Fastfission has touched on an important point - the encyclopedicity of trivia. I've had very similar arguments over some medical articles. Some articles on diseases (e.g. [[Parkinson's disease]], [[Pneumonia]]) have grown little lists of "famous people with pneumonia" etc. As most know, millions of people worldwide die from pneumonia or Parkinson's, and just because the Pope is one of them hardly makes him worth mentioning in the article about the disease. Oddly, only some articles have grown these lists. Nixon had thrombosis, but he's not in [[deep venous thrombosis]]. Similarly, [[myocardial infarction]] (heart attack) does not have a list of famous people who died from it, because it is so very common. I would like to seek consensus on what kind of morbidity is worthy of inclusion in articles. I would say: only if someone's morbidity has *significantly* altered public perception of a disorder is this person worth mentioning (e.g. [[Lou Gehrig]] and his eponymous disease; [[Stephen Hawking]] would qualify for this as well). Otherwise, only the article *on that person* should mention morbidity and mortality.
Jfdwolff
J.F. de Wolff wrote
I would like to seek consensus on what kind of morbidity is worthy of inclusion in articles. I would say: only if someone's morbidity has *significantly* altered public perception of a disorder is this person worth mentioning (e.g. [[Lou Gehrig]] and his eponymous disease; [[Stephen Hawking]] would qualify for this as well). Otherwise, only the article *on that person* should mention morbidity and mortality.
Reasonable. In a sense it is not so important, either way, in most cases. Tuberculosis: there's a case where in a sense a historical list would be of considerable general interest. The problem with historical listings is of course that the factuality of the diagnosis can be problematic.
Charles
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Charles Matthews wrote:
J.F. de Wolff wrote
I would like to seek consensus on what kind of morbidity is worthy of inclusion in articles. I would say: only if someone's morbidity has *significantly* altered public perception of a disorder is this person worth mentioning (e.g. [[Lou Gehrig]] and his eponymous disease; [[Stephen Hawking]] would qualify for this as well). Otherwise, only the article *on that person* should mention morbidity and mortality.
Reasonable. In a sense it is not so important, either way, in most cases. Tuberculosis: there's a case where in a sense a historical list would be of considerable general interest. The problem with historical listings is of course that the factuality of the diagnosis can be problematic.
Drifting a little OT (one might think), I remember reading about an annual exercise where the autopsy of a historical individual is reiewed -- but with said person's identity removed. The participants are given a description of the symptoms that lead to the death, & some amount of environmental information. Sometimes the modern review leads to a clearly different diagnosis than the contemporary doctors made.
The case that I best remember was that of Edgar Allan Poe, whose death at the time was attributed to alcohol poisoning. A re-examination of the facts in his death led to a surprisingly different diagnosis -- which was defended by the fact the original coroner merely assumed because Poe had a history of alcohol abuse, & showed symptoms of delirium in his last hours that he drank himself to death.
I wish I could remember more about this official medical exercise, but it's one of those things that I've seen written up in the local paper maybe twice in the last 15 years, & never think to save the article. If Wikipedia doesn't have an article about it, then someone should write one; if Wikipedia already has one, then we should try to develop it into a Featured Article.
Geoff