Talk:List of people with epilepsy/Archive 1

message: When adding to this article, please consider:
* Ensuring that the person in question meets the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. If the person does not have their own Wikipedia article, they should not be on this list.
* Wikifying the name of the person you added.
* Placing your new submission with respect to alphabetical order.
* Citing a source for the diagnosis.
* Refraining from adding people who carry only a posthumous, retrospective diagnosis of epilepsy; or adding a disclaimer or discussion about the source and nature of the proposed diagnosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkyu2 (talk • contribs) 
:This was at the bottom of the article. I commented this out but left the text there so anyone editing the article would see this before adding their neighbours to it. JFW | T@lk 21:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding to this article

message: I'm very happy that a page like this finally exists, so we don't need to crowd the epilepsy page with a long list and can give fuller coverage to this topic. However, I have some problems with the current title and inclusion qualifications:
#"Famous" is POV. "Noteworthy" would be less so. Not using any term relating to importance or fame or noteworthiness would be the best move, however, because all lists and categorizing systems on Wikipedia are assumed to exclude people who aren't noteworthy enough to even have Wikipedia articles except when they state otherwise. And I can see no possible reason to exclude someone from this list who is noteworthy enough to have an article here and had epilepsy. So address the issue in the article text, if anywhere, not in the title.
#Why not include people here who have been widely speculated to have had epilepsy after their deaths? The fact that a hypothesis is unverifiable, or even implausible, does not make it unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, if it's widespread or noteworthy enough. If it did, we wouldn't have any articles on religious topics, for starters. It is not our job to determine what people did or did not definitely have epilepsy, and NPOV is "neutral point of view", not "no point of view". If noteworthy scholars have posited that Muhammad, for example, had epilepsy, then those views should be mentioned here, in addition to any noteworthy views or arguments to the contrary. This article is the ideal place for information such as that, and expanding this article's scope would give it much more potential to be as informative as possible. I don't see how limiting it to those we are absolutely sure had epilepsy, and not even mentioning anyone else, does anyone any good, nor how the opposite could possibly do anyone any harm as long as we make it clear that historical psychoanalysis is impossible to verify and often widely disputed. Heck, if anything, giving coverage on this page to people who are frequently speculated to have had epilepsy wouldn't help propagate erroneous myths or baseless assumptions, but would rather help dispel such myths by subjecting them to the critical analysis and unbiased explanations that they might not get on most other websites! Win-win.
Moving the article name to something like List of people believed to have had epilepsy would be much more consistent with articles like List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder, as well as resolving both of the problems I mentioned above: the problem of being POV by requiring something as subjective as "fame" for inclusion, and the problem of being POV by excluding certain noteworthy viewpoints regarding what people have had epilepsy just because we happen to find them dubious at best. Would we have so many articles on intelligent design if we didn't allow the coverage of heavily speculative, biased, unsubstantiated, or unscientific hypotheses? And many of the post-mortem diagnoses of historical figures have a thousand times more weight to them than the most convincing ID argument. Cui malo? -Silence 07:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: How accurate can we be and what level of doubt are we prepared to accept?
I'll take some quotes from Provision of clinical services for people with epilepsy, which discusses the UK situation. The local General Practitioner will see only 1 or 2 new cases of epilepsy each year. "Because of the potential problems of diagnosis, however, it is recommended that a consultant neurologist, or other specialist with an interest in epilepsy should see patients promptly.". Sadly there aren't nearly enough epileptologists in the UK - you can probably count them on your fingers and toes. In the year 2000, there were 330 consultant neurologists in the UK and only 10% of those had a special interest in epilepsy. If you consider paediatric specialists then the number is even smaller. Going back to 1948 (when the NHS was established), the numbers were 50 consultant neurologists and "one or two had a major interest in epilepsy". So, currently, people are being diagnosed and treated for epilepsy by their GP or a non-specialist hospital doctor and not enough are seeing an expert within a satisfactory timescale (or even at all).
What are the consequences of this? A relatively recent scandal has highlighted the numbers of misdiagnoses of epilepsy in the UK. See this article in The Guardian.  This concerns "a consultant paediatrician with an interest in neurology rather than having qualifications in that speciality". "His rate of wrong diagnoses, more than 30%, was, according to the British Paediatric Neurology Association, "not unusual" for generalist paediatricians." "Epilepsy Action, a national group, believed 40% of childhood cases were misdiagnosed. There were about 62,000 children with epilepsy in Britain and only 63 paediatric neurologists - and not all had a specialist knowledge in epilepsy."
The articles Fits, faints and funny turns - the differential diagnosis of epilepsy, Syncope and Non-epileptic attack disorder list some of the alternatives to a diagnosis of epilepsy (I'm sure Ikkyu2 won't need to read them, but others may be interested). The last article states "5-20% of people with a confident diagnosis of epilepsy turn out later to have some other disorder which has been misdiagnosed".
So even if we had access to the doctor's notes on all these famous names, we might still have an uncomfortably high error rate. We don't have that luxury. We can only read articles by such non-specialists as biographers and newspaper columnists. Sometimes we can find interviews or speeches where the person has explicitly stated they they have been diagnosed with epilepsy. Other times, the person keeps it secret and we find out after their death, from friends and relatives or perhaps even just hearsay. To add to this, the incidence of drink, drugs and psychological problems in this group of people would appear to be much higher than general - leading to alternative causes of seizures that may be less socially acceptable to admit to. On the other hand, this group will be of average intelligence, able to communicate with their doctors, and so in some ways be easier to diagnose than the average which includes patients with learning difficulties.
There is an interesting article on the (almost) contemporary and probable misdiagnosis of Graham Greene: The Impact of Epilepsy on Graham Greene by E. H. Reynolds. This is a man diagnosed by a "Harley Street specialist" (the best money could buy in the 1920's UK). Apparently, "The treatment consisted of good walks and Keppler's Malt Extract." --Colin 18:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Accuracy of Contemporary Diagnosis

message: I'm really happy with the way this page, and this talk page, turned out, even though I was totally opposed to them in the beginning.  It's been an eye-opener for me about the power of consensus editing. -Ikkyu2 01:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is one of the better "believed to have XYZ medical condition" list I've seen. Many of these devolve into "this guy in Denmark believes he had XYZ condition, but he doesn't know for certain." So yeah I can see being happy about it.--T. Anthony 04:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus editing. 

message: I think this article avoids being caught on almost all of the barbs in Wikipedia:Listcruft. I believe the sole problem (which is a common one) is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Specifically
:Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons ... Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic.
This is expanded on in Lists (stand-alone lists) - Lists of people:
:Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles.
Does this apply to all the people on this list? No, it does not. Indeed, some of the people most noted for having epilepsy are excluded from this list due to significant doubts about their diagnosis. There are a number of people in this list that are known to the general population as having epilepsy, and for their epilepsy to be a significant issue worthy of newspaper columns, etc. There is another group of people that are well known for their epilepsy only within the epilepsy community. This may be because they are patrons of epilepsy charities, or have been written about in epilepsy-related books and web sites. Generally, the more recent the diagnosis, the more likely that they will have had newspaper articles written about their epilepsy and that they will have been recruited for charitable work.
The problem with "notability in that category" is largely due to the stigma attached to having Epilepsy. Something that lists such as this can help to dispel.
If this is listcruft, Aristotle is also guilty. In his book The Falling Sickness : A History of Epilepsy from the Greeks to the Beginnings of Modern Neurology, Owsei Temkin writes:
:In 1602 Taxil said that Aristotle made a whole catalogue of famous epileptics in which he named Hercules, Ajax, Bellerophon, Socrates, Plato, Empedocles, Maracus of Syracuse, and the Sybils.
Jean Taxil extends the list with (in French) "Iule Caesar, et Caligula Empereurs, Liuius Drusus, premier tribun du peuple Romain, Petrarche; et encore que ce detestable Mahomet". People have continued maintaining such lists during the 400 years since Taxil and two milennia since Aristotle.
A quick Google search for '"famous people with epilepsy"', gives a staggering 17,000 pages. Every epilepsy charity or support group has its own "famous people" page. Searching Google books shows that many books on epilepsy (for general readers) dedicate at least a paragraph or two to such a list.
Would I expect to find this list in an encyclopaedia? Yes – probably at the end of a big article on Epilepsy. That is where the list originated. Since leaving home, this list has been refined then enlarged. Every entry has been expanded and comprehensive references added. Having its own article, has allowed this to happen.
Colin°Talk 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might not be a bad idea to link to the major epilepsy website's "famous people with epilepsy" pages, even though (imo) their standards for inclusion have sometimes been less stringent than those used here.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listcruft 

message: This article says, 'Dostoyevsky's epilepsy was unusual in that he claimed to experience an ecstatic aura prior to a seizure, whereas most people experience unpleasant feelings.' As far as I know this is not unusual or, to be more exact, this is precisely the type of epilepsy I lived with until I had a right temporal lobectomy in 1996 to end it. I am open to correction here but in all my reading this is a common feature of right temporal lobe epilepsy, which I believe now is termed 'complex partial' epilepsy. For me, reading Dostoyevsky was an amazing gift- I only wish I discovered him in my childhood when I was struggling to describe my ecstacy when a seizure was imminent. I had never read somebody put in words exactly how I felt when I had an attack. I, too, would give the world for that moment. I've read most of Dostevsky's work now and his epilepsy punctuates his entire work, his heroes and his antiheroes. In addition Dostoyevsky's letters, in which he talks in detail about these aura, are available in Joseph Frank's five volume biography of him. It is very well worth reading for anybody with this type of epilepsy, or for parents of people with it. This 'glorious' aura is very well known and according to my consultant people who no longer have attacks actually long for it. All the best! 193.1.172.163 03:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dostoyevsky's experience was "unusual"?

message: I added the following section on 28 July 2006:
:External links	
:There are many thousands of web sites listing famous people who have or were believed to have had epilepsy. Most have more liberal inclusion criteria than this article, and few cite sources for their information. Among the most comprehensive are: 	 
	 
:* Epilepsy.com's Famous People with Epilepsy, by Steven C. Schachter, 2005-09-20. 	 
:* German Epilepsy Museum's Famous people with epileptic seizures, by Hans Schneble, 2003-01-01.
This was removed by an anon shortly afterwards with the comment "I thought we had gotten rid of links to such sites, precisely because they rarely cite sources and have such low standards for inclusion." Whilst I agree that such sites aren't acceptable for use as references, I did think they might be useful to give an complementary viewpoint on the subject.
User:Ikkyu2 suggested adding such links back in March. Does anyone else wish to comment, to help establish a consensus on whether to have External links or not. Cheers, Colin°Talk 19:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is that this list is currently far and away the best-documented and most complete list of its type ever produced anywhere by anyone.  That said, external links are probably superfluous. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: After some prompting by Rune.welsh, I've been studying WP:LIVING and have some thoughts about its affect on the epilepsy list.
*We need to be much more careful with negative statements than positive or neutral statements. Is listing someone in this list a negative thing? We're clearly not saying someone has a personality defect. However, I can see how someone might be upset by their inclusion if it is wrong.
*If it appears that the person is open about their epilepsy (e.g. appeared on videos, attended conferences, etc) is it safe to assume that they don't find it to be negative and therefore could include a less sturdy source?
:For example, Hugo Weaving has done a video for Epilepsy Queensland Inc where he (and others) "talk openly, positively and with humour, about their epilepsy, and the way it affects their lives, and how they have learned to accept and live with it." However that link only tells me that Hugo Weaving has epilepsy, is open about it, and I think I have a reliable source.
:I get more information from his interview in "West of Oz" magazine. I'm really not sure how big or reliable that mag is. However, I'm comfortable using a little non-controversial info from that article because I've got the other one to back the main criteria up.
*Does the kind of article matter? For example, an interview in a celebrity magazine, where the subject talks openly and freely about their epilepsy sounds safe to me even if the magazine isn't of the highest quality. If the same magazine merely had a throwaway line "XYZ, who has epilepsy, did ..." then really we couldn't trust it. I'm thinking here possibly of the MTV News sources.
*The tone of the source article also matters. Clearly the WP:LIVING is concerned about libelous remarks and Wikipedia repeating such remarks. It would be quite unusual to find an unreliable source using epilepsy as a means to insult someone.
*Some sources are trustworthy for certain things but not others. I've used several epilepsy charity web sites as sources when they have an article about a celebrity or their attendance at a conference, for example. But I've not found any of their lists of "Famous people with epilepsy" that I would use as a reliable source. 
Colin°Talk 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies of living persons 

message: I've gone through all the still-living people on the list and looked at the sources given. These range from matter-of-fact to glowing tributes. I don't think there is a negative comment among them and it is clear that the majority of these people are quite open about their epilepsy.
*Danny Glover – International Bureau for Epilepsy. Respectable international charity. News report on the 33rd Annual Epilepsy Foundation National Conference where Danny Glover gave a speech.
*Rik Mayal – Interview in The Observer. Respectable newspaper.
*Hugo Weaving – Description of video sold by Epilepsy Queensland Inc featuring Hugo. Clearly indicates that he is open about his epilepsy. Other source is an interview in West of Oz magazine. Uncertain how reliable this source is but have lifted only uncontroversial info and main fact is backed up by the first source.
*Neil Abercrombi – National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke conference proceedings. Big US government org. The other source is an Epilepsy Foundation press release on a government briefing.
*Rabbi Lionel Blue – Details of a fundraising dinner for Epilepsy Research Foundation. You can actually here an audio recording of the advert by Lionel Blue.
*Tony Coelho – A book from a big publisher.
*Lindsey Buckingham – A big article in Rolling Stone. However, the actual text I read is reproduced on a fan site. Is this an issue? The other sources is a book from a specialist music publisher.
*Adam Horovitz – Details and quotes on the source are archived this talk page. No web reference.
*Richard Jobson – Big interview for the Sunday Herald, a respectable Scottish newspaper.
*Geoff Rickly – Two sources, both ultimately from MTV News. Rickly is directly quoted talking about his epilepsy. This probably compensates for this not being the most serious news source.
*Mike Skinner – Interview in The Observer.
*Neil Young – Biography by his dad. The text I quote was read via Google Books.
*Buddy Bell & Hal Lanier – Book on disability and major league baseball players.
*Alan Faneca – Two substantial articles/news stores from Epilepsy Foundation.
*Tony Greig – Epilepsy Action (Austrailia) board details.
*Chanda Gunn – Substantial news story from CNN.
*Bobby Jones – Two very complimentary stories, with quotes, from sports web sites.
*Terry Marsh – Article in The New York Times and also details from his autobiography.
*Maggie McEleny – Two very positive articles from The Scotish Institute of Sport.
*Jonty Rhodes – Article from Epilepsy South Africa, a charity he supports.
*Tom Smith – Press release from Epilepsy Action (UK charity) and also an article in The Scotsman, a respectable Scottish newspaper.
*Paul Wade – Article in The Age, a respectable Austrailian newspaper. Also a long story in Australian Headlines, an epilepsy magazine, which includes pictures post-op.
*Greg Walker – Two articles, from The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune.
*Karen Armstrong – Story in The Guardian and also an autobiographical book.
*Max Clifford – BBC Worldwide Press Office.
*DeBarra Mayo – A story in the Fayetteville Observer, which I guess is fairly small. However, the source was supplied by the subject herself.
*Patrick Dempsey – (no epilepsy). A very complimentary biography on TV.com.
Colin°Talk 18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Audit

message: A couple of things have prompted me to consider expanding the contents of this article (beyond just adding a few more names). The first is that during its review as a Featured list candidate, editors questioned whether the list was comprehensive. The second is that I have finally got hold of the full text of John Hughes paper "Did all those famous people really have epilepsy?". This has been an eye-opener on the shockingly poor quality of "diagnosis" made by biographers and other writers.
When this article was original created, some editors argued for the inclusion of all people believed (by someone) to have epilepsy. Others felt it should be a pure list of only the most reliable diagnoses. I hope the changes I've made will satisfy both camps. The reliable entries are kept as they were in their own section, at the front. These constitute the core of what this list is about.
This talk page contained much information (now archived) that could be in article-space if correctly presented. I've added a (currently short) section containing a few people that have retrospective diagnoses that are reasonably secure and well sourced. There are names on other sites that could be in this section but for the lack of any reliable sources.
I've also added a new section listing people that are commonly listed elsewhere but for which the diagnosis of epilepsy is wrong (or totally unsustainable). These are virtually always retrospective diagnoses and it is usually quite clear that someone has read too much into the words fit, seizure and convulsion when used in historical text or biography. Sometimes, mysteriously, there is no evidence of anything remotely resembling epileptic seizures. We can list these "lack of data" cases here if we quote a reliable source - I caution future editors against adding their own names to that section if the "lack of data" comes from original research.
If these changes have seriously upset anyone, I ask you not to revert but to discuss on the talk page so we can come to a consensus. Colin°Talk 22:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I could give as much help with the religious figures section as you'd like.  Most of these people fall outside my expertise.  Instead I'll suggest some of the search tools I used for List of notable brain tumor patients.  Boolean search engine inquiries turned up a lot for me, often in the form of (specific profession or sport) + (medical condition).  You should have some advantage over my quests: epilepsy is less subject to variant national spelling and alternate diagnosis names.  The "What links here" toolbox selection at brain tumor was another fruitful source of leads (which of course needed external verification before inclusion on the list).  I wound up creating several new Wikipedia biographies for the people I found, some of which got highlighted on the main page in "Did you know?" such as Dawn Steel.  Cheers and good hopes, Durova 22:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: Surely the title should be "List of notable people with epilepsy"?  I'm sure there are millions of people with epilepsy around the world and I don't see them included here...! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 01:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title move 

message: I oppose detailing living persons, I find it offensive - A hypothetical event such as the following might happen;  If any one of the listed living epileptic people Does NOT want this information to be published - It is their own choice , and we must respect them - Although the sources for that info comes from interviews with those persons, Yet in some cases They listed might have regrated publishing this .. 
I Removed it for those reasons.  If anybody wants to revert back - Please think about
it, revert and comment me here to start a discussion on the ethics of this subject.
As for the dead people, Why are there NO scientists included ?  --Eshy .L —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.24.199 (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2006.
I didn't make the change yet, because the introduction text refers to living people, and
It just didn't feel right to delete somebody's text without notice.
Does anybody have any comments?
I say we start a discussion on the ethics of this article right here: (Go ahead.. I said my share) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.24.199 (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2006.
:Thanks for your comments. I'm glad you didn't make any major changes without discussing first. You are right that we have take extra care what we say about living people. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is given at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. We do have a duty to respect privacy. Thefore, IMO, a living person should not be on this list if
:*The information cannot be verified in a reliable and reputable source.
:*The information was clearly not fairly obtained by the source.
:*The person has stated that they do not wish the information to be public.
:*The person is not notable.
:*There is any doubt as to the accuracy of the information – no speculation allowed.
:Here are my views on why living people should be included in the list:
:*The sources for all the living people in this list have been audited (see below). I think that all these sources are good, but anyone is welcome to correct/disagree.
:*A large number of the living people in this list actively promote epilepsy charities and are very open about their condition. They wish to bring epilepsy "into the open" and remove any stigma attached.
:*Most of the sources are interviews, which is really the fairest way of gauging whether the person is open about it. I accept that someone may later regret what they have said. That is part of the burden of celebrity. Read the interviews and judge for yourself whether the person is shy about it.
:*It is not shameful to be included in this list. If we were to exclude living people, we are effectively saying "Here is a list of dead people who had epilepsy. It doesn't mention living people in case they are ashamed of it". What kind of message is that sending to someone with epilepsy?
:If you still have strong feelings about this, I suggest you try to bring more people to the discussion by mentioning this elsewhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons is a possible place, though the Wikipedia:Village pump may be better.
:There are a few scientists: Don Craig Wiley was biochemist and Minakata Kumagusu was a naturalist (who studied slime moulds). Emanuel Swedenborg, a scientist, is speculated to have had epilepsy. There are two problems with scientists. The first is that, by and large, they are not notable. An actor can become a notable in a soap opera, whereas a scientist with hundreds of important published papers will be ignored by the public. The second reason is perhaps that epilepsy is much more common in those with learning difficulties than it is in the general population. Such people don't tend become notable scientists. 
: Colin°Talk 10:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics problem 

message: A recent edit removed "the detestable" from the quote of Taxil. Since it is part of a quote, just removing the text isn't satisfactory so I restored it. Wikipedia isn't censored, so, for example, replacing it with "…"' just because we don't like or agree with the phrase isn't recommended. Muhammad is detailed later on in the list, where a famous medical historian's opinion is given: that it was slander to allege that Muhammad had epilespy. Therefore, I think it relevant that those who repeat this possible slander, are shown to be biased in their view of Muhammad. Colin°Talk 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now replaced the quote with just a list, that no longer says "detestable". Colin°Talk 17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad in the lead section 

message: Mentioned at the top of the article 
"List of people with epilepsy is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute."
The idea that someone wants to delete an article which is identified with one of the BEST LISTS is absolutely ridicilous.  Timmah01 11:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please comment over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with epilepsy. Colin°Talk 11:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for Deletion? Why? 

message: In accordance with Wikipedia:Summary_style, I created a short section in Epilepsy that links here:  Epilepsy#People_with_Epilepsy.  I should have done this when List of people with epilepsy was created; I have now corrected that omission.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link from [[Epilepsy]] article 

message: Three people on the list who appear to have no articles about them.  Are they notable, or can they be removed? Dupont Circle 20:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created Maggie McEleny. Patsy (Martha Parke) Custis died aged 17 so didn't get a chance to achieve notability in her own right. Her parentage gives her notability within American history, and her epilepsy is an interesting entry in this list. Antônio Moreira César has an article on the Portuguese WP and a redlink on War of Canudos. I suspect that eventually, he'll get an article here too. Colin°Talk 17:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Colin.  I'm not convinced by Patsy Custis.  If she's not notable, then she shouldn't be on the list, regardless of how interesting her epilepsy is? Dupont Circle 20:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maggie McEleny, Patsy Custis and Antônio Moreira César 

message: I undid Collin's edit because there was not one thing in the source he posted that supports the following statement "Many famous people are incorrectly recorded as having epilepsy. In some cases there is no evidence at all for a diagnosis of epilepsy. In others, the symptoms have been misinterpreted. In some, the seizures were provoked by acute illness or alcohol withdrawal, for example." In fact there is no mention at all of any famous person, or famous people in general, in the given source. And there was no point in the section existing unless that statement is supported. Plus, anything relevant that could be put there, is already mentioned in more relevant sections throughout this article
:You are right, the source wasn't the correct one for the text in that paragraph. I've inserted a more suitable source (a lay commentary on Hughes' paper). I've kept the JW Sander ref for now, as it is a readable and freely available article explaining why misdiagnosis is common, and the reader may benefit from this. I've restored the paragraph removed. Colin°Talk 20:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous misdiagnois

message: I've removed the following text that was added (by 213.46.143.24) to the Leadership, politics and royalty section:
:A Roman military and political leader. He played a critical role in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Caesar had four documented episodes of what may have been complex partial seizures. He may additionally have had absence seizures in his youth. Claims of Caesar suffering from epilepsy are contested, however.
:*Ronald T. Ridley, "The Dictator's Mistake: Caesar's Escape from Sulla," Historia 49 (2000), pp. 225–226, citing doubters of epilepsy: F. Kanngiesser, "Notes on the Pathology of the Julian Dynasty," Glasgow Medical Journal 77 (1912) 428-432; T. Cawthorne, "Julius Caesar and the Falling Sickness,” Proceedings of Royal Society of Medicine 51 (1957) 27-30, who prefers Ménière's disease; and O. Temkin, The Falling Sickness: A History of Epilepsy from the Greeks to the Beginnings of Modern Neurology (Baltimore 1971), p 162.
:*Plutarch, Caesar 17, 45, 60; see also Suetonius, Julius 45.
It repeats, more or less, what is already in the Retrospective diagnosis section. I have not found any evidence that Ceasar was diagnosed with epilepsy during his lifetime. His biographers who mention epilepsy, Appian, Plutarch, Pliny and Suetonius, were born after Ceasar had died. The sources given above are good, to which I would add the JR Hughes "Dictator Perpetuus: Julius Caesar--did he have seizures? If so, what was the etiology?" . I wouldn't count Temkin as a "doubter of epilepsy": he doesn't say much on the issue of accuracy other than that the historical evidence (from the above biographers) is fairly sound. I don't have access (at present) to the other contemporary sources listed above. Colin°Talk 21:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julius Ceasar 

message: This portuguese site [] tell that a  king of Brazil and Portugal also had epilepsy.Beyond doubt, king Peter I of Brazil or Peter IV of Portugal had epilepsy.These other sites: [] and [] tel the same fact.Agre22 (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A king of Brazil and Portugal also had epilepsy.

message: if u need referances the please take a look at these sites
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Badawi/Radio/RA200J5.htm
and also
http://muhammad.islamonline.net/English/index.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drmuji (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some references

message: Thanks for your message. You can be sure I appreciate your concerns. Almost every religious group can find something of offence in that section of the list. The Jews, Christians, Catholics, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists all have spiritual leaders that someone at some time has claimed to have had epileptic seizures rather than true religious visions. If you read the text at the start of the list and at the start of the section, you may detect a somewhat sceptical tone with regard to the value of such speculations.
However, Wikipedia is not censored. The statement that "Some researchers consider temporal lobe epilepsy to be a possible cause of his inspirational spells" is undoubtedly true regardless of whether you or I think it offensive or just complete bollocks. I have cited a source in a highly respected epilepsy journal. There are other sources I could have cited, for example, the book "Sword and Seizure: Muhammad's Epilepsy & Creation of Islam". I haven't read that book, however, and don't intend to. A Google search for "Muhammad Epilepsy" returns thousands of pages both for and against. The debate is definitely notable.
When writing for Wikipedia, sometimes editors have to include statements they don't personally believe. The neutral point of view is a core policy and means we may have to "write for the enemy" (i.e. the other side of the argument). I think/hope that anyone reading List of people with epilepsy will find a fairly balanced article that doesn't push one view over another.
If you still feel that the article needs to be changed, I can suggest some forms of mediation - i.e. asking for another opinion from other editors. Colin°Talk 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply from colin

message: I appreciate your answer and your point of view about it as well. But, my only concern is that had this been on some other area, i may somehow have swallowed it. but to write that "inspirational spells" were due to temporal lobe epilepsy, actually stresses on our faith about our holy book "The Quran".
And all muslims follow Quran as the guide lines.
Second point which you raised was that there were hundreds of articles which concur with your point of view. My answer is that there are thousands of articles which go against that point as well.
your third point was wikipedia is not censored. I am quoting what is written on the website. "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." This clearly says that i have the write to change the article.
Finally, my request is that the sentence which i have been objecting should be removed because any muslim who sees this article may find it very offensive and quite a lot of people quote Wikipedia on several things. I am afraid that someday someone can raise this issue at some forum and this can cause a lot of problem as you saw with the reaction about blasphemous cartoons published in one of the newspapers few months back about Muhammad (P.B.U.H)
And lastly, The book "Sword and Seizure: Muhammad's Epilepsy & Creation of Islam" which you mentioned has some basic flaws. The author says that it is all because of temporal lobe epilepsy. that may sound true to some people but as a psychiatrist i know that temporal lobe epilepsy cannot last for 13 years and also that after the seizure of temporal lobe, the patient doesn’t remember any of the things which he did during the seizure. And, none of these things happened to Muhammad. You can find details about all these things in the links i sent you. Also, the author has tried to mix bipolar disorder with epilepsy in that case, but has failed to find one proper manic or hypomanic episode in the history of Muhammad (P.B.U.H).
I hope you understand my point of view and appreciate my concerns. And if you feel stubborn about your point of view then I would like you mediate on this matter as long as its not Garion96, because i read his comments on your archive
Best Regards
Mujtaba
Drmuji 02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked for comments over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Hope that is acceptable to you. Colin°Talk 11:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply from Drmuji

message: As a person with temporal lobe epilepsy, I personally know that your comment above has some basic flaws. My temporal lobe epilepsy has lasted for 26 years, and I can remember some things that happened during my seizures and post ictal state (some times my memories are of the typical outer body experiences and religious hallucinations common with TLE. I've seen Jesus during a seizure and I don't even believe in Jesus is a relgious entity. I've also seen ER doctors attempting to kill me during seizures. Other times my memories are correct, its just my thinking during the time that the events happened that is unusal)  With greater control on medicine, I'm beginning to remember more accurate things, like I really did walk into a door and sit in a bathtub fully clothed because it seemed the most comfortable place in the house to get some privacy. Many people can remember what they did during the seizure - their level of confusion in regards to that memory is dependent on many things. The post ictal phase which occurs after a seizure is the time period when most people with epilepsy experience sudden religious conversions, and most often as a result of hallucinations and visions that they experienced during their seizure and feel compelled to act on Many people have had TLE for far longer than I have. The only reason I haven't it had it longer for 26 years is that I'm only 26 - I was 3 weeks old when I had my first seizure, my last one was yesterday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.184.14 (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: i have documented below the ref details (requested above) and the extracts (just for the sake of completeness):
reference: Caesar Farah, "Islam: Beliefs and Observances" (2003), Barron's Educational Series,  (also includes extract from another academic scholar Tor Andrae)
The issue here revolves around his sincerity. Certain writers have alluded to his being subject to epileptic seizures, psychic tension, and other abnormal physical manifestations, all of which, it has been argued, inspired Muhammad to receive revelations from God.11
:... If epilepsy is to denote only those severe attacks which involve serious consequences for the physical and mental health, then the statement that Mohammad suffered from epilepsy must be emphatically rejected.12
What is germane to this discussion is the product, not the means. Many personalities before Muhammad who were considered "psychologically sound" had less to offer posterity even when they were accorded the dignity of being official spokesmen for God...
11. These insinuations resulted from the 19th-century infatuation with scientifically superficial theories of medical psychology and the theories of those who applied them in their search for some scientific explanation based upon such admissions as Muhammad being in a semi-conscious and trance-like state with occasional loss of consciousness when he received revelations.
12. Tor Andrae, Mohammad: The Man and his Faith, trans. Theophil Menzel (New York: Harper Torch Book Series, 1960), p.51
reference: W.Montgomery Watt, Richard Bell. "Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an"(1995) Edinburgh University Press. , pp 17-18.
In medieval Europe there was elaborated the conception of Muhammad as a false prophet, who merely pretended to receive messages from God; and this and other falsifications of medieval war-propaganda are only slowly being expunged from the mind of Europe and of Christendom.
a short passage about Thomas Carlyle who argued for Muhammad's sincerity, which was the "first step towards a more balanced view". then:
Various later scholars followed this with attempts to save Muhammad's sincerity, but sometimes at the expense of his sanity. Gustav Weil sought to prove that he suffered from epilepsy. Aloys Sprenger went further and suggested that in addition Muhammad suffered from hysteria...
... Theofor Noldeke, while insisting on the reality of Muhammad's prophetic inspiration, and rejecting the idea that suffered from epilepsy, thought that he was subject to over-powering fits of emotion...
Recent writers have on the whole been more favourable and have taken the view that Muhammad was absolutely sincere and acted in complete good faith... (mentions a few scholars to substantiate this) ...Tor Andrae examined Muhammad's experience from a psychological standpoint and found it to be genuine, and also that he has a prophetic message for his age and generation.
offering his own conclusions in denial of epilepsy, Watt says:
... Too little allowance also was made for the fact that the Muhammad whom we know best was to all appearance healthy in body and in mind. It is incredible that a person subject to epilepsy, or hysteria, or even ungovernable fits of emotion, could have been the active leader of military expeditions, or the cool far-seeing guide of a city-state and a growing religious community; but all this we know Muhammad to have been.
reference: Maxime Rodinson, Muhammad: Prophet of Islam (2002), Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 
makes a note about experiences of mystics, then:
However that may be, the Prophet certainly suffered from attacks of some kind in adult life. Hostile Christians put it down to epilepsy. If this were so, it was a benign form. What is much more probable is that Muhammad's psycho-physiological constitution was basically of the kind found in many mystics.
reference: A. Noth in the "Muhammad" article of , the best scholarly academic reference available on Islam:
With very few exceptions, the concept of the mediaeval biography of the Islamic Prophet was dominated by a single tendency, namely to prove that Muhammad, in the way he had lived and acted, could not have been a prophet, that his alleged divine revelations consequently were man's work and that Islam at the very most is an abstruse heresy of Christianity. Made subservient to this basic concept, there appear in the mediaeval Muhammad biography four kinds of motives...
Noth then discusses a number of polemical insinuations made by these medieval authors (i.e. having been taught by heretics), including that of self-deception:
The self-deception is generally depicted as pathological: endeavours of the Kuraysh, which had been transmitted, to interpret Muhammad as a magically-possessed person ( madjnun ) or also Islamic traditions relating the Prophet's fainting fits ( ghushiya `alayhi and other such expressions) in connection with the revelations in this context, produced welcome material for the image of a Muhammad who psychologically ill—the term “ epileptic ” was a particular favourite—who considered his delusions as divine announcements. By using another motive, it was also maintained that he experienced the instructions of his heretical teachers as messages of the archangel Gabriel.
--ITAQALLAH 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: references

message: It appears that several people have already taken offence to the list of "potential religious TLE's"  I believe that this section should in fact be removed from the main page but could perhaps have a link at the bottom of the page to another wiki site titled "Leaders believed to have TLE" and could elaborate on these "potential religiuos TLE's and world leaders with TLE. To list any religious leader regardless of any previous disclaimer proves that this information should not be on this site. Wikipedia should be a source to find facts on a subject and not people's opinion on a subject otherwise wikipedia would be the worlds largest collection of blogs. How many people need to comment on this section's offensive speculations. It is considerably less acceptable to list more recent religios figures as possible TLE's due to the increased medical knowledge and in the case of Joseph Smith the complete documentation of his life. Nowhere is it documented that he suffered from siezures and many of his visions were with others present and surely they would have commented on his being a TLE or at least write about his supposed symptoms. THE answer is REMOVE THE SECTION and add it as a link if someone is interested in reading more about possible religious figures with TLE.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosshterry (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 January 2009
Many of my TLE seizures happened with others present. If I hadn't said I was having a seizure, they would have known nothing other than the description of the hallucination I gave them. I had TLE seizures for years in elementary before anyone even suspected that epilepsy should be considered - and I had my first seizures when I was weeks old  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.117.249 (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer to evidence lacking "Religious Leaders Section"

message: Frankly, I'm surprised Jesus Christ isn't on the list of suspected religious epileptics. "Some researchers consider temporal lobe epilepsy to be a possible cause of his inspirational spells,(list of sources here)" just like Mohammed. If you take a look at the discussion about Mohammed's presence on this list, it is obvious that this page is meant to include notable figures who have been suggested as having epilepsy. Even though people may take offense, Jesus belongs on this list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.133.194 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion needs to come from a source of some authority and (per WP:WEIGHT) be the viewpoint of more than just a tiny minority of authors. It is clear from your source (which, as a self-published website, fails our WP:V threshold for reliable sources) that the only source for this this suggestion was some book in Danish from 1904, which was "roundly condemned by most of the other writers on the subject". To include it here would give more weight to that opinion than it deserves. Colin°Talk 11:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion about Mohammad is not coming from any authority or neutral source,there is nothing more than a claim.But obviously its enough for describing or blaming for some people with anti islamic feelings.--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus may have had epilepsy

message: Just because one cracker said Muhammad was an epileptic does it make it true.  I am betting Theo never met the prophet.  With no good counter-argument I am going to edit this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.126.163 (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a number of writers who propose Muhammad had epilepsy, with varying degrees of evidence -- though all are ultimately just guessing. See earlier discussions on this talk page, above. There's a consensus that Muhammad should remain. Please note that the article makes it clear that it does not endorse this view. Colin°Talk 08:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey can you give a some examples or names of that so called "writers" and what exactly is their evidence? EEG,MR scan or something else?Or what type of epilepsy was that?--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are in the article. Google or a search on Amazon or Google Scholar will find other sources. It is a common enough allegation from serious or famous historical writers to merit some metion, and then to note it is just speculation. You may be surprised to learn that nobody gets diagnosed with epilepsy by EEG or MRI scan. An EEG is sometimes used to confirm a diagnosis but in many people with epilepsy, they don't have them frequently enough to catch in a hospital setting. And epilepsy is frequently wrongly diagnosed even by modern doctors who see their patients. Colin°Talk 10:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitism 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.eqi.org.au/store/
*:Triggered by \beqi\.org\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: As I was reading through the "misdiagnosis" section, it came to my attention that many of the reasons for misdiagnosis is that the epilepsy was "non convulsive" or "complex partial" or "simple Partial" seizures. According to the epilepsy foundation, not all seizures are convulsive, and a seizure is characterized by misfirings of the brain. For example, Van Gogh is still believed to have epilepsy, and while they were complex partial, they were still seizures. There also should be a list of "suspected cases" in which you can put Van Gogh and Edgar Allen Poe, as many scholars believe they had epilepsy, some even suggest that Poe died of SUDEP, or Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy Paitents.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.11.1.228 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Misdiagnosis"

message: the intro to this section clearly states "The presence of an entry in the following list does not indicate a scholarly consensus in favour of a diagnosis of epilepsy; merely that such a diagnosis has been suggested." There's an extensive literature on epilepsy and religion/mysticism, including neurological research. These people belong here because they raised interest as religious persons. Especially removing St. Paul from this section misses the point of this interest. See also:
* Geschwind syndrome
* Ecstatic feelings can be caused by epilepsy
* Ann Taves (1999), Fits, trances and visions
* :Vilayanur S. Ramachandran:
:* Finding God in a seizure: the link between temporal lobe epilepsy and mysticism
:* God on the Brain
* Michael Trimble, Anthony Freeman (2006), An investigation of religiosity and the Gastaut–Geschwind syndrome in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy, Epilepsy & Behavior 9 (2006) 407–414
* Kanemoto K., Kawasaki J, Kawai I., Postictal psychosis: a comparison with acute interictal and chronic psychoses. Epilepsia. 1996 Jun;37(6):551-6.
* McNamara (2009/2014): The neuroscience of religious experience
* 
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know how that section was worded, but it violated Wikipedia policy because a scholarly consensus is always required under WP policy, rather than just one or two authors making a claim.  I therefore changed the wording to conform with standard policy, and moved entries based on what those entries themselves said about the scholarly viewpoint. Many of the entries in that section actually admitted that the epilepsy claim has been debunked, or is disputed, or there is no evidence; in which case these entries needed to be moved to the proper category just like the other people in this list; hence I moved them. We can't use a different standard just for that one section. If you want to move any of them back, you'd need to demonstrate a scholarly consensus that these specific people had epilepsy. Likewise for the Geschwind syndrome issue. This is really a basic point since Wikipedia policy is clear on the issue of scholarly consensus, and hence it should not need to be debated. Let's move on. Ryn78 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite the policy, and stop POV-pushing. See also WP:BRD. The persons in this list are not classified under "proven/not proven," but under "association between religion & epilepsy." I'm sorry for you if the classification-scheme in the article is imperfect, but you're ignoring the main point here, namely the scholarly and popular interest in epilepsy & religion. See also WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.  Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've split-off this section into a separate section; I hope this helps. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: At second thought, the article is very clear: " Following from that, there is a short list of people who have received a speculative, retrospective diagnosis of epilepsy." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the most basic of all Wikipedia's policies is the need for academic consensus, and that includes list pages. All the other sections of this page adhere to that policy, except the section we're debating. That section can't just contain a "grab bag" list consisting of anyone who has ever been claimed to be epileptic by at least one author, because that doesn't make any distinction based on consensus and it allows fringe views to be given equal weight, which is forbidden (see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE). Accusing me of "POV pushing" is absurd, since I'm "pushing" only for the standard policy. This is basic stuff. Let's move on. Don't revert it again unless you can first gain consensus for your view that this section should use a different standard than everything else. Ryn78 (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

text: thanks for your explanation regarding the classificications at this page. I agree with you on this point. But, to revert wholesale, removing sourced info, while asking "Please don't remove sourced text without discussion" is not the way to proceed. If you think that the edits that I made on the introductory info is incorrect, then please discuss this, and point out what exactly you find problematic, but do not revert wholesale without a further explanation. I'm quite willing to discuss this topic, so let's try to compare the changes which I made to this info. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you guys are edit warring so both sets of edits are contentious and the easiest way to start is from the previously uncontentious text before either of you started editing. Reverting a revert without discussion/consensus is edit warring, which you have now done to me. You don't seem to understand BRD -- it doesn't have two R's in there. While I appreciate the effort of the huge section below, it isn't something I can work with -- trying to argue on 20 different points/changes at once. I'd rather you showed restraint by self-reverting to the older version then take each change you wish to make in turn and state what is wrong/incomplete with the older text and what is better with the next text, with sources. It may be there are many things we can all agree on that will be quickly resolved. Remember that the existing text was a Featured List (albeit a long time ago) so one should not make radical or structural changes without discussion - otherwise it is quite likely someone will nominate it for removal. -- Colin°Talk 18:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious figures 

message: Fenwick 1980 is an interesting source. Fenwick explains the brain-mechanisms involved in mystical experiences, especially the temporal lobe. Recent research on epilepsy & mysticism also focuses on the temporal lobe. 
Regarding the sentence "Looking for physical explanations of mystical experiences was controversial" (I'd already changed "is" into "was"), Fenwick states in this article:
:* "We have discussed brain functioning and we have related some of these aspects to the generation of the mystical experience; but are there areas within the brain which are thought to be even more closely linked with religious experience' Well, the answer to this is yes"
:* "Indeed, epilepsy and mysticism have frequently been linked together in the past and not without good reason, as has been shown by the present."
:* " religious experience and epilepsy is rare and most of the large surveys of populations of epileptics fail to find even a single example. What is important, however, is that it does occur, is usually associated with temporal lobe pathology and is associated with the onset of the ictal discharge."
:* "There is little doubt, therefore that there exists within the brain, and probably within the temporal lobe and its associated central connections, a system which, when activated either naturally or by esoteric practices, or spontaneously, or on the operating table by direct stimulation or by the ictal discharges of epilepsy, can give rise to the mystical experience."
Regarding Geschwind, he writes:
:"Dr Gershwind describes a syndrome in which the patients are said to show hypergraphia, that is they are `journalists' or write poetry, certainly they love words. They show excessive religiosity and a concern for all the more weighty of the philosophical ideas with which they endlessly play. Finally they are subject to deep religious experiences. I have certainly had several patients who have shown this."
I don't think that this article supports the statement "Looking for physical explanations of mystical experiences is controversial", and will remove it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fenwick 1980 

message: I've made some additions and corrections, emphasizing the rare incidence of mystical experiences in TLE, per Neuroscience for the soul, as provided by Colin. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Neuroscience for the soul" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of people with epilepsy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930093016/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,923870,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,923870,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060517025810/http://jack-warner.com:80/village_eccentric_on_trial.htm to http://jack-warner.com/village_eccentric_on_trial.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on List of people with epilepsy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/zaaz813/jefferies.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on List of people with epilepsy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/zaaz813/jefferies.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/cultura/l_creanga.html
*Added  tag to http://www.slideshare.net/dominic54/artikel-5593315
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930061342/http://www.uni-graz.at/~schulter/se04_religiosity.pdf to http://www.uni-graz.at/~schulter/se04_religiosity.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ellenwhite.org/seizures.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ellenwhite.org/headinjury.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abilitymaine.org/breath/June06/ozer.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on List of people with epilepsy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902150057/http://www.epilepsy.com/articles/ar_1107544697 to http://www.epilepsy.com/articles/ar_1107544697
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219052746/http://www.encephalitis.info/NewsEvents/News.html to http://www.encephalitis.info/NewsEvents/News.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230022520/http://saints.sqpn.com/saintp0l.htm to http://saints.sqpn.com/saintp0l.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0%2C8816%2C909750%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0%2C8816%2C923870%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060518105546/http://www.iancurtis.org/biography/ to http://www.iancurtis.org/biography/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524121539/http://www.easternandcoastalkent.nhs.uk/your-health/your-health-magazine/real-life-stories/making-my-mind-up/ to http://www.easternandcoastalkent.nhs.uk/your-health/your-health-magazine/real-life-stories/making-my-mind-up/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050416132734/http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1493556/20041109/thursday.jhtml?headlines=true to http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1493556/20041109/thursday.jhtml?headlines=true
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217175506/http://hoopshype.com/articles/jones_friedman.htm to http://www.hoopshype.com/articles/jones_friedman.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207041128/http://salon.com/news/1998/12/cov_04newsa.html to http://www.salon.com/news/1998/12/cov_04newsa.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060326235718/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1613_276/ai_63668452 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1613_276/ai_63668452
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080202121219/http://www.tv.com/patrick-dempsey/person/5966/biography.html%23 to http://www.tv.com/patrick-dempsey/person/5966/biography.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of people with epilepsy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106190932/http://vusi_mahlasela.mondomix.com/en/portrait2908.htm to http://vusi_mahlasela.mondomix.com/en/portrait2908.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.byjamesraia.com/articles/18/1/Marion-Clignet-The-Life-amp-Times-Of-An-Epileptic-Cycling-Champion/Page1.html
*Added  tag to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-23905283-epilepsy-has-not-stopped-legge-achieving-his-goal.do
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015181338/http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/09/08/gold-medal-hero-dai-greene-athletics-freed-me-from-my-battle-with-epilepsy-91466-29384454/ to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/09/08/gold-medal-hero-dai-greene-athletics-freed-me-from-my-battle-with-epilepsy-91466-29384454/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of people with epilepsy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050617121706/http://epilepsy.org.au/our_board.asp to http://www.epilepsy.org.au/our_board.asp
*Added  tag to http://perseus.uchicago.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D33
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified