board details.
• Chanda Gunn – Substantial news story from CNN.
• Bobby Jones – Two very complimentary stories, with quotes, from sports web sites.
• Terry Marsh – Article in The New York Times and also details from his autobiography.
• Maggie McEleny – Two very positive articles from The Scotish Institute of Sport.
• Jonty Rhodes – Article from Epilepsy South Africa, a charity he supports.
• Tom Smith – Press release from Epilepsy Action (UK charity) and also an article in The Scotsman, a respectable Scottish newspaper.
• Paul Wade – Article in The Age, a respectable Austrailian newspaper. Also a long story in Australian Headlines, an epilepsy magazine, which includes pictures post-op.
• Greg Walker – Two articles, from The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune.
• Karen Armstrong – Story in The Guardian and also an autobiographical book.
• Max Clifford – BBC Worldwide Press Office.
• DeBarra Mayo – A story in the Fayetteville Observer, which I guess is fairly small. However, the source was supplied by the subject herself.
• Patrick Dempsey – (no epilepsy). A very complimentary biography on TV.com.

Colin°^Talk 18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

A couple of things have prompted me to consider expanding the contents of this article (beyond just adding a few more names). The first is that during its review as a Featured list candidate, editors questioned whether the list was comprehensive. The second is that I have finally got hold of the full text of John Hughes paper "Did all those famous people really have epilepsy?". This has been an eye-opener on the shockingly poor quality of "diagnosis" made by biographers and other writers.

When this article was original created, some editors argued for the inclusion of all people believed (by someone) to have epilepsy. Others felt it should be a pure list of only the most reliable diagnoses. I hope the changes I've made will satisfy both camps. The reliable entries are kept as they were in their own section, at the front. These constitute the core of what this list is about.

This talk page contained much information (now archived) that could be in article-space if correctly presented. I've added a (currently short) section containing a few people that have retrospective diagnoses that are reasonably secure and well sourced. There are names on other sites that could be in this section but for the lack of any reliable sources.

I've also added a new section listing people that are commonly listed elsewhere but for which the diagnosis of epilepsy is wrong (or totally unsustainable). These are virtually always retrospective diagnoses and it is usually quite clear that someone has read too much into the words fit, seizure and convulsion when used in historical text or biography. Sometimes, mysteriously, there is no evidence of anything remotely resembling epileptic seizures. We can list these "lack of data" cases here if we quote a reliable source - I caution future editors against adding their own names to that section if the "lack of data" comes from original research.

If these changes have seriously upset anyone, I ask you not to revert but to discuss on the talk page so we can come to a consensus. Colin°^Talk 22:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could give as much help with the religious figures section as you'd like. Most of these people fall outside my expertise. Instead I'll suggest some of the search tools I used for List of notable brain tumor patients. Boolean search engine inquiries turned up a lot for me, often in the form of (specific profession or sport) + (medical condition). You should have some advantage over my quests: epilepsy is less subject to variant national spelling and alternate diagnosis names. The "What links here" toolbox selection at brain tumor was another fruitful source of leads (which of course needed external verification before inclusion on the list). I wound up creating several new Wikipedia biographies for the people I found, some of which got highlighted on the main page in "Did you know?" such as Dawn Steel. Cheers and good hopes, Durova 22:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title move

Surely the title should be "List of notable people with epilepsy"? I'm sure there are millions of people with epilepsy around the world and I don't see them included here...! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 01:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed what this list covers. However Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions and policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lists discourage such naming. The point is (I believe) that lists of people on Wikipedia should always consist of notable people and so the word is redundant. The notability test is largely: Do they have (or can be expected to have) a Wikipedia article. Colin°^Talk 06:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhamad

A recent edit removed "the detestable" from the quote of Taxil. Since it is part of a quote, just removing the text isn't satisfactory so I restored it. Wikipedia isn't censored, so, for example, replacing it with "…"' just because we don't like or agree with the phrase isn't recommended. Muhamad is detailed later on in the list, where a famous medical historian's opinion is given: that it was slander to allege that Muhamad had epilespy. Therefore, I think it relevant that those who repeat this possible slander, are shown to be biased in their view of Muhamad. Colin°^Talk 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)