Misplaced Pages

Talk:Phineas Gage: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:04, 26 August 2014 editChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers457,369 edits Ready for GA?: add← Previous edit Revision as of 06:38, 26 August 2014 edit undoBgwhite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users547,151 edits Ready for GA?: It appears EEng is editing against consensus.Next edit →
Line 50: Line 50:
*And EEng continues to repeatedly return all the faults to the article. Apparently, EEng does not care that templates within cite templates messes up the data. Also it seems that EEng's invisible comments, like that of what he finds "attractive formatting", are supposed to be allowed to remain despite not performing a usable function. EEng seems more content to let editorial comments and other issues like ] matter remain indefinitely. Gosh, this is a bad case of ] and ] which is highlighted by EEng's continued ignorance of the matter despite numerous attempts to inform, by myself and others. Not only that, despite three editors in this very discussion, EEng chose to revert them again and continue the matter from many months ago. It seems EEng has a big problem with MOS and I'll place a formal notice that the MOS is also under discretionary sanctions by Arbcom because it seems the problem is continuing on the actual discussion pages as well. ] (]) 05:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC) *And EEng continues to repeatedly return all the faults to the article. Apparently, EEng does not care that templates within cite templates messes up the data. Also it seems that EEng's invisible comments, like that of what he finds "attractive formatting", are supposed to be allowed to remain despite not performing a usable function. EEng seems more content to let editorial comments and other issues like ] matter remain indefinitely. Gosh, this is a bad case of ] and ] which is highlighted by EEng's continued ignorance of the matter despite numerous attempts to inform, by myself and others. Not only that, despite three editors in this very discussion, EEng chose to revert them again and continue the matter from many months ago. It seems EEng has a big problem with MOS and I'll place a formal notice that the MOS is also under discretionary sanctions by Arbcom because it seems the problem is continuing on the actual discussion pages as well. ] (]) 05:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:* Actually, EEng was already made aware and the filter seems to have noted that it has not been one year since last posting, or so it seems. I also noted this in July. Though I am not keen on going through more of this MOS and other issues with EEng. It is like SSDD and not even pointing out that the templates being used offer any advantage to readable characters, or even function, seem to give pause. {{ping|Chiswick Chap}}, another editor, {{ping|Bgwhite}} further highlighted the problem with EEng's persistence of using templates within cite templates and removed them. Discussions with EEng have been useless and this is becoming a problem. ] (]) 06:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC) :* Actually, EEng was already made aware and the filter seems to have noted that it has not been one year since last posting, or so it seems. I also noted this in July. Though I am not keen on going through more of this MOS and other issues with EEng. It is like SSDD and not even pointing out that the templates being used offer any advantage to readable characters, or even function, seem to give pause. {{ping|Chiswick Chap}}, another editor, {{ping|Bgwhite}} further highlighted the problem with EEng's persistence of using templates within cite templates and removed them. Discussions with EEng have been useless and this is becoming a problem. ] (]) 06:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::* I have to agree that removing most of EEng's peculiarities is a good thing. Other users will be editing this page, not just EEng. Having strange and unnecessary formatting only complicates things. From ], "The simplest markup is often the easiest to edit, the most comprehensible, and the most predictable." Majority of the zwsp, nbsp, ndash templates should be removed. There are cases where it is needed. nbsp just before ellipsis per ] for example. Just because {{tl|nbsp}}, {{t|mdashb}} and {{t|thinsp}} can be used, doesn't mean they have to be used. In the case of this article, over used. EEng reverts of mine goes directly against cite template documentation. It appears EEng is editing against consensus. If this is the case, ANI or other forum should be used. ] (]) 06:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:38, 26 August 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phineas Gage article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Former good article nomineePhineas Gage was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 20, 2005Good article nomineeListed
June 14, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 19, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 13, 2012.
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WPCD-People Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Society Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconTrains Low‑importance
WikiProject icon
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNeuroscience Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Phineas Gage: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2024-11-10


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Pitch in
  • Labor relations, contractor/sucontractor, blasting skill: Macmillan 2000 discusses (a) Gage's status as a (sub?)contractor; (b) volatility of labor relations in contemporary RR construction; (c) the skill required in blasting -- relate to Gage's preaccident character, personality, and skill.
  • More on accident itself: A feedback item requested more on "how it happened":
    •  Done Not easy because Harlow and Bigelow (and people quoted by them) are slightly discrepant on this (was the sand omitted? was he speaking to his men? where was he sitting?)
    •  Done In relation to this, more on the mechanics of blasting would help (there are plenty of out-of-copyright blasting manuals -- e.g. from DuPont -- that can be used).
    •  Not done Other comments imply need to be more explicit that the iron passed through (i.e. wasn't lodged).
  •  Done Re "Crowbar": Confusion re connotation of a crowbar as having a hook/claw, variation on meaning of this term according to time and place -- still needs clarification. This may require some work on the articles on crowbar, pry bar etc.
  • Re phrase "American Crowbar Case": Barker suggests that the frequency with which this term appears in 19th c literature reflects the ascendency of Bigelow's interpretation of the case, since he (and not Harlow) described Gage's iron as a "crowbar".
    • The specific origin of that specific phrase should be added to the article if possible.
  • "Bigelow describes the iron's taper as seven inches long, but the correct dimension is twelve": See whether modern catalog has this info
  •  Done "the best fit rod trajectory did not result in the iron crossing the midline as has been suggested by some authors" (such as H.Damasio) Need cite here both to H Damasio and to Van Horn's cite to it
  • General review of Van Horn Table 3 for material usable in article
  • Find material on missing molar such as Harlow 1868 p.17, Van Horn (several points)
  •  Done "Gage certainly displayed some kind of change in behavior after his injury" Likely other papers + Macmillan 2000 can be cited here a well ] (talk)]
  • "Gage was hired by his employer in advance":
    • Need to check that cites given here cover this: "report was discovered calling Gage mentally unimpaired during his last years in Chile ... and since then a description of what may have been his daily work routine there as a stagecoach driver, and advertisements for two previously unknown public appearances"
    • More info/cites in Macmillan Gagepage, "Unanswered Questions", Wilgus, "Meet Phineas Gage"; and/or Wilgus/Macmillan "More about Gage"
  • In brain damage discussion, add Macmillan 2000, 2008; van horn p.14 re chain of brain damage uncertainties (blood loss, infection, bone fragments, path, position of brain, individual locations of regions)
    • Greenblatt Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 2001, 75, 798-799 and (apparently a different paper)
    • Macmillan 2000 p.82, 84
    • Bone fragments, infection etc. also mentioned at OKF p.469
  • Bring in discussion (Macmillan 2008) re the importance of the hinging effect in minimizing concussive effects -- this might be integrated with Harlow's quote re the shape of the iron and reasons for Gage's survival.  Not done Your humble colleague (I) has made a thorough search and cannot find this passage, which he concludes he may have hallucinated. EEng (talk)
  • Ordia, JI (1989). "Neurologic function seven years after crowbar impalement of the brain". Surgical Neurology 32: 152–155 discusses significance of projectile speeds below 1000 ft/sec in reduced concussive damage.
  • combined with the lack of information about his behavioral changes In addition to Macmillan 2000 p.290 there are likely additional Macmillan references on lack of info on behavioral changes; maybe Barker too
  • "managed to enlist Gage in support of their theories": Material at Macmillan 2000 p.188 should be brought in as well
  • Ferrier cited Gage as proof that it is :
    • In addition to Ferrier cite this section could use cites re conflicting claims on whether frontal lobes do or don't have any function
    • Localization and frontal function are the main 19th C tugs-of-war; there may be parallels in the 20th C as well
  • Re lobotomy non-relationship to Gage, see Macmillan 2000 cites to Valenstein
    • material from Valenstein may be useful here as well
  •  Done (EEng (talk)) Harlow (1868) gives the date of Gage's death as May 21, 1861: Need pg#
  • American Phrenological J: could use more material from Macmillan 2000 pp.349-50 re similarities to Harlow 1848 etc.

Items taken Sept 2015 from hidden notes in source:

  • For description of tamping iron, see material from Warren Mus. catalog, "smoothly blunt" point, etc.
  • Re the report that Gage's jaw was broken, the cites given may be duplicative; also, a secondary source describing the path of the iron in laymen's terms would be useful; also see Bigelow re coronoid process
  • There are slight conflicts among sources re punctuation and formatting of the tamping iron inscription
  • For Gage's "lecture" appearances, other potential cites are Meet Phineas Gage (Wilgus), More About Gage (Macmillan on Wilgus site), Unanswered Qs in Macmillan 2008
  •  Done The images File:Simulated Connectivity Damage of Phineas Gage 4 vanHorn PathwaysDamaged left.jpg and File:Simulated Connectivity Damage of Phineas Gage 4 vanHorn PathwaysDamaged right.jpg should be combined into a single image, with one caption. ] (talk)]


  • "The use of a single case to prove opposing views on phrenology was not uncommon." Bring in fact that Harlow knew Gage before the accident, and possibly class-based expectations re social behavior.
  • Cerebral location section needs expansion
  • "both sides managed to enlist Gage in support of their theories" Bring in additional material from Macmillan 2000 p.188
  • Ferrier "absolutely dominating feature": Check page #s in {{ran|M5|p=198,253}; add material on basic question of whether frontal regions have any function at all; add more re Goulstonian Lecture's effect on opinion about Gage
  • "It is frequently said that what happened to Gage played a part in the later development of various forms of psychosurgery" Give specific examples of people saying this, plus mention Freeman's use of Gage story as a delay tactic with reporter
  • "Macmillan{ran|M|p=116-19,326,331} gives detailed criticism of Antonio Damasio's various presentations of Gage": See notes in Macmillan 2000 for pages cited, and other Macmillan papers may be useful on this as well; specify which of AD's works
  • Would be nice to have an img of the lifemask at the point it's mentioned.
  • "as could hardly have been done by any one in whose sagacity and surgical knowledge his 'confreres had any less confidence": further background on this should be available in Macmillan 2000 and Barker, possibly Macmillan, "John Martyn Harlow"
  • "A considerable number of medical gentlemen also visited the case at various times to satisfy their incredulity": {ran|M|p=42} page range may need expanding. Possibly this note could be integrated into the main text.
  • Some of the pdfs hosted at Countway/Warren Mus. site could be uploaded to Commons
  • Pagination problems:
    • Add pg #s to Ordia, Mitchell sources
    • Add pg #s to Wilgus (2009, J Hist Neurosci), Wilgus (2009, Daguerreian Soc.), Twomey cites
    • Harlow 1868: Journal version (seen in Macmillan 2000) versus offprint (seen in Commons images) (also need issue # in citation)
    • Macmillan 2008: version linked from the citation doesn't match the pagination from the version available as an offprint from publisher's website
  • Citations need checking (most can be found in Macmillan 2000):
    •  Done (EEng (talk)) rename=anonymous_C: Macmillan 2000 p.40n7 gives reprint information
    • Ref name=ferrier1877_9: check format and citation data
    •  Done (EEng (talk)) Harlow 1848: Harlow 1868 cites this as #20 of volume 39, but this needs confirmation
    • Jackson 1849: Give location in Macmillan 2000 where this is imaged or transcribed; get page # and check case # (and other details) of citation
    •  Done (EEng (talk)) Harlow 1849: Need specific date
    •  Done (EEng (talk)) Macmillan 2008: Check volume and issue #
  •  Done (EEng (talk)) Re "public appearances in the larger New England towns": Add Gage's visit to Bigelow in Boston and his presentation to the Boston Society for Medical Improvement (described in Macmillan 2000)
  •  Done (EEng (talk)) It was the first likeness of Gage identified since the life mask taken by Bigelow in late 1849.: Check the date of the life mask and that cites cover "by Bigelow"
  •  Done(EEng (talk)) Re Ratiu discussion of hole at base of cranium and "skull hinged open": Possibly this should be discussed in main text (instead of note) -- notice there is (or was) an image illustrating the "hinging".
  •  Done (EEng (talk)) The '1850 communication calling Gage "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar"' should be added to the source list
  •  Done (EEng (talk)) "Most commentators still rely on hearsay and accept what others have said about Gage, namely, that after the accident he became a psychopath..." Need page #
  •  Done (EEng (talk)) "Attributes typically ascribed to the post-accident Gage" : Each of these needs a cite (most are in Macmillan 2008 or 2000 -- or Kotowicz)
  •  Done (EEng (talk)) Harlow's relocation to Woburn should be mentioned. Sources: Macmillan 2000, Macmillan "Simple Country Physician"
  •  Done (EEng (talk)) The 1994 conclusion of H. Damasio et al., that both frontal lobes were damaged, was drawn by modeling not Gage's skull but rather a "Gage-like" one: Explain the "Gage-like" similarity issue
  •  Done Identify issue of s:Recovery from the passage of an iron bar through the head; Someone added a note in the wikitext: "something somewhere says n3 of v2"
  • Would it make sense to add a geo coord for the accident site?
  • Some of the subpage titles for the Phineas Gage Information Page seem to be out of date.
  • Cites in lead for "perhaps the first case to suggest that damage to specific parts of the brain might induce specific personality change", and those later for 'Gage is considered the "index case for personality change due to frontal lobe damage", are presumably saying much the same thing, so see about integrating them.
  • In this version , cites in lead re brain vs. personality, and injury to specific parts of brain vs. specific personality changes, need to be sorted out as to which cites are for which of those two
  • Maybe add some specific popcult examples
  • More could be said about Harlow's ideas re vis vitae, vis conservatrix, vis medicatrix naturae etc. (OKF p.58)
  • Nye cite apparently has the wrong author -- he seems to be the volume editor. The page #s need checking as well.
  •  Done JBS Jackson, "Medical Cases" is quoted as terming Gage "quite feeble and thin", but this is not reported in Macmillan 2000, p.93 -- check original. (Original MS checked.)
  • Exceptionally good presentation:
  • Review Kihlstrom, esp. cite to Gardner . p. 768 re "mental manifestations" as phrenological jargon.
  • Ditto William & Mary Law Review Volume 63 (2021-2022) Issue 4 Imagining the Future of Law and Neuroscience Symposium Article 5 3-1-2022 How Experts Have Dominated the Neuroscience Narrative in Criminal Cases for Twelve Decades: a Warning for the Future - Deborah W. Denno ("striking parallels between how experts have portrayed Gage over nearly two centuries and how experts in the legal community characterize defendants with brain injuries today") (cites: Deborah W. Denno, Analysis of Law Review Articles Mentioning Phineas Gage (July 30, 2021) (unpublished document) (on file with author))
  • Footprints of Phineas Gage Historical Beginnings on the Origins of Brain and Behavior and the Birth of Cerebral Localizationism Shelley, Bhaskara P. Archives of Medicine and Health Sciences 4(2):p 280-286, Jul–Dec 2016. | DOI: 10.4103/2321-4848.196182
  • Phineas Gage: A Neuropsychological Perspective of a Historical Case Study Alan G. Lewandowski, Joshua D. Weirick, Caroline A. Lewandowski, Jack Spector Pages 1079–1109
Archiving icon
Archives (index)

Index 1, 2



This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Ready for GA?

I note that this article is in a pretty good state for a GA candidate, if rather heavy on notes and images. I have "boldly" removed disputed claims - some of many months' standing - to make way for a possible GA nomination. I am aware that this trimming may feel uncomfortable to some editors, but I suggest that the changes are really very minor (mainly to notes, not the main text), and leave the article in a cleaner and more defensible state. I'd also remind everyone that it is not the role of a Misplaced Pages article to speculate or to take sides in disputes about content or historical fact, but just to describe the evidence: this I think the article now does. Given the amount of work that has gone into the article, it should really not find GA much of a hurdle this time around. My tuppence worth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits—they look good. Re cleaning the wikitext: there are still 37 {{hyp}} and 5 {{hyphen}}—I think they should be replaced with hyphens as well in order to give simple wikitext that editors expect. On that line, why not replace {{ndash}} and {{mdashb}}? Are all the {{nbsp}} and {{zwsp}} needed? There are still a few page number ranges using a hyphen (some using a template) rather than an en dash. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Done some more. I think the nbsp chars are probably all right; the zwsp chars are likely not needed but a matter of opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It does look massively better, I fully support the Wiki markup corrections and note that there is a clear consensus for those changes, previously I and other editors have removed them only for it to be repeatedly restored. As part of the GA matter, I still believe there are some significant issues here related to improper OR and such. The "CavendishVermont_1869Map_Beers_AnnotatedPhineasGageLocations.jpg" is an OR created by EEng that does not exist in any published source. I see no reason to use quotations like "abrupt and intrusive visitor" instead of appropriate writing. The article still needs a copyedit by most means and there is still an issue of the omission with his known appearances and return to New Hampshire. The issue of the date of death needs to be covered properly because Macmillian's actual book makes an error in the details itself. Also, despite evidence and several accounts that say Gage was buried with the tamping rod, the sources didn't come from Harlow's text. The names and circumstance of the exhumation were given and how Harlow came to possess the item - things which Harlow did not recount. Quotes being used without citation as per WP:MINREF are an issue to. Nevermind the Notes section issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I also support making a lot of the formatting more standard, per typical good Misplaced Pages pages, and even some paring back of the footnotes. If GA review will improve this page in those ways, then I think that it will be a good idea. I also feel the need to point out the possibility that such changes to the page may end up being contentious, and so anyone seeking to be bold may need to be prepared for that eventuality. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, please see Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD for a lengthy list of issues that ought to be fixed as part of a GA review. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've restored the removed material, with cites where they had been missing.
  • I've also reverted most of the markup changes. As MOS says, "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." Making the markup more like "typical" pages (read: what certain editors happen to be used to seeing) is not a good reason -- otherwise there would be only one way to do things, which there isn't; and note that WP:Good_article_criteria has nothing at all to say about formatting. MOS explicitly encourages use of many of the elements that were removed e.g. {{mdashb}} and {{thinsp}}.
EEng (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • And EEng continues to repeatedly return all the faults to the article. Apparently, EEng does not care that templates within cite templates messes up the data. Also it seems that EEng's invisible comments, like that of what he finds "attractive formatting", are supposed to be allowed to remain despite not performing a usable function. EEng seems more content to let editorial comments and other issues like Template:Shy matter remain indefinitely. Gosh, this is a bad case of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT which is highlighted by EEng's continued ignorance of the matter despite numerous attempts to inform, by myself and others. Not only that, despite three editors in this very discussion, EEng chose to revert them again and continue the matter from many months ago. It seems EEng has a big problem with MOS and I'll place a formal notice that the MOS is also under discretionary sanctions by Arbcom because it seems the problem is continuing on the actual discussion pages as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, EEng was already made aware and the filter seems to have noted that it has not been one year since last posting, or so it seems. I also noted this in July. Though I am not keen on going through more of this MOS and other issues with EEng. It is like SSDD and not even pointing out that the templates being used offer any advantage to readable characters, or even function, seem to give pause. @Chiswick Chap:, another editor, @Bgwhite: further highlighted the problem with EEng's persistence of using templates within cite templates and removed them. Discussions with EEng have been useless and this is becoming a problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to agree that removing most of EEng's peculiarities is a good thing. Other users will be editing this page, not just EEng. Having strange and unnecessary formatting only complicates things. From MOS:MARKUP, "The simplest markup is often the easiest to edit, the most comprehensible, and the most predictable." Majority of the zwsp, nbsp, ndash templates should be removed. There are cases where it is needed. nbsp just before ellipsis per MOS:ELLIPSIS for example. Just because {{nbsp}}, {{mdashb}} and {{thinsp}} can be used, doesn't mean they have to be used. In the case of this article, over used. EEng reverts of mine goes directly against cite template documentation. It appears EEng is editing against consensus. If this is the case, ANI or other forum should be used. Bgwhite (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Categories: