Talk:List of people with ME/CFS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2008[edit]

Move Notable sufferers from Chronic fatigue syndrome to Notable sufferers from Chronic fatigue syndrome per talk. Ward20 (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Notable patients and alleged patients[edit]

from list of articles linking directly or indirectly to ME/CFS. All of these articles claim that these people have come down with it at some point and I have uncritically included them here, with no regard for sourcing or credibility (some of these people have had sufficiently impressive recoveries that I find it far more credible to believe they actually had something else and were misdiagnosed). -- Strangelv (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sourced a few of these. Florence Nightingale is the most debatable one, as while the ME/CFS community claims her, all the sources I've found seem to say 'believed to have had' or 'possibly had'.--MartinUK (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is how the article describes the list. Obviously, in her days, the diagnosis of CFS hadn't been invented yet, and ME and other clinical diagnoses also had yet to be defined. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective diagnoses[edit]

Since CFS is a relatively recent diagnosis, it really can only be made from the 80's onwards; anything before that point I would suggest putting in a "retrospective diagnoses" section, with a lead of "It has been suggested that the following historical people suffered from CFS." The sourcing should be to the usual WP:RS. Per the discussion at Wikipedia:RSN#Nightingale Research Foundation, Florence Nightingale is not an automatic inclusion and should be discussed before being added. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 14:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be carefully worded, but in view of the fact that the ME awareness day is her birthday, she can't really be missed IMHO. Fram found an excellent source for our purposes, I think.[1] Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By one province in Canada, by the provincial government, which is subject to advocacy from non-professionals. CFS is a medical problem, and retrospective diagnoses should come from some source that has medical respectability. McDonald's citation is to the Nightingale Research Foundation (I was in error, it wasn't published by Keen), which has been established as an unreliable source for the claim. McDonald's actual statement is "More recently there has been speculation that Nightingale suffered from "chronic fatigue syndrome" or myalgic encephalomyelitis", with a footnote leading to the heartily unconvincing citation of "A Canadian ME/CFS institute is named the Nightingale Research Foundation". This is not an endorsement by McDonald of the hypothesis, and the NRF itself has been established as insufficiently reliable in this RSN discussion. Pending further sources, Nightingale should not be appended to the list. As stated by Paul B, this would require an expert on Nightingale suggesting the diagnosis, not an advocacy group. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The government doesn't agree with you, so you conclude that they were tricked by patient advocates. Great going there, WLU. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The government is a political body, not a scientific body or historical body. Accordingly, it responds to the opinions of citizens, not the results of research or academic consensus that are the requirements of WP:RS. To date no reliable sources have been presented to indicate academic consensus on FN having CFS, so I think we're done pending further sources. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody claims any such consensus, so we don't need to look for any sources for it. Please stick to the actual topic. Is she, or is she not, believed (by some, what else?) to have suffered from ME/CFS? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the whole discussion - the whole discussion is "Is she believed by a relevant expert or group of experts to have suffered from ME/CFS?" We do not include all opinions; the lower threshold is that of WP:UNDUE - "[we] generally [do] not include tiny-minority views at all...Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views...(from Jimbo)If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Merely because we can verify the opinion doesn't mean we have to include it. Failing one or more reliable sources to attribute this view to, we shouldn't be including it. If you are aware of any actual reliable sources that claim she had CFS, present them so we can discuss. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of expert opinions, nor of opinions in general for that matter, but of notable knowledge. I submit that the collective, world-wide 'celebration' of ME awareness day on FN's birthday is notable knowledge. Sources don't need to establish that experts agree with such use or belief, only that they agree it exists. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wikipedia is an encyclopedia of expert, or at least notable opinions. That's the implications of WP:NPOV. Your submission is WP:OR and opinion. Sources do indeed have to establish that experts agree, that's the entire thrust of UNDUE. There's a reason we don't allow anyone with a blog, or any post on a web forum, or any website to be used as a source. NRF falls under the last category - it's a website for an organization that doesn't seem to have sufficient mainstream support to appear on wikipedia. I think I'm about done here, the fact that I didn't have to paraphrase WP:UNDUE to make my point suggests that there's nothing else to say. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to redefine Wikiepdia's purpose, then you are most certainly done here, thanks. We'll see, you are often 'done' only to continue immediately after. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I keep finding new misapprehensions to correct. I believe my are opinions aer correct because they seem to have community support for the most part. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See? I was right, you were not done at all. Perhaps now; one can hope. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could always take the high road and simply not reply to this comment. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 20:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of OR on Florence Nightingale[edit]

I am removing the Florence Nightingale originial research, the British Columbia parlament notes for that resolution are one member rising to recognize May 12 as "International Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Day" there is nothing about link on Florence Nightingale, that is original research. Also the Parlament had another member rise to recognize May 12 as Florence Nightingale day and there were programs for nurses, no explicit link. I can't find any news stuff about it, it is not notable it is OR from primary source that also recognizes the Honorable member from Banff Cochrane on their birthday!!

OK, the book, Guido takes one sentence from the book, takes out the sentence part of CFS. The sentence says there is speculation, i agree, we know the speculation is by a few activists that want to have Florence NIghtingale as their mascot, that is great i understand it but it is not for WP, sorry. RetroS1mone talk 21:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you label this as orginal research. What do you mean by 'one member rising'? ME awareness day is celebrated as May 12 all over the world, how is that not notable? If you can't find any news about, that is your shortcoming. I can. Why would a primary source be wrong and why would it be wrong to cite the relevant part of a reliable secondary source? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the Parlamentary procedings where they discuss it. No link between Florence Nightingale and the awareness day, so OR. RetroS1mone talk 04:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source, please? So why are all patient organizations using her birthday as ME awareness day? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw here is another secondary source to support my text, one that is considered reliable on another CFS page.
  • Jason LA, Taylor RR, Plioplys S, Stepanek Z, Shlaes J (2002), "Evaluating attributions for an illness based upon the name: chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalopathy and Florence Nightingale disease", Am J Community Psychol 30(1):133–48, pmid=11928774 Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people?[edit]

According to the lead and page description, this list could include anyone with a diagnosis that is reported in a reliable source. That's theoretially thousands of people. Should it be restricted to only those who are notable, i.e. only those with a separate wiki page? Otherwise it runs the risk of being filled by everyone and their blog. Ha. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 20:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly so far notable people and notable cases have been added. It's quite sobering to see that most of the others are notable for things achieved before their CFS began, or for complete destruction of their lives when the illness struck.--MartinUK (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why since having CFS isn't relevant to the criteria to pass WP:N or WP:PEOPLE
The other option could be that some people could be notable, but the entry hasn't been created yet. The lazy man's road is to delete the redlinks rather than investigate and create the page, and I'm for the most part a lazy man.
Note that my original reason for erasing Tom Clarke (politician) was equal parts no source and because Tom Clarke is a disambiguation page and I couldn't tell which Tom Clarke it was (particularly given it's not on his actual wikipage that he had CFS!) I'm glad I checked a bit more thoroughly, I was itchy on the revert button.
Given that your name is MartinUK, perhaps you could answer a question from an ignorant North American (especially appaling 'cause I'm Canadian and technically we're still ruled by the Queen) - in this edit, I changed nationalities to flag icons. As part of that, I tried to use {{flagcountry}} for those who identified as "British" and got a broken template. Instead I used  England throughout for both those identified as "British" and those identified as "English". Would {{flagcountry|UK|name = British}} ( British) be more appropriate? Or {{flagcountry|UK|name = United Kingdom}} ( United Kingdom)? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think British is the way to go, for not only for English but also Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people. Incidentally Tom Clarke (politician)'s page states that he had M.E.(Myalgic encephalomyelitis, which is a common British name for the condition.--MartinUK (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, flag of the united Kingdom, name of British? Then I don't get to show off my mad template skills :( I like the individual entries for Scotland versus England, I'll trust your grasp of UK politics is far superior to mine.
Ya, I know ME and CFS are synonymous, but on wiki we use CFS (switching between names across and within pages isn't useful to the reader, particularly when virtually everyone considers them the same condition). His page only spelled it out in the external links title (if I'm in a hurry, I usually crtl-f for keywords rather than read) and I missed the body text reference, my bad certainly in this case. I'll adjust both pages. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it just be easier to use the Wikipedia functionality to collect this list?[edit]

Various other illnesses have a "suffers" category so why not just add a CFS suffers category as I have discussed in the CFS talk page and tag any BLP or BIO or recently deceased where than the article discusses the person as having the illness. We should assume that the editors of the article have done their stuff. Once we've done this the need for this article is somewhat less. -- TerryE (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this article would go away in favor of Category:People with chronic fatigue syndrome? Ward20 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a fine idea, but I do not know how to do that! Meanwhile, could someone add Roger King (novelist) to this list? He wrote Love and Fatigue in America, published in 2012. Prairieplant (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of people with chronic fatigue syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people with chronic fatigue syndrome. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people with chronic fatigue syndrome. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_with_ME/CFS&oldid=1208281475"