Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people speculated to have been syphilitic


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

List of people speculated to have been syphilitic
List is entirely speculative as the title and the introduction blatantly say. As speculation there is no way to support any of this with facts and speculation does not have a place on Wikipedia. Pegasus1138 Talk 19:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Delete. This article is nothing more than a way to imply notible figures in history were infected with STDs. When information is factually verifiable, write such an article. Otherwise we could speculate anyone died of syphilis and associate their name with such defamation. Wikipedia is not the place for unfounded speculations.C3H5N3O92010 01:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. Pegasus1138 Talk 19:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see a bunch of references and medical conditions of famous figures, Napoleon being an example that springs to mind, are frequently discussed by serious historians (see Hayden's book on historical syphilis ). Often, there is a fair bit of evidence, which combined with modern techniques (DNA testing), goes well beyond simple speculation. While this list needs more footnoting, there is no reason to remove it. Also, to state that speculation has no place on wikipedia is a bit of a joke given that we have hundreds of articles on conspiracy theories or other oddities such as Elvis Sightings. Speculation is fine as long as we just report on the speculation of others. -- JJay 19:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think we need to be careful not to mix up speculations made by editors, and referenced/historical/notable speculations.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  20:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Is sourced and well written. JoshuaZ 20:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because some of these were known to have been syphilitic, so to describe it as speculation is false; the arbitray selection of syphilis is questionable (why not flu?), the text is self-referential in places. No prejudice against a list of notable syphilitics, I uess, although even that is a bit arbitrary. Just zis Guy you know? 20:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why not flu?? You must be joking. There are very good reasons for the historical interest in syphilis, not the least for the behavioral impact of the disease and its slow progression. -- JJay 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as speculation. Brian G. Crawford 20:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as specualation. --Rob 20:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regarding "speculation", see Category:Conspiracy theories...  Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks...Category:Holocaust denial, ...16 Questions on the Kennedy Assassination, etc. -- JJay 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I strongly suggest that anyone voting delete makes sure to read the article. JoshuaZ 20:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment see also Articles for deletion/People speculated to have been autistic which is an AFD of yet another entirely speculative list. Pegasus1138 Talk 20:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with TheKMan. Q0 21:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * delete by nature, this cannot be definitively verified. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment We can verify that reliable historians and doctors have made the speculations/strongly suspected that individuals have the disease. JoshuaZ 21:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because someone else besides you is making the speculations still doesn't make it encyclopedic. Pegasus1138 Talk 22:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We strive for verifiability, not truth. —kotepho 2006-03-19 23:34Z 
 * Comment: It's statements like this, which make me wonder if people are really familiar with the issues involved and our bigraphical coverage of the individuals on this list. Taking a random selection, I find direct discussions or speculation of possible syphilitic infection in our bios of Lenin, Idi Amin, Van Gogh, Al Capone, Howard Hughes, Scott Joplin, Edgar Allan Poe, to name just a few. Are people really suggesting that we delete this list, and then excise any discussion of possible causes of death from our bio pages? Are people really suggesting that we eliminate discussion of syphilis as a possible explanation of the irrational behavior of a Van Gogh or Idi Amin, even when major historians openly discuss the historical evidence in biographies and other scholarly works? Are people really arguing that we eliminate any discussion of medical conditions unless medical records have been released into the public domain? If so, I think there is a very serious misreading at work here of how historical scholarship works and the meaning and intent of WP:V. -- JJay 23:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In each of those articles, there are editors familiar with the subject, who will actively challenge any bogus information. However, bio editors are generally unaware of a person being on a list like this.  Lists like this often have editors who like to add as many people as possible, and get little scrutiny.  You would help your cause if you explained what the minimum criteria for the list is.  Is any published rumor sufficient (how about tabloids)?  Also, we do have to consider Wikipedia's history with lists like this.  They simply aren't maintained properly, and people will inevitable add inappropriate names (hard to stop, if you don't define what's inappropriate).  Only lists with absolutely clear criteria can be maintained properly. --Rob 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, I see your point, but those seem fairly unconvincing arguments for deletion and relate more to editing problems than the underlying validity of the concept. They also join with what I said above about the list requiring more footnotes, which is how we have dealt with the problem on numerous other lists. However, to a very great extent this list was compiled directly from the bio pages. Your issue with the tabloids is not very applicable in this context, because tabloids do not pick up these types of stories unless someone has just published a book or released new evidence- and even then the coverage would be marginal because Edgar Allen Poe is not Paris Hilton. It seems that you are more concerned with some ill defined risk factor a la Siegenthaler. Considering that everyone on this list is dead, most for a very long time, I think the risk is lessened. I also think that the list at present is fairly well maintained. It is relatively short, despite having been spun out from Syphilis almost two years ago, and while there are a few names I would question, I don't see it spinning out of control in the near future. In my view, it needs a minor rethink and direct sourcing of every component (rather than the general references at present) not deletion.-- JJay 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I should not have said "tabloid". I should have said "tabloid level" writers.  The only *true* expert opinion of the article is "Hayden was not competent to make the judgments that she tried to make."  Every name on the list (except Hitler) relies on discredited source (I admit more sources are easily available for some).  As you say, the article's been around a long time.  So, I doubt this will be fixed soon.  I think we both agree proper detailed citations are appropriate.  But, where we disagree, is I think they are needed when such information is added, and may be removed when it lacks it.  --Rob 02:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Calling Hayden a "tabloid level" writer is way, way too harsh. An enormous amount of research went into her book, the reviews were largely positive and she is a university lecturer on the topic. She has been criticized because she is not a medical Dr, but that by no means makes her a discredited source. Very few historians working on the history of medecine are Doctors. In any case, you should note that many of the bio articles either lack sources or do not source information on medical conditions. However, I don't believe it would be particularly difficult to add references for many of the names on the list without relying on Hayden at all. Despite what most people think, lists often end up far more bulletproof in terms of verification than the standard bio or other articles. -- JJay 03:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If she got good reviews, from experts, those should have been in article's "Background" section. Better yet, an article should have been made on her and/or the book.  In fact such an article would be quite interesting, and could even name of few of the more famous cases (that others have said similiar things on).  Such a bio article would be quite useful, as a NPOV discussion of her approach (citing favorable and unfavorable reviews).  It would actually be more useful than this list article.  Also, you're quite right that many bio articles put medical problems of people without references.  The solution is to remove the unsourced information.  --Rob 03:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't let me stop you from starting new articles. An article on Hayden would be good, but the list is not about Hayden and she did not invent scholarship in this area. Also if you think that the solution is to remove unsourced information, there are thousands of articles on major figures that you can start blanking. I would suggest, though, that you begin with the unreferenced tag. -- JJay 03:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per TheKMan,JoshuaZ —kotepho 2006-03-19 23:34Z 
 * Delete per "Thus, many of the names given on the list below must be considered quite speculative." Many of these entries would be blasted from existence in their parent articles faster than a rat up a drainpipe, and but for the apparent laxness in referencing that infests "lists" shouldn't go here either.  It's not encyclopedic to include everything that author Deborah Hayden says about anyone, you know. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep per all above who are making the basic point that this is not speculation, it is the encyclopedia documentation of existing, ongoing, notable and verifiable historical speculation by historians and the like !! Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Define contradiction, saying something isn't speculation then saying one line later that it is speculation. Your vote contradicts itself. Pegasus1138 Talk 00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Speculation" is when you do the speculating. "Documentation of speculation" is when you record the fact that others have speculated or are speculating.  They're different, man. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep if properly sourced. Speculation by wikipedia editors is a no-no for various reasons.  Reporting the informed speculations of experts is possibly encyclopedic.  For instance, see Abraham Lincoln (may have had Marfan syndrome or Mozart whose death is the subject of much scholarly speculation. The article should be clarified to note that it is only reporting the views of the cited sources.Thatcher131 01:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per people that said delete --Khoikhoi 05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a valid article - Wikipedia speculation &ne; documenting external speculations. Turnstep 14:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If the speculation comes form multiple sources, that's fine. If it comes from only one, it's far more problematic.  And in some of these cases it's documented fact, anyway, not speculation.  There is somethig fundamentally broken about an article which gives equal apparent weight to known cases and cases speculated by a single author.  Just zis Guy you know? 15:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - if we want to be picky, all of history is speculation. However, as long as Wikipedia doesn't do the speculation itself, it's fine. Interesting topic. ProhibitOnions 20:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, seems to be speculation in a single source some of which are proven syphilitics. A mess, in other words. Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the article could be improved with better sourcing; here we've got one source and a peer review. There are others out there; more than one historian has wondered about the likes of Henry VIII. In that case, rename it to List of syphilitics, with the "widely thought to be" ones noted instead, and those that can't be better sourced omitted. (BTW, that was a generic "you" in my initial vote, not meant as a reference to your vote, Guy. I don't want to look like I'm finding fault with your reasoning, which was certainly not my intention, so I've changed it to "we".) ProhibitOnions 23:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment we'll have People speculated to have been Shirley MacLaine in a prior life, People speculated to have voted for George Bush, People speculated to have enjoyed their martinis stirred not shaken, People speculated to be space aliens.. Or more seriously (perhaps)....People speculated to have been gay, People speculated to have been born out of wedlock, People speculated to have had plastic surgery, which are all fair game if this stays and Wikipedia isn't doing the speculating.... Carlossuarez46 01:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is valid speculation from independent sources, not original research speculation by Wikipedia members. Cyde Weys 19:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. In addition to the lawsuit that's likely to come when John Siegenthaler, Sr. gets listed, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: in the future, present or past.  Jtmichcock 03:25, 23 March 2006 (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.