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