Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mentally ill monarchs (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

Arguments that this is original research are not convincing since this is an editing issue, i.e. cases where the "diagnosis" was made by the editor adding the information and not the source can be removed. Same goes for mentioned problems with retrospective diagnosis which is basically an OR argument against this list, arguing that the sources are not reliable because they cannot possibly correctly assess the mental status of those listed without providing sources that say so. Whether sources can or cannot be trusted is in the end always a question that has no impact on the existence of the list itself. That no sources can exist has been claimed but not been proven.

So the guideline to consider is WP:LISTN with some arguing this list fails the guideline because it's not possible to define strict enough inclusion criteria. However, there is no consensus that this is actually the case and the arguments that this is an encyclopedic topic that can be covered in a policy-compliant way (after some editing/removing) have not been refuted sufficiently to result in deletion. That said, if such changes are not made, another AfD might well result in delete. Regards  So  Why  09:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

List of mentally ill monarchs
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is all speculation, and there is no way to verify any of it. The cites are either ancient sources (ex. I love the Bible, but citing a monarch as insane (Nebuchadnezzar II) from it is strange) or modern scholars who speculate as to explain the behavior of ancient figures. Or just uncited lists.

Proper diagnosis of psychological disorders did not exist at the time, and to label these figures with our definitions of mental illness is revisionist history, imo.

See also: reasoning for Articles for deletion/List of mentally ill modern era world leaders. That is the AFD which directed me to this article, and the same logic applies, though even more strongly, as that one is at least regarding more modern leaders. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  18:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Also there are many cases where the article uses modern terms ("mental illness", "X personality disorder", and other modern diagnoses), yet cites historical sources that use contemporaneous/historical terms.  There's no way the historical sources say (or can be used to reliably infer) that someone has "histrionic personality disorder".  --Hirsutism (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per the arguments above and at the AfD for the other list. We already have an article on retrospective diagnosis, which explains how it is often problematic.  XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete just like the other AfD. Barbara W. Tuchman is an historian, not a psychologist. These works border on OR and it's very sloppily done. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Potential keep but prune. There are a number of monarchs who have been awarded the epithet "the mad" by historians.  A few like George III have had episodes where they were mentally incapacitated, something recognised at the time.  Henry VI of England had a period when he did not speak.  However megalomania, fits of anger and the like are history's judgment on people and are the result of a retrospective judgment by historians, which others may dispute.  Prune down to indisputable cases.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – We already have a List of monarchs by nickname, which tallies those known as "the Mad," along with "Crazy," "Cruel," "Indolent," "Drunkard," "Ill-Tempered," etc. (Also Bookish and Bulgar-Slayer.)  XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. the "mad monarch" is a well-known trope and has been the subject of academic attention. Googling mad / mentally ill / insane monarchs finds multiple websites / news sources that have compiled lists of their own, so this is not WP:Original research to compile such a list. Fordiana (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Well documented that there are/were several monarchs with mental health issues. I think the main issue is the title, which needs changing to something a bit more neutral, but that's for the talkpage of that article.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that there are no sources, but that they cannot be trusted. Same regarding the 'google search' point above. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  16:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Highly speculative, retrospective diagnosis which is always problematic. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, and good nomination. Assessing mental illness in western medicine is not an objective test, it's the subjective opinion of experts, who don't always concur, and who have a history of huge conceptual U-turns and rethinks.  What degree of mental illness qualifies somebody for the page?  Even if we somehow had an objective test, and IF there was an objective retrospective psychological diagnosis for dead people, does applying today's middle class standards of behavior to European monarchs ruling centuries ago, or Ivan the Terrible, does that make any sense?  Is that Americentric at the very least?  You'll have your own answers to these points, but I see them as seams of continued uncertainty and argument that make the list impossible to do accurately.  --Lockley (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Or what about applying it to 18th-century rulers such as Agaja King of Dahomey, or 19th-century leaders such as Shaka. Those two I don't think are likely to fall into this category, but I am sure we could find some articles somewhere that would support categorizing some leaders in 18th or 19th century Africa in this manner. The fact that the list currently lacks any Asian, American or African monarchs except extremely ancient figures shows that it is a very narrow list, reinforcing a very narrow understanding of history. I do not believe for a second that there was never an emperor of China or Japan who had some form of mental illness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- have these people been diagnosed as "mentally ill"? Highly POV title and the list best deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to something more appropriate like List of monarchs speculated to have suffered from mental illnesses or something like that, and limit entries to those where an academic source can be found. The topic is certainly notable, but the name is inappropriate and extends certainty in an uncertain field.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep because mental illness among monarchs is a well attested historical phenomenon and cultural trope. The fact that a given monarch may or may not have been diagnosable based on 21st century diagnostic manuals does not remove the utility of the category. The converse is the absurd situation of nobody living before the advent of the DSMV ever being able to be described as "mentally ill" Slac speak up! 21:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And we also to be consistent need to include in the list every monarch who ever suffered clinical depression. Actually what is absurd is your insisting that "mental illness" should make people be treated in a seperate class.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment We need to make sure that what is here is supported by high quality references. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  06:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * delete - no rationale has been provided in the article (or here) that meets WP:LISTN.  The current article is a bad collection of biblical references (!), ancient or old sources, popular media, and serious history.  This would need TNT and a complete rewrite in any case. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Mental illness is not always a permanent condition, some mental illnesses are very short. What next "list of physically ill monarchs". This article by its very title perpetuates antiquated and troubling approaches to mental illness that marginzalize those who suffer in unfortunate ways. Wikipedia is not meant to right great wrongs, but it should not actively create wrongs either. Unless we are prepared to include every monarch who at some time suffered clinical depression, then this list is highly disputable. Considering how many monarch there have been historcally, this is a very problematic list. Do we include the rules of any recognized protectorate, or does the monarch have to be fully indepdent? Who was and who was not a monarch within the Holy Roman Empire in the 18th century?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve, such as reducing the list to only include indisputable examples (as someone mentioned earlier). The subject of mental illness among royalty has been the focus of many academic papers, books, movies, websites, etc. so it I think it's appropriate to have an article about it on Wikipedia. There are a number of monarchs throughout history who were well-known for mental illness including King George III of England; there was a even play and movie specifically focused on his mental illness, The Madness of King George.SMDWiki (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. A list like this needs clear, tight criteria for inclusion. It also needs reliably sources. I do not think a useful list could be compiled based on reliable sources. A list like this is no credit to Wikipedia as it stands. I think some users underestimate the difficulty of making a useful list of this nature with reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:OR applies and really an incomplete, subjective list, fails notability guidelines, see: WP:LISTN. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2017 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.