Talk:List of people with epilepsy/Archive 1

Adding to this article
When adding to this article, please consider:
 * Ensuring that the person in question meets the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. If the person does not have their own Wikipedia article, they should not be on this list.
 * Wikifying the name of the person you added.
 * Placing your new submission with respect to alphabetical order.
 * Citing a source for the diagnosis.
 * Refraining from adding people who carry only a posthumous, retrospective diagnosis of epilepsy; or adding a disclaimer or discussion about the source and nature of the proposed diagnosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkyu2 (talk • contribs)


 * This was at the bottom of the article. I commented this out but left the text there so anyone editing the article would see this before adding their neighbours to it. JFW | T@lk  21:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Problems
I'm very happy that a page like this finally exists, so we don't need to crowd the epilepsy page with a long list and can give fuller coverage to this topic. However, I have some problems with the current title and inclusion qualifications: Moving the article name to something like List of people believed to have had epilepsy would be much more consistent with articles like List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder, as well as resolving both of the problems I mentioned above: the problem of being POV by requiring something as subjective as "fame" for inclusion, and the problem of being POV by excluding certain noteworthy viewpoints regarding what people have had epilepsy just because we happen to find them dubious at best. Would we have so many articles on intelligent design if we didn't allow the coverage of heavily speculative, biased, unsubstantiated, or unscientific hypotheses? And many of the post-mortem diagnoses of historical figures have a thousand times more weight to them than the most convincing ID argument. Cui malo? -Silence 07:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) "Famous" is POV. "Noteworthy" would be less so. Not using any term relating to importance or fame or noteworthiness would be the best move, however, because all lists and categorizing systems on Wikipedia are assumed to exclude people who aren't noteworthy enough to even have Wikipedia articles except when they state otherwise. And I can see no possible reason to exclude someone from this list who is noteworthy enough to have an article here and had epilepsy. So address the issue in the article text, if anywhere, not in the title.
 * 2) Why not include people here who have been widely speculated to have had epilepsy after their deaths? The fact that a hypothesis is unverifiable, or even implausible, does not make it unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, if it's widespread or noteworthy enough. If it did, we wouldn't have any articles on religious topics, for starters. It is not our job to determine what people did or did not definitely have epilepsy, and NPOV is "neutral point of view", not "no point of view". If noteworthy scholars have posited that Muhammad, for example, had epilepsy, then those views should be mentioned here, in addition to any noteworthy views or arguments to the contrary. This article is the ideal place for information such as that, and expanding this article's scope would give it much more potential to be as informative as possible. I don't see how limiting it to those we are absolutely sure had epilepsy, and not even mentioning anyone else, does anyone any good, nor how the opposite could possibly do anyone any harm as long as we make it clear that historical psychoanalysis is impossible to verify and often widely disputed. Heck, if anything, giving coverage on this page to people who are frequently speculated to have had epilepsy wouldn't help propagate erroneous myths or baseless assumptions, but would rather help dispel such myths by subjecting them to the critical analysis and unbiased explanations that they might not get on most other websites! Win-win.

I agree with all of the above. (except that epilepsy isn't a psychoanalytical diagnosis, but that's not a big deal.) -Ikkyu2 16:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Names
Here is a list of names removed from the list. Most of them are listed plenty times on the web or in books. However, I don't regard being present in an epilepsy organisation's list of "famous names" as being a good enough source. Many books also just repeat the same old lists with no justifications. --Colin 17:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Insufficient Sources Found

 * Adam Horovitz (Beastie Boys). No evidence found other than lyrics to "Skill to Pay the Bills" has the words "I'm an epileptic".
 * Colin, here's some further supporting evidence from some interviews. He does have epilepsy; I met him once and we discussed it briefly, but that's original research and doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines.  He's not comfortable with the idea of being a 'poster boy' for epilepsy. -Ikkyu2 20:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Details magazine, June 1994:
 * "He's gone through things that would give anyone gray hair. For instance, on the subject of drugs, Adam tells me he doesn't really do them much anymore-except for smoke-because he's got a "head case".
 * What do you mean?
 * "I have seizures. In 1989 I was doing some fancy photo shoot and the flashes went pop! and the next thing I know, I'm in an ambulance. I'd had a full-on seizure in front of this photographer, who was like, Oh my God, oh my goodness! So it's serious for me- if I do stimulants, like coke or speed, it's much easier for me to have a heart attack."
 * Spin magazine, 1994:
 * "These days, he also wears a medical alert bracelet on his wrist - last November, while watching TV with (girlfriend Kathleen) Hanna, he had a full-on epileptic seizure. The illness has been controlled, but he still can't handle flash photography. What's possibly the most interesting thing about Horovitz's epilepsy is that few Beastie Boys fans seem to know about it."
 * Ikkyu2, Great. I've added him back in with references to the two mags. Can you supply the month for Spin? --Colin 22:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

*Hugo Weaving. Best source I've found is Hugo Weaving - That Eye, The Sky, which mentions an interview. Better sources found. --Colin 20:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC) *Vachel Lindsay Source found. --Colin 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Peter the Great
 * Henry Winkler. Was apparently "the first National Honorary Chairman of the Epilepsy Foundation of America". Nothing else found.
 * Guadalupe Victoria. Only evidence is the Wikipedia article that states that he died of epilepsy - but no source given for this.
 * Jack Lemmon
 * Gary Howatt (Hockey)
 * Kerry Armstrong (Actor). The reviews at The Australian National Epilepsy Magazine: Headlines and Naranater's blog seem to suggest that her book "The Circles" (ISBN 1740661257) contains information on her epilepsy.
 * Elton John, (1947—). Despite a thorough search, there are no primary sources for this speculation, which appears on just a few lists. Given this and the extra care we must take with a "living person", it can't be included. If someone can cite a solid reference in a biography (with ISBN, page numbers, etc) or newspaper article, then it can go back.
 * Ninoscka Gwiazdon (1963—) poet. Can't find any info on this person, let alone a mention of epilepsy.
 * Cadwallader C. Washburn, (1818-1882). American businessman, politician, and soldier noted for founding what would later become General Mills.

Historical or Retrospective Diagnosis Only

 * Napoleon Bonaparte. The article "Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte: did he have seizures? Psychogenic or epileptic or both?" by John R. Hughes in the journal Epilepsy & Behavior, Volume 4, Issue 6, December 2003, Pages 793-796. This concludes he suffered from both psychogenic and epileptic attacks. However, in the paper "On the so-called Stokes-Adams disease (slow pulse with syncopal attacks, &c.). The Lancet 2:516-524, 1903. W. Osler says "The slow pulse of Napoleon rests upon tradition; it has been suggested that his epilepsy and attacks of apathy may have been associated features in a chronic form of Stokes-Adams disease."
 * My money is on Sir William Osler for this diagnosis; he was rightly famed as one of the great diagnosticians of any era. -Ikkyu2 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Julius Caesar (100 BC—44 BC). The article "Dictator Perpetuus: Julius Caesar—Did he have seizures? If so, what was the etiology?" by John R. Hughes in the journal Epilepsy & Behavior, Volume 5, Issue 5, October 2004, Pages 756-764.. This argues the case that Caesar had complex partial seizures and may also have had absence attacks in his youth. There are several historical documents linking Caesar with epilepsy but none indicate a diagnosis whilst alive. It is possible that such a diagnosis was made (within the obvious medical limitations of the time) but we have no record of it. See Gaius Julius Caesar at the Epilepsy Museum.


 * Text added byUser:81.157.113.211 moved here as it doesn't currently meet the list entry criteria:


 * Also, Roman Emperor Julius Caesar (100-44BC) is believed to have temporal lobe epilepsy an affliction which can cause temporary loss of consciousness, extreme behaviour and diarrhoea. The investigators concluded that if that were the case, a man obsessed with his own image and dignity would not countenance losing control in public. At this time, it was considered as the "Sacred Disease" and so, being Emperor, the Roman citizens considered him to be special and different from other people under his rule.


 * Philip K. Dick
 * Socrates
 * Mohammed. See Talk:Epilepsy for an earlier discussion. Any diagnosis can only be speculative and may have originated, according to some authors, as slander by the Byzantium Christian church.
 * St. Paul. Such speculation is best summed up in "Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free" by F. F. Bruce: "Many guesses have been made about the identity of this "splinter in the flesh"; and their very variety proves the impossibility of a certain diagnosis. One favourite guess has been epilepsy ... but it is no more than a guess".
 * Ellen G. White
 * Harriet Tubman. In "Bound for the Promised Land: Harriet Tubman: Portrait of an American Hero", author Kate Clifford Larson speculates that Tubman suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy. See also these author notes.

Negative Sources
The article on epilepsy.com - Rewriting History: Did All Those Famous People Really Have Epilepsy? discusses the work of Dr. John Hughes, Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago. He details 43 historical figures reported to have epilepsy but who, in his opinion, did not. The original paper (of the same name) is to be found in Epilepsy & Behavior, Volume 6, Issue 2, March 2005, Pages 115-139.


 * Richard Burton
 * Truman Capote
 * Dame Agatha Christie
 * George Frederick Handel
 * Søren Kierkegaard. But see Kierkegaard's Epilepsy "The Intriguing Secret of the Machinery".
 * Vincent van Gogh. The web sites Charge and Absinthe Buyers Guide note that van Gogh was diagnosed with epilepsy by his doctors when confined to an asylum. However, this is negated by the paper "A reappraisal of the possible seizures of Vincent van Gogh". Epilepsy & Behavior, Volume 6, Issue 4, June 2005, Pages 504-510. John R. Hughes.
 * Alexander the Great. The paper "Alexander of Macedon, the greatest warrior of all times: did he have seizures?". Epilepsy & Behavior, Volume 5, Issue 5, October 2004, Pages 765-767. John R. Hughes. This article concludes he did not have epilepsy.


 * This is all well and good for John Hughes - but his opinions are suspect for the same reasons that other retrospective diagnoses are suspect. He did not have access to the individuals in question to interview or examine them.  Taking people off this list because of his retrospective diagnosis is equivalent to putting people on this list because of retrospective diagnosis - unverifiable and ultimately a pointless exercise. -Ikkyu2 06:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I share your reservations about retrospective diagnosis. Limiting the list to those diagnosed whilst alive is a valid option - anyone else care to comment on that? However, even those can be suspect since the diagnosis of epileptic seizures is quite often wrongly made unless by a neurologist in a tertiary hospital. Epilepsy has been a named disease since Hippocrates but can you be absolutely sure of any diagnosis made without EEG or brain scans?


 * I think ultimately, folk will continue to add names from history to this list unless we can give qualified reasons why they shouldn't be on here. Almost every web site and book on epilepsy has a list of names that is just copied around and for which no sources are given. I do hope this list can be different in this respect.


 * With regard to John Hughes I have a few points. He is a neurologist, not a historian. As such, he is more qualified than most to speculate - for that is all he can do. He also appears to have devoted some considerable energy and time to remove suspect names from the widespread lists of famous names. A track record where over 40 names are removed and only a couple are added seems to me to show a good level of skepticism. I don't believe "taking people off ... is equivalent to putting people on" in much the same way as courts require the burden of proof to convict. Perhaps saying that they "did not" have epilepsy is wrong -- better to say that there is too little evidence or that other conditions seem more likely.


 * In summary, I am willing to compromise with Silence and include historical figures only if the source is good enough. I would like to keep the "not sure / unlikely" list of names in the talk page for now. If folk want a list of "People who probably did not have epilepsy" put on the main page then that is fine by me. However I wouldn't want the good and the bad mixed up together. --Colin 10:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Interictal EEG and brain scans are not useful - repeat, not useful - in making or excluding the diagnosis of epilepsy. They can be useful in classifying syndromes or localizing epileptic foci.  Knowing how the diagnosis is actually made (it is a clinical diagnosis), you might begin to share my opinion, which is that retrospective attempts at diagnosis are laughably pointless.  My own perspective is that I am a practicing epileptologist at a university medical center; my entire work day is spent with epilepsy patients, so I know perhaps a little bit about this.  What is valuable to me in diagnosis are the patient's own subjective account, and that of witnesses to seizures; and, in a few difficult cases, video-EEG recordings of seizures.  -Ikkyu2 03:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. This Internet thing isn't good for avoiding misunderstandings. I am aware of how epilepsy is diagnosed and don't disagree with what you've said. I didn't mention "interictal EEG". I was trying to imagine a circumstance where the diagnosis would be virtually irrefutable: [1] The patient has a tumour visible on MRI/CAT that corresponds with a focus on EEG and [2] The seizure is witnessed whilst under EEG (most often via video-EEG as you mention). I am well aware that often no cause can be found and that for many, seizures can be infrequent enough for there to be very little chance of medical witness (human or electronic). Not many people get to see a "practicing epileptologist at a university medical center", which is why I raised the issue of accuracy even amongst those we believe were diagnosed whilst alive. See the following section.

I think that the current list contains no "historical/retrospective-only diagnosis" people and I have renamed and added to one of the sub-sections above. --Colin 18:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Not Notable (yet)
The following people are somewhat "famous" in that they have appeared in newspaper articles, etc. However, at present they lack a Wikipedia article. Should the red-link turn blue, they can be added to the main page.
 * Chanda Gunn, (1980-). A goalie in the US 2006 Winter Olympic women's hockey team. Gunn was diagnosed with juvenile absence epilepsy at the age of 9, which was treated with valproic acid. A series of tonic-clonic seizures in her teens required the dose of this medicine to be increased. Epilepsy meant that she had to give up her childhood sports of swimming and surfing, but these were soon replaced with hockey.


 * Source:

The Accuracy of Contemporary Diagnosis
How accurate can we be and what level of doubt are we prepared to accept?

I'll take some quotes from Provision of clinical services for people with epilepsy, which discusses the UK situation. The local General Practitioner will see only 1 or 2 new cases of epilepsy each year. "Because of the potential problems of diagnosis, however, it is recommended that a consultant neurologist, or other specialist with an interest in epilepsy should see patients promptly.". Sadly there aren't nearly enough epileptologists in the UK - you can probably count them on your fingers and toes. In the year 2000, there were 330 consultant neurologists in the UK and only 10% of those had a special interest in epilepsy. If you consider paediatric specialists then the number is even smaller. Going back to 1948 (when the NHS was established), the numbers were 50 consultant neurologists and "one or two had a major interest in epilepsy". So, currently, people are being diagnosed and treated for epilepsy by their GP or a non-specialist hospital doctor and not enough are seeing an expert within a satisfactory timescale (or even at all).

What are the consequences of this? A relatively recent scandal has highlighted the numbers of misdiagnoses of epilepsy in the UK. See this article in The Guardian. This concerns "a consultant paediatrician with an interest in neurology rather than having qualifications in that speciality". "His rate of wrong diagnoses, more than 30%, was, according to the British Paediatric Neurology Association, "not unusual" for generalist paediatricians." "Epilepsy Action, a national group, believed 40% of childhood cases were misdiagnosed. There were about 62,000 children with epilepsy in Britain and only 63 paediatric neurologists - and not all had a specialist knowledge in epilepsy."

The articles Fits, faints and funny turns - the differential diagnosis of epilepsy, Syncope and Non-epileptic attack disorder list some of the alternatives to a diagnosis of epilepsy (I'm sure Ikkyu2 won't need to read them, but others may be interested). The last article states "5-20% of people with a confident diagnosis of epilepsy turn out later to have some other disorder which has been misdiagnosed".

So even if we had access to the doctor's notes on all these famous names, we might still have an uncomfortably high error rate. We don't have that luxury. We can only read articles by such non-specialists as biographers and newspaper columnists. Sometimes we can find interviews or speeches where the person has explicitly stated they they have been diagnosed with epilepsy. Other times, the person keeps it secret and we find out after their death, from friends and relatives or perhaps even just hearsay. To add to this, the incidence of drink, drugs and psychological problems in this group of people would appear to be much higher than general - leading to alternative causes of seizures that may be less socially acceptable to admit to. On the other hand, this group will be of average intelligence, able to communicate with their doctors, and so in some ways be easier to diagnose than the average which includes patients with learning difficulties.

There is an interesting article on the (almost) contemporary and probable misdiagnosis of Graham Greene: The Impact of Epilepsy on Graham Greene by E. H. Reynolds. This is a man diagnosed by a "Harley Street specialist" (the best money could buy in the 1920's UK). Apparently, "The treatment consisted of good walks and Keppler's Malt Extract." --Colin 18:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus editing.
I'm really happy with the way this page, and this talk page, turned out, even though I was totally opposed to them in the beginning. It's been an eye-opener for me about the power of consensus editing. -Ikkyu2 01:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is one of the better "believed to have XYZ medical condition" list I've seen. Many of these devolve into "this guy in Denmark believes he had XYZ condition, but he doesn't know for certain." So yeah I can see being happy about it.--T. Anthony 04:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Listcruft
I think this article avoids being caught on almost all of the barbs in Listcruft. I believe the sole problem (which is a common one) is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Specifically


 * Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons ... Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic.

This is expanded on in Lists (stand-alone lists) - Lists of people:


 * Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles.

Does this apply to all the people on this list? No, it does not. Indeed, some of the people most noted for having epilepsy are excluded from this list due to significant doubts about their diagnosis. There are a number of people in this list that are known to the general population as having epilepsy, and for their epilepsy to be a significant issue worthy of newspaper columns, etc. There is another group of people that are well known for their epilepsy only within the epilepsy community. This may be because they are patrons of epilepsy charities, or have been written about in epilepsy-related books and web sites. Generally, the more recent the diagnosis, the more likely that they will have had newspaper articles written about their epilepsy and that they will have been recruited for charitable work.

The problem with "notability in that category" is largely due to the stigma attached to having Epilepsy. Something that lists such as this can help to dispel.

If this is listcruft, Aristotle is also guilty. In his book The Falling Sickness : A History of Epilepsy from the Greeks to the Beginnings of Modern Neurology, Owsei Temkin writes:


 * In 1602 Taxil said that Aristotle made a whole catalogue of famous epileptics in which he named Hercules, Ajax, Bellerophon, Socrates, Plato, Empedocles, Maracus of Syracuse, and the Sybils.

Jean Taxil extends the list with (in French) "Iule Caesar, et Caligula Empereurs, Liuius Drusus, premier tribun du peuple Romain, Petrarche; et encore que ce detestable Mahomet". People have continued maintaining such lists during the 400 years since Taxil and two milennia since Aristotle.

A quick Google search for '"famous people with epilepsy"', gives a staggering 17,000 pages. Every epilepsy charity or support group has its own "famous people" page. Searching Google books shows that many books on epilepsy (for general readers) dedicate at least a paragraph or two to such a list.

Would I expect to find this list in an encyclopaedia? Yes – probably at the end of a big article on Epilepsy. That is where the list originated. Since leaving home, this list has been refined then enlarged. Every entry has been expanded and comprehensive references added. Having its own article, has allowed this to happen.

Colin°Talk 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It might not be a bad idea to link to the major epilepsy website's "famous people with epilepsy" pages, even though (imo) their standards for inclusion have sometimes been less stringent than those used here. - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Athletes
In order to please both American and British readers of Wikipedia, it has been sugested that the section title of "Athlete" should not be used as it refers to only competitors in Athletic ativities in British English. It was previously called "Sports People" but I do not believe this should be used either as it sounds clunky and unprofessional. I would like to reach a title that is acceptable for both types of English. Please suggest names you would find to be acceptable so that a new title may be created.

Suggestions

 * "Sports Competitors" JR98664

Dostoyevsky's experience was "unusual"?
This article says, 'Dostoyevsky's epilepsy was unusual in that he claimed to experience an ecstatic aura prior to a seizure, whereas most people experience unpleasant feelings.' As far as I know this is not unusual or, to be more exact, this is precisely the type of epilepsy I lived with until I had a right temporal lobectomy in 1996 to end it. I am open to correction here but in all my reading this is a common feature of right temporal lobe epilepsy, which I believe now is termed 'complex partial' epilepsy. For me, reading Dostoyevsky was an amazing gift- I only wish I discovered him in my childhood when I was struggling to describe my ecstacy when a seizure was imminent. I had never read somebody put in words exactly how I felt when I had an attack. I, too, would give the world for that moment. I've read most of Dostevsky's work now and his epilepsy punctuates his entire work, his heroes and his antiheroes. In addition Dostoyevsky's letters, in which he talks in detail about these aura, are available in Joseph Frank's five volume biography of him. It is very well worth reading for anybody with this type of epilepsy, or for parents of people with it. This 'glorious' aura is very well known and according to my consultant people who no longer have attacks actually long for it. All the best! 193.1.172.163 03:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. More info on auras can be found at Epilepsy.com: Funny Feelings and Epilepsy Action: Auras. Wrt to the "unusual ... ecstatic aura", the article refers to. I have not been able to read the full text. It's rather expensive to buy journal articles but perhaps your library or college would have access? You might also want to search PubMed for "ecstatic aura" or "Dostoevsky". Other articles that comment on the rarety include, , Scientific And Literary Views Of Epilepsy: The Relevance Of Prince Myshkin and Freud on Dostoevsky's Epilepsy: A Revaluation.

I wonder if such ecstatic auras are so noteworthy and memorable (the patient enjoy's their illness) that it is "well known" but actually statistically quite rare. If you can find published text to the contrary, then I would be glad to hear of it.

I encourage you to get an account, and contribute your extensive knowlege of Dostoyevsky to Wikipedia. Regards, Colin°Talk 13:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 Lists (stand-alone lists) and policy Naming conventions 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)

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 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 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)

Muhammad in the lead section
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. Muhammad is detailed later on in the list, where a famous medical historian's opinion is given: that it was slander to allege that Muhammad had epilespy. Therefore, I think it relevant that those who repeat this possible slander, are shown to be biased in their view of Muhammad. Colin°Talk 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've now replaced the quote with just a list, that no longer says "detestable". Colin°Talk 17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for Deletion? Why?
Mentioned at the top of the article "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."

The idea that someone wants to delete an article which is identified with one of the BEST LISTS is absolutely ridicilous. Timmah01 11:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please comment over at Articles for deletion/List of people with epilepsy. Colin°Talk 11:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Link from Epilepsy article
In accordance with Summary_style, I created a short section in Epilepsy that links here: Epilepsy. I should have done this when List of people with epilepsy was created; I have now corrected that omission. - ikkyu2 ( talk ) 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case, I've removed the link to this article from the 'see also' section of the epilepsy article Dupont Circle 20:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Maggie McEleny, Patsy Custis and Antônio Moreira César
Three people on the list who appear to have no articles about them. Are they notable, or can they be removed? Dupont Circle 20:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've created Maggie McEleny. Patsy (Martha Parke) Custis died aged 17 so didn't get a chance to achieve notability in her own right. Her parentage gives her notability within American history, and her epilepsy is an interesting entry in this list. Antônio Moreira César has an article on the Portuguese WP and a redlink on War of Canudos. I suspect that eventually, he'll get an article here too. Colin°Talk 17:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Colin. I'm not convinced by Patsy Custis.  If she's not notable, then she shouldn't be on the list, regardless of how interesting her epilepsy is? Dupont Circle 20:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A further word on religious figures as epileptics
I am not a Muslim but I agree with Drmuji on the issue of resentment of such association. And I agree with Colin, so far as we are talking about these people's alleged epileptic status being taken cum grano salis. More to the point, however, this seems to be a sly way to sneak the "Documentary theory" of the source of part of the Old Testament into a reference work. Labeling parts of the Pentateuch as the manifestation of an epileptic fit is an insult to intelligence and, to use the language of Melvin Belli, little short of criminal libel. Dougie monty (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article and the source (which I've added a link to) make no claim that the writing is "the manifestation of an epileptic fit". The controversial Geschwind syndrome is a personality trait associated with temporal lobe epilepsy.
 * The dilemma is that if we remove names because the evidence appears weak or even ludicrous, these names appear in lists on other web sites and books and are generally treated as historical facts: that Paul, Joan of Arc and Muhammad had epilepsy. To me, that careless treatment of history is the worst crime and I hope this WP list makes it clear that all these retrospective "diagnoses" are speculative and controversial. Colin°Talk 08:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Famous misdiagnois
I undid Collin's edit because there was not one thing in the source he posted that supports the following statement "Many famous people are incorrectly recorded as having epilepsy. In some cases there is no evidence at all for a diagnosis of epilepsy. In others, the symptoms have been misinterpreted. In some, the seizures were provoked by acute illness or alcohol withdrawal, for example." In fact there is no mention at all of any famous person, or famous people in general, in the given source. And there was no point in the section existing unless that statement is supported. Plus, anything relevant that could be put there, is already mentioned in more relevant sections throughout this article
 * You are right, the source wasn't the correct one for the text in that paragraph. I've inserted a more suitable source (a lay commentary on Hughes' paper). I've kept the JW Sander ref for now, as it is a readable and freely available article explaining why misdiagnosis is common, and the reader may benefit from this. I've restored the paragraph removed. Colin°Talk 20:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Julius Ceasar
I've removed the following text that was added (by 213.46.143.24) to the Leadership, politics and royalty section:


 * A Roman military and political leader. He played a critical role in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Caesar had four documented episodes of what may have been complex partial seizures. He may additionally have had absence seizures in his youth. Claims of Caesar suffering from epilepsy are contested, however.
 * Ronald T. Ridley, "The Dictator's Mistake: Caesar's Escape from Sulla," Historia 49 (2000), pp. 225–226, citing doubters of epilepsy: F. Kanngiesser, "Notes on the Pathology of the Julian Dynasty," Glasgow Medical Journal 77 (1912) 428-432; T. Cawthorne, "Julius Caesar and the Falling Sickness,” Proceedings of Royal Society of Medicine 51 (1957) 27-30, who prefers Ménière's disease; and O. Temkin, The Falling Sickness: A History of Epilepsy from the Greeks to the Beginnings of Modern Neurology (Baltimore 1971), p 162.
 * Plutarch, Caesar 17, 45, 60; see also Suetonius, Julius 45.

It repeats, more or less, what is already in the Retrospective diagnosis section. I have not found any evidence that Ceasar was diagnosed with epilepsy during his lifetime. His biographers who mention epilepsy, Appian, Plutarch, Pliny and Suetonius, were born after Ceasar had died. The sources given above are good, to which I would add the JR Hughes "Dictator Perpetuus: Julius Caesar--did he have seizures? If so, what was the etiology?" . I wouldn't count Temkin as a "doubter of epilepsy": he doesn't say much on the issue of accuracy other than that the historical evidence (from the above biographers) is fairly sound. I don't have access (at present) to the other contemporary sources listed above. Colin°Talk 21:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A king of Brazil and Portugal also had epilepsy.
This portuguese site [] tell that a king of Brazil and Portugal also had epilepsy.Beyond doubt, king Peter I of Brazil or Peter IV of Portugal had epilepsy.These other sites: [] and [] tel the same fact.Agre22 (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)agre22

Muhammad in the section on religious figures
The following discussion has been extracted from personal talk pages so that a wider discussion can occur

This list contains remarks about Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) as having epilepsy. The exact remarks are as
 * Some researchers consider temporal lobe epilepsy to be a possible cause of his inspirational spells.

Now, we as Muslims, believe that our Holy Book "The Quran" was actually conveyed to us from God by these so-called "Inspirational spells". So, when someone says that these spells were actually temporal Lobe Epilepsy. This means that all we believe in is a big joke. Any Muslims can find these remarks as very offensive and ridiculous. Plus, this diagnosis which the author has made has no proof to confirm his statement. I have tried removing couple of sentences regarding our Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) but i have given this message Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to List of people with epilepsy. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Colin°Talk 07:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmuji" Therefore, i request you again that this offensive content be removed from the website and wikipedia be made as non-controversial as possible Best Regards Dr. Mujtaba

Drmuji 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Some references
if u need referances the please take a look at these sites

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Badawi/Radio/RA200J5.htm

and also

http://muhammad.islamonline.net/English/index.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drmuji (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Reply from colin
Thanks for your message. You can be sure I appreciate your concerns. Almost every religious group can find something of offence in that section of the list. The Jews, Christians, Catholics, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists all have spiritual leaders that someone at some time has claimed to have had epileptic seizures rather than true religious visions. If you read the text at the start of the list and at the start of the section, you may detect a somewhat sceptical tone with regard to the value of such speculations.

However, Wikipedia is not censored. The statement that "Some researchers consider temporal lobe epilepsy to be a possible cause of his inspirational spells" is undoubtedly true regardless of whether you or I think it offensive or just complete bollocks. I have cited a source in a highly respected epilepsy journal. There are other sources I could have cited, for example, the book "Sword and Seizure: Muhammad's Epilepsy & Creation of Islam". I haven't read that book, however, and don't intend to. A Google search for "Muhammad Epilepsy" returns thousands of pages both for and against. The debate is definitely notable.

When writing for Wikipedia, sometimes editors have to include statements they don't personally believe. The neutral point of view is a core policy and means we may have to "write for the enemy" (i.e. the other side of the argument). I think/hope that anyone reading List of people with epilepsy will find a fairly balanced article that doesn't push one view over another.

If you still feel that the article needs to be changed, I can suggest some forms of mediation - i.e. asking for another opinion from other editors. Colin°Talk 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply from Drmuji
I appreciate your answer and your point of view about it as well. But, my only concern is that had this been on some other area, i may somehow have swallowed it. but to write that "inspirational spells" were due to temporal lobe epilepsy, actually stresses on our faith about our holy book "The Quran". And all muslims follow Quran as the guide lines. Second point which you raised was that there were hundreds of articles which concur with your point of view. My answer is that there are thousands of articles which go against that point as well. your third point was wikipedia is not censored. I am quoting what is written on the website. "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." This clearly says that i have the write to change the article. Finally, my request is that the sentence which i have been objecting should be removed because any muslim who sees this article may find it very offensive and quite a lot of people quote Wikipedia on several things. I am afraid that someday someone can raise this issue at some forum and this can cause a lot of problem as you saw with the reaction about blasphemous cartoons published in one of the newspapers few months back about Muhammad (P.B.U.H) And lastly, The book "Sword and Seizure: Muhammad's Epilepsy & Creation of Islam" which you mentioned has some basic flaws. The author says that it is all because of temporal lobe epilepsy. that may sound true to some people but as a psychiatrist i know that temporal lobe epilepsy cannot last for 13 years and also that after the seizure of temporal lobe, the patient doesn’t remember any of the things which he did during the seizure. And, none of these things happened to Muhammad. You can find details about all these things in the links i sent you. Also, the author has tried to mix bipolar disorder with epilepsy in that case, but has failed to find one proper manic or hypomanic episode in the history of Muhammad (P.B.U.H). I hope you understand my point of view and appreciate my concerns. And if you feel stubborn about your point of view then I would like you mediate on this matter as long as its not Garion96, because i read his comments on your archive Best Regards Mujtaba Drmuji 02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have asked for comments over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Hope that is acceptable to you. Colin°Talk 11:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is very wrong. Most people with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy remember their seizures. It is only generalized and absence seizures where the person will have no memory of the events that happened during the seizure, and the most common type of seizures to have are partial seizures in the temporal lobe. These are seizures that will be remembered, and even if they secondary generalize, which is extremely rare to happen, you can still remember the hallucinations, sensations, weird tastes, thoughts/feelings, or whatever else your aura encompassed that led up to the secondary generalized seizure. The only people who have not had temporal lobe epilepsy for 13 years are those who died within 13 years of being diagnosed of their seizures. If people could not ever remember what they did during a temporal lobe seizure, then there would be no description of a typical temporal lobe aura -yet everyone who knows about temporal lobe seizures knows that the most common aura is a weird feeling surrounding the head and stomach, sometimes accompanied by an unusual taste, right before the hallucination begins. Another common manifestation of a temporal lobe seizure is a sudden, unprovoked emergence of an old memory or strong emotion- again something that a neurologist, psychologist, or researcher would have never been able to record if a person with epilepsy could never recall their temporal lobe seizure. Most people can talk to you during a temporal lobe seizure, and a good portion of them will remember the conversation afterward even if they couldn't answer all of your questions, or couldn't answer them all appropriately —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcotbot (talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply
As a person with temporal lobe epilepsy, I personally know that your comment above has some basic flaws. My temporal lobe epilepsy has lasted for 26 years, and I can remember some things that happened during my seizures and post ictal state (some times my memories are of the typical outer body experiences and religious hallucinations common with TLE. I've seen Jesus during a seizure and I don't even believe in Jesus is a relgious entity. I've also seen ER doctors attempting to kill me during seizures. Other times my memories are correct, its just my thinking during the time that the events happened that is unusal) With greater control on medicine, I'm beginning to remember more accurate things, like I really did walk into a door and sit in a bathtub fully clothed because it seemed the most comfortable place in the house to get some privacy. Many people can remember what they did during the seizure - their level of confusion in regards to that memory is dependent on many things. The post ictal phase which occurs after a seizure is the time period when most people with epilepsy experience sudden religious conversions, and most often as a result of hallucinations and visions that they experienced during their seizure and feel compelled to act on Many people have had TLE for far longer than I have. The only reason I haven't it had it longer for 26 years is that I'm only 26 - I was 3 weeks old when I had my first seizure, my last one was yesterday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.184.14 (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply from colin
Removing sourced text from Wikipedia is never acceptable without at least an edit summary and preferably a discussion on the talk page – which is what we are doing now. Just to be clear, it is not my opinion that TLE is a source of Muhammad's inspirational spells. I favour Owsei Temkin's argument that the whole association with epilepsy has arisen from slanderous remarks. Temkin is a highly respected author on the history of epilepsy. It should also be clear that the article itself does not claim that TLE is a source of the inspirational spells. It only states that "some researchers" believe this. There are people who hold all sorts of beliefs, some offensive, some nutty. Wikipedia doesn't align itself with those beliefs if all it is doing is reporting that they exist.

I have added an extra sentence to the end of the lead in the Religious figures section:


 * The presence of an entry in the following list does not indicate a scholarly consensus in favour of a diagnosis of epilepsy; merely that such a diagnosis has been suggested.

Like you, I would not want someone to be able to quote Wikipedia as a source that claims person XYZ had epilepsy if such a claim is in doubt. I hope it is clear that all the entries in the Retrospective diagnosis section must be regarded as speculative. Colin°Talk 11:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice on the wikiproject Islam's talk page. The belief that Mohammed had TLE is a notable observation made by many people and so I agree with that it should be included in this article. Dr. Mujtaba, it doesnt matter if this is offensive to Muslims. So are many other things offensive in Wikipedia to Muslims, e.g. Criticism of Islam. Wikipedia is an an impartial encyclopedia for notable issues. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the notion that Muhammad had epilepsy is for the most part an insinuation: most modern academic sources available on Islam to my knowledge do not equate Muhammad with being an epileptic, and in fact deny this claim (from my quick scan: Caesar Farah in "Islam: Beliefs and Observances" p. 69; other scholars who deny this link include Theodor Nöldeke, and Montgomery Watt cf. "Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an", Edinburgh University Press, pp. 17-18, Maxime Rodinson [in Muhammad: Prophet of Islam] notes that it was a conclusion of hostile Christians). as a lot of academic scholars tend to deny or not mention it, the article probably shouldn't include him as a verified epileptic, if at all.  ITAQALLAH   04:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ah... i see that it is in the section of retrospective diagnosis, perhaps a quote from one of the above scholars would be appropriate?  ITAQALLAH   05:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many academic sources that mention Mohammed's possible epilepsy, and many others. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Margoliouth seems to be one. however, as Watt/Bell state, more recent academics do not tend to entertain such views. the second link doesn't seem particularly appropriate, and neither do most of the others really. as i said, most academic scholars tend not to class Muhammad as an epileptic.  ITAQALLAH   05:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, the mention of Mohammed possibly being an epileptic is notable because countless number of book authors talk about it, so this should stay in this article. To DrMuji: Wikipedia is not censored. The fact that a certain statement may be offensive to you as a Muslim, is of secondary importance. Wikipedia is an impartial encyclopedia. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those refs, Itaqallah. The text makes it clear that "an entry in the following list does not indicate a scholarly consensus in favour of a diagnosis of epilepsy; merely that such a diagnosis has been suggested". I also cite Owsei Temkin (highly respected medical historian and author of the book on the history of Epilepsy) who concurs with the "slander" POV. I suppose the entry is slightly imbalanced in that it only has one person anti and "some" researchers pro. If I were to change it to
 * Many historians consider the association of Muhammad with epilepsy to have arisen from slander by the Byzantine Christian historian Theophanes. Some researchers consider temporal lobe epilepsy to be a possible cause of his inspirational spells.
 * I'd like to cite a couple more anti sources, which were reliable. Can you provide me with a full cite book citation for the above refs. Also, can you confirm that those sources would support that statement, or should it be worded differently. Colin°Talk 20:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Answer to evidence lacking "Religious Leaders Section"
It appears that several people have already taken offence to the list of "potential religious TLE's" I believe that this section should in fact be removed from the main page but could perhaps have a link at the bottom of the page to another wiki site titled "Leaders believed to have TLE" and could elaborate on these "potential religiuos TLE's and world leaders with TLE. To list any religious leader regardless of any previous disclaimer proves that this information should not be on this site. Wikipedia should be a source to find facts on a subject and not people's opinion on a subject otherwise wikipedia would be the worlds largest collection of blogs. How many people need to comment on this section's offensive speculations. It is considerably less acceptable to list more recent religios figures as possible TLE's due to the increased medical knowledge and in the case of Joseph Smith the complete documentation of his life. Nowhere is it documented that he suffered from siezures and many of his visions were with others present and surely they would have commented on his being a TLE or at least write about his supposed symptoms. THE answer is REMOVE THE SECTION and add it as a link if someone is interested in reading more about possible religious figures with TLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosshterry (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 January 2009

Many of my TLE seizures happened with others present. If I hadn't said I was having a seizure, they would have known nothing other than the description of the hallucination I gave them. I had TLE seizures for years in elementary before anyone even suspected that epilepsy should be considered - and I had my first seizures when I was weeks old —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.117.249 (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesus may have had epilepsy
Frankly, I'm surprised Jesus Christ isn't on the list of suspected religious epileptics. "Some researchers consider temporal lobe epilepsy to be a possible cause of his inspirational spells,(list of sources here)" just like Mohammed. If you take a look at the discussion about Mohammed's presence on this list, it is obvious that this page is meant to include notable figures who have been suggested as having epilepsy. Even though people may take offense, Jesus belongs on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.133.194 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The suggestion needs to come from a source of some authority and (per WP:WEIGHT) be the viewpoint of more than just a tiny minority of authors. It is clear from your source (which, as a self-published website, fails our WP:V threshold for reliable sources) that the only source for this this suggestion was some book in Danish from 1904, which was "roundly condemned by most of the other writers on the subject". To include it here would give more weight to that opinion than it deserves. Colin°Talk 11:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The suggestion about Mohammad is not coming from any authority or neutral source,there is nothing more than a claim.But obviously its enough for describing or blaming for some people with anti islamic feelings.--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Antisemitism
Just because one cracker said Muhammad was an epileptic does it make it true. I am betting Theo never met the prophet. With no good counter-argument I am going to edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.126.163 (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are quite a number of writers who propose Muhammad had epilepsy, with varying degrees of evidence -- though all are ultimately just guessing. See earlier discussions on this talk page, above. There's a consensus that Muhammad should remain. Please note that the article makes it clear that it does not endorse this view. Colin°Talk 08:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey can you give a some examples or names of that so called "writers" and what exactly is their evidence? EEG,MR scan or something else?Or what type of epilepsy was that?--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources are in the article. Google or a search on Amazon or Google Scholar will find other sources. It is a common enough allegation from serious or famous historical writers to merit some metion, and then to note it is just speculation. You may be surprised to learn that nobody gets diagnosed with epilepsy by EEG or MRI scan. An EEG is sometimes used to confirm a diagnosis but in many people with epilepsy, they don't have them frequently enough to catch in a hospital setting. And epilepsy is frequently wrongly diagnosed even by modern doctors who see their patients. Colin°Talk 10:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.eqi.org.au/store/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"Misdiagnosis"
As I was reading through the "misdiagnosis" section, it came to my attention that many of the reasons for misdiagnosis is that the epilepsy was "non convulsive" or "complex partial" or "simple Partial" seizures. According to the epilepsy foundation, not all seizures are convulsive, and a seizure is characterized by misfirings of the brain. For example, Van Gogh is still believed to have epilepsy, and while they were complex partial, they were still seizures. There also should be a list of "suspected cases" in which you can put Van Gogh and Edgar Allen Poe, as many scholars believe they had epilepsy, some even suggest that Poe died of SUDEP, or Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy Paitents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.11.1.228 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Religious figures
the intro to this section clearly states "The presence of an entry in the following list does not indicate a scholarly consensus in favour of a diagnosis of epilepsy; merely that such a diagnosis has been suggested." There's an extensive literature on epilepsy and religion/mysticism, including neurological research. These people belong here because they raised interest as religious persons. Especially removing St. Paul from this section misses the point of this interest. See also:
 * Geschwind syndrome
 * Ecstatic feelings can be caused by epilepsy
 * Ann Taves (1999), Fits, trances and visions
 * Vilayanur S. Ramachandran:
 * Finding God in a seizure: the link between temporal lobe epilepsy and mysticism
 * God on the Brain

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Michael Trimble, Anthony Freeman (2006), An investigation of religiosity and the Gastaut–Geschwind syndrome in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy, Epilepsy & Behavior 9 (2006) 407–414
 * Kanemoto K., Kawasaki J, Kawai I., Postictal psychosis: a comparison with acute interictal and chronic psychoses. Epilepsia. 1996 Jun;37(6):551-6.
 * McNamara (2009/2014): The neuroscience of religious experience


 * Yes, I know how that section was worded, but it violated Wikipedia policy because a scholarly consensus is always required under WP policy, rather than just one or two authors making a claim. I therefore changed the wording to conform with standard policy, and moved entries based on what those entries themselves said about the scholarly viewpoint. Many of the entries in that section actually admitted that the epilepsy claim has been debunked, or is disputed, or there is no evidence; in which case these entries needed to be moved to the proper category just like the other people in this list; hence I moved them. We can't use a different standard just for that one section. If you want to move any of them back, you'd need to demonstrate a scholarly consensus that these specific people had epilepsy. Likewise for the Geschwind syndrome issue. This is really a basic point since Wikipedia policy is clear on the issue of scholarly consensus, and hence it should not need to be debated. Let's move on. Ryn78 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please cite the policy, and stop POV-pushing. See also WP:BRD. The persons in this list are not classified under "proven/not proven," but under "association between religion & epilepsy." I'm sorry for you if the classification-scheme in the article is imperfect, but you're ignoring the main point here, namely the scholarly and popular interest in epilepsy & religion. See also WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've split-off this section into a separate section; I hope this helps. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At second thought, the article is very clear: " Following from that, there is a short list of people who have received a speculative, retrospective diagnosis of epilepsy."  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * One of the most basic of all Wikipedia's policies is the need for academic consensus, and that includes list pages. All the other sections of this page adhere to that policy, except the section we're debating. That section can't just contain a "grab bag" list consisting of anyone who has ever been claimed to be epileptic by at least one author, because that doesn't make any distinction based on consensus and it allows fringe views to be given equal weight, which is forbidden (see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE). Accusing me of "POV pushing" is absurd, since I'm "pushing" only for the standard policy. This is basic stuff. Let's move on. Don't revert it again unless you can first gain consensus for your view that this section should use a different standard than everything else. Ryn78 (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryn78 I think you are misunderstanding WP policy and also that any kind of scholarly consensus is documented for many of these entries. The entire nature of historical diagnosis is that it is speculative. Some diagnoses are widely held and repeated, some may have been debunked, others may remain contentious, and others may never have captured any degree of support. It is extremely difficult, probably impossible, for us to determine where an entry lies on that spectrum. There are some professionals who think all historical diagnoses are bunk. And many religious scholars would dismiss the "epilepsy caused their visions" theory altogether. While WP policy requires us to make factual statements that are supported by the consensus of the literature, we were not making factual statements that XXX historical figure had epilepsy if they are included in these sections. Our factual statement was simply that this person has had a historical diagnosis published in a reliable source. To claim, as you have done, that some of these entries have scholarly consensus, is simply untrue and the supplied sources do not support that assertion. Many of the figures for whom a speculative diagnosis has been made are very widely known to have had such a speculative diagnosis, even if scholars give it little credence. Simply removing entries because they don't satisfy your incorrect interpretation of policy is unhelpful -- part of the purpose of this page (compared to other lists on epilepsy charity websites or in the introductions to textbooks, etc, etc) is to document that such a diagnosis is indeed merely speculative. So such a diagnosis just has to be notable or at least published in a reliable source (such as an academic paper) and we have to word the section headings and commentary appropriately. Feel free to dig up more sources that add voices in favour or against each diagnosis but simply moving/editing/removing entries without changing the sources is completely wrong.

Joshua Jonathan it is hard to see all the changes that have gone on in this edit war, but I see some diffs that removed sourced text questioning controversial ideas like Geschwind syndrome. Please don't remove sourced text without discussion.

I will revert to 2nd October and strongly advise the pair of you stop editing until you have come to some agreement on the talk page. -- Colin°Talk 10:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks for your explanation regarding the classificications at this page. I agree with you on this point. But, to revert wholesale, removing sourced info, while asking "Please don't remove sourced text without discussion" is not the way to proceed. If you think that the edits that I made on the introductory info is incorrect, then please discuss this, and point out what exactly you find problematic, but do not revert wholesale without a further explanation. I'm quite willing to discuss this topic, so let's try to compare the changes which I made to this info. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well you guys are edit warring so both sets of edits are contentious and the easiest way to start is from the previously uncontentious text before either of you started editing. Reverting a revert without discussion/consensus is edit warring, which you have now done to me. You don't seem to understand BRD -- it doesn't have two R's in there. While I appreciate the effort of the huge section below, it isn't something I can work with -- trying to argue on 20 different points/changes at once. I'd rather you showed restraint by self-reverting to the older version then take each change you wish to make in turn and state what is wrong/incomplete with the older text and what is better with the next text, with sources. It may be there are many things we can all agree on that will be quickly resolved. Remember that the existing text was a Featured List (albeit a long time ago) so one should not make radical or structural changes without discussion - otherwise it is quite likely someone will nominate it for removal. -- Colin°Talk 18:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter Fenwick 1994
After checking the source, Fenwick 1994, I've changed


 * "Neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick has questioned the labeling of religious figures with temporal lobe epilepsy. He believes this may "owe more to the enthusiasm of their authors than to the true scientific understanding.""

into


 * "Neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick, in the 1980s and 1990s, also found a relationship between the right temporal lobe and mystical experience, but also found that pathology or brain damage is only one of many possible causal mechanisms for these experiences. He questioned the earlier accounts of religious figures with temporal lobe epilepsy, noticing that "very few true examples of the ecstatic aura and the temporal lobe siezure had been reported in the world scientific literature prior to 1980". According to Fenwick, "It is likely that the earlier accounts of temporal lobe epilepsy and temporal lobe pathology and the relation to mystic and religious states owes more to the enthusiasm of their authors than to a true scientific understanding of the natyure of temporal lobe functioning.""

Fenwick questioned the earlier accounts, not all accounts in general. This is his conclusion, in which he also refers to psychic phenomena (emphasis mine):


 * ''"It would seem reasonable to assume that there is a relationship between the right temporal lobe, mystical experience, and psychic gifts. It is clear that we have failed to substantiate an absolute relationship as many subjects in the control group who were clearly not brain damaged and did not have temporal lobe lesions, also had mystical experiences. With the distribution of mystical experiences being so common in the general population it is very difficult to subscribe their ocurrence simply to pathology. A much better hypotehsis would be that althoug htere is a relationship in some people with right hemisphere dysfunction, this is only one of amny possible mechanisms. It would suggest that these experiences may require a large right temporal input in their genesis, but tht they also involve many different brain areas which can be triggered in different ways.


 * The implications for epilepsy are also clear. There is certainly evidence that discharges in the right medial temporal structures can lead to an aura with some features of the mystical expreince. It is not clear that there is any other direct relationship. In our survey it was the patients with generalised seizures who more often reported belief in and experiene of mystical phenomena."

In other words: yes, temporal lobe epilepsy may cause mystical aura's, but epilepsy is not the only possible cause for such experiences. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * PS: From Peter Fenwick (neuropsychologist):


 * ''He has been criticised by the medical community for claiming that human consciousness can survive bodily death. Fenwick argues that human consciousness may be more than just a function of the brain.


 * "The plain fact is that none of us understands these phenomena. As for the soul and life after death, they are still open questions, though I myself suspect that NDEs are part of the same continuum as mystical experiences." ''


 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Fenwick 1980
Fenwick 1980 is an interesting source. Fenwick explains the brain-mechanisms involved in mystical experiences, especially the temporal lobe. Recent research on epilepsy & mysticism also focuses on the temporal lobe.

Regarding the sentence "Looking for physical explanations of mystical experiences was controversial" (I'd already changed "is" into "was"), Fenwick states in this article:
 * "We have discussed brain functioning and we have related some of these aspects to the generation of the mystical experience; but are there areas within the brain which are thought to be even more closely linked with religious experience' Well, the answer to this is yes"
 * "Indeed, epilepsy and mysticism have frequently been linked together in the past and not without good reason, as has been shown by the present."
 * " religious experience and epilepsy is rare and most of the large surveys of populations of epileptics fail to find even a single example. What is important, however, is that it does occur, is usually associated with temporal lobe pathology and is associated with the onset of the ictal discharge."
 * "There is little doubt, therefore that there exists within the brain, and probably within the temporal lobe and its associated central connections, a system which, when activated either naturally or by esoteric practices, or spontaneously, or on the operating table by direct stimulation or by the ictal discharges of epilepsy, can give rise to the mystical experience."

Regarding Geschwind, he writes:


 * "Dr Gershwind describes a syndrome in which the patients are said to show hypergraphia, that is they are `journalists' or write poetry, certainly they love words. They show excessive religiosity and a concern for all the more weighty of the philosophical ideas with which they endlessly play. Finally they are subject to deep religious experiences. I have certainly had several patients who have shown this."

I don't think that this article supports the statement "Looking for physical explanations of mystical experiences is controversial", and will remove it. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Explanation #1
To see what changes I've made to the info on religon and epilepsy, we can compare the two versions. NB: I've moved info from the lead to the subsection.


 * Moved from lead into article:
 * Second section: "A possible link between epilepsy and greatness [...] and Petrarch." - moved to introduction of "Certain diagnosis." Maybe this should be a separate, introductory section, but I don't think it belongs to the lead. Also because I moved the third section to the subsection on "Religious figures"; see below.


 * Old text:
 * The third section of the lead read:


 * "More recently, many saints and other religious figures have been suspected of having had temporal lobe epilepsy. J.E. Bryant's 1953 book, Genius and Epilepsy, has a list of more than 20 people that combines the great and the mystical. Recent scholars are more skeptical. Neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick is amongst those who question the widespread labeling of religious figures with temporal lobe epilepsy. He believes this may "owe more to the enthusiasm of their authors than to the true scientific understanding" In a recent detailed review of the subject, neurologist John Hughes concluded that the majority of famous people alleged to have epilepsy did not in fact have this condition. "


 * The intro to "religious figures" said:


 * "Many religious figures have been suspected of having had temporal lobe epilepsy. Looking for physical explanations of mystical experiences is controversial. Sudden religious conversion, together with visions, has been documented in a small number of individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy, but the association between epilepsy and intense religious feelings is rare. Aspects of the Geschwind syndrome have been identified in some religious figures, in particular – extreme religiosity and hypergraphia (excessive writing). Many neurologists strongly question the presence of a link between any personality profile and epilepsy. "


 * New text:
 * The third section from the lead has been moved to the subsection on "religious figures," and merged with the information which was laready there. Some of the info has beem corrected, since it gave a one-sided presentation of the topic; and it has been supplemented with additonal info from scholarly sources. It now reads:


 * "Many religious figures have been suspected of having had temporal lobe epilepsy. J.E. Bryant's 1953 book, Genius and Epilepsy'', has a list of more than 20 people that combines the great and the mystical. Norman Geschwind renewed the interest in behavioral changes related to temporal lobe epilepsy in the 1970s and 1980s. Geschwind described cases of extreme religiosity, called the Geschwind syndrome, and aspects of the Geschwind syndrome have been identified in some religious figures, in particular extreme religiosity and hypergraphia (excessive writing). Geschwind also introduced the "interictal personality disorder," describing a cluster of specific personality characteristics which he found characteristic of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Critics note that these characteristics can be the result of any illness, and are not sufficiently descriptive for patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick has questioned the labeling of religious figures with temporal lobe epilepsy. He believes this may "owe more to the enthusiasm of their authors than to the true scientific understanding."


 * Looking for physical explanations of mystical experiences was controversial, but neurological research of mystical experiences is a growing field of research, searching for specific neurological explanations of mystical experiences. The occurrence of intense religious feelings in epileptic patients in general is rare, and sudden religious conversion, together with visions, has been documented in only a small number of individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy, but epileptic patients with ecstatic seuzires may provide clues for the neaurological mechanisms involved in mystical experiences, such as the anterior insular cortex, which is involved in self-awareness and subjective certainty.  "

So, now we can discuss the changes that have been made. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   11:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Explanation of my changes:
 * "More recently": Dewhurst & Beard is from 1970, not from 2003; this not "recent."
 * Bryant 1953 is still in there.
 * Peter Fenwick is from 1994, and one selective pick out of many sources.
 * Hughes and Martin: "In a recent detailed review of the subject, neurologist John Hughes concluded that the majority of famous people alleged to have epilepsy did not in fact have this condition." This could be re-inserted, but need to be counter-balanced with the recent research on epilepsy & religion, c.q. religious experiences, as I have done.
 * "Looking for physical explanations of mystical experiences is controversial" (Fenwick 1980) - that's seriously outdated. I've changed it into "Looking for physical explanations of mystical experiences was controversial,[145] but neurological research of mystical experiences is a growing field of research, searching for specific neurological explanations of mystical experiences."
 * "Sudden religious conversion, together with visions, has been documented in a small number of individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy,[3] but the association between epilepsy and intense religious feelings is rare." - no disagreement here; I've supplemented it with " but epileptic patients with ecstatic seuzires may provide clues for the neaurological mechanisms involved in mystical experiences, such as the anterior insular cortex, which is involved in self-awareness and subjective certainty."
 * Geschwind:
 * ''"Aspects of the Geschwind syndrome have been identified in some religious figures, in particular – extreme religiosity and hypergraphia (excessive writing). Many neurologists strongly question the presence of a link between any personality profile and epilepsy."
 * expanded into
 * "Norman Geschwind renewed the interest in behavioral changes related to temporal lobe epilepsy in the 1970s and 1980s.[142] Geschwind described cases of extreme religiosity, called the Geschwind syndrome,[142] and aspects of the Geschwind syndrome have been identified in some religious figures, in particular extreme religiosity and hypergraphia (excessive writing).[142] Geschwind also introduced the "interictal personality disorder," describing a cluster of specific personality characteristics which he found characteristic of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Critics note that these characteristics can be the result of any illness, and are not sufficiently descriptive for patients with temporal lobe epilepsy."
 * This includes an explanation of the "link between any personality profile and epilepsy," which was not in the previous version.

Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Colin: If you look at the dates of the last discussion posts and edits before your edits today, you'll see that there had been no discussion or edits for three days (not since the 9th) until you decided to get things going again while telling us to "stop edit warring". We HAD stopped edit warring until you stirred it up again. Ryn78 (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan: Since this discussion had died out for three days, do you really want to start it up again? Ryn78 (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If the discussion on the categorisation had died out, then we can close that discussion and leave St. Paul with the other religious persons. Regarding the additional info on epilepsy & religion, I've explained my edits above. Colin writes:
 * "While I appreciate the effort of the huge section below, it isn't something I can work with -- trying to argue on 20 different points/changes at once. I'd rather you showed restraint by self-reverting to the older version then take each change you wish to make in turn and state what is wrong/incomplete with the older text and what is better with the next text, with sources. It may be there are many things we can all agree on that will be quickly resolved."
 * I would kindly ask you first to read through the old and the new version, and see if the new version is really problematic. If there are things that you find problematic, I trust that will be become clear right-away from just reading the two versions, and then you can mention it. But at least you should try to read, and compare, the two versions.
 * If a more detailed discussion is necessary: I've given an overview of the changes I've made, and explained why it was changed. If there are objections to it, we can go through this list point-by-point; I'm quite willing to discuss this.
 * To revert it all back is the longer way; the overview shows clearly what has been changed, and what the connection between those changes is.
 * Let me summarize the changes: the presentation on "religion & epilepsy" was a little bit one-sided, disregarding the/a connection between epilepsy & religion, with an overreliance on older sources (1970, 1980, 1994) as describing the present state of affairs (all researchers from 1970 are at least retired by now, if not dead for years); and leaving out the recent research in neurotheology and the cognitive science of religion (Fenwick wrote in the 1980s in 1990s; since then, cognitive and neurological research on religion has been booming. See the recent publications that I've added). Basically the same info is still in there, but a little bit more elaborated, and appended with recent research. It does not say "epilepsy causes religion," nor does it say "all religious figures were epileptic"; what it does say is that there is a long-standing notion that epilepsy may cause hyperreligiosity in some cases, both in well-known religious figures as in anonimous patients who are studied by neurological researchers; and that these cases may give more insight into the workings of the brain, and into the neurological mechanisms of mystical experiences. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Explanation #2
Here's another overview: I hope I didn't forget any text. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added explanations for the changes. As you can see, no information was removed, except for:
 * "Recent scholars are more skeptical," since this was simply not supported by the source;
 * "Looking for physical explanations of mystical experiences is/was controversial," because this is also not supported by the source. And it is simply incorrect: neurological research on religion, and religious experiences, is booming.
 * For the rest, I've merely added (sourced) info, which provides a better overview of the topic, and expanded info. I hope that these explanations help. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * NB: I just realised that the information I've added only makes for a stronger case to include this sub-list in this Wiki-page: it provides additional info on the long-standing notion that there is a link between epilepsy and religion, and on the ongoing neurological research on this link. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Neuroscience for the soul"
I've made some additions and corrections, emphasizing the rare incidence of mystical experiences in TLE, per Neuroscience for the soul, as provided by Colin. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Dewhurst and Beard (1970)
I've added info on Dewhurst and Beard (1970), Sudden religious conversions in temporal lobe epilepsy. Their main interest was religious conversion; several entries in the list were provided by them. It seems relevant to give some background on their research. I'll read their article, to see if there's more specific info on these saints. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding Saint Catherine of Genoa, Saint Marguerite Marie and Mme Guyon, Dewhurst and Beard refer to Leuba (1925), and state:
 * "According to Leuba [31] three other Christian mystics also suffered from abnormal mental states which he tentatively diagnosed as hysteria, although their symptoms equally well suggest temporal lobe epilepsy. They were St. Catherine of Genoa (1447–1510), Mme. Guyon (1648–1717 ) and St. Marguerite Marie (1647– 1690). These mystics had periodic attacks which included the following symptoms: sensations of extremes of heat and cold, trembling of the whole body, transient aphasia, automatisms, passivity feelings, hyperaesthesiae, childish regression, dissociation, somnambulism, transient paresis, increased suggestibility, and an inability to open the eyes." (p.84/85)
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Complicated reverts
At 12 november I reverted Colin's removal of sourced info. I hadn't noticed that my revert also restored Ryn78's previous move of some religious figures to other sections. I have no objections to keeping all those religous figures together, on the contrary, as has been discussed before. So I have restored part of Colin's revert partly self-reverted by reverting that edit by Ryn78, since my intention was to only revert Colin's removal of additional info. My apologies for the complications...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no "agreement" to move those entries back to that category, and no justification for doing so. Some of those entries say: "No specific details available", so how can you claim that the entry justifies including them? One entry is for someone whose name isn't even known, so how can he be "diagnosed"? Other entries note that the "diagnosis" has been debunked because the person didn't exhibit the symptoms of epilepsy. It is more than reasonable to treat these types of entries the same as similar entries by moving them to the appropriate category rather than having a special category in which even one author's claim justifies inclusion. The other categories don't use that method, so you're using a double standard. Ryn78 (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The justification is clear. There was no agreement, to start with, to move those persons out of the category of religious figures. Both Colin and I have explained to you, several times, at Talk:List of people with epilepsy, how the categorisation at this page works; nevertheless, you've moved those persons again. There's no agreement for this move. Please stop.
 * On the other hand, I've asked you before about the Wiki-policy you say you're reffering to; you still haven't mentioned which policiy that is. You stated that "a scholarly consensus is always required under WP policy"; that's incorrect. References are needed for statements that are being made. If the statement is "Scholar X has speculated that religious figure Y was an epileptic," and a reference is provided for that statement, then that is in accord with the Wiki-policies on sourcing. That's what you're probably referring to, and where you are mistaken. If you think that another policy applies, please make clear which policiy that is.
 * The real point is that you think that "you're using a double standard." That's partly correct, but misses the reason why they are grouped together in this specific. Three standards are being used: certain diagnosis, retrospective diagnosis, misdiagnosis. The reasons to do so have been given. Some of those religious could indeed also fit into the misdiagnosis-category. But they are included at the retrospective diagnosis category, because their diagnosis is retrospective, and specifically linked to religiosity. There is a long-standing notion that there is a link between epilepesy and religion; recent research is only strengthening that notion. That's why these persons belong together: for the cultural and scientific notion that there is a link, and for the scientific research on this link.
 * Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not finding time at the moment to study all the changes in detail. Two general points. Ryn78 must stop changing the text to say our sources "indicate a scholarly consensus in favour of a diagnosis of epilepsy" for such historical figures, particularly religious ones. They really don't and you must remember that sources on these figures extends beyond what turns up at PubMed but includes real physical books written by historians and theologians rather than just speculative diagnosis made from some physician's armchair and published in the Christmas issue of a journal for light entertainment. It's a highly controversial practice and one reason you won't necessarily find balancing sources specifically debunking individual theories is the same reason you won't find classical music experts writing about Justin Bieber: it's beneath them. For example, there is absolutely no scholarly consensus that Ezekiel had epilepsy or that this was the cause of his behaviour. We have a single source speculating "Did Ezekiel have temporal lobe epilepsy?" and a popular science magazine repeating this same source. I think it is worth including such speculation here, provided it is sourced to a professional journal/book rather than some blog, but at the same time make it very clear how tenuous the speculation is. Be very careful not to confuse "some people with TLE have had mystical experiences" with statements like "[the temporal lobe / seizures from] seems to be involved in mystical experiences, and in the change in personality that may result from such experiences." as our text currently states with authority. This is nonsense. It is no more evidence that religious figures had epilepsy than the idea that some kinds of seizures make people fall therefore anyone who has had a fall must have had a seizure. Science struggles to explain religion and mystical experiences, and blaming this all on epilepsy is a rather crude and naive practice. It attracts popular science commentary and controversial pop science books, but not really any hard science. See this commentary. Like much of the so-called science reported from functional-MRI or "evolutionary psychology" there remain areas of "science" that are very popular in the press but also largely "bullshit" and with no serious scientific method involved whatsoever. Document this speculation, and alternative explanations where given, but remember that the real scientific and historian consensus on all this is far closer to "bollocks" than acceptance. -- Colin°Talk 20:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Colin: I agree that the claims that these people had epilepsy are usually nonsense for all the reasons you gave, but that's precisely why this list needs to avoid having a category in which mere speculation by one or two authors is sufficient for inclusion. I think you misunderstood the reasons for my wording: I was attempting to weed out the dubious entries by requiring consensus rather than speculation. As you said, these authors are usually armchair enthusiasts with little knowledge of the historical people they're trying to "diagnose", and they often conduct their "diagnosis" rather flippantly. The brief disclaimer in the original version does very little to mitigate this problem, partly because many people won't even notice the disclaimer while hastily reading through it (many will just skim to the list itself), and partly because the mere fact of inclusion will often be used as an excuse to assume that the person had epilepsy. The internet is filled with sites which just repeat lists like this without any disclaimer or nuance whatsoever, meaning that if we include someone in this list it's a safe bet that hundreds of other sites will repeat that person's name in epilepsy lists without the disclaimer and without the documentation we provide. This only perpetuates the very same problem that you discussed in your note: a flimsy "diagnosis" by one author will end up being repeated throughout the internet using Wikipedia as the justification. It also violates the accepted procedure for list pages, because I remember some years ago there were debates over certain other list pages on controversial subjects which originally had loose rules for inclusion, and the result of these debates was that a list needs to exclude anyone for whom there isn't a clear consensus. To use one example: there were contentious debates over the gay and lesbian list pages which originally included every single celebrity for whom there had been any speculation in any media source, but these pages were finally made more rigorous by requiring a solid degree of evidence for inclusion. It would never have been acceptable to just put a disclaimer at the top in order to justify speculative rumors, and it shouldn't be acceptable for this page either.
 * If your objection to my edits was mainly the fact that there's no scholarly consensus for Ezekiel or some of the others, then we can move Ezekiel and the other problematic entries to more appropriate categories. Would that be acceptable? My rearrangement of the list was only meant to be a tentative first step, not the final version.
 * Joshua Jonathan: The policy I was referring to is the same policy which has been used for all other sections of this list page itself, in which (for example) the category "Misdiagnosis" is used in cases in which the scholarly consensus is that the person was misdiagnosed even if a few authors think otherwise; whereas the "religious" section allows inclusion if even one fringe author believes the person had epilepsy. And yes, that's definitely a double standard. See my comments to Colin above about the rules that were established for other list pages that deal with controversial or speculative issues: the agreement that was worked out for these other pages required a strong consensus for including a person at all. A disclaimer can't be used to dodge that policy.
 * As for the proposed link between religion and epilepsy: so you want to include all religious people - many billions of them - by claiming they all "might" have had epilepsy just because a percentage of researchers think so? If your argument were to be applied consistently, that's what this page would have to do. We can mention the fact that some authors think there's a link between religion and epilepsy, but we cannot include specific people in the list without a consensus that these specific people had epilepsy. I would add that a "religious" section is additionally problematic because of the overlap with other categories, since many historical figures in the other categories also were deeply religious and some of them described mystical / supernatural experiences even if they aren't primarily known for that. What's the point of having overlapping categories? Why not categorize the "religious figures" in the same way all the others are categorized - based on whether they actually had epilepsy or not, as determined by scholarly consensus? Yes, there are theories about a possible connection between religion and epilepsy, but we already have other articles to discuss those theories. A list page is supposed to be a list of people, not a description of theories. I think this page has increasingly drifted off topic and the debate has as well. Ryn78 (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks for the link; good article. One correction already popped-up in my mind: not Geschwind, but Slater and Beard renewed the interest in this topic. The topic itself is quite new for me, despite 25+ years of (critical) interest in Buddhism and religiosity. I've been reading scholarly articles for the past few weeks, and also noticed that the percentages of "mystical seizures" are indeed quite low. This is an interesting quote from the article you linked:
 * "Curiously, all three had TLE with (again) psychosis and even more interestingly, in each case their mothers or mothers-in-law had profound influence over their religious or spiritual development. A more prosaic conclusion could be that they were hyper-religious because they were living in a religion-heavy environment, and they simply interpreted their psychotic or epileptic episodes in this light, a well-known phenomenon referred to by psychologists as attribution theory (Saver & Rabin, 1997)."
 * Sounds true to me; at least it applies to the case of Ramana Maharshi, who was seen as a saint by his environment, because he just sat and said nothing.
 * what you are referring to seems to be not a policy, but the concencus on this specific page for the inclusion and classification of people in this list. Policies regarding lists are MOS:LIST, WP:STANDALONE and WP:FLCR (not sure if that's a policy, or an essay). I've just been reading through them, and picked out some points which may be helpfull here:
 * Inclusion criteria:
 * MOS:LIST:
 * (1) "The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list."
 * (2) "Wikipedia:Featured list criteria recommends that "[a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list". Further, non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should be explained in its lead section (example: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach), or in a separate introductory section (example: List of compositions by Franz Schubert#How Schubert's compositions are listed)."
 * (3) "Lists should never contain Unsorted or Miscellaneous headings, as all items worthy of inclusion in the list can be sorted by some criteria, although it is entirely possible that the formatting of the list would need to be revamped to include all appropriate items."
 * Content-policies:
 * (4) "Lists, whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well."
 * Voice the doubts:
 * (5) "When reliable sources disagree, the policy of keeping a neutral point of view requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any in particular. Simply present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight through coverage balanced according to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
 * Restricting the list:
 * WP:STANDALONE:
 * (6) ''"A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: [1] The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. [2] The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.
 * (7) "In other cases, editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one), or being notable specifically for reasons related to membership in this group. This is commonly used to control the size of lists that could otherwise run to hundreds or thousands of people, such as the List of American film actresses."


 * Some comments:
 * The inclusion-criteria are specified in the lead; these policies say that "some criteria" shuold be used, not that they should be a very strict logical system (even the DSM-V is not completely coherent).
 * Content-criteria: not any "fringe"-author will do, but reliable sources.
 * Voice the doubts: critical voices can be included in the entries, not just in the intro.
 * Restricting the list: the list is already restricted; all those persons have their own page. The "popular list" may be quite short, though. Notice that Bucke's Cosmic Consciousness, published in 1902, contains a list of people with "cosmic consciousness", which overlaps with Bryant's list from 1953. But maybe, when 'no specific details are available', they should be left out? Otherwise, we should try to add those details.
 * There is a cultural aspect to these lists, which seems to be partly related to the medical sciences, and partly driven by an interest in religious and occult phenomena. It's not just about epilepsy, it's about religion and the understanding of religion.
 * Splitting the religious list is an option; but then, the specific reason for having a separate list on these persons is lost. Though this could be solved by copying (part of) this list to another article, for example Mysticism, where the main topic is not epilepsy, but mysticsm.
 * Description of theories: some background is necessary. If we are to shorten this section, I duggest to remove "Slater and Beard [...] the natyure of temporal lobe functioning."" & "Nevertheless, the neurological research of mystical experiences [...] and subjective certainty." This includes Fenwick's statement on the "early cases," which would be cherry-picking when cited without references to his overall view on this topic.
 * Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Joshua Jonathan: First of all, I wasn't just referring to a policy for this list page, in fact I mentioned other pages in which a policy had been worked out in which there was a requirement that people should only be included if there was an overwhelming consensus in the reliable sources, not just one source. You quoted an official policy statement which says something similar : "The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." The word "established" refers to a consensus view, not just one author. A single author does not "establish" anything, only a strong majority would do that.
 * The problem with attempts to "diagnose" people such as St. Catherine of Genoa and the others you listed is the fact that the symptoms attributed to TLE could also be caused by any number of other things, and in fact I'll bet that other authors have claimed these same people suffered from a long list of other disorders, because that's typically the case with retrospective diagnoses of historical persons. Usually, you can find these people included in lists for every malady imaginable - schizophrenia organizations claim they had schizophrenia, epilepsy organizations claim they had epilepsy, migraine organizations claim they suffered from migraines, etc - which makes the whole business rather silly. I think that's partly what Colin was referring to when he said that this type of thing is generally considered nonsense by researchers even if a few authors write speculative articles about it or organizations use these historical figures as poster boys/girls for whatever malady the organization focuses on.
 * One way of dealing with the current overlap for the "Religious figures" section is to simply remove that category and place these people in whichever category they would normally be placed in based on the consensus view. If a majority of scholars believe they definitely had epilepsy, put them in one of the "Certain Diagnosis" sections. If the consensus is that they were misdiagnosed or that there's no evidence, then put them in one of the "Misdiagnosis" sections. Otherwise, there will always be overlap because there will always be people who were both religious figures and also would belong in one of the other categories. That's one of the many problems created by using one standard for this section and another standard for the other sections.
 * The above plan would also solve the problem of the ever-growing explanatory text at the beginning of the "Religious figures" section, which is already covered in other articles and does not belong in a list page. Maybe at the top of the page there can be a very brief mention of the issue with links to other articles which cover the subject. That's the normal procedure for list pages. Ryn78 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC).


 * good argument! Yet, while thinking it over: the category here is "Retrospective diagnosis." And "established" does not mean "a concencus view;" the policies also say "When reliable sources disagree" etc. It means, in this case, that reliable sources mention the possibility of epilpepsy.
 * I agree with you that there could be overlap; actually, Dewhurst and Beard give the same argument. I've added that to the three entries which said "No specifics available."
 * Removing the category is an option, but then you still bypass the fact that these retrospective diagnoses exist, and that some of them are well-known, especially St. Paul. He's the exemplary case, not only for the retrospective diagnosis, but also for the discussions surrounding religious experience: genuine or delusional, transcendental reality or neurological processes? You may prefer a strict "medical" model, but these cultural aspects simply do exist, and you cannot ignore them, or override them, by letting one model or view prevail. Epilepsy is not only a medical issue, it's also a cultural issue: how does a culture look upon it? Remember WP:NPOV: Wikipedia presents all the relevant points of view.
 * And yes, the introductory section could be shortened, with a link to Mysticism.
 * Anyway, thanks for your response; I appreciate the reference to "established." Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Joshua Jonathan: The "Retrospective diagnosis" section (which says it is for people who "were not diagnosed with epilepsy during their lifetime") itself creates overlap because most of the people in the other sections are also cases of retrospective diagnosis, since so many of them are historical figures who lived long before modern views on epilepsy existed and hence they weren't diagnosed with epilepsy during their lifetime either. It doesn't make any sense to have a section for "Retrospective diagnosis" while placing most retrospective cases in other sections. For the sake of consistency, we should either put all pre-modern historical figures in the Retrospective section, or replace the Retrospective section and move its entries into other sections.
 * Even when reliable sources disagree, we still need to use the consensus to determine what category to place them in, and that's what is currently done in every section except the "Religious" section. If scholarly opinion is evenly split or indeterminable, we could put the person either in the "No evidence" section or in a new "Inconclusive" section or something similar.
 * Another problem with the "Religious figures" section is that the litmus test for inclusion is somewhat arbitrary. For example, Harriet Tubman said she had visions from God, but she isn't currently in the Religious figures section. Granted, she isn't a canonized saint or Biblical personage, but she described the same type of mystical experience that the other mystics did.
 * The current method of having overlapping and largely arbitrary categories doesn't work. Ryn78 (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on List of people with epilepsy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930093016/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,923870,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,923870,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060517025810/http://jack-warner.com:80/village_eccentric_on_trial.htm to http://jack-warner.com/village_eccentric_on_trial.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of people with epilepsy. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/zaaz813/jefferies.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on List of people with epilepsy. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/zaaz813/jefferies.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/cultura/l_creanga.html
 * Added tag to http://www.slideshare.net/dominic54/artikel-5593315
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930061342/http://www.uni-graz.at/~schulter/se04_religiosity.pdf to http://www.uni-graz.at/~schulter/se04_religiosity.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ellenwhite.org/seizures.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ellenwhite.org/headinjury.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abilitymaine.org/breath/June06/ozer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of people with epilepsy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902150057/http://www.epilepsy.com/articles/ar_1107544697 to http://www.epilepsy.com/articles/ar_1107544697
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219052746/http://www.encephalitis.info/NewsEvents/News.html to http://www.encephalitis.info/NewsEvents/News.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230022520/http://saints.sqpn.com/saintp0l.htm to http://saints.sqpn.com/saintp0l.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0%2C8816%2C909750%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0%2C8816%2C923870%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060518105546/http://www.iancurtis.org/biography/ to http://www.iancurtis.org/biography/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524121539/http://www.easternandcoastalkent.nhs.uk/your-health/your-health-magazine/real-life-stories/making-my-mind-up/ to http://www.easternandcoastalkent.nhs.uk/your-health/your-health-magazine/real-life-stories/making-my-mind-up/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050416132734/http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1493556/20041109/thursday.jhtml?headlines=true to http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1493556/20041109/thursday.jhtml?headlines=true
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217175506/http://hoopshype.com/articles/jones_friedman.htm to http://www.hoopshype.com/articles/jones_friedman.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207041128/http://salon.com/news/1998/12/cov_04newsa.html to http://www.salon.com/news/1998/12/cov_04newsa.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060326235718/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1613_276/ai_63668452 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1613_276/ai_63668452
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080202121219/http://www.tv.com/patrick-dempsey/person/5966/biography.html%23 to http://www.tv.com/patrick-dempsey/person/5966/biography.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of people with epilepsy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106190932/http://vusi_mahlasela.mondomix.com/en/portrait2908.htm to http://vusi_mahlasela.mondomix.com/en/portrait2908.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.byjamesraia.com/articles/18/1/Marion-Clignet-The-Life-amp-Times-Of-An-Epileptic-Cycling-Champion/Page1.html
 * Added tag to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-23905283-epilepsy-has-not-stopped-legge-achieving-his-goal.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015181338/http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/09/08/gold-medal-hero-dai-greene-athletics-freed-me-from-my-battle-with-epilepsy-91466-29384454/ to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/09/08/gold-medal-hero-dai-greene-athletics-freed-me-from-my-battle-with-epilepsy-91466-29384454/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people with epilepsy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050617121706/http://epilepsy.org.au/our_board.asp to http://www.epilepsy.org.au/our_board.asp
 * Added tag to http://perseus.uchicago.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D33

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)