Wikipedia:Peer review/List of people believed to have epilepsy/archive1

List of people believed to have epilepsy[edit]

Note: During this peer review, this list has been renamed List of people with epilepsy.

I would love some comments on this article. I hope it can become a featured list (which have their own criteria). Unlike many lists of "Famous people with epilepsy" you may find in books or on the web, this one has references for every person and does not include speculative retrospective diagnoses. Colin°^Talk 22:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not just called 'List of epileptics'? If it only includes known cases, there's no need for the weaselly passive. Mark ^{your words} 22:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; there is no need for "believed to" since the inclusion criteria are quite strict. I'd prefer List of people who have epilepsy. To quote The Guardian Style Guide: "seizures are epileptic, people are not … we do not define people by their medical condition". This does leave the problem that the title is present-tense, whereas nearly half the people on the list are dead. Also some of those who are alive do not have epilepsy any more – childhood epilepsy for example. Does anyone have any suggestions of a way to include all these? List of people who have or had epilepsy sounds a bit clumsy. I think it may be best, for avoiding confusion, to postpone any rename till after the peer-review period. --Colin°^Talk 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an epileptologist by profession, and I have been watching this article since its inception. I created it with the name 'List of people believed to have epilepsy' for two reasons: 1) "Epileptic" is not a noun; it is an adjective, for exactly the reason the Guardian Style Guide listed above states. 2) "Believed to have" sidesteps two issues; a) the past/present tense issue, and b) the issue that the diagnosis of epilepsy is rarely made with perfect certainty (I'd argue that, before 1930 or so, it *could not* be made with certainty.)

I have very little to recommend to the article as it presently stands, as I've made what contributions I had to make already; but I will be watching this peer review with avid interest. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Including "belived to" sidesteps the tense issue, but jumps right into the speculation and original research issues. Pagra shtak 01:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a look at the page, and its talk page. I was initially opposed to this page on the grounds you mention, and posted voluminously about that on its talk page. After that criticism, it evolved into one of the best-sourced pages on Wikipedia. If I had to nominate a page as an example of how to use sources to build an encyclopedic article, I'd pick this one. In my opinion, it should be linked to from WP:NOR.

The key point here is found in WP:V. The contents of articles don't need to be true - they just have to be sourced. Asserting that people have epilepsy is in most cases unverifiable. Asserting that a reputable source has published their beliefs that a person had epilepsy is an editorial task, namely a task involving the compilation of such assertions and their sources. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to harp on about the title, but my first reaction on seeing it was 'VfD'. It's not really a VfD list, of course, but it's not a good first impression. Anyway, I would offer List of people with epilepsy or (if we're worried about not being 100% sure, which I don't think we need to be as long as we're sure enough to put them on the list) List of people diagnosed with epilepsy. Mark ^{your words} 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hairs that name would split have already been split on the article's talk page. The controversy revolves around who is to be considered qualified to render such a diagnosis. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pondering on the name issue overnight (in ignorance of the above comments) and came up with the same argument for "believed" as Ikkyu2's point 2b above. I'm not convinced about the 2a argument but I'm no English scholar. There is a difference between a physician's "I believe you have epilepsy", which is a judgement made by someone that we trust to be wise about the issue, and the lay use of "believe" as a contrast with "know" where the purpose is to indicate (somewhat) ignorant speculation or doubt about the facts. I think this is Pagrashtak's point - there are other lists of people that openly admit speculation. This list can never be as certain as List of amputees, for example, but is a lot more certain than List of people speculated to have been syphilitic. You may be interested in the section "The Accuracy of Contemporary Diagnosis" on the talk page.

Ikkyu2 makes a comment about "a reputable source has published their beliefs that a person had epilepsy". I would not have used a reference that said "XYZ was believed to have epilepsy", no matter how much I respected the author. However, if a respected source (e.g. a biographer) said "XYZ had epilepsy" then I would allow that. I would assume from that language that the author wasn't speculating or working from hearsay, but I also accept that it is unlikely that they have read the person's medical records. My point is that just because we are relying on other sources doesn't mean we have to use the word "believed" – otherwise Wikipedia would be full of it. If a good source says "XYZ was diagnosed with epilepsy", "ABC had epilepsy" or "I have epilepsy" then I think we can repeat that assertion.

I note existence of the List of notable people diagnosed with dyslexia and wonder if Mark's suggestion of List of people diagnosed with epilepsy would satisfy both the physician's uncertainty and the tense issue. I would have thought that the implication was that a physician made the diagnosis even if this is rarely stated explicitly in any source. A "diagnosis" by a lay person, or one done retrospectively, isn't a diagnosis.

Having said all that, I am content to live with the current title. It doesn't have enough problems for me to insist on a change, and it does have its own merits. Ikkyu2 created it and has strong feelings for his choice of words so that has some importance here.

I'm not going to pack up my toys and go home if we find a better title; I did want to explain how the title got to be what it was. I originally created it as 'Famous people with epilepsy,' clearly not so good; I moved it later after a lot of thought and discussion on the talk page. -ikkyu2 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to get some comments about the content? Should we include nationalities for everyone or not at all (I personally think it might make it tedious to read)? Do you think that there could be more said in the introduction. I wondered about a paragraph contrasting past behaviour (keeping it hidden) with today (where the epilepsy charities encourage famous people to be open and supportive). What points might get it rejected as a Featured List? --Colin°^Talk 09:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's ever going to be "comprehensive." -ikkyu2 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that cases of historical or retrospective diagnoses should stay out of this list; as long as it is made clear (perhaps with details for individual cases) why such diagnoses must be considered speculative, they could give some more insight into historical perceptions. One other point: the entry for Neil Young mentions that he apparently learned to control his epilepsy via "mind over matter", rather than taking anticonvulsant drugs. That should at least be discussed critically, or perhaps better be kicked out entirely. We already have too much quackery of all sorts, and statements like this could possibly discourage people from following their neurologists' advice, which might be a deadly decision. Generally, a very fine list and worthy to be a featured one. Kosebamse 16:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'll see if I can find some alternative epilepsy-related info on Neil Young.

Wrt: retrospective diagnosis. There are some who are unhappy to see those two words together in a sentence! This is discussed on both this article's talk page and earlier on Talk:Epilepsy. I believe the current article is a list of facts. A "list of people speculated to have epilepsy" would be a list of opinions. We can include opinions in Wikipedia only if we attribute them to someone, ideally by quoting them. We must also take care whose opinon we care to quote (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). However, a list of opinons isn't as interesting, useful or encyclopedic as a list of facts. It is a bit like "Barry Norman's list of dead-cert Oscar winning movies for 2006" compared with "78th Academy Awards" --Colin°^Talk 20:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the changing perception of epilepsy, the diagnostic concepts and the evolution of today's idea what epilepsy is and what is not could be illustrated with historical examples; however this list may not be the best place to do this and I would not push it if there are relevant arguments against. Kosebamse 20:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe epilepsy in real articles. This is just another list of people who might have a certain disease. What's there to peer review? Please stop wasting PR-space on this.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments have been useful: they indicate (to me at least) that the title is not giving a good impression and fails to accurately define the inclusion criteria for the list. --Colin°^Talk 12:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was useful. I've moved the article to List of people with epilepsy. Redirects were placed. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. —Encephalon 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]