Talk:List of people diagnosed with Crohn's disease

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Youtuber MrBeast isn't found[edit]

He has stated and is even stated on the main page to have Crohn's but isn't on the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.128.165 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Citation 21 is a bad url. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.225.9 (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - thanks for pointing it out. Lugnuts (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Disability" vs "disease"[edit]

Lugnuts is correct in his edit summary that I have brought this point up before; however, he also appeared to see my viewpoint, and seemed willing to place this in another category. A disease is not a disability, by any medical definition. A disease may cause a disability, but it is not itself one. I feel that Lugnuts is using his own personal experience to inform his decision as to what category is appropriate, rather than objective criteria.

Looking at the cat in question, I will note the following examples: autism, blindness, deafness, epilepsy, stuttering, chronic fatigue syndrome, and bipolar disorder. None of these are a disease, as Crohn's is. Therefore, it is inappropriate for Crohn's to be included in such a category. MSJapan (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the disability article - "Disability is the term used to define a restriction in the ability to perform a normal activity of daily living which someone of the same age is able to perform." Hence the inclusion of this list in the category. Lugnuts (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, that's using WP as a self-reference - that's not in keeping with policy. Secondly, by that definition, I'm still right - I know several people with Crohn's who have no trouble doing absolutely anything, and I don't think they would consider themselves "disabled" by any means. You, on the other hand, maintain otherwise in your case (as that was your rationale the last time), and that's fine, but that's not objective criteria.
For the sake of argument, however, let's compare Crohn's to say, cerebral palsy. So you've got Crohn's which article indicates it causes abdominal pain, diarrhea, vomiting, rashes, and arthritis. I see very little to justify in broad strokes that it can prevent one from being able to perform daily living tasks such as eating, working, moving around (or typing, for that matter). You may not be able to eat certain food, but that applies to anyone who has had lap band surgery or gastric bypass surgery. Would they be "disabled" too? People who have the flu vomit and have diarrhea sometimes. Are they "temporarily disabled"? People who get poison ivy can have rashes. What then? People can get arthritis; they aren't necessarily disabled. I stretch this out here because I am illustrating that there is no way to make a generic statement about any Crohn's symptom or group of symptoms that directly indicates a "disability."
Cerebral palsy, on the other hand, is not classified as a disease. It causes a wide range of orthopedic problems, ranging from poor mobility in one or more limbs to no mobility at all, and sometimes mental retardation (from none whatsoever to severe), sometimes simultaneously. It's not genetic, one is not predisposed to it, and the cause is more or less indeterminate. Cerebral palsy in practice means that one may need a cane, crutches, or a wheelchair. It means that one may not have the ability to control one's muscles enough to walk, talk, dress and feed oneself, or type, for that matter. It means that one may be unable to have the mental capacity to do any of those things even if one had the muscular control.
In short, I fail to see ANY correlation whatsoever between a documented disability such as cerebral palsy and what you claim to be a disability, which is in fact a term that has the word "disease" in it. Simply wanting something to be right does not make it so, and Wikipedia is not a battleground for personal viewpoints. MSJapan (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly using WP as a self ref. Did you even look at the article? I'm quoting a reliable source used in the article to define it. As someone who has Crohn's, it can have an impact on day-to-day activities, and therefor comes under the disability classification. The comparison to CP is grossly ignorant - just because you Crohn's isn't a "visable" disability, doesn't mean it's not. I think you should read up on the Disability Discrimination Act before making any further comments. Lugnuts (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Visibility is not the issue; the issue revolves around something you again pointed out yourself in that comment - Crohn's "can" have an impact (your own words), not that it unequivocally "does". That very important distinction is precisely the one I am making. My point in using cerebral palsy is that it is very easy to show that it has clear effects on daily activities to some degree in any case across its entire spectrum, with no need for a qualifier - it is true in all cases. With Crohn's you seem to need a qualifier, meaning that it is not true in all cases.
Put more generally, a disability has an impact without exception. A disease of any type "can" have an impact, which means that it might, or it might not. That indicates that there are exceptions. If there is an exception (meaning something does not have an impact on daily activity), it does not fit the definition. If it does not fit the definition, it is not accurate to place it in a disability category. MSJapan (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have asked for some input on this from editors on the Medicine WikiProject. A discussion with only two people who have disagreeing viewpoints cannot reach consensus. MSJapan (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categorization says that categories should not be used where controversial. When the answer to "Is X in category Y" is "well, it depends" then there can be problems. Categorisation of articles is a rather unimportant detail. I think it is best not added to the category in this case. Better to spend time expanding the disease article with more detail on social issues such as what proportion of people are disabled by it, how it affects their life, and whether they can get help because of this. Also, this list could do with a bigger lead. Colin°Talk 21:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Medicine WikiProject posting; I was going to offer an opinion here, but I have a feeling that simple statements of opinion are probably not going to bring about resolution on this matter. Do you guys think an RfC might be helpful here? Would either of you object to my crafting it? NickCT (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with that, and it might be better coming from a third party anyhow. MSJapan (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the note at WT:MED as well.
I think it should remain listed in the category. There are several reasons for this:
  • The cat itself says "Note: This category's interpretation of disability is quite broad, and may include people with medical conditions that would not normally be considered disabled." The definition at the cat is always controlling, and it overrules any individual editor's common-sense guess at what "ought" to go in the cat.
  • Crohn's is generally considered to constitute a disability, just like diabetes mellitus and cerebral palsy. In all three diseases, individuals may not have any significant impact on activities of daily living (yes, even for CP), but all three are normally considered disabilities by typical people, and all three are equally protected under anti-discrimination laws as disabling conditions in all industrialized countries. (Stuttering, by the way, isn't, except in very severe forms. Stuttering is normally considered a variation on normal behavior, similar to needing reading glasses.)
  • A reader who wants to find a page like this would probably look in a cat like "People with disabilities". The point behind cats is to help readers find pages they want ("navigation"), not to produce the ideal, perfect definition of a subject. Therefore it doesn't matter if Crohn's "is" a disability; it only matters if someone might look there to find it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think WhatamIdoing makes a good argument and there are also some good points made earlier in the discussion. As I said, my interpretation of the guideline, and my own preferences, is to omit a category rather than include where there is disagreement or less than solid confirmation from sources. This may be influenced by my own low opinion of the usefulness of WP's categorisation system compared to WhatamIdoing and others. Personally, I think an RFC might be a waste of time and you might as well toss a coin. There are decent arguments on both sides. One of you has to back down and I truly believe it isn't really that important. Colin°Talk 08:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've drafted an RfC. I will launch within 24 hrs, unless someone objects. NickCT (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick - yes, go ahead and launch it. Lugnuts (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok done. Wasn't 100% on where to put the RfC. Unfortunately there is no "Medical" category for RfCs. I used the general Science & Society categories. I don't mind if someone wants to try to categorize the RfC more appropriately. NickCT (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC List of people diagnosed with Crohn's disease in Category:Lists of people with disabilities?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The discussion appears to have reached a natural conclusion, there appears to be no outstanding issues. I will be bold and close the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A debate has begun regarding the appropriateness of categorizing this article (i.e. List of people diagnosed with Crohn's disease) under Category:Lists of people with disabilities. Arguments for and against inclusion can be read in the section above.

Please weigh-in, indicating whether you Support Inclusion or Oppose Inclusion of this article into the category or whether you have an alternative proposal with a brief explanation of why.

Example:

Thanks in advance for everyones' opinions/comments/suggestions!

Standard RfC Disclaimer - This RfC should not be construed as a vote rather than an attempt to measure consensus. As always let's keep the conversations civil. NickCT (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Inclusion - Personally, I find the most resonance with Colin's point. WP:CAT states " Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial;". Now, I'm not saying Crohn's Disease is not technically a disability, but I am saying it doesn't have what you might call the classical appearance of a disability. Hence, categorization as such might be controversial. Hence, I oppose inclusion. NickCT (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion - and also some of the other lists, for the same or similar reasons. Being diagnosed with Chron's does not (necessarily) make one disabled. (The same applies to autism spectrum disorders, stuttering and major depressive disorders - incidentally I just learned that 30% of those with a stutter have another speech problem and lead their country through World War II.) Possibly the category is mis-named, and should be "Lists of people with generally disabling conditions." Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - From what you are saying, Rich, the cat is not "misnamed" so much as "inherently POV" (insofar as one thing does not equal another automatically). To change it as you suggest will make the category extremely vague, with the result that it will encompass everything under the sun. "Generally disabling" could be construed to mean anything from "was in bed sick for a week with the flu, at which time I was 'generally disabled' and unable to do anything for myself" to "lifetime quadriplegic." It seems ridiculous, but it's an example of what can't be excluded if the phrasing is too generic. That wide of a scope is really not good for a category, and it may be best to remove the category entirely if it is much more problematic than just in relation to this article. Additionally, a "disability" is POV, and that may need to be considered elsewhere - all those "Lists of famous people with X" would indicate that in certain respects, those people aren't prevented from being successful by their conditions, so is it accurate and objective to term them "disabled" in the first place? MSJapan (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Per the reasons I've already given. For those opposing, please can you state which category this list should be placed in, otherwise it wont have any categories. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Does it really need a category?, 2) If it does, how about Category:Lists of people by medical condition? I doubt anyone would argue that Crohn's is a "medical condition". NickCT (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Woops! I just read below, and realized this has already been proposed. Looks like this RfC has come to satisfactory conclusion. Well done all! Consensus reached! NickCT (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion for my reasons stated above, though the points made by Colin and Rich are also valid reasons to oppose inclusion. MSJapan (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what category does this article get placed into now? Lugnuts (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps none, but that's not the purpose of this RFC. Opposing inclusion does not require proposing an alternative. MSJapan (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hear lots of problems, but no solutions. Well done you. Lugnuts (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my concern if you don't understand how RFC works. You asked for an alternative, but supplying one is not a requirement of opposition, and was actually not indicated as a part of the RFC draft (which you could have asked to have added before the draft went live). As was noted, categories are not mandatory, so "no category" is indeed a valid solution. The fundamental problem is that you did not like the answer, and that is no excuse to engage in personal attacks. I would suggest you retract both of them (here as well as below). That does not contribute to a collegial atmosphere. MSJapan (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion Sources do not equivocally state that having Crohn's means one is disabled, though it may often be likely. If the people in this list would not all be regarded as "disabled" then the category no longer works. I think there is no reason the category scope can't in this case be determined by its name rather than expanding it in the category description page to include contentious inclusions. As for what category this list should be in: Category:Lists of people by medical condition. Colin°Talk 11:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BAM. Thank you Colin, the only one who thought through their reply. I'll be bold and change the category. Thanks. This can be closed now IMO. Lugnuts (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only three months late. Lugnuts (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the RfC since it's been highlighted that no further action is required. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What about colitis?[edit]

I realize this is a little off topic but I don't have have a lot of sources and enough time and knowledege for this:

There should be a list of famous colitis patients as well, with persons such as Marvin Bush, JFK etc. There are lots of people if you search long enough. I just don't really have time to do it myself :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.14.223.134 (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heather O'Rourke[edit]

Some sources [1] [2]say she died on not-diagnosed Crohn? --RicHard-59 (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. However, while nothing was 100% confirmed, it can't be included. Yet. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of people diagnosed with Crohn's disease. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of people diagnosed with Crohn's disease. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people diagnosed with Crohn's disease. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_diagnosed_with_Crohn%27s_disease&oldid=1214701082"