Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with epilepsy

List of people with epilepsy
Aristotle made one. Many books on epilepsy have one. Every epilepsy charity web site has one (try Google). I believe this list is unique and represents Wikipedia's very best work. Unlike many other such lists, this one has references for every person and does not include speculative retrospective diagnoses. I think it meets all the criteria. OK, it doesn't have pictures or colourful tables. A previous peer review can be found here. This is a self nomination. Colin°Talk 16:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a chance it is comprehensive... :( Renata 16:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As an incomplete/dynamic list it can be acceptable "by not omitting any major component of the subject". It is pretty difficult to prove this, so that might be a drawback. I can assure you that I have been thorough in researching books, newspapers and reliable online sources over many, many months. Every single person listed on a "Famous people" list has been checked for suitability/verifiability and are noted on the talk page if they fail. The List of notable brain tumor patients had/has similar issues but was accepted. Colin°Talk 16:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Difference is, most of the people in the brain tumor list are dead already. Brain tumor diagnosis is relatively easy and unambiguous, unlike epilepsy. Also, for such a widespread condition the list indeed seems fairly short. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * These are problems with the subject matter and entry criteria, which aren't changable without it becoming a different list. As editors, we don't need to worry about ease of diagnosis - verifiability, not truth. Yes, epilepsy is widespread. It is also quite treatable (and therefore not noticable) and has a stigma attached (many folk thinking it is a mental illness, for example). Many notable people will not mention their epilepsy. If you die of a brain tumour, your obituary is going to mention it for sure. I really can't think of how to make the list significantly longer without adding all the "rumoured to have" names - of which there are about 40 (see this article). As I said on the peer review, a list of opinions is not as useful as a list of facts (which can be verified).


 * Are there any other points on which this would fail, other than comprehensiveness? Colin°Talk 18:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't think so. It is a very good list, very well referenced. If I wanted to be really cruel and nitpicky I would say the intro is a bit too short. But too see that there is only one person in science section... hm... Renata 00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remember that when the brain tumor list got featured, it had 65 names (vs 39 on this one) and only one scientist. It now has 106 names and only three scientists. Scientists don't get much press compared with sports, actors, etc. Colin°Talk 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that regarding all the living people you should follow the guidelines at WP:LIVING, especially the bit about "high-quality" references. Although the vast majority of the references you have are very good, you still have a good number of links to personal websites and magazines. You need to define the scope of your sources too, else you run the risk that other editors could end up using tabloids as sources just because their citation can be verified.


 * Additionally, the wording on the lead is confusing and does not define the entry criteria clearly: the use of tense in "believed to have had" does not square with "retrospective or posthumous diagnosis" in the following sentence. For instance, Julius Caesar is "believed to have had" epilepsy but that's a retrospective diagnosis, so which one of the criteria should prevail and why? Once you decide you need to reword the lead and adjust the list accordingly. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 09:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Could you change the layout and use tables rather than text. List of notable brain tumor patients is a great example that could help you. CG 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rebutle: I think this list is one of the best examples how to create a nice-looking list without a table. It is not a requirement that a list should/must be in a table format. And I really welcome a change... Renata 00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that tables are a must, but look at List of notable brain tumor patients, it's far neater and more comprehensive. CG 13:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added substantially to this article: two new sections covering retrospective diagnoses and misdiagnoses. Altogether, it now contains about 90 people, more than any single "famous people with epilepsy" site. More details on the talk page. Can you consider it to be comprehensive now? Colin°Talk 23:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't think this is a case of something being a bad article/list, rather, you can have an awesome list in many respects, but it still isn't feature-worthy. Per Part 1 "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.", and 2a "Useful". The articles on these people, or them having epilepsy, doesn't lead the reader to knowing anything more about these people as a group (other than that they have epilepsy) and doesn't lead to knowing more about epilepsy. Thus, a list of them... really isn't useful, it's just trivia. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree quite strongly with this. The charge of "trivia" could be made against most of the featured lists by one group or another. I have absolutely no interest in cricket and can't get excited about any of those lists. Presumably those who are interested in cricket would beg to differ.
 * This list (IMO) is one of the very best lists in Wikipedia of people with a medical condition. Such lists are currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles). It is also quite unique on the Internet (or anywhere for that matter) in the quality of its sources and standards. I believe it offers the only (!) source on the Internet where one might reliably find out about notable people with epilepsy. No other list comes close. If you don't believe me, just Google.
 * This list is useful. A user researching this topic can gain all sorts of epilepsy related information from people throughout history. We can learn how people in the past tried to hide their epilepsy, whereas several modern celebrities are happy to give interviews or speeches to discuss it. Perhaps most useful of all is the new section of misdiagnoses. Correcting these spurious mistakes of history-writers is a very important purpose for this article. The misdiagnosis of epilepsy amongst the general population is remarkably high (perhaps a third of hard-to-treat epilepsy isn't actually epilepsy).
 * Do we learn something about this group? Yes, we learn that people with epilepsy can excel in every aspect of society from sport to academia, from literature to leadership. This encouraging statement is repeated on most epilepsy sites. Where epilepsy has a stigma and is often associated with learning difficulties and other disabilities, it is great for parents/children affected to know that epilepsy need not bar you from anything. You only have to notice how the epilepsy charities scramble to get celebrities to "come out" and be ambassadors for them. User:SandyGeorgia made a similar comment regarding his list of people with Tourette syndrome.
 * Finally, I hope readers stumbling across this list will read it and say "Oh, I didn't know that" and felt they have learned something intesting or corrected a previous belief. Regards, Colin°Talk 08:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The MOS page only shows you using the list as an example for your comments. In responce to "Do we learn something about this group? Yes, we learn that people with epilepsy can excel in every aspect of society" This isn't an after school special, and Wikipedia isn't here to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy. The fact that people with epilepsy can live a full and successful life is something already covered in Epilepsy. I would agree that there are likely more featured lists that are just trivia, and should have their featured status taken down. Like I said, this is a good article, it's well cited, but it's just so... trivial. I believe you when you say it's one of the best when compared to other lists of people with epilepsy, but that doesn't address what I was saying. To be honest with you, despite this list being better than most, it could use more improvement.  The lead section contains at least one self reference, and the speculation section of "No evidence".. well.. that really shouldn't be there.. So other than the encouraging thoughts and "oh that's interesting" reactions, I'm not sure what else a reader will take from this. I'd hope that particularly notable situations (such as ones that involve specialized treatment or that changed how the condition is viewed) would be covered in the main Epilepsy article.  I donno, maybe I'll take a fresh look at the list again in the morning, but.. I'm just not seeing this as featured material. -- Ned Scott 10:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thinking more about Colin's responses to me, as well as Rune.welsh's comments below, I think that maybe I am wrong about my evaluation on such lists. I withdraw my oppose.-- Ned Scott 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. As per the brain tumor list, I'd say the value of this type of articles is that they are pretty much unique. The fact that the condition of every single person listed is backed up by many legitimate sources helps enormously to this, given that conditions like epilepsy tend to be shrouded by ignorance and taboo. Not only the general reader, but advocacy and research groups can refer to it for their own purposes. The addition of the "no evidence" and related sections can help clear popular misconceptions. Again, the use of sources here is the key and that's what prompted my comment above. I'd say this list has the potential to become featured material simply per Criterion 1 alone. -- Run e  Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 13:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added more names (46 certain, 4 retrospective, 48 negative = 98 names). I experimented with CG's suggestion of using tables as per the brain tumour list. I decided this was more readable and neater so have moved over to tables rather than a bullet-list. Following Rule.Welsh's query, I've performed an audit of the sources for still-living people and posted the results on the talk page – I think the sources are OK but please comment. I've also changed the order from alphabetical to chronological – it is easier to order people with names that aren't obviously forename/surname. I've also tweaked the wording here and there. Finally, I've even added a picture, which I think helps make it more real. I hope this now meets the standards for comprehensiveness and presentation. I'd appreciate some more opinions. Thanks for your time. Colin°Talk 21:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's far better now. Just two comments before I vote. I like to compare the list with the exellent List of notable brain tumor patients: First, could the two titles have the same structure? eg: List of notable people with epilepsy or List of notable epilepsy patients (I don't know if the terminology is right). And second, could the lead be expanded? you can take List of notable brain tumor patients's lead as a model. CG 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. A model list although the lead could be expanded . Not sure about the naming issue though, but I'm under the impression that using the term "patient" would not be accurate in this instance. Again, excellent work. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thanks for the feedback. I'll have a go at expanding the lead.... Actually, the brain tumor list's title conflicts with Wikipedia guidelines Lists (stand-alone lists) and policy Naming conventions. This issue was raised during that article's candidacy. It was decided to be not relevant to the feature/not-feature argument and postponed to be discussed on the talk page. The basic idea is that Wikipedia's lists should contain only notable people anyway, so use of the word "notable" or "famous" is redundant. This rule doesn't seem to be enforced and so we have a wide variation in the naming style's being used (though, IMO it should be enforced for featured articles). So I'd prefer the word "notable" was dropped from that list. You are only a patient whilst receiving treatment for that condition by a doctor. So it is hard to see the word applying to everyone in either list. IMO, it also introduced a medical POV. I think it is very hard to come up with a good terse title that accurately describes all aspects of such lists. It is much easier for lists of cricket captains! Colin°Talk 16:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've now added a longer introduction. Colin°Talk 08:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya, well, fine :) Great efforts! even though I am still a bit uneasy on over-reliance on ref #6 . Renata 10:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wrt over-reliance: I will endevour to find and detail either supportive or contradictory sources for each of these names, so that the reader gets as complete a picture as possible and can make their own mind up. Colin°Talk 12:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the changes. Now I can support. However do you think we should move List of notable brain tumor patients to List of people with brain tumor? CG 13:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've posted a note at Talk:List of notable brain tumor patients, where it can be discussed further. Colin°Talk 13:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support this candidate appears to now meet the requirements of featured list status. It is as stable as any other health issue regarding living people, and is wonderfully presented. LinaMishima 14:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I am new to the featured list criteria and don't have much experience voting. But the list is extremely well done, well-referenced and seems to meet the criteria as I read them! Great work! InvictaHOG 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Now the chore is to maintain strict references of the highest quality. Sandy 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I wish all medical lists like this were as well referenced. Great work on even the "Misdiagnosis" section! -AED 20:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am the creator of two of Wikipedia's featured lists (List of notable brain tumor patients and Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc) and was also the primary editor who raised the article Joan of Arc to featured status.  If Wikipedia had a "good list" designation comparable to the "good article" label I would award it to this page myself - it is certainly the result of much thoughtful effort.  My urge to applaud the work is tempered by several concerns.  First, some citations make me hesitate.  This article editor's defense by comparison is unsupportable.  It is far from true that an obituary of a brain tumor patient necessarily states the diagnosis.  Due to stigmas against every neurological ailment those announcements often describe only "cancer."  The brain tumor list, which is three times as long as this one, would have been far longer if I had allowed myself the same latitude as this editor appropriates (and then glibly supposes that my chore was effortless).  Actually some of the leading brain tumor charities requested an earlier version of that list from me and subsequently published excerpts in their public literature - which gives a sense of how laborious the research really was.  Every featured page should strive to be authoritative.  WP:V does not bend to suit our convenience.  Nor is it likely that only three dozen noteworthy people have ever been probable epileptics.  We must attempt comprehensiveness even where absolute success is impossible. While this page shows a fine effort so far, some rather obvious searches (such as PubMed) have been overlooked.  I mean to encourage.  Please reapply for featured status in two or three months.  This hasn't met the standards yet. Durova 00:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The list is currently weak wrt religious figures. There are, as you say, numerous articles listed on PubMed that contain speculation regarding Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and almost any religious figure who claimed to have had visions. I have bunch of names which I am preparing to add to a new section on Religious Figures.
 * Other improvements will include the addition of other opinions where there remains controversy regarding the diagnosis. This may result in some names moving from "no" to "possible" in order to reflect the level of doubt currently appropriate.
 * I anticipate that there will be shortly close to 60 names in the yes/possible group (currently 50). This is comparable with the level in the brain tumour list when it was featured. I agree that comparisons between the two lists are only useful to a certain extent.
 * I have already discussed the difficulty of producing a bigger list of "yes" names. For comparison, please consult Epilepsy.com, Epilepsy Foundation, Epilepsy Action, NSE, Epilepsy Museum, Enlighten, Epinet and finally, a personal web page. If none of these big epilepsy organisations can produce a more comprehensive list (and believe me, they would love to have more names) then this indicates that the information just isn't available. I have a list of about a dozen names from the web that aren't notable (and as such most have no reliable evidence either). I also have a handful of names from the web that lack evidence. A few of these I suspect are genuine and may eventually appear in the list if evidence comes forward. The others I think are spurious. As a test, it is relatively easy (if very labourious) to scan online US and UK newspapers for "epilepsy" and other keywords. This subject just gets very little news. Yes, there are far more famous names with epilepsy, but they are keeping it a secret. Colin°Talk 10:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment (without vote) I would say that this is a good, responsible list for this type of thing, and a model for others to emulate. Whether a list can be a featured article or not I will leave to others to decide. IdlP 10:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)