Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Darwin's illness

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Reading the later comments and observing the history suggests there has been some work during this VfD, and so I've not reverted to an earlier version as some votes suggest. Anybody can of course be WP:BOLD and do so if they should wish. -Splash 04:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Charles Darwin's illness
Much of the content is (poorly written) personal research; more importantly, the article is unencyclop&aelig;dic, concerning a part of Darwin's life that is dealt with in sufficient detail in the Charles Darwin article. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete (just to make things clear). --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've read the comments by those arguing for keeping the article, and gone back to look at it 9and its earlier forms). I'm not convinced (to put it mildly), but it's clear that I'm in a small minority. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but revert. Take a look at the page history. I wrote the original, it was then expanded considerably by user:Rsabbatini (a.k.a. Renato M.E. Sabbatini a Brazilian doctor with expertise in this area). The article around 9 July 2005 was pretty good, had references, etc.  It was then furiously edited by  aka  aka 128.205... who through I think newbie overzealousness plus the fact that he's a YECist did the original research (though I think he was doing it in good faith and has remained civil so far, despite the fact that most of his edits elsewhere are being reverted).  I think it might be a good idea to revert to the version around 9 July, but was waiting for someone else to do it.
 * As for the charge that it is unencyclopedic, one has to bear in mind that Darwin was the greatest scientist of all time and the length of the article we have on him can't discuss it in detail, i.e it is of appropriate depth. The references to articles in the peer-reviewed literature shows an interest in this subject and thus importance. Dunc|&#9786; 22:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, first, the claim that Darwin is the geratest scientist of all time is dubious, to put it mildly. Secondly, even if he were, that's not a good enough reason to include articles on matters unrelated to his science (even if his desperate detractors try to insinuate that it's related).  Thirdly, there are articles on ''everything' in the peer-reviewd literature (for various reasons, into which this isn't the place to go). --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and revert to before Creationist/Kdbuffalo earlier versions of the article make clear why it is notable - - but it does need extensive cleanup, and I am not at all sure that it should be such an extensive article as it is. It would be part of the series on Creationism.      22:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Er, no, it's part of the series on Charles Darwin which should all be in category:Charles Darwin. Dunc|&#9786; 22:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The only claim to notability of the article is how the illness is used by creationists to discredit evolution (by ad hominem).     21:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but revert per Dunc CanadianCaesar 23:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs a little minor formatting but detailed article and consistent with our coverage of Charles Darwin. Capitalistroadster 01:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup / improve formatting ,,,,,dave souza 20:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This has gone downhill badly since it was featured on "Did you know?" but that's no reason for deletion. CalJW 21:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I found the page interesting and fairly complete. It adds something to the Darwin page.  We shouldn't get rid or it.

MY REPLY
I appreciate duncharris's assistance with me in regards to Wikipedia technical matters. I also appreciate his comment about me acting in good faith and behaving in a civil manner. I would like to say that I enjoy doing historical/medical/psychology research. This is why I found the Darwin illness issue interesting.

Now I don't think there can be an denying that I based my material solely on the medical and history of Darwin (vis a vis quotes of Darwin which I gave in full context). I also used the reported scientific consensus vis a vis Britain's prestigious Academy of science the Royal Society. Personally, I find JAMA, British Medical Journal, Royal Society, American Journal of Medicine, and Dr. Colp to be excellent sources and very informative. I also quoted the saltationist (punctuated equilbrium) Richard Milner. I also gave excellent sources regarding the etiology of panic disorder vis a vis studies. So far, nobody has said why my research exactly was errant.

Below is some of my medical sources categorized by the source they came from:

Darwin's sickness as reported in The American Journal of Medicine

According to the article "The Illness of Charles Darwin" by William B. Bean in the September 1978 publication of the American Journal of Medicine rarely did a day go by where Darwin did not have in "many degrees of severity and many combinations" the following medical symptoms:  nausea, severe vomiting, flatulence, alimentary canal pain, various forms of eruption of the skin, and nervous exhaustion.

Dr. Bean also noted the following symptoms obtained from a Darwin letter:

"My nervous system began to be so affected so that my hands trembled and my head was often swimming".

Dr. Bean quotes from another Darwin letter the following symptoms:

"involuntary twitching of the muscle...fainting feeling - black spots before the eyes."

Dr. Bean wrote in his article that Darwin suffered from '''"psychoneurosis provoked and exaggerated by his evolutionary ideas". ''' Dr. Bean also wrote that his Darwin's wife, Emma, greatly disapproved of his evolutionist ideas and "This, facismile of public reaction, must have kept lively his anxiety and torment."

Lastly, some have claimed that Darwin got Chagas disease in South America. Dr. Bean dismisses the diagnosis of Chagras disease for Darwin's illness which has been attributed for Darwin's illness and due to the following reasons: no other member of the Beagle crew had symptoms of Chagras disease,  "infection with T cruzi occurs not from a bite but contamination of a bite with excreta" and Darwin had "numerous partial exacerbations and remissions that would be unusual in the case of Chagras disease".

Psychic Causation And a Royal Society Article

The Royal Society is the independent scientific academy of the UK. It should be noted that in the abstract for the January 1997 article, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, D. A. B. Young, "Darwin's illness and systemic lupus erythematosus" (for the full article see: Notes Rec R Soc Lond. 1997 Jan;51(1):77-86) it states that today the psychogenic view of Darwin's sickness "holds the field". Also, the abstract stated that D. A. B. Young noted subsequent to AW Woodruff's work showing that Darwin did not likely have chagas disease, the chagas view finds little support. Even the leading proponent of Chagas disease, Dr. Saul Adler, stated that Darwin may have suffered both from chagas diseas and from "an innate or acquired neurosis" (see subsequent discussion of Chagas disease).

Darwin's sickness as reported in Journal of the American Medical Association

In the article "Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder" by Thomas J. Barloon, MD and Russel Noyes, Jr. MD published in the January 8, 1997 Journal of the American Medical Association the following maladies of Darwin which by in large were not mentioned above were given and they occured as sudden and discrete attacks: "palpitations, shortness of breathe ("air fatigues" ), light headedness ("head swimming" ), trembling, crying, dying sensations, abdominal distress, and depersonalization ("treading on air and vision").   These attacks were many and Darwin in a letter wrote that "Constant attacks....makes life and intolerable bother and stops all work".  Dr. Barloon and Dr. Noye conclude that Darwin's medical symptoms point to panic disorder and agoraphobia.  One of the reasons given for a psychiatric diagnosis was that "variable intensity of symptoms and chronic, prolonged course without physical deterioration also indicate that his illness was psychiatric."

However, Ralph Colp Jr. MD, a physician and psychiatrist, who studied the matter Darwin's sickness for 18 years and authored the book "To Be an Invalid: The Illness of Charles Darwin" and is definitely one of leading experts of Darwin's sickness, if not the leading expert, due to his medical and psychological training and exhaustive research doesn't believe in the above diagnosis of agoraphobia (Dr. Bean cited above describes Dr. Colp's book in the following manner, "His painstaking work in seeking out every possible source comes close to yielding the complete biography of an invalid's illnness").

In a letter to the editor published in the April 23/30 1997 edition of JAMA entitled Ralph Colp Jr. MD, noted that "It has been observed that when Darwin "was a member of the Council of the Royal Society in 1855-1856, he attended meetings on 16 occassions," and that he away from home about 2000 days" between 1842 and his death in 1882."  Dr. Colp stated that the above behavior shows that Darwin was merely balancing work and leisure and the diagnosis of agoraphobia does not fit diagnosis of agoraphobia for Darwin. Dr. Colp also noted that "it is possible" that Darwin gastrointestinal symptoms were caused contracting Chagras disease.  Dr.  Colp states regarding the possible Chagas disease, "The disorder was first active and then became inactive, permanently injuring the parasympathetic nerves of his stomach and making it more sensitive to sympathetic stimulation and hence more sensitive to the "psychosomatic impact of his anxieties." An organic impairment best explains the lifelong chronicity of many of his abdominal complaints"

Dr. Colp concludes his letter by saying:

"'''In summary, I believe that Darwin's illness consisted of panic disorder (without agoraphobia), psychosomatic skin disorder, and possibly Chagras disease of the stomach." It should be noted earlier Dr. Colp noted that Darwin had facial eczema that often was caused by controversies over his evolutionist ideas. Dr. Colp also wrote that as far as he can determine "skin afflictions are not among the many somatic complaints that comprise panic disorder".'''

Darwin's sickness and the British Medical Journal

Dr. A. W. Woodruff, a British expert on tropical tropical diseases dismissed the chagas hypothesis for Darwin's illness.

I cite the following paper from Carolyn Douglas at Purdue University entitled "Changing Theories of Darwin's Illness":

"Dr. A. W. Woodruff, a British expert on tropical diseases, questioned Adler's diagnosis. He pointed out that many of Darwin's symptoms (heart palpitations, undue fatigue, and trembling fingers) appeared before Darwin sailed on the Beagle, and that when they recurred after his return, they were associated not with physical strain (as would have been expected with Chagas's disease) but with "mental stress." He also pointed out that no other member of the Beagle crew suffered from Chagas's symptoms, and he questioned the accuracy of Professor Adler's statistics about the high rate of infection with Chagas's disease in the province of Mendoza, where Darwin was attacked by the "black bug" (745- 50). Woodruff's diagnosis of Darwin's illness was "an anxiety state with obsessive features and psychosomatic manifestations" (749). After reading Woodruff's article, Professor Adler continued to believe in the theory of Chagas's disease, but he pointed out the possibility that Darwin suffered both from it and from "an innate or acquired neurosis" (Journal 1250). The "black bug" theory therefore lies in limbo, and even its chief proponent did not argue that it excluded psychological causation of some of Darwin's symptoms." For those who are interested in further investigation here are some a journal articles: Woodruff AW, Darwin's illness, Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 1990 Mar;26(3):163-4 and Woodruff, A.W. 'Darwin's health in relation to his voyage to South America', British 'Medical Journal, 1, 747-8, 1965

Darwin and the diagnosis of panic disorder and agoraphobia

'''According to Barloon and Noyes as a young man, Darwin had "episodes of abdominal distress, especially in stressful situations". In addition, Barloon and Noyes stated that like many people with panic disorder, he had a "premorbid vulnerability" which in his youth was referred to as "sensitivity to stress of criticism in his youth." ''' According to the American Psychology Association, panic disorder usually appears in the teens or in early adulthoood and there does seem to be association with potentially stressful life transitions. It should be also noted that panic disorder has been noticed in clinical setting that the histories of panic disorder patients often include some type of separation from a person who is emotionally important to them. This may be significant as Darwin's mother died at the age of eight and he then boarded at Shrewsbury Grammar School. On the other hand, it has been said that Darwin had a happy childhood overall and was encouraged by his siblings. Bowlby noted that separation anxiety may help cause the develpment panic disorder in adulthood. Psychoanalyst Dr. Rankine Good and Edward J. Rempf described Darwin's father as tyrannical and it will be subsequently discussed as to why this description of Darwin's father was given. This may be important because Bowlby suggested, due to clinical observation, that agoraphobic patients frequently describe parents as dominant, controlling, critical, frightening, rejecting, or overprotective (However, not every element of his observations were subsequently confirmed in studies). Several authors found that parents of agoraphobic and panic patients often provided less emotional warmth and tend to be more rejecting.

Also, in regards to the cause of panic disorder it is currently thought to be psychobiological in origin. For example, historically panic disorder was often triggered in war time. It is well known that Darwin was not the aggressive/assertive type and that Huxley was "Darwin's bulldog". This may related to a study by Chambless and Mason saying that regardless of gender, the less masculine in trait a person afflicted with panic disorder is, the more likely they are to use avoidance (social withdrawal) as a coping mechanism. Individuals who have a more masculine traits often turn to external coping strategies (for example, alcohol). Dr. Bean wrote that while Darwin had great confidence, at the same time he was: neurotic, became nervous when his routine was altered, and was upset by a holiday, trip, or unexpected visitor. Barloon and Noyes cite Darwin remarking "we [Darwin and his Emma] have up all parties, for they agree with neither of us".

It is important to note that one of the reasons given by authors Barloon and Noye for their diagnosis panic disorder and agoraphobia was that "variable intensity of symptoms and chronic, prolonged course without physical deterioration also indicate that his illness was psychiatric." However, Ralph Colp Jr., an American physician and psychiatrist, who studied the matter of Darwin's sickness for 18 years and authored the book To Be an Invalid: The Illness of Charles Darwin doesn't believe in a diagnosis of agoraphobia, because, despite that fact that Darwin loathed meetings, when Darwin was a member of the Council of the Royal Society from 1855-1856, he dutifuly attended meetings on 16 occasions, and was away from home about 2,000 days between 1842 and his death in 1882. At the same time, Barloon and Noyes state that only infrequently did Darwin leave home and usually accompanied by his wife. Barloon and Noyes then cite a letter declining a invitation and Darwin saying "I have long found it impossible to visit anywhere; the novelty and excitement would annhilate me". Perhaps, the best solution to Colp and Barloon and Noyes differing analysis is that Darwin merely became less socially active. However, perhaps Darwin's possible social withdrawal was due to his sickness being physically debilitating.

7/25/05 kdbuffalo

=
TO: The people who voted to keep.

Thank you for your keep votes. I did a lot of hard work in regards to researching the historical biographical information and in regards to the medical/psychological journals.

TO: ALL

What is "Did you know?" Where is it? I am interested in knowing more about "Did you know?" I am guessing it was put in "Did you know?" because someone found the material I found in the historical arena and medical journals interesting.

Sincerely,

Kdbuffalo


 * The thanks and hard work are to be welcomed. I appreciate that a lot has gone into pulling together sources for interesting aspects of Darwin's illness, however a lot of hard work is needed to strip this down to a concise and clear encyclopaedic article. The Psychic causation section needs to be drastically pruned, and given that the chagas disease diagnosis was an earlier theory, could perhaps be moved further back. Also, while references are good they break the flow of the argument and reduce clarity, so linking to footnote references would be a good change. I've made a couple of miner corrections for starters, but someone's going to have to sort this out sometime.....dave souza 22:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Revamp
The conciseness and clarity of this article was suffering from repeated and surplus text, and excessive POV. The consensus appears to be keep, but improve. I've revamped it and recommend removal of the VfD notice...dave souza 18:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.