Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tone of Voice

It seems to me that this article is not subjective, and is instead trying to present an idea. The article seems to argue that Gage's mind was not severely changed by his injury. While this is all very well, it is not the correct tone for a Wikipedia article. The article should be changed not to present an idea, but to merely state the facts. mrscientistman (talk)Mrscientistman —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

I changed the text to clarify that the uncertainty regards the extent, nature, and duration of psychological changes, not whether there were any such changes at all. I hope this relieves your concern. (It is recognized that there are a lot of citations still needed.) EEng (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon clarification

Was Gage originally from Lebanon? The article merely states he wanted to "go home to Lebanon", and does not indicate if this is homesickness or psychosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.1.162 (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon, New Hampshire (Gage's hometown) is what was meant. 24.147.70.156 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

older entries

Removed the following:

As a less positive result, this case also helped lead to the creation of frontal lobotomy, which was a quite controversial psychosurgical measure in use in the early 20th century that has been since superseded.

As it is almost certainly erroneous. Unfortunately the Moniz page on whonamedit.com (see this link) suggests a connection between Gage and the development of psychosurgery where there is very little evidence to support it.

There is a page with a comprehensive analysis of this issue here which again suggests the development of lobotomy / leucotomy procedures by Moniz and Freeman and Watts had little to do with Gage's case.

- Vaughan 21:11, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Very well. I had read that a while ago, but if it is truly disconnected then perhaps it was better to remove it. I won't push this anymore except to say that we should probably mention in the article that a connection between Gage and leucotomy has been suggested by some groups of people, but is not generally accepted. -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 06:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added some text to that effect (and the link above). Feel free to make changes if necessary. - Vaughan 09:23, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hanna Damasio and not Antonio as first writter of the investigation mentioned

The person that really investigated about Phineas Gage and made the computer simulation (see picture) that appears in the article mentioned was Hanna Damasio and not his husband Antonio. She is the first writter (and therefore the most important one) while his husband is only one of a group of secondary writters. Even if Antonio is a better known neurologist this is no reason to give him the merit of an article. Antonio himself in his book Descarte´s error says that was his wife the one conducting this investigation.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garrondo (talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Images copyrighted

I suspect that these images are copyrighted as they both come from journal articles: Image 1, Image 2. If you uploaded them, can you provide some copyright information for them, otherwise they are liable to be removed. Vaughan 13:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know what image this refers to, but there;s no way a photo from the 19th century is still under copyright!!!!!! The article seems to imply that a 19th century image is under copyright. If you are referring to that, I suggest someone clean up the article by putting the images back. Unsigned comment by User:72.83.87.96 17 Jul 2009

The images referred to were ones removed from the article long ago. [...] EEng (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC) the rest of this post has been moved to the bottom

For the sake of completeness, this discussion is about two images which were uploaded by commons:User_talk:DrFlo1 and deleted at commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2005/06#Unknown_license_3.

The deleted images are unable to be restored, however the image descriptions say that they are "adapted from Ratiu P, Talos IF, Haker S, Liebermann D, Everett P, J Neurotrauma 2004".

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

== Image Reversed? ==

It appears the computer-generate image may be reversed, as compared with the image of the damage in Gage's skull.

Death?

Does anyone have any specific details to Gage's death? I've heard he has died of convulsions/seizures but I'm not sure. David 03:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

He died of convulsions (see Macmillan, p.108), though whether these were a late-manifesting result of the original injury is impossible to say. 24.147.70.156 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Another element of the accident

I don't have a citation for it (because I read it years ago, don't remember where), but regarding his accident, it was noted that the resulting hole was smaller than the diameter of the pipe, and recently it has been suggested that the skullbone suture at the top of his head flexed outward to allow the pipe to pass. I don't know if it's a significant addition to the article or if it would require a citation.--Anchoress 12:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, apparently Ratiu et al ( Ratiu P, Talos IF, Haker S, Lieberman S, Everett P (2004). "The tale of Phineas Gage, digitally remastered". Journal of Neurotrauma 21 (5): pp.637-43.) were the first to notice this. At http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2883334186873702319 is their video simulation of the skull hinging open as the bar passes through, then closing again. This may have been one more factor in Gage's survival, in that it provided room for the brain to move away from the bar as it passed through, making the damage "cleaner" -- in a physical, not sterile sense -- much as Harlow says the 1/4-inch leading point did. (Others more qualified have discussed this I'm sure -- this is just my layman's speculation.) EEng (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Apology for Tycho

I accidentally reverted to the wrong version, and attributed the vandalism to you. Sorry. It should be fixed now. Zuiram 06:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retain / Regain consciousness

Wasn't it so that he retained consciousness after having it shot trough the head? Nsoltani 15:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

He may not have lost consciousness at all, and if he did, it was only for a few minutes. See Malcolm Macmillan, An Odd Kind of Fame: Stories of Phineas Gage, 2000, p.406 24.147.70.156 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Double negative??

A recent change from "appears" to "would be unlikely" has reversed the meaning of this sentence: "In light of modern medical science, a bilateral damage of the frontal brain by a projectile measuring 1.25 inches in diameter and weighing thirteen pounds, appears would be unlikely to be incompatible with survival, since this would imply an extensive damage to vital vascular structures, such as the superior sagittal sinus..." Knowing little of modern medical science, could someone who knows more sort out the correct version? .. dave souza, talk 09:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Skip Ransom

I'm not really sure if this is something I could even put on the article, but at this link there is a song by the band Skip Ransom about Phineas Gage.--Spikymann 23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncited References

Specifically, this edit, which was undone by Garrondo. Really, a citation is needed there. Any specific reasons for undoing that edit? This is supposed to be a "good article", you know. I've put it up for Good Article Review. --24.199.103.240 15:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted becouse it will be really hard to find a citation for that since its simply historic common sense; and therefore I didn´t believe it was needed. How can the story of a destroyed life give impulse to a surgical thecnique? On the contrary; maybe if Moniz had heard of Phineas Gage he wouldn´t have been so eager to use his technique. Anyway; if somebody finds a citation for that I would the first to grate him/her.

I have been reading the links on the botton and one of them talked about why Phineas Gage had nothing to do with lobotomy; so I have changed it to citation--Garrondo 16:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

The Good Article review on this article has ended, and in a 3 to 1 discussion, (Or 3 to 0 depending on how you look at it, I counted one for GA status because he/she was trying to discount the reasons for delisting, even though he/she didn't actually seem to come out in favor of GA status) this article has been delisted from WP:GA, (or will be after i'm done making this comment anyway) primarily for various concerns over references. Review archived here: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 21. Homestarmy 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Phineas Gage skull replication

I am the author of the open-access paper below in which we replicated Phineas Gage's skull by printing a virtual reality model in 3D. The model has utility in medical, neuroscience, and biology education.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001119 Kelley DJ, Farhoud M, Meyerand ME, Nelson DL, Ramirez LF, Dempsey RJ, Wolf AJ, Alexander AL, Davidson RJ. Creating Physical 3D Stereolithograph Models of Brain and Skull. PLoS ONE. 2007 Oct 31;2(10):e1119. PMID: 17971879 [PubMed - in process]

Please consider including this in the physical remains and legacy section as well as the external references section.

Thank you for your consideration.

Dan Kelley UW-Madison

PS I mistakenly added our citation to the main page and apologize for my lack of protocol. Please adjust my entries accordingly.

Abe2mu 07:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dan, how open is "open". Is the entire article, with all images, video's, etc all covered by the Creative Commons license? If so, we can integrate all of those into this article, and we could even attempt to reproduce the journal article on Wikisource. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this the true story?

The Alberta Nelson Biology 30 textbook (from the old curriculum; the new one comes in next year) has a "Case Study" on Phineas Gage. Though the story is quite similar to the one in this article there are some major differences. The textbook says "In, 1948, a thunderous explosion vibrated throughout a Vermont mine. A quarry worker, Phineas Gage, lay on the ground impaled by a tamping iron." This article says "Phineas P. Gage (1823 – May 21, 1860) was a railroad construction foreman who suffered a traumatic brain injury when a tamping iron accidentally passed through his skull..." Which one is correct? It makes no sense that this would be a coincidence; both have the same name, lived in Vermont, and were impaled in the head with a tamping iron. Even the same death mask is shown in the textbook as on the article. On the other hand the dates are out by a century and the job varies (railroad/mine). Maybe the textbook's story was altered for copyright issues? Though, in that case, they might as well make a completely fictional story. I was just curious. Thanks. –bse3 (talk • contribs • count • logs) 03:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It must be a printing error in the textbook. The journal articles from 1848 are really real. see Wikisource:Author:John M. Harlow, M.D., which has the full text of one of the articles, and snippets of the other article. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just thought it was weird and wasn't sure which was correct, but deep down I really trusted Wikipedia :) –bse3 (talk • contribs • count • logs) 22:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a typical example of the way in which even serious textbooks, articles, etc. repeat fractured accounts of Gage without verifying the facts. Macmillan has a whole chapter on this, giving many examples. 24.147.70.156 (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat suprised

that nobody has put forth the seemingly common sense answer that even if my brain were unaffected the never ending pain of having such and injury would make anyone likely irritable and take up cursing as well. Section "3.1 Criticism of popular story" seems like a good place to say something about it (even thought that pat of the article presents the possibility the story is exaggerated or inaccurate) but I haven't the foggiest how to mention something along those lines and still fit an encyclopedic format. The possibility exists that his brain damage may have had little to do with his apparent attitude change, and more to due with trauma pain and a lack of understanding with friends and coworkers. I am painfully (pun intended) aware of how this can happen, having a similar injury of my own. 216.46.209.216 (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, someone has. See Zbigniew Kotowicz, "The strange case of Phineas Gage," History of the Human Sciences, Vol. 20, No. 1, 115-131 (2007). You might find an abstract here: http://hhs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/1/115 . 24.147.70.156 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Substantial revisions

A few weeks back I made a few corrections and revisions, after which I got bolder and bolder, so looking back now I realize that I've changed things a great deal. This is my first time contributing, so please be gentle. I hope I did everything appropriately, though I realize that citations are needed (too tired just now) and that I need an account if I'm going to carry on with this. 24.147.70.156 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Be sure that if your work was not for better it would have been reverted. This article is an important one for neuropsychology but it has not been edited much in the past months so any contribution would be welcomed. Well done. However as you say citations would be very useful (Access to McMillan book seems a need), and having an account always helps to do things more personal. --Garrondo (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Burial of the rod

Discussion started at User_talk:EEng#Reversion_of_my_edit_on_Gage

user:Sbharris recently added that the rod was buried with body[1], and it was reverted by EEng[2]. Sbharris has pointed out that it is mentioned on p 59 of John Fleishman's book, which reads:

With her son-in-law and the mayor of San Francisco, who happens to be a physician, standing by as witnesses, Phineas's coffin is unrecovered and carried to a shed. There, Dr. J. D. B. Stillman, a local surgeon, removes the skull. The huge fracture on the forehead is unmistakable. Dr. Stillman removes something else from the coffin-the tamping iron that Phineas carried everywhere, even to his grave.

EEng has mentioned on his talk page that he will respond in a few days. In the meantime, does anyone else know of another source for this?

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For those joining the discussion late, here are the original comments left by Sbharris at User_talk:EEng:

Reversion of my edit on Gage I've always been curious about people who revert things rather than simply adding a tag. Reversion is for cases where one fancies themselves an expert on the subject, and is pretty sure the addition is wrong or unsourcable. But this is not such a case. But the tamping iron burial is a very commonly known bit of data about Gage, and obviously your bookshelf lacks John Fleishman's book on Phineas Gage where the burial of the rod with Gage, and recovery of them both by Dr. J.D.B Stillman is mentioned on page 59 (Shattuck takes them both east that December, to Harlow). You can actually find the text if you google "Phineas Gage burial". No, I didn't add the ref. I'll leave it for you do to, as penance for doing things wrong on Wikipedia. Don't revert other people's stuff unless you're sure you know what you're doing.

SBHarris 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And here is my response:

That something is "commonly known" makes it neither true nor verifiable, and this is never so important as when the topic is Phineas Gage. "The factual record is small, and the most important element of it – Harlow’s 1868 report – not readily available, and most who have written about Phineas have been too lazy or slipshod to check it. Paradoxically, the very slightness of reliable fact which allows myths about Phineas to flourish also makes disentangling those myths a conceptually easy, if tedious, task." (Macmillan, "Phineas Gage – Unravelling the myth." The Psychologist 21,9 (2008): 828-831, at 831.) How truly good Fortune has favored us – public-spirited Wikipedians with egos in check – by puiptting before us this opportunity for us to disentangle one such myth (?) together!

The image of Gage at rest alongside what Harlow called "his constant companion for the remainder of his life" is a charming one, but one for which there is zero evidence to date. Taking down from my bookshelf John Fleischman's Phineas Gage: A Gruesome but True Story about Brain Science, I am reminded that it is a fine juvenile work which renders Gage's tale into an engaging transcontinental adventure for its young audience, working in some worthwhile science along the way. It does this by leavening established fact with measured bits of fancy – some drawn from the "popular, semifictional, and fictional works" Macmillan debunks, some from scientific writings which have uncritically borrowed from such works (Odd Kind of Fame, ch. 13-15), and some from the author's imagination.

For example, in the short passage from Fleischman quoted earlier we find the following "facts": Shattuck and Mrs. Gage were personally present at the exhumation; Stillman (and not, say, San Francisco mayor Henry Perrin Coon) was the one who actually detached poor Phineas' skull; the "shed." Among all the extant sources, there is only one brief mention of the actual event of the exhumation (Odd Kind of Fame, p.417) and nothing like these details appears there – they're all just made up.

I am in no way impugning Fleischman's book: as a popular-science work for children, it does a very good job. But the very features that make it (as John Vandenberg points out) a common entry on summer reading lists for middle-schoolers – the lively fictionalization coupled with the lack of stuffy scholarly apparatus – are gthe same things that disqualify it as a reference for grown-up purposes.

What I said in my Edit Summary – "If you do know of primary evidence, I'd very much like to know about it" – was sincere. Primary sources are generally not preferred for Wikipedia, but on Gage the primary record is so compact (Odd Kind of Fame reproduces essentially its entirety) that for questions of fact, there's no point in doing anything but just check that record directly.

Returning now to the question at hand: It is true, as you say, that "the tamping iron burial is a very commonly known bit of data about Gage." But you will find that every author offering that bit of data cites either to nothing, or else to something which (perhaps transitively) cites to nothing either. Certainly there may exist somewhere an undiscovered primary source, or neglected derivative work pointing to a such a source, which would establish the buried-iron factoid. And again I say that I would be delighted by such a discovery. But in the meantime, citing Fleischman in an article on Gage is akin to citing The Crucible in an article on witchcraft or (an example perhaps closer to your heart) using Copenhagen as a fact-source for the life of Bohr.

In summary, there is indeed no evidence that Gage's iron went to the grave with him. I can easily believe that 99.9% of your edits are superior, but this time you flew too close to the sun, particuluarly in the obnoxious stridency of your comments. Penance indeed!

EEng (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it might be more useful to ask Fleischman where he got his information, rather than to continue what has been essentially Macmillan's mission in life, which is to go around and label everybody who has Gage info that Macmillan can't verify from his own primary documents, as being "mythologizers." As I read between the lines, even in what Macmillan presents, it's pretty likely that the rod wasn't kicking around in Gage's family, owned by his mother or brother-in-law for six years, because if had been, they would likely have sent it immediately to Harlow when he first corresponded with Gage's mother in 1866. After all, the rod had been to Boston in the East without Gage before that-- why not again after his death? I can understand a family member wanting to accompany Gage's skull, but there's little reason to do that with a piece of metal. Why wait to send them both together? There's only one good and natural explanation, and you know it. They couldn't send them separately, because they had no access to the rod before the skull. Jackson, who Macmillan quotes, thanks three people for obtaining skull and rod: Coon the mayor (who certainly was not keeping the rod), Stillman the surgeon (ditto) and Shattuck the brother-in-law who transported both East with him after the exhumation. The mother is not mentioned, and would be if she'd kept it. If the rod was out all that time, was Shattuck keeping it in some corner? What on Earth FOR?

I'll see if I can find the original Harlow and Bigelow reports; they must have something to say on the matter. SBHarris 00:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(Snappy comeback thought of later: Well for that matter, why the delay from 1866 to 1867 for the exhumation?) The level of knowledge (and skill in marshalling that knowledge in support of a thesis) on display here means I would be far out of my league in even attempting rebuttal. I will say only:

• this discussion has, with amazing rapidity, become a vivid illustration of the wisdom of the no-original-research policy;
• nontheless I will be the first to congratulate you, should you manage turn up actual evidence for (or against) burial of the iron;
• I need not write to Fleischman because he and I have a mutual colleague, through whom I have known the answer to your question for a long time; and
• please end (I ask you once again) your use of personal slights ("Macmillan's mission in life"; "only one good and natural explanation, and you know it") in substitution for argument and evidence.

By the way, you shouldn't need to look far to "find the original Harlow and Bigelow papers": complete facsimiles appear in An Odd Kind of Fame – which of course is on your bookshelf. I wish you the best of luck in your researches, and hope that by the time we hear from you again you will have turned up something tangible. EEng (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cross edit. Yes, I know the reports are in Macmillan, but I can't find my copy of him either. You've known for years that Fleischman made this up? Why not just say that? Afraid I won't understand you? You're the one talking about NOR, but you're using the results of YOURS, here, in this. Irony.

Just change the article so say that nobody knows what happened to the rod between Gage's death and his exhumation, and one author has claimed (without citation) that it was buried with Gage. In any case, both became available to science at the same time, and were sent East to the requesting physician together. Let readers draw their own inferences. SBHarris 02:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Last edit. I don't know what you mean about being unable to find your copy of Macmillan "either"; mine's right here. I didn't mention what I know privately about Fleischman's sources exactly because that would be use of original, unpublished research, which in turn is what I was trying to point out to you – Wikipedia is not built by writing to authors to ask for their otherwise-unmentioned inspirations for obviously fictionalized works for children. And no, it never occurred to me that you wouldn't understand, although apparently in the event, you really did not: no matter what Fleischman might write back to you, if the answer isn't published somewhere openly, then it's not usable in Wikipedia. So what would be the point?

To reference Fleischman as an author who "has claimed (without citation)..." would be, I repeat, like citing Copenhagen for a life of Bohr. The article doesn't need to be, and should not be, a full catalog of the distortions and myths to which the Gage's story has been subjected over the years. Macmillan has done that admirably, and to excellent effect as a lesson in the history of science. Anyone interested in the minutiae of this particular controversy can find it all right here on Talk.

You've managed at last to post a reply that is not sneeringly disdainful, so pending arrival of new evidence – usable evidence – if we stop right now we can do so knowing that at least something rare was achieved, however ephemeral.

EEng (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, Fleischman's overactive imagination is NOT the source of the idea that the rod was buried with Gage. A Google of "Phineas Gage tamping iron buried" turns up three per-Fleischman references (Hockenbury 2002; Davidoff 2000; Phares&Chaplin, 1997) who all claim this same thing. I can't see their references on Google. But this factoid (repeated incidentally by H. Damasio herself in 2005 in a paper in which she discusses her CT of the skull for Social Neuroscience, as you also can read on Google) is not just from a children's tale. If it's myth, it's one that has been universally accepted. Perhaps I can get to the bottom of it. In the meantime, I suggest we mention THAT in the article, and that Macmillan has questioned it, because he can't find a source for it. Okay? SBHarris 03:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide full citations for the three per-Fleischman references? I cant find the 2005 paper by H. Damasio[3]; Social Neuroscience was established in 2006, and her only paper in that journal is as a contributor to "The neural substrates of cognitive empathy" doi:10.1080/17470910701376902. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

John, I CAN do that, but I have to type then in by hand, and then you still have to find the books. It's a lot easier if you'll do the Google string above in Google (not Google scholar). If this doesn't work for you, I'll see what I can do. http hits in google are often too long to work well as past-ups, but I'll try it for the Hanna Damasio, et al. paper. One copy of a similar or exactly the same paper by her (making the same clain of burial with the rod) is in Science 1994 May 20, 1994 v264 n5162 p1102(4). http://merlin.allegheny.edu/employee/l/lcoates/CoatesPage/INTDS_315/Phineas_Gage_Science_Article.pdf

Here's the Google Books Social Neuroscience cite (It's a book called: key readings: indeed 2005) of the same or similar paper by this group and I hope the link works for you: http://books.google.com/books?id=PqNs1L1SwPMC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=Phineas+Gage+tamping+iron+buried&source=web&ots=YRzOW3GKaI&sig=PfQhFwvcvaXx3q-Q5I7kKReeea0&hl=en&ei=BViYSczNPJLQsAPArsR4&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result The Book editors are John T. Cacioppo and Gary G. Berntson: books.google.com/books?isbn=1841690996. But again, this is basically the same 1994 CT paper by H. Damasio in Science. Apparently the Damiosos are a husband-and-wife team.

Here is Macmillan complaining in 2000 that Hockenbury and Hockenbury writing in 1997 have Gage buried with the rod. So this kind of thing has been going on for some times, long before poor Fleischman and his juvenile. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/jhin/2000/00000009/00000001/art00008

I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot, sbharris, but if you really want to pursue this let me save you time by supplying information that will guide your search and place it in context with what's already known. (Not that you should accept it uncritically -- would be great for you to double-check me -- but it will give you an overview and framework.) I can't do this for several days, but if you can wait... EEng (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no sweat. But again please do your Google and discover this is an old, old and widespread factoid, going back at least to 1997, and Macmillan has been railing about it since 2000 so it predates the two works WE started arguing with. I'm sure I read it in Oliver Sacks, or somewhere, long before THAT. If Macmillan hasn't tracked down the source of it, I think it's unlikely that we're going to be able to, since it appears to go back so far. SBHarris 18:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: User Sbharris, I drafted the below before your latest posting. Had I seen that post, I wouldn't have bothered. Nobody is attacking Fleischman. "Juvenile" is not a bad word -- it just means it's a book for children, and a good one at that. I know very well that the buried-rod idea goes way back, as you'll see below; nothing you're coming up with via Google is going to be news to me. We were never arguing (at least I wasn't) about "two articles"; I just said that there's no primary support for the buried rod, and tried to show you how you could discover that for yourself (by tracing citations back until they run out -- I know becuase I did it long ago).

But now all this nice work would go to waste if I don't post it. It tries to show you where you might check to determine the origin(s) of the "buired iron" idea since you seem to want to know. (I suspect multiple people came up with it independently, actually.) Now you seem to want to give up. Anyway, here it is. (All the cites below can be found in the bibliography of Odd Kind of Fame.)

For starters, I never said that Fleischman's imagination (and I will thank you to stop misrepresenting what I say by e.g. putting the word "overactive" in my mouth) was the source of the idea that the iron was buried. I said that the fictionalized parts of his book were drawn from popular stories, from scientific articles which have drawn from popular stories, and also from Fleischman's imagination. And I repeat that I consider his to be a fine book, for children.

Damasio et al 1994 refers to "...the skull and tamping iron, alongside which Gage had been buried...." This paper continues to receive a lot of attention, and I believe you could trace most or all bar-burial assertions in scientific/medical articles after 1994 to it (but do check me on this). Fleischman as well may have got the idea there, or from Blackington (see below).

So where did Damasio 1994 get the idea? There's no cite for that particular paragraph, though the paragraph immediately prior cites Ferrier 1878, and the paper's opening cites Harlow 1868. Ferrier 1878 merely refers to Harlow, "through whose interest in the man till death we owe the preservation of this unique specimen," citing, yes, Harlow 1868.

JBS Jackson's catalog of the Warren Museum (items 949 and 3106) says nothing about where the bar had been between death and exhumation of Phineas. Sbharris says that Jackson "thanks" Shattuck, Stillman, and Coon, and infers much from the idea that Gage's mother "is not mentioned." This is incorrect. Jackson was paraphrasing the thanks given to the family in Harlow 1868, which appears in two passages, but Jackson drew from only Harlow's second passage, quoted here:

I desire here, to express gratefully my obligations, and those of the Profession, to D.D. Shattuck, Esq., brother-in-law of the deceased; to Dr. Coon, Mayor of San Francisco, and to Dr. J.D.B. Stillman, for their kind cooperation in executing my plans for obtaining the head and tamping iron, and for their fidelity in personally superintending the opening of the grave and forwarding what we so much desired to see.

But earlier in the same paper, Harlow also said:

It is to be regretted that an autopsy could not have been had.... In consideration of this important omission, the mother and friends, waiving the claims of personal and private affection, with a magnaminity more than praiseworthy, at my request have cheerfully placed this skull (which I now show you) in my hands, for the benenfit of science.

Although "cheerfully" seems a strange adverb for the placing of a human skull into somebody's hands (whether for the benefit of science or any other purpose), in any event Gage's mother was indeed thanked. (It's really necessary to get all the context before jumping to conclusions.) Meanwhile, Harlow's "superintending" passage naturally leads one to conjecture that the iron was recovered from the grave along with the skull, but conjecture is all it is.

Finally, the numerous popular stories about Gage from 1869 on may very well have narrated an iron burial, inspired either by the conjecture which (as already described) one easily makes from Harlow 1868, or by borrowing from one another. Blackington 1956 is a particularly good candidate, but my xerox of him, like those of dozens of similar tales, is where I can't put my finger on it just now. Blackington 1956 is of special interest because Fleischman (in the 1990s at least) had been features editor of NH's Yankee magazine, the founder of which had acquired Blackington's papers in 1956. Unfortunately much of this material was lost, so we don't know what Blackington's sources were, but no doubt Fleischman drew inspiriation in part from Blackington 1956 (though I repeat I can't check Blackington just now to see if iron-burial is really in there).

So modern science articles may be borrowing iron-burial from Damasio 1994, or may be making the conjuecture directly from Harlow 1868. Damasio et al probably just misread Harlow. Fleischman (who contributed to Macmillan's researches, by the way) may have got it from Blackington, or Damasio, or...

One final note: there is another fictionalized account of Gage, Brooks 1869, which explicitly states that the bar was kicking around the house until the exhumation. Brooks was a San Francisco newspaper editor (and author on the side) and would have been acquainted with the family at least in passing. And there are indications he had access to family details not found elsewhere. So in fact, the one indicator we have about the iron's whereabouts, other than Harlow 1868, puts it above ground at all times.

But on the question of whether or not the burial should be asserted in the article as fact, none of this matters, because as I said way back there is only the one narrative extant of the exhumation – quoted above from Harlow 1868 – and it does not support an iron burial as fact, only suggestion. That leaves, as I also said way back, the possibility of "an undiscovered primary source, or neglected derivative work pointing to a such a source, which would establish the buried-iron factoid." I take it this is the quest you are on, and I have already wished you luck, though I warn you again I've been over this material pretty darn thoroughly. Without such new evidence it makes no sense to present this idea as fact.

It would also be inappropriate to present the buried-iron idea even as "disputed," assuming your inquiries confirm, as I've already said, that "every author offering that bit of data cites either to nothing, or else to something which (perhaps transitively) cites to nothing either." That's not something disputed, it's just commonly-heald myth without foundation. On the other hand, if do you find that "undiscovered primary source, or neglected derivative work pointing to a such a source, which would establish the buried-iron factoid"...well then, things would be different. But even if the undiscovered source doesn't turn up, this could still be the basis for an excellent addition to the article: an illustration of the persistence of unsupported statements about Gage, in the face of all evidence.

I leave you, finally, by repeating the quotation from Macmillan with which I opened my original post:

The factual record is small, and the most important element of it – Harlow’s 1868 report – not readily available, and most who have written about Phineas have been too lazy or slipshod to check it. Paradoxically, the very slightness of reliable fact which allows myths about Phineas to flourish also makes disentangling those myths a conceptually easy, if tedious, task.

Tedious! Oh god yes, tedious!

EEng (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

existentially pregnant

Who decided to link each of these words individually to Wiktionary? --70.143.50.113 (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I did, because pregnant (in the sense of "heavy with meaning or implication") and existentialism (in any sense) may be unfamiliar to some. You mentioned they're linked individually -- would there be some way to link them not-individually? EEng (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Portrait of Gage

This discussion has been split from the very old discussion #Images copyrighted which is about different images. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

...there;s no way a photo from the 19th century is still under copyright!!!!!! The article seems to imply that a 19th century image is under copyright. If you are referring to that, I suggest someone clean up the article by putting the images back. Unsigned comment by User:72.83.87.96 17 Jul 2009

You are probably correct that any particular 19th-century work, such as a daguerreotype, is no longer under copyright. However, TCP/IP doesn't support daguerreotype transport (I understand they're working on it) so there's no way to upload a daguerreotype to Wikipedia over the internet. You can only post, say, a jpg of the daguerreotype. And any such jpg (being a "derivative work") is under copyright, unless and until the maker of that jpg releases it; and until such time, that jpg can't be used here. To get around that you'll need to get your hands on the daguerreotype and use a camera or scanner to create your own jpg of it, if you can get the owner of the daguerreotype to agree to that. (By the way, there are no free images of the newly-discovered daguerreotype. So for now, to see Gage's face, you'll have to follow the link to the website where it's posted --- what's so bad about that?) EEng (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you tell me why a slavish reproduction of a 2D, public domain image, is considered a derivative and not just a copy? Shouldn't the precedent set in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. establish that such a digital reproduction which adds no creativity or originality to the process, deserves no further protection by copyright? I don't think it should. Indeed, this is almost exactly the same issue as the National Portrait Gallery vs. User:Dcoetzee. With this in mind, I've uploaded the Los Angeles Times version of the photo here and would hope that we could include it in this article. FBenenson (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy to answer your question (amateur lawyer to amateur lawyer, of course). As a 2nd-Circuit decision, Bridgeman applies in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont only. You're gonna have to wait for either the 11th Circuit, or S.C., to rule similarly. Or you can try to get Wikipedia policy changed based on Bridgeman, but I don't see that happening somehow. EEng (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the daguerrotype image to the article. The original is way out of copyright, and the Wikimedia Foundation (the people who run Wikipedia) have plainly indicated that they will defend the position in Bridgeman v. Corel's findings quite vigorously. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

EEng, Bridgeman applies throughout the US; this is how federal courts work. It is true there is a controversy over Bridgeman can apply to non-US images, but that is not relevant in this case. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally it's unwise to rely on Wikipedia (or Wikipedians) for legal guidance, but since this is a wikipedia matter it seems appropriate. Thus at [4] we find: "Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. has precedential value in U.S. courts. But as a decision of a federal district court, its precedential value is confined to courts of the same circuit, in this case the Second Circuit." So that is how the federal courts work, and in fact it is Bridgeman that is irrelevant here. Thanks for pointing out, by the way, that Bridgeman (even if it had value here in the first place) has uncertain application to non-US images: it's entirely possible the Gage daguerreotype was made in Chile, where Gage spent most of his post-accident life. Once again, I am removing the offending image. If you wish to continue to fuss about this, I rely on you to open a case with whatever Wiki-authority has jurisdiction. Or perhaps you will be kind enough to tell me how to do so. EEng (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that if you revert again on this article, you would be violating the three-revert rule. I mention it because I don't want you to be blocked over a legitimate dispute like this. I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but that doesn't entitle you to blindly revert against several editors' consensus that you are wrong about this. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we please have some calm here. I would desperately like to see a proper discussion here, and I am going to bring in a few of our copyright experts to take a look at this discussion. EEng believes it is a copyright violation, and given he has done so much work on this article it would be nice to convince him the image is OK rather than block him before we are all on the same page. He may be right after all, so we should err on the side of caution. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, John, it would be useful to have an opinion from someone who actually knows the rules. I may have facts that would help such a copyright-status evaluation, but likely not for another 24 hours; please wait for that. I cannot speak for the people who found the daguerreotype, but I believe that would be happy to contribute a version of the image of Gage for use on Wikipedia, but it will take some time to work this out. They only just realized what they had a few months ago, and this is all new to them. I believe they would want to do this in mid-August, when the print version of the journal article comes out. In the meantime, the daguerreotype is viewable on their website (along with a lot of other neat stuff) so no one's being denied access to the pleasure of gazing on Phineas' visage. And naturally I agree with your proposal to "err on the side of caution" so that (as you mentioned on my Talk) the image should stay out in the meantime, and further attempts to insert it should be reverted. As to you, Gavia immer, the PD-US template on the image files relies on assertions about prior publication, death of author, and so on, but you don't supply that information. Please take the time to call out the specific facts satisfying the requirements of the PD tag, and if you can't then the tag should be removed. EEng (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There are emails flying around about this. Please can we wait until the full facts are known! We need to know where it was photographed. etc. I will be offline for about six hours, and hopefully I will know more by then. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

With image again removed from article (not by me!) I put back the original link to the website where the image may be seen. Please note that this is not any kind of reversion. EEng (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The LA times has a god picture of Gage for the top of this article. I am not sure if copoyright would apply here, but perhaps someone with more knowledge of copyright could add it, if legal. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-gage16-2009jul16,0,6843461.story 66.245.192.242 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html for the law. Obviously the L.A. Times had no qualms about violating copyright on a photo from the 1850's. Even if the photo was not published or copyrighted at the time it was taken, the limit for public domain in the U.S. is photographer's lifetime plus 70 years. We have no idea what the provinance of the photo is (nor do the people who had it), but it's certainly P. Gage by the marks on the head and bar (I certainly have no doubt at all that it is-- his permanently closed blind left eye, which still appears swollen with regard to his ~1850 life mask, suggests this is photo is from even before that mask was done. On the other hand the inscription on the bar was apparently placed Jan 1850, and this appears on the iron in the photo, so it must have been taken after that. From Gage's youthful appearance and excellent suit, one would otherwise probably suppose it taken when he was touring with the bar in the early 1850's (he recovered it again after giving it to the museum). His health was bad by 1859, and he had spent some time in Chile before that, and died in 1860, so the photo date is 1850-1859 at the widest, and probably a lot closer to 1850. But let us say at latest 1859, 150 years ago. What is the youngest the maker of the daguerreotype could have been? This is professional job. Could he have been younger than 15? Seems unlikely. If he was 15 and took the photo in 1859, he would have been born 1844. 70 years ago is 1939, so he'd have had to live from 1844 to 1939, or to age 95, for this photo to be NOT in the public domain. That's with EVERY possible error on the high side. It's more likely the photographer was older than 18 and Gage was photographed no later than 1852, so the photographer needed to have made it to 100.

I would suggest that since protection would require a child-photographer who lived at least to age 95 in 1939, and more probably more than 100, we should presume he didn't live that long, and let those who have evidence otherwise take up the cause. By the way, every year the photographer has to have lived longer for this photo not to be in public domain now, adds a year to the lifetime of the photographer, to have died less than 70 years ago. In 2010, he must have lived to be at least 96 and more likely 101.

Oh, and if the image if from Chile, it's really in public domain, and copyright ends for unpublished images 70 years after end of the year in which it was created. Since it can't have been created later than 1860, that would be public domain as of 1931. [5] SBHarris 02:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times image has already been mentioned above; they appear to have permission to display this image, and their page looks like they have a records management ID for it: "(IS635, xx) July 15, 2009". I'm not sure what that is about.

Unpublished works, which I suspect this is, have very different copyright terms. Often the copyright starts from the time that it is first published, and the people in possession of the photo may know the provenance. We are seeking to clarify these things, and we may need to check with Chilean laws. My guess is that it is public domain in the U.S., but we need to be certain, especially when it has been disputed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Since the 1970's when these things were fixed and (mostly) codified all over the world, the copyright on old unpublished works has NEVER started the moment they are published, without limit on how old they are. All works fall into public domain at some time after creation, published or not, and the longest period I've ever seen for this in law is unpublished corporately created works, and it's only 120 years. That's all you can get by not publishing. The owners of the Gage daguerreotype, who have had it for 30 years in their Victorian photo collection but didn't know what they had until somebody saw it on their website and tentitively identified it, are not even claiming the original is copyrighted. What they've copyrighted is their photo of the daguerreotype which they have a better claim on. Since they own the daguerreotype and have not allowed anybody else to photograph it (and are certainly not about to now), that makes things hard. Some countries like the UK allow copyright newer photographs of works that are 2D anyway (like the Mona Lisa)-- see the National Protrait Gallery fiasco. I don't know what the US law is. I think this is going to come down to a one-of-a-kind irreplaceable historic iconic photographic image thing. This thing comes close to being a national treasure, as though somebody had discovered a photo of Lincoln being carried out of Ford's Theater. SBHarris 18:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Err, no. See for example Copyright law of the United_Kingdom#Posthumous_Works where unpublished works are copyright until 2039, and we enter very murky waters when rule of the shorter term comes into play. I have started Chilean copyright law to compile notes about what Chilean copyright in case that ends up being a factor. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The magic for me is that Wikipedia is the ultimate starting place. I rely on it for reliable basic information and valuable links to primary (or primarier) sources. So, if the photo is here or just a photo link is here, this is still a magical place. I'm the newbie who first added the report of the Daguerreotype (and forgot to give a summary of my changes). I'm the webkeeper of the guy who wrote the song about Phineas Gage that was used in the BBC segment about Phineas. Mac MacMillan sent him the the journal pre-print and he sent it to me and I added a paragraph to Wikipedia. I live near the beautiful accident site, so I'm as curious as anyone about discoveries. I hope Wikipedia continues to attract quirky people not unlike me (who are not unappreciative of litotes) for whom a Phineas link is as good as a Phineas wink. And I added photos of the site to Panoramio/Google Earth a while back (with share-alike rights, so I hope you all go nuts with those photos). Meanwhile, I'm scratching my head about this copyright controversy, because this ol' website is great either way. Danaxtell (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like it. May you never hit the politics of it. Right now you're in the newlywed phase before you meet the in-laws. SBHarris 02:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a Commons admin and as someone who does a lot of work with copyrights on WMF sites, the photo of the daguerreotype is easily public domain based on Bridgeman v. Corel. Under US law, some sort of creative aspect is required to engender a copyright. While the NPG is claiming copyright of its photos of public domain works (which is permissible under UK law), the precedent set by Feist v. Rural underlies Bridgeman. While EEng is correct in that the decision really applies to the jurisdiction covered by 2nd Circuit Court, nobody has appealed this to the Supreme Court because they know they would get shot down and then there would be a single national standard, which nobody who makes money from licensing PD works wants. For more proof, see the links at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-13/Copyright threat#Further reading.

As for the PD status of the daguerreotype itself, according to the Flickr page, it was originally posted there in December 2007. If we then consult http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, we see that works published anytime after 2002 are PD when one of the following cases applies:

• Author died more than 70 years ago.
• If corporate authorship, 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever expires first.

But Gage being the celebrity he was, it was also quite reasonable to assume that this was published some time in his lifetime, in which case the pre-1923 rule would also apply. howcheng {chat} 21:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, its been more than a week and this conversation seems to have stalled. I'd really like to have the Gage portrait included on this page and I do not believe there was any substantial evidence procured that the photo is not in the public domain. Can we work to getting it uploaded again and included? Thanks. Fred Benenson (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The people who have the daguerreotype long ago asked if they can contribute an image for use on Wikipedia so all this fussing isn't necessary -- that seems to have been lost in the shuffle of all this talk about teenage photographers and so on. I'll be helping them set up an account so they can do that in the next 24 hours, and then everyone should be happy. EEng (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point the debate should be moot (on Wikipedia/Wikimedia at least) since we are now blessed to see Mr. Gage in all his glory, right there in the article. But for the record a few points should be made. I do not speak for the daguerreotyupe's owners, but as someone close to the situation who finds the let's-just-make-up-facts drift of this discussion disturbing.

IUP: "Before you upload an image, make sure that...you can prove that the image is in the public domain." The operative word here is prove. The burden as always is on those who contribute material, to demonstrate that it is free for use; to say here, "I do not believe there was any substantial evidence procured that the photo is not in the public domain" is analogous to a juror saying, "The defendant's guilty because he didn't offer any substantial evidence that he's innocent." PD can sometimes be established by simple rules such as those scattered thoughout the discussion above, but such rules apply only where specific facts trigger them.

And those facts don't exist here. This is not like an image from a book or prominent collection, where such things as date/place of creation/publication would be known; no one participating in this discussion (including me) knows any of that here. The "factual" assertions above are mere conjecture. They contradict analogous BLP policy specifying assumption of a 120-year human lifespan. As for Gage's "celebrity" making it "reasonable to assume that this was published some time in his lifetime": Gage was nothing like a celebrity until long after he was dead, and anyway such logic demands that a negative be established -- how would someone prove the absence of past publication? And it was never stated that 2007 was the first publication anywhere, merely the first on Flickr (if even that). Since the daguerreotype has been in the same hands for 30 years, and its owners have made a practice of sharing their images, those whose legal knowledge extends past the 1970s will recognize the beginnings of a fact situation deferring PD until 2047.

Finally, the effect of Bridgeman has been misstated. Even granting for argument's sake that it both controls and actually applies to the facts here, it would not put this photo "in PD," but merely cause it to inherit the status of the underlying work, which as already seen is far from clear. In the meantime, the legal, moral, and courtesy obligations are to respect the claims of those who brought the daguerreotype to light, until someone offers facts to the contrary.

EEng (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ratiu and colleagues should be changed to Ratiu and Talos

The "Ratiu and colleages" article from 2004 should be called "Ratiu and Talos" because there are only two authors. Also, the researchers conducted both a CT scan and a MRI scan, not just a CT scan. Here is the free full-text I was able to find online, which should be included in the reference list as well (ref #24): http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/23/e21?ijkey=6bb3fd4fd67118b708ee1c3fc748cb19c6d7007f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha 68.54.107.114 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)RandomPsychologyResearcher

Well, no actually, you're confusing two different papers: the one you cite (authors: Ratiu & Talos only) is a short note in NEJM introducing the on-line images of the iron passing through Gage's skull, the skull hinging open, and so on. The one referenced in the article is Ratiu, Talos, Haker, Lieberman, Everett, detailing the method of generating those images, and what they imply re the areas of Gage's brain damaged; since it credits all five workers I chose to reference it over the NEJM paper. However, I immediately went on to confuse things by adjoining a link to the NEJM images, with a misleading description suggesting the two papers are the same. (If you look at the markup of the article at that point you'll see that I apparently worried about this confusion but never fixed it, sorry.) I'll patch that description now, and provide more formal cites later. The images taken by Ratiu and colleauges of Gage's skull were indeed CTs; the MRIs involved in their work were not of Gage's skull but of brains and so on of other subjects. EEng (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing {{neuropsychology}} template etc

I'd appreciate comment from anyone who thinks this is a bad idea... I think \{\{neuropsychology\}\} is too narrow so I substituted \{\{neuroscience\}\} instead. I also slipped Portal:neuroscience into the lead as a hyperlink to an existing text. And I removed See Also Traumatic Brain Injury which though relevant doesn't shine particular light on Gage; but maybe others think otherwise. EEng (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view I think that the elimination is a good thing (and I am a neuropsychologist). However I would not add a new template as the neuroscience one: I would say that as they are called navigation templates their aim is to help navigation and I really doubt that anybody that finally ends in this article would find the links in the neuroscience template, which are really general, of use in their navigation. On the other hand I would rather leave traumatic brain injury, or try to link it inside the article, since it is a highly relevant (Most people who end in this article will probably be interested specifically in traumatic brain injury). Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to omit neuroscience template as well, but it's also linked from the lead text "related disciplines"; for TBI, I made it a link under "injury to the brain" in the text. I think that's usually better than a separate "see also". So everyone should be happy now, I hope. P.S. I've been hoping for a long time that someone would start an article on cerebral localization. The closest thing I can find is lateralization of brain function so up to now the lead links only to the Wiktionary entry. In a daring and bold move, I'm adding a redlink cerebral localization ih nopes someone will be inspired to take up the challenge. I did it in an awkward way as you'll see but one that preserves the link to Wiktionary until the redlinked article gets going (if that day ever comes). And finally, Garrondo (and Delldot too, if you're out there) I'd appreciate your giving the article a careful read and telling me what you think, and changes you might suggest, etc. I believe it's time for the article to be reviewed for a raise out of B-class. EEng (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WOWWWWWWW (2nd image of Gage identified, 2010)

When has the image appeared??? It is a great one, specially since it is of much higher quality than the other one. I have done some digital restoration and I would love to work on this image. I could eliminate scratches, eliminate the white border, do a color balance and enhance the faded color...It could be hard work since it is quite deteriorated but it could be a great addition to the article. Additionally since the scanning of thi second image is of much higher quality than the other one I would change their places and move to the lead the second image.--Garrondo (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hee, hee. I thought you'd like that! I asked Ms. Tara Gage Miller to upload her image two days ago, because I knew the story would appear today (I think) on Smithsonian.com. But I propose we keep our energies focused on the article text for now -- your points 1-5 above are really the keys -- and we can fiddle with the images as a lower priority. Sorry I still haven't done any of the commenting I keep promising, but as you can see I've been a bit busy. EEng (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Garrondo, can you figure out how to get the text in the infobox (place of death etc) not to break so badly, without increasing the size of the photo? Is there a way to move the indent point to the left? Or can the box be expanded without the photo being expanded?  ??? EEng (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That breaking you talk about depends a lot on the screen used. I do not notice anything (or at least it does not seem to bother me :-)--Garrondo (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding images: I think we should leave them as they were taken: if they are dagerrotypes that implies that they have some specific characteristics regarding color, texture, noise, and that includes inversion of the image. If you simply reverse an image you are somewhat lying and performing an original research since you are creating something that is impossible to have existed (an inversed image with all the other characteristics of a daguerrotype, you create something that is nothing but a fake since it neither has the characteristics of a photo nor of a daguerrotype. I would rather leave the original image and say in the text the characteristic of inversion in dagerrotypes.--Garrondo (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised at your taking this position since you earlier proposed retouching the images etc., which really would be inappropriate. This is an article about Gage, not about the photographs as artifacts; it is entirely appropriate to make a straightforward transformation which causes Gage to be shown as he was in life. And this is arguably a less problematic manipulation than, say, cropping (which is done to plenty of images on Wikipedia) because a lateral reversal is information-preserving -- which cropping is not. To show the photos as if Gage's right eye had been damaged, when it was in fact the left, would cause tremendous confusion -- please see Comments posted online re January Smithsonian article (and see the caption of the photo) and even more attempts to clear up the confusion. In presenting the photos with a compensating lateral reversal applied (and, of course, so noting that fact) the article follows the editors of both Smithsonian Magazine and Journal of the History of the Neurosciences (see Wilgus 2009 cited in the article) in their decisions on this very matter, and I believe you will find it acceptable under formal standards of historical curatorship used by museums and archives. Is there some Wiki policy that contradicts this? And here's another thought: this scan is so good you can just about read the inscription on the tamping iron -- but only if the second reversal is applied. Why would we not want to allow the reader the pleasure of doing that? (P.S. A daguerreotype is a photo.) EEng (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not confound restoring with retouching: restoring is aimed to make look an image as closest as possible to how it looked when it was taken and it is done everyday in wikipedia (Moreover almost half of WP:FP nominations are restored images; and there is a group of experts in wikipedia on the matter, for example user:Durova; which whom I have previoulsy collaborated). I will talk to them about this picture and a possible restoration. I think that right now I agree with your position after presenting the references on the rotation, but we should at least upload to commons the original images and add a retouched template in the rotated ones and a link to the original ones. --Garrondo (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right I was confusing restoring with retouching, though I still think it's not a good idea for this article, but as always let's discuss. I'm also very, very concerned about confusion from having two versions, one reversed (not "rotated") and one not -- in a hurry just now so (again) let's think this over. The descriptions of the photos currently in Commons already stress that the compensating reversal has been applied. EEng (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that reference #39 (in the article's "Current Research" section) points to a newly discovered image (mentioning that it had long been mistaken for a picture of an injured whaler wielding a harpoon.) That quote's source is listed as 161.58.72.244/collection/collsite.html but needs to be changed by someone more knowlegeable of wikicode to brightbytes.com/collection/collsite.html because numeric addresses are often subject to change, rendering the URL unusable and the source hard to immediately find. I had to look around the lightly branded numeric site till I found and cross referenced it with "Bright Bytes Studio" and its non-numeric domain. Unable to fix the article without knowledge of how wikipedia's refpage sections work, as there was no real static code to fix quickly. Thanks. 108.27.113.44 (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is far too long and needs extensive cleanup, shortening and conciseness

Do not remove these tags until Wiki's standards for length and neutrality are met. This article reads like a story, is not neutral, is far too effusive in praise and conclusions. Current literature suggests that much of the information included in this article was "embellished" after the death of Gage, and "snopes" type urban myths multiplied after his death. There is good reason that this article was removed from the well written category by editors on Wiki. Phoenixthebird (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The tags ({{cleanup}} etc.) added to the article by Phoenixthebird in conjuntion with the above comment were subsequently removed by another editor who adjoined this edit summary: remove tags that appear to have been added because editor is upset about events occurring elsewhere. (See [6] and [7].) 'Nuff said. EEng (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Great paper by Van Horn et al.

An excellent paper was just published by Van Horn et al. (2012), Mapping Connectivity Damage in the Case of Phineas Gage, Pdf is available without subscription.[8] --Diamonddavej (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a wonderful paper published under a CC-BY license. Its first and third figures can be copied to Wikimedia Commons (with proper credit) and used in this article. I would have done that myself if I hadn't been at work right now... ליאור • Lior (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Image placement

This note concerns recent image placement edits by EEng. To my knowledge, there is no Wiki article presenting two images in the lead in such fashion as it immediately disrupts all harmonious presentation. Moreover, EEng’s edit summaries are at best curious: In what way exactly does the reader require the immediate presentation of the pierced skull image in the lead when it's easily presented in a non-disruptive manner in the first paragraph of the section 'Gage's accident'? Nor does “jagged” correctly describe my placement for the second image in question since EEng’s edit breaks up sections, causing imbalance and disruption. In short, I’m not in favour of the current chaotic arrangement of images and welcome further discussion about it.--Jumbolino (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I admire your dedication to protecting the grammaire visuelle (look and feel) of the wikioeuvre (entirety of Wikipedia) by striving for a consistent mise en scène (layout), though please don't get a noeud dans vos culottes (knot in your knickers) over it.

The skull image should be in or before the "Accident" section because it’s difficult to visualize what happened from just the text. Unfortunately if it’s actually within that section some bug (?) causes several block quotes to be justified hard left against the image – flush with article text proper instead of indented – leaving the reader unable to distinguish quotes from text. This being absolutely intolerable I moved the skull to the lead.

I’d prefer the skull hard at the bottom of the lead but I can’t identify any markup for that. It looks awful floated partway down, so hard at the top is the only option; in my opinion it looks quite nice, actually. The lead is supposed to draw the reader in and I think that the skull – paired with the more, um, conventional infobox portrait – drives the point (one might say) home quite effectively.

If it’s unusual to have two images in the lead, so what? Good writing is not characterized by slavish imitation and neither is good layout.

As to the final image, I don’t see how placing it left “breaks up sections” (there may be differences in rendering depending on browser choice and zoom level, by the way). The next-to-last image is also at left, so why no objection to that? I happen to think that left-right alternation of images induces an unpleasant zig-zag shape in the text, but I don’t feel strongly about this so if you’d prefer for the final image to be on the right, knock yourelf out. If you continue to feel imbalance and disruption try Maalox.

EEng (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

While the reasons you’ve provided to support your patchwork are welcome, they also prove my point: when it comes to layout, your inexperience means you can't solve simple problems. But, hey, kudos for the smart-ass response. Since you're obviously a French scholar and gifted artist, you don’t want to disappoint your public, so please note the following howlers: 1) wikioeuvre is wikiœuvre; 2) mise en scène in this context should be mise en page or mise en valeur; 3) we use Rennie, not Maalox, in France; 4) noeud is nœud; and 5) nœud dans vos culottes is not French (il ne faut pas se prendre la tête is the phrase your struggling for) and its use in this context is inept. Making declarations on good writing and layout in the absence of either is foolhardy, like everything else you’ve displayed so far with the passion and imprecision of the amateur. The English amateur, as you know, derives from the French and is clearly an integral part of your impressive tête dans le cul talents.--Jumbolino (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

De gustibus non est disputandum [9], as they say in Spain. You imply you know how to place the image in the "Accident" section without upsetting the indentation, so if you're done correcting my facetious French please explain that, since it would resolve the problem. EEng (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your French isn’t facetious, it’s just pathetic like your attempts at irony. You’ve a mighty Fan Club of Four, mon petit jobard pas jouasse, all three and yourself. You own the article; work it out with them.--Jumbolino (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was not asserting ownership -- many hands built this article -- merely that many in a position to know would disagree with you.
• I wasn't employing irony (i.e. facial meaning opposite to what is actually meant) but rather whimsy (i.e. poking fun at your hyperbolic "chaos" cries). I'm surprised at your not knowing the difference.
• For your part, you appear to be employing self-parody, though whether intentional or not is uncertain.
• Take up your French complaints with Babelfish, if they continue to vex you.
• I still say Maalox is the best thing for chronic dyspepsia.
• May we conclude that you do not, despite your boasting, know how to fix the indentation problem?

Evelyn Waugh! (that's French for "Bye now!") EEng (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What boasting may that be, I wonder? You contradict yourself by first praising your clumsy edits then admit there's something wrong about their layout due to your inexperience. If that's not self-parody, I don't know what is. You dish out what you can't take and behave like you own the article while passing off your smart-ass replies as whimsical. Clearly, the word hypocrisy is what distinguishes whimsy from irony. Tell me, are we dealing with the trite or the ridiculous sublime in your performances here? No, you haven't given me any reason to fix the problem you made and can't solve. My advice is to stick to your level and consult your Fan Club. But you can have the last word, my petit jobard (French for Sir Whimsy), written I would imagine in the whimsical spirit of "You started the mess, you finish it." Hardy-har-har.--Jumbolino (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Let's recap: (1) Jumbolino rearranges a couple of images; (2) EEng reverts; (3) Jumbolino tries to open discussion on talk page; (4) EEng replies in condescending tone; (5) Jumbolino loses temper and begins flinging insults; (6) EEng replies condescendingly again; (7) Jumbolino experiences total meltdown. Looie496 (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Daaady! He started it! Where have you been? I rely on my Fan Club of Four to come to the rescue of my inflated ego and fragile French. Just in case it's not obvious, we've got:

• My version [10] -- Jumbolino doesn't like two images in the lead.
• My new friend's version [11] -- the problem being that (at least on IE under Windows and, as I recall, Firefox as well) any block quotes to right of the skull image lose their indentation, making a mess of the text.

EEng (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There you go, Sir Whimsy, Fan Club to the rescue. It's a swell article you've built with your many hands and other body parts. A click, and I'm off this Nut Page.--Jumbolino (talk) 9:42 pm, Today (UTC−4

(Exits right, huffing and puffing.)

Thanks for dropping by. (Turns back toward table.) So, gentlemen... anyone up for a rubber of whist? EEng (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Using Gage or his case

Could someone please provide me an example of a person being used as idiom for their set of circumstances. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm American and have never heard of a persons name being used as a placeholder for their life experience. I've always seen "Aristotle's reasoning..." or "According to Blackburn..." More to the point, I'm not familiar with people "...using Aristotle" as opposed to "using Aristotle's reasoning". Maybe this is a British turn of phrase? Any input would be appreciated. Padillah (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Abundant examples (British and American) will be found via submission of "look to Aristotle" to a Google search, quotation marks included; then try "use Aristotle to". If you prefer, substitute Marx or Smith or Freud according to doctrinal inclination -- good results in any case. Googlebooks yields higher-quality citations than does the regular Web search. EEng (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Not only did it give adequate examples of the usage above, it also lead to some rather nice logical reading. I must admit, I've not seen that particular usage outside of subject specific text but it's not incorrect so leave it. Padillah (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't turn out to be one of those tiresome persons insisting on some ridiculous rule learned from Miss Snodgrass in the 7th grade. EEng (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

sexually molesting small children

An anon recently removed a claim that he was accused of "sexually molesting small children", which was using this as its source. It was added by EEng as an example of how "Gage" has been misused.

I'm wondering whether mentioning the course notes is a bit of original research, unless the source has been subject to criticism by other sources.

More importantly, was there ever an accusation of this kind? i.e. Are the course notes referring to real accusations made by others, or did the writer of the course notes invent this.

If it was not an invention of the course notes, it is unfair to point to the course notes as if they are the one who is misusing Gage; we should find the original accusations in order to put the course notes in perspective. OTOH, if it is an invention, can it not be excused as a form of pedagogy, especially as we are only seeing the printed course notes and we are not familiar with how it was presented to the students. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing relating to this should go in in any form whatsoever without a highly reputable source to back it up. Looie496 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added some specific cites on point, but I can see the OR concern -- give me a bit to address that. EEng (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

van Horn

[The following is continued from elsewhere

Hello. You may have noticed that I have made repeated edits to the Phineas Gage page that you appear to moderate. Each time, you reverse the edits and remind me that the source I am using has been added to the further reading. I do not agree that this is sufficient representation of the findings. The Van Horn article is the only significant research of the Gage case in nearly ten years. The Warren Anatomical Museum has stated that they are the last group who will have had access to the famous skull, as it is becoming too fragile. The article has been featured in the Huffington Post, the Guardian, Discover Magazine, NPR, CNN, and various other news sites. Your reasoning seems to be that the findings are too technical, but I do believe that the difference between grey matter and white matter is simple enough for your readers (it ought to be, since you have pages for both that go quite in depth into the difference). I earnestly believe that the only study to ever examine the damage to white matter, the massive part of the brain underlying the thin coating of grey matter, deserves it's own sentence. Even if the study does not deserve a mention, I think the damage to the white matter is relevant to readers and at least the simple fact that damage to white matter occurred must be mentioned in the article even if you choose not to point out that this damage was far more widespread than the grey matter damage that you mention in dozens of citations. If you can explain to me why this small, one-sentence fact does not belong on the page, I will happily stop re-editing the article. Additionally, after viewing the talk page for the Phineas Gage page, I noticed that I am not the first user to have asked for the inclusion of this finding.

UCLA Lab of NeuroImaging ^(chat) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, welcome -- sincerely -- to Wikipedia. The project can really use someone with your interests and expertise. I'm pinging another editor who is more broadly involved with medical topics (as far as medicine goes, my exclusive interest is Gage) to let him know you're here.

Some miscellaneous points:

• I'm not any kind of moderator or administrator. I'm just an editor like you.
• Wikipedia doesn't allow shared, institutional, or "role" accounts -- each account is to be used by exactly one person, so you'll need to stop signing as "UCLA Lab of Neuroimaging". See WP:ROLE, WP:NOSHARE.
• Please remember to sign your discussion posts with ~~~~.

Here's my response to your concerns. I hope it won't come across as a sledgehammer applied to a walnut, but I want you to understand that everything I did was for careful reasons:

• Our editing interactions:

• On March 6 you added this to the article:

Van Horn et al. (2012) created a 3D digital mask based on CT images of Gage's skull, and calculated 1.303×10³ viable rod trajectories. Their calculations uniquely take into account the reports that Mr. Gage was speaking at the time, and therefore would have had his jaw open. After morphing the T1 anatomical and diffusion images of 110 right-handed males, aged 25–36 into the digital mask, the researchers were able to calculate the likely cortical damage, as well as the white matter fiber networks likely to have been damaged or removed by the tamping iron. While the average percentage of total cortical grey matter volume affected was 3.97±0.29%, the amount of total white matter volume lost [etc etc]

Apart from being at far too technical, most of this text was taken word for word from the van Horn article, and that's a no-no. I therefore removed it [12].

• On March 7 you added to the lead a cite to van Horn for the statement that the accident had destroyed Gage's left frontal lobe. In general, statements in the lead aren't cited if they recapitulate material cited elsewhere in the article and (if truth be told) inserting this cite in the very first sentence gave me the impression of wanting to give special prominence to this particular source. This edit also inserted

Van Horn et al. (2012) demonstrated that the damage extended beyond the left frontal lobe into the left insular cortex and left temporal lobe, as well as into the underlying white matter

I believe this is mistaken, because what van Horn says is (underline added) "Regions whose connectvity [was] affected included: left frontal lobe ... left insular cortex and the left temporal lobe." That the connectivity of certain regions was affected does not mean that those regions were themselves damaged, and in fact van Horn specifically states that the "injury is specific to left frontal lobe." (This is certainly outside my expertise so please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I removed [13] that statement, but modified other text to reflect that van Horn confirms Ratiu and Harlow in believing that the right F.L. was undamaged.

• On March 8 you introduced a narrative of the accident offering certain details (sand omitted, speaking at moment of ignition) as if they are flat fact, when in fact they are merely the balance of probability. I realize that in doing so you were following van Horn, but where sources conflict we must make intelligent choices about what to say -- and here, without doubt, Macmillan 2000 is authoritative (as he is on just about everything). You also added that van Horn "discovered that these effects paled in comparison to the damage to the white matter fiber networks beneath the cortical areas" -- in a context in which it's impossible to tell what "these effects" refers to.

I removed these statements [14].

• On March 12 you added

Van Horn "et al." (2012) showed that the damage to white matter was far more extensive than the damage to the cerebral cortex, and probably had a greater influence on the reported behavioral changes.

which (partly because "showed" is way too strong given science's still-primitive knowledge of how damage X translates into behavior Y) I modified [15] to

Van Horn et al. makes detailed estimates of damage to Gage's white matter, concluding that its role in Gage's mental changes may have been more significant than that of cerebral cortex damage.

(The main-text statement, that van Horn confirms left-only damage, remains as well.)

In summary, I did not "reverse" your edits, but in three cases made straightforward removal of copied, inaccurate, or unintelligible material, and in the fourth case rephrased.

• I disagree with your contention that van Horn is "the only significant research of the Gage case in nearly ten years". (I'm assuming you consider Ratiu outside this 10-yr range.) Almost everything published on Gage is derivative bullshit and it's good to see thoughtful work like van Horn once in a while. However, IMHO the most significant research on Gage of the last ten years (Ratiu included) is Bev and Jack Wilgus' "Face to Face with Phineas Gage" which, combined with the evaluation (related in Macmillan and Lena 2010) of Gage by a physician who knew him a few years befoe his death, puts the final nail in the coffin of the idea that Gage was anything like a drunken, brawling vagrant. All the scanning and computing in the world, attempting to relate damage to behavioral changes, is in vain if the behavioral changes aren't grounded in reality.

• You asked me to explain why "this small, one-sentence fact" (re white vs grey matter) doesn't belong in the article -- but it is in the article. (Search horn in [16].) The question is the level of detail and prominence it should be given.
  • The publicity doesn't matter. Every development on Gage gets the full-court press.
  • Historically, the debate over the extent of damage has been at the grosser level of left-only vs. bilateral. The Damasio study (with its unpardonable slanders against Gage) being now thoroughly defunct, that question is provisionally settled, and this is something the typical reader can understand. Thus I've left it in the main text.
  • But I've put the white-grey point in a footnote, and here's why. To a reader with some notion of what WM is, and where it is, it is obvious given even the crudest idea of the iron's path that a great deal of WM must have been destroyed -- much more, it is further obvious to such a reader, than the amount of GM destroyed. Thus the significance of van Horn is not that lots of WM was destroyed, but the list of specific WM circuitry likely zapped. On the other hand, to a reader who has no real understanding of what white matter is anyway, the information comparing WM vs GM damage isn't going to mean anything anyway.

• You misunderstand about "Further reading", which acts as the article's bibliography (I've changed it now to "Sources and further reading" to make this clearer). So to add full bibliographic information to the "Citations" section, as you kept doing, was redundant.

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we just fundamentally disagree on the level of intelligence that wikipedia readers have. I find other parts of the article to be far more technical than the distinction between white and grey matter, which, again, is a distinction commonly referenced in other wikipedia articles and easy to link to for readers who have any questions. I tried to make the statement - that the white matter damage was more extensive - less "obvious," but you said that reporting any of the tracts affected were too technical. I guess my overall problem is that I don't see a lot of room in the middle of what you call too technical, and what is old news, and it seems as though the case is closed in your opinion (which is not the view of the case in the neuroscience research community). I also disagree that finding a picture of the man is more important research than the last group of researchers to ever have first-hand access to the skull and rod (as I pointed out, the museum no longer allows such access to the materials). That is the reason that I pointed you to the sources that have covered the article, not just to name-drop; the news sources point out that the damage to white matter has far more to do with the behavioral changes that your article cites than any of the cortical damage, and points out that Van Horn goes on to point out what modern day diseases and disorders are associated with deterioration of cells in the same areas (i.e. hypothesizes that because people with Alzheimer's have low function in the same areas of connection, Gage's memory-storing capabilities were likely affected). While you point out that this is speculative, it is no more speculative than any of the other studies you cite and far less speculative than the articles which are examine non-scientific observations from over 100 years ago. I disagree with your assertion that first-hand comments about his behavior are superior to scientific examination, as the page itself points out how ridiculously false some of the observations are (like the idea he beat his non-existent wife). I will cease to pointlessly edit the page and respect your authority to decide its content, but I will continue to look for avenues to get this information the more prominent place in the literature that other users have called for in the past. I am confident that, due to the large impact of the article at present, history will see it included in your page with or without my actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loniucla (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC) ~~~~

[Later-added comment] Everyone wants you to continue to participate. I, at least, know very little about brain anatomy and could use your help in, for example, understanding the Van Horn results. Having said that... The kind of strident advocacy above is highly inappropriate in light of [17]. While there's nothing wrong with an author citing his/her own publications in a Wikipedia article (I am myself cited here) our goal is to develop the article so as to best serve the reader's understanding of the subject, not to give your publication the "prominent place" it "deserves".

I had thought that "Loni" was your real-life name, but I see now that Loni = Laboratory Of Neuroimaging. As already explained, "institutional" names are not allowed. The best thing might be for you to start afresh under a new username (see WP:UNC). EEng (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've taken pains to point out, this isn't "my" page, I don't have any special "authority to decide its content", and I hope we can work together to make the article as fine as possible. Some points:

• First: My ideas about how the WM-GM material should be treated have nothing to do with any preconception of the reader's intelligence (high or low -- and by the way, I believe the article overall manifests a very high level of respect for the reader). Rather, I was said that, depending on the reader's level of knowledge, the gross result re WM-GM damage (i.e. that more WM than GM was affected) will be either not news, or news whose implication will be unclear to the reader; and the conclusion of that reasoning is not that WM-GM shouldn't be in the article at all, but rather that it is more appropriately treated in a note, where for the moment it is, rather than the main text.
• Second: I can't understand what you mean about van Horn being "no more speculative that any of the other studies [cited], and far less speculative than the articles which examine non-scientific observations from over 100 years ago". What are these speculative articles you're talking about? Your comments imply you've misunderstood something very fundamental, and that implies that the article has somehow misled you, so I'd like to understand that and improve the article's presentation of whatever it is.
• Third: The ridiculous things said about Gage (e.g. mistreating his non-existent family) do not, as you say, come from first-hand observations, but from distortions originating with people who never actually met Gage. And I didn't say that first-hand reports of Gage are "superior to scientific examination" (of his skull, I guess you mean), but rather that a clear understanding of his behavior is more fundamental that examination of his skull: if we had an accurate picture of his behavior but not his skull, Gage would still teach us a lot; on the other hand, if we knew nothing of his behavioral changes, then his scanning the skull and modeling the damage would be pointless, since there would be no behavior changes to explain.

Look, can you do two things for me? First, can you search the article for the string horn, to be sure you're seeing all the text related to van Horn currently in the article? (I made an adjustment just now, BTW.) And second, can you propose, here, for discussion, what you'd like to see added or changed? Then let's talk about it.

EEng (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment with specific proposal to move forward

I do not intend to engage in a disscussion, but I do think I can give some second-opinion.

First of all I would want to ask both of you to 1-Try to be a bit more concise... It is quite painful to try to read all the paragraphs above; and 2-Try to instead of disccussing why the other is incorrect work towards a consensus.

In this sense, while I greatly admire EEng for his work in this article, which I believe it is a really good description of a lot of what is out there on Gage, it is true that when anybody works almost alone in an article for years (as is the case) develops some feeling of ownership. EEng, try to step back a bit to evaluate yourself and see if you are really trying to integrate a newcomer views with a reasonable understanding of Gage's cage, or simply defending your case.

LoniUcla; similarly, EEng has done an impressive work in this article, and you should really try to listen when he says that a proposal is probably too technichal for a lay reader. It is common in those who work in research or university teaching (as is my, and probably your case) to forget what truly a lay reader is.

Regarding specific proposals: (bolded specific proposal)

(Previous note: I have to say that I have not read the specific article)

I fully agree with EEng that initial proposals were faaaaaar too technical. I find that his refractoring of your initial posting into: Van Horn et al. makes detailed estimates of the locus and extent of damage to Gage's white matter, concluding that the role of white-matter damage in Gage's mental changes may have been more significant than that of cerebral cortex damage. is very appropiate. It is a good, understandable summary.

However, I also feel this comment is far more interesting and understandable for a lay-reader than to leave it in a footnote. I would move it to the main article. In this sense I disagree with EEng in his following comment:

But I've put the white-grey point in a footnote, and here's why. To a reader with some notion of what WM is, and where it is, it is obvious given even the crudest idea of the iron's path that a great deal of WM must have been destroyed -- much more, it is further obvious to such a reader, than the amount of GM destroyed. Thus the significance of van Horn is not that lots of WM was destroyed, but the list of specific WM circuitry likely zapped. On the other hand, to a reader who has no real understanding of what white matter is anyway, the information comparing WM vs GM damage isn't going to mean anything anyway..

I specifically think that you (EEng) are committing a fallacy by dividing knowledge of WM into a dichotomy of "a lot" vs "no knowledge". For example a pre-university student may know more or less why WM is important and what is it, and may find useful the info (and it will be easier to find in the main article).

From your comments above van Horn also talks a lot regarding connectivity damage (which is probably more technical than the direct white matter damage, but probably even more important).. I would include in the footnote some info on connectivity damage as an explanation of why van Horn feels that WM damage may account better for neuropsychological problems.

--Garrondo (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Garrondo! Overnight I was thinking I would ask you and Looie to join the discussion, and here you are -- maybe you read my mind. I've made a start on implementing your ideas (though definitely needs more work). More to say later, must run now. Loni, I hope Garrondo's contribution helps you feel more comfortable about staying involved. Please do! EEng (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all sorry for spelling mistakes. As you know I am Spanish, and in talk pages I tend to writte a bit carelessly as a trade-off for speed; so EEng thanks for the corrections. Regarding the article I feel it has improved a lot. Lets see what LONIUCLA says. Nevertheless now I feel that the footnote on van Horn has gone from one side to the other and is filled with redundant details. It specifically says:

Um... what corrections are you talking about? EEng (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, Van Horn et al. estimated that "the cortical regions most affected by the rod included: the left orbital sulcus, the left middle frontal sulcus, the horizontal ramus of the anterior segment of the lateral sulcus, the anterior segment of the circular sulcus of the insula, the orbital gyrus, the lateral orbital sulcus, the superior frontal sulcus, and the orbital part of the inferior frontal gyrus. While extensive damage occurred to left frontal, left temporal polar, and insular cortex, 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). "Fiber pathway damage extended beyond the left frontal cortex to regions of the left temporal, partialparietal[see below], and occipital cortices as well as to basal ganglia, brain stem, and cerebellum. Inter-hemispheric connections of the frontal and limbic lobes as well as basal ganglia were also affected." (Quotations abridged to remove quantitative estimates of extent of damage to individual loci.)

I would change it to:

Specifically, Van Horn et al. estimated that although extensive damage occurred to left frontal, left temporal polar, and insular cortex, 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). "Fiber pathway damage extended beyond the left frontal cortex to regions of the left temporal, partialparietal[see below], and occipital cortices as well as to basal ganglia, brain stem, and cerebellum. Inter-hemispheric connections of the frontal and limbic lobes as well as basal ganglia were also affected." (Quotations abridged to remove quantitative estimates of extent of damage to individual loci.)

Reason is that left frontal, left temporal polar, and insular cortex is more or less a summary of the first sentence with the detailed locations.

--Garrondo (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll notice my edit summary [18] was a start on van Horn specifics, but not perhaps a very good one -- I just copied in the whole pile, figuring one of you guys would come along and adjust it. I made the change you suggest, Garrondo, but Loni, please go ahead and adjust as you see fit. I don't know what all that hypochondriacal hippocampus spiro-gyro stuff means, anyway. EEng (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean with hypochondriacal hippocampus spiro-gyro stuff.

On the other hand, after re-reading the paragraph it is not very clear if the sentence

"Fiber pathway damage extended beyond the left frontal cortex to regions of the left temporal, partialparietal[see below], and occipital cortices as well as to basal ganglia, brain stem, and cerebellum. Inter-hemispheric connections of the frontal and limbic lobes as well as basal ganglia were also affected." is from van horn or from Damasio, or from van Horn citing Damasio. Do you know which one is the correct one?

Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hypochondriacal hippocampus spiro-gyro stuff is my way of making fun of the complicated terminology of brain anatomy, about which I know almost nothing. The quotes are all from Van Horn et al., and represent their conclusions, not H. Damasio's. (Damasio's 1992 analysis of the damage, while an interesting exercise, is now completely defunct, being fatally flawed by being based not on images of Gage's skull but a "Gage-like" skull.) EEng (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought so, but I was not sure. To say that frontal, temporal, occipital cortices were damaged is more or less to say that there was some widespread damage to the whole brain, even if the wound was much more localized. On the other hand: I am quite sure that it should say parietal and not partial (no brain location called partial but there is a parietal lobe).

--Garrondo (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Fiber pathway damage

You're wrong. There certainly is such a thing as a partial lobe. For example, after his accident Phineas Gage had a partial lobe.

I copy-pasted straight out of VH and now that I look at it, it really does read left temporal, partial, and occipital cortices, so it looks like some proofreader is going to be in trouble. I've fixed it in the article.

VH doesn't say literally that frontal, temporal, and occipital were damaged -- he says Fiber pathway damage extended beyond the left frontal cortex to regions of the ... [etc]. I won't pretend I understand more than 20% of VH but I believe what's being said is that there was damage to pathways serving (though not necessarily within or part of) these areas outside the frontal -- though if I'm right, this doesn't seem like a very clear way of saying it.

Elsewhere VH says, We observe that with the jaw opened, the best-fit rod trajectory satisfying all constraints does not intersect or cross the superior sagittal sulcus and the injury is specific to the left frontal lobe, and if specific to means something like limited to (again, I'm out of my depth here) then that supports my interpretation of the fiber pathway passage discussed in the previous paragraph. I hope Loni can help us with this.

EEng (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Gage vomittng its brain

Maybe there is a better way to say that. As I'm probably having some kind of brain issue, I was highly impacted by the sudden way that this horrible scene appeared and I almost fainted here. Now the phrase doesn't affects me and I can re-read it without problems, but it's possible that more people interested in the case, coming to this article by hyperlinks from articles about other kinds of brain damage, be impacted in the same bad way.--MisterSanderson (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about this passage, from the account of Dr. Williams:

I first noticed the wound upon the head before I alighted from my carriage, the pulsations of the brain being very distinct. Mr. Gage, during the time I was examining this wound, was relating the manner in which he was injured to the bystanders. I did not believe Mr. Gage's statement at that time, but thought he was deceived. Mr. Gage persisted in saying that the bar went through his head .... Mr. G. got up and vomited; the effort of vomit­ing pressed out about half a teacupful of the brain, which fell upon the floor.

Bigelow gathered these testimonials, including their gory details, because given that Gage survived, people couldn't believe how serious his injury had been. Today we're used to people surviving amazing injuries, so to emphasize how precarious Gage's situation really was given the modest tools available to his 19th-century doctors, I juxtapose the doctor "alighting" from his carriage with the brain matter falling out of the very open wound. Also, this is a popular topic for kids about 10-14 (see e.g. John Fleischman's Phineas Gage: A Gruesome but True Story About Brain Science) and kids that age love this kind of stuff.

We all know WP:NOTCENSORED etc., but that doesn't make you feel any better about the reaction you experienced. So I'm not sure what to say. Other editors, please jump in. EEng (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me very unlikely that this happened as described. There are no muscles that can compress the brain and make it squirt out, even after an injury such as Gage's. I also doubt that even a doctor could distinguish between brain tissue and other types of gore, such as semi-clotted blood, of which there would undoubtedly have been some. Still, there is no question that it would have been a grotesque wound, and that seems to be the main point to convey here. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr. John Martyn Harlow created a clime in the report, saying first that "the picture presented was, to one unaccustomed to military surgery, truly ter­rif­ic", so anyone who was reading would not be surprised when saw that "the bed on which he was laid, were literally one gore of blood." (what is not so surprising as vomiting the brain). The reticences in the Dr. Edward H. Williams report means that a section was cut, right? This section doesn't help to create this clime of "I will say something really horrific ahead, don't be surprised"?--MisterSanderson (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The omitted portions of W's statement detail the size and appearance of the exit wound, and his discovery of the cheek (entry) wound. We needn't imagine W is saying brain was "vomited" out by any kind of pressure or constriction; rather one imagines that shaking of the head and bodily spasms of retching knocked loose pulpified brain matter, clotted blood, or whatever. Bear in mind, however, that the injury opened a 1-inch hole connecting the mouth to the cranium, and from this hole to the exit was a path of destroyed tissue left by the iron's passage; Harlow was actually able to touch, or almost touch, the end of his finger inserted into the cheek wound to that of another finger inserted into the skull wound. So I suppose it's not impossible that the force of matter being ejected, from the stomach into the mouth, might be hydraulically or pneumatically (if you will) transmitted via this path through the brain to the wound at the top of the skull, and something thereby expelled. Think of a whale, I guess, but without the harpoon tamping iron.

Anyway, are we questioning the reliability of the text, or the way it's presented, or what? EEng (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I questioned the way it was presented; Looie496 questioned the veracity of the information.--MisterSanderson (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

and I'm questioning what if anything is being proposed be done to improve the article. EEng (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you said that there is no way to improve the citation of the vomit episode by unfolding part of the omitted piece of the citation... So I can't figure another manner to do that.--MisterSanderson (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

While I am sorry for the discomfort caused you, I'm at a loss to know what might be done about it. The article begins by explaining that a large iron bar destroyed a substantial part of Mr. Gage's brain as it was driven through his head (the bar was driven through his head, that is -- his brain wasn't driven through his head), mentions that the iron returned to earth "smeared with blood and brain", has two graphic images of the iron passing through his head (prior to Williams' statement), plus Williams' statement begins by mentioning that he could distinctly see the pulsations of the brain within the head wound before he even got out of his carriage. If this hasn't prepared the reader for some further gory details, I don't what can. EEng (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking how to point what caused the discomfort to me, when I realized that it's too personal/unconscious/irrational to be described. But it's basicaly because the accident didn't left time to Phineas feel pain or to be scared (the impact made him immediately uncounscious), while the vomit episode suscits that he was suffering, feeling really bad. Pictures of crushed corpses are irrelevant or even comical, but suffering (even minor sufferings) can be very scaring. Related info: recent movies that use slow-motion to show people shouting when falling make them comical and unrealistic, because they doesn't pass suffering to the viewers; <spoiler>Vertigo (film), in contrast, makes the viewer thinks not about the falling person (that didn't suffered, because the impact killed immediatly), but about what the hanging person (that was to be pulled by who fallen) is thinking, how scared it may be about falling too.</spoiler> But, as I said, I see now that this is very personal, so I really think now that there's no reason to change anything in the text, because there's no evidence that someone besides me will be affected too. So, forget about it, it's unecessary to change something.--MisterSanderson (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Recategorization

I have recategorized the article from the "Category:People with severe brain damage" to "Category:People with brain injury". While the injury experienced by Gage was horrible, the former category seems populated with unfortunates who were in something like a vegetative state. Gage miraculously recovered consciousness, and was able to function (although badly). Reify-tech (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I always admire the editors who do that grunt work on categories -- it would drive me crazy. Just for the record though, it turns out Gage did not function "badly", but actually quite well. See Phineas Gage#Social recovery. EEng (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fast review by User:Garrondo

<-- Comments indented to this point are my responses to Garrondo's comments. (Garrondo, as I keep saying this is going to take some time, and I'll have to do it in pieces. Since your points and mine, new and old, cross-reference one another, it might be the best use of your time if you wait until I say I'm done before you go over it. Really your "points 1-5" posted Feb. 15 are the most important thing, but I want to address your earlier points first.) EEng (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Garrondo's comments and edits

First of all I want to congratulate EEng for his work. The article is very complete right now, with many citations and a well researched. However after a fast review I find several issues; specially with style: In general I found the tone most according to a novel, historic book or journal article, but not to an encyclopedia: style in an encyclopedia should be more "cold" with less adjetives and valuation expressions, even if they are in the original sources. Some examples are:

• Weighing 13–1/4 lb (6 kg), this "abrupt and intrusive visitor" (completely irrelevant)

I cannot agree that an article is supposed to be "cold," as you say. Factual, neutral, verifiable, etc. -- yes. But not cold. Quite the opposite: an article should be engaging and inviting, including details which, perhaps, don't have to be there, but which nonetheless increase the reader's understanding of the context, sometimes operating at different levels for different readers. So, for example, Boston Medical & Surgical Journal's reference to Gage's tamping iron as an "abrupt and intrusive visitor" to Gage's noggin is just a fun detail many, but to a sophisticated reader interested in the history of medicine, it conveys the sense of bemused amused wonderment found in writing about Gage at the time (foreshadowed in the lead -- "The case...calculated to excite our wonder...) and offers a window into the less stuffy and more stately, more literate style of medical wrioting of the time in contrast to today (one of delights of researching Gage, by the way). You won't find writing like that in New England Journal of Medicine -- which believe it or not is the modern title of Boston Med & Surg J!

• Despite Harlow's skillful care (Irrelevant and common sense: otherwise is clear to everybody he would have died)

See below.

• Harlow's 1868 presentation of the case is by far the most informative (An irrelevant valuation)
• A similar concern was expressed as far back as 1877 (better to say in 1877 since we can not know if there has been anybody saying it between him and McMillan)
• Aside from the question of why the very unpleasant changes usually attributed to Gage would inspire surgical imitation: that is quite irrelevant and highly journalistic. It could simply be eliminated.

Macmillan's paper on the (lack of any) relationship between Gage and lobotomy explains why this is relevant, and I've added a note on the subject to the article,

A second problem I find is the great overuse of verbatim citations. The importance of the longer ones is out of discussion. However sentences such as

By November 25 Gage was strong enough to return to his parents' home in Lebanon, N.H., where by late December he was "riding out, improving both mentally and physically." In April 1849 he returned to Cavendish and paid a visit to Harlow, who noted at that time loss of vision (and ptosis) of the left eye, a large scar on the forehead, and "upon the top of the head...a deep depression, two inches by one and one-half inches wide, beneath which the pulsations of the brain can be perceived. Partial paralysis of the left side of the face." Despite all this, "his physical health is good, and I am inclined to say he has recovered. Has no pain in head, but says it has a queer feeling which he is not able to describe."

are really tiring for the reader; when they could easily converted into prose My proposal in this case would be something similar to:

By November 25 Gage was strong enough to return to his parents' home in Lebanon, N.H., where by late December he was improving both mentally and physically. In April 1849 he returned to Cavendish and paid a visit to Harlow, who noted at that time loss of vision and ptosis of the left eye, a large scar on the forehead, and a skull depression of two inches by one and one-half inches wide. Despite all this Harlow considered that he was almost completely recovered.

Finally there is also an overuse of unneeded brackets and (I do not know the name in English), both quite tiring to reading: In addition to verbatim citations examples are:

• then compact ("tamp down") : Could simply be eliminated

People don't seem to know what a "tamping iron" so some explanation is needed. But I rewrote to eliminate the quotation.

• A "fungal" infection: Why not A fungal infection?

Because to Harlow a "fungus" was (OED) "spongy morbid growth or excrescence, such as exuberant granulation in a wound" i.e. the body's own reaction to the wound, not an infection (though this growth was itself clearly infected severely, probably by bacteria; see Macmillan 2000, p.61 for more). Putting "fungal" in quotes alerts the reader that the word is not being used in the usual sense. Even though I'll be reverting your change in this and many other cases, the exercise has been extremely helpful, because it shows where explanatory text (or a note) should be added (e.g for "fungus").

• consistent with a "social recovery" hypothesis: consistent with a social recovery hypothesis.

I'll try to propose further improvements (probably more important than the stylistic changes proposed) along this week. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing

I have the article according to some of the simplest of my above points. However other possible eliminations are more open to discussion. I am going to go ahead with some changes with the aim of simplifying language and structure of some sentences and eliminated not very relevant data. I will add here any sentences I eliminate and their rationale for elimination so if somebody does not agree it can be added back.--Garrondo (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Gage's accident

• (via a laborious process which today might best be thought of as chiseling): Not really relevant to topic and complicate too much structure. Topic is Gage and his accident, not the method of drilling rock
• this "abrupt and intrusive visitor"[6] was said to have landed some 80 feet (25 m) away.. Too much novelesque language but does not really add info (abrupt and intrusive). "Was said to have landed": As everything else in the article we base it in original and secondary sources. Unless there is a reason to doubt it it can be eliminated. Sentence changed to: it landed 80 feet (25 m) away.

It would be incorrect to say, "it landed X distance away" because reports of the distance varied, and since it's a quantitative statement it needs to be qualified as inexact. The only alternative to "...said to have landed..." would be to just say it landed "far" away and that's hardly helpful to the reader. (The distance does matter because it puts a limit on the speed as the bar left Gage's skullm yucky as that sounds).

• Despite Harlow's skillful care. Eliminated skillful: Do we have any indication that it was above what is expected for a physician of that time? Did he do anything unusual? It probably was an average care.

Harlow's management of the case was creative and well above the norm for the time. I've added cites to Macmillan's and Barker's discussion of this.

I will continue with other sections along the week.--Garrondo (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent life and travels

• in New York City (the curious paying to see, presumably, both Gage and the instrument that injured him) although there is no independent confirmation of this. Recently however, evidence has surfaced supporting Harlow's... There is no confirmation for this but neither there is for almost everything... We base our knowledge on Gage in Harlow's, and there is no reason to doubt on its veracity, specially with the later sentence. Changed to: both Gage and the instrument that injured him). Evidence has surfaced supporting that Gage made public appearances in the larger New England towns For the second sentence a reference is needed.

Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

EEng's thougts on above

Garrondo, your careful attention is very much appreciated! And I want to mention that you (along with User:Delldot and others) did the really hard work of building the article from scratch long before I got involved two years ago. Many of your recent changes point out weaknesses (some of which I knew about and hadn't got around to ). But many show misunderstandings -- you don't seem to have absorbed the sources cited for the material you're changing, and often the statements in your edit summaries are factually incorrect. To avoid the article carrying misinformation too long, I'm going to revert some of those changes immediately, making the best explanation I can in the edit summaries; later (maybe over the weekend) adding further explanation here.

Beyond straight-out factual issues are your concerns about whether certain material is relevant, or whether material can be paraphrased, rather than quoted, without loss of meaning. Again, you really need to read the context of a given quote, as found in the cites, before paraphrasing it in a way which you assume to be equivalent, or which changes the meaning in "minor" ways which you assume are safe. Similarly, you can't assume that omitting this or that material won't damage the reader's understanding of the case it its context, unless you carefully check the cited material from which it came and secondary sources discussing it. Interpreting Gage -- particularly, making sense of the conflicting things written about him in the 19th century -- requires careful attention to the shifting medical and popular meanings of terms we take for granted as settled today. An example of how much less settled ideas about the brain were in Gage's time: it wasn't even generally recognized that injury to one side of the brain tends to affect movement or sensation on the opposite side of the body, much less did many mid-19c physicians accept that brain injury might affect "higher functions" such as language and behavior. So in saying a patient "recovered," he might -- depending on his training and doctrinal inclination -- only mean that movement and sensation are unimpaired, any behavioral changes being ascribed to something other than the brian injury, or simply ignored as not even medical issues in the first place. That's why the article quotes Harlow's and Bigelow's statements about Gage's "recovery" -- to acknowledge them as the two men's individual wordings, each needing individual interpretation according its source. (For example, Bigelow was hostile to phrenology, while Harlow was almost certainly influenced by it to some extent.) To simply write, by paraphrase, that Harlow said Gage was almost fully recovered, leads the reader to interpret the word recovered in its modern sense, comprehending the far wider range of functions for which we now believe the brain is responsible, compared to some (but not all) physicians 150 years ago. And to change Harlow's words, "His health is good, and I am inclined to say he has recovered," into a narration that Harlow considered that [Gage] was almost completely recovered absolutely changes the meaning as a modern reader will interpret it, especially when one considers the question in light of everything else Harlow writes. These issues are extensively discussed in Barker, Macmillan 2000, Macmillan 2008, and other cited material.

You omitted Harlow's mention of Gage's hard-to-describe "queer feeling in the head." This is a phenomenon often associated with certain brain injuries -- see A.R. Luria's The Man with a Shattered World -- and tying Gage in to Luria's description 100 years later vividly ties Gage to the modern theory of brain-injury rehabilitation, for those with the background to recognize it. This is another example of text working at different levels for different readers, and should be retained.

Contrary to what you say, not every physician was a "doctor" at the time (and in fact for a long time in the UK, some classes of surgeons were styled Mr. not Dr.).

In other cases, you've made edits which, on simple grammar and punctuation alone, change the meaning into an incorrect or ambiguous one on its own face, having nothing to do with interpretation. Example: Harlow noted loss of vision (and ptosis) of the left eye makes it clear that the loss of vision, as well as the ptosis, affected the left eye only. Your text loss of vision and ptosis of the left eye is unclear as to whether of the left eye applies to loss of vision, or to ptosis only -- ambiguously suggesting that the loss of vision might have been in both eyes. The parentheses correct this. (Commas could be used instead, but in a sentence with many commas already, parentheses help subordinate this phrase to the larger structure. You seem to dislike parentheses for some reason, but they are completely acceptable in good writing, when used carefully. The same goes for dashes (—) as well, I might add.)

Another important point (I had meant my comments to be brief, but it's not working out that way...): Contrary to what you say, almost everything Harlow tells us about Gage's movements has been independently verified one way or another -- see Macmillan 2000, 2008 especially. That's why, for example, it's specially called out that the Barnum appearance is unverified (despite several ransackings of Barnum archives in locations throughout the US).

As I said, I'll make certain more urgent reversions now, others in time, and if the edit summaries don't satisfy you please start a list here, where we can continue discussion on individual points. In the meantime, please continue to make further changes you think are helpful. I'll either leave them alone (or build on them), revert with explanatory edit summaries, or (in many cases) revert while adding explanatory text so the text won't mislead future readers the way it has you. That seems the most efficient way to do this -- no need to discuss everything in advance (unless you feel the need) -- just be bold and we can revert-discuss as necessary. But please do more carefully review the cited sources before making further changes. Wikipedia Excelsior! EEng (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(Later) Well, Garrondo, I'm sorry to say I ended up reverting almost all your changes. There's an explanation on each individual edit summary, though in a few places I'll add more explanation here on Talk, but that can't be for a few days. But (and I really mean this) this has really helped, because it showed how many places extra explanation is needed. You'll see one added note already (which I fear you might think frivolous, but it's really not -- the tenor of the times was important to the fate of the case in medical history) and I'll be adding at least two others, one on "fungus" and one on "drilling" -- probably a few more as well. Please do keep making proposed changes, frustrating as that may seem, because they really are helping me see the article in a new light. And please feel free to "push back" here on any of my reversions. EEng (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with most of your explanations and I believe that at least in most cases they are related to a conscious or most probably unconscious sense of ownership over the article. From now on I won't edit any more the article since I do not feel that collaboration is really welcome. Having said this I still hope that we could make a better article together. I will point out some comments, if I feel they are heard and addressed I will continue pointing more, if not I will simply leave you at your own. --Garrondo (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! I was afraid something like this might happen. I really don't want you to feel that way -- remember, I contacted you especially asking for your thoughts, and that was sincere. But look, the only way to work together to make the article better (and there's lots to be done) is to discuss our different points of view. I said I would annotate your original comments in the next few days, and I'll do that, and then we can discuss from there. I don't know any other way. In the meantime if some of my edit summaries don't satisfy you, list them here for discussion. Similarly, please annotate my reasoning above where you disagree. But you really, really have to read the sources cited (the secondary ones, I mean) to understand why many things are the way they are. EEng (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

More than offended I had the feeling of work being useless. Nevertheless I still want to try to work in the article because it is an article I am really interested and in general I believe you have done good work. However I would change to an approach which leaves to you all decisions regarding the article. I will only do peer review, commenting in the talk page. It will be up to you to decide on using it or not and it is there and then were you would have to prove how much open to change you are. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

More comments from Garrondo

Some of my editions were intended to eliminate some quotation marks. I have counted more than 140 which makes 70 quotations. When I read the full article they make me really tired and they are far from improving prose. From my point of view the article will improve if many of the direct quotations are converted into prose. (More comments soon).--Garrondo (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick check and only two or three of your changes involved dropping quotes, and in those cases they set off unusual terms with which most readers would be unfamiliar, such as "social recovery." If there's a Wikipedia article to link to, that would be better than quote marks, but I can't find one. As I write I realize some of these cases could use italics instead, and maybe that would be better. But I have to get to work now. Let's talk later. EEng (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That is because I preferred to try what I thought that were going to be simpler editions to more complex ones. I would not use italics, since the problem is exactly the same and additionally the article will not be consistent. Solution should be to convert into prose. There are many places that using the exact same words as in the primary source is not at all a necessity. Some probable examples

• "a vainglorious tendency to show off his wound," an "utter lack of foresight: why not simply a tendency to vainglory from his wound and lack of foresight
• "up and down stairs, and about the house, into the piazza," and while Harlow was absent for a week, Gage was "in the street every day except Sunday," his desire to return to his family in New Hampshire being "uncontrollable by his friends...got wet feet and a chill." He soon developed a fever, but by mid-November he was "feeling better in every respect...walking about the house again; says he feels no pain in the head." Harlow's prognosis at this point: Gage "appears to be in a way of recovering, if he can be controlled." (There are 4 quatations in 3 sentences!!!) A possible alternative for the second part would be something similar to: He soon developed a fever, but by mid-November he had recovered from it, was walking again and had no pain in the head. At this point Harlow thought that he was going to get over his injury if he could be controlled. (I am really tired today; I have just given an speech in which curiosly I have talked about Phineas Gage; so I do not feel capable of thinking something for the first part of the sentence; and anyway these are only examples).
• "riding out, improving both mentally and physically.": is it really necessary to say the "riding out"? Does it add ANY information? Why not simply improving both mentally and physically and no quotes?
• "upon the top of the head...a deep depression, two inches by one and one-half inches wide, beneath which the pulsations of the brain can be perceived. Partial paralysis of the left side of the face." I think the part of the pulsations is probably much to gory and does not really add much. How about something like: and at the top of the skull a depression two inches by one and one-half inches wide which put in direct contact the scalp skin with the brain's surface. Gage also suffered from partial paralysis in the lef side of the face.

With rephrasings similar to the ones above we should be able to eliminate many of the messier quotations(I will point some more ones on Monday).--Garrondo (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On the other side I agree completely with delldot on the article having a non-neutral, essay-like tone with the bullets section being the most clamorous example.--Garrondo (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In a more general perspective the article from my point of view gives undue weight to the misuse of the case in comparison to the importance of the case: While in the lead it is commented that it has had great importance in the history of neuroscience nothing else is said but a line to Damasio's theory afterwards. I find the misuse section very interesting but it should come only after a whole section commenting at least some of the following points:

• 1-How has the case influenced the knowledge on the relationship between behavior and brain.
• 2-How has been used by different schools of thought (again only a line in the misuse of the case is said, while the fact that two different schools used it as an example on opposite theories is not really a misuse).
• 3-How it is in accordance with the knowledge on the functioning and damage consequences knowledge we have today on the frontal lobe
• 4-How it is still used as an example in many textbooks (lead should only be a summary of the text below, the line that it is said in it should be expanded in the text)
• 5-A more in-depth coverage of Damasio's theory.

Otherwise it is using a Non Neutral Point of View. The fact is that the consequences commented by Harlow are common in people with frontal lobe damage, so Harlow's description of Gage sequels is still today a valid one. The fact that there may be some factual incorrections in the description should not be given more importance. In this sense only one author (an important and fruitful one nevertheless) says that the description is not correct so the article would be greatly improved if this was shown.--Garrondo (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Garrondo, I've started work on adding my comments and explanations to your comments above, but it's a big job and not nearly done (it's not really something that can be done piece by piece). But I have made some changes to the article which I hope address some of your concerns. Your points 1-5 above are good ones, and I'd much rather talk about them (substance of the article) and worry about use of quotes and other stylistic stuff later.

One particular thing I'm realizing is that you seem to think the article questions the accuracy of Harlow's description of Gage's behavior. It absolutely does not do that, and I've tried to make that even more clear. The issues with Harlow's description are these:

• it's unclear when the different things he says about Gage apply -- some may apply soon after the accident, others years later. And once you realize the possibility of Gage having made a substantial recovery over the years, it becomes really important to figure that out.
• Some of what he says comes second or third hand, and so must be taken with caution (in particular, such stuff may be incomplete)
• As discussed already in my comments further up, words like recovered are very tricky to interpret, depending on the medical training and background of the writer

I think it's also very important that you read up on the key secondary sources -- pardon my saying, but from some of your comments it's clear you haven't done that. And I can understand that -- there's a lot to go through. But the fact is you're the only person taking a substantial interest in the article, your concerns are quite sensible, and there's no way we can have a productive discussion on e.g. your POV concerns unless you have access to the cited materials. Here's what I consider essential reading: Macmillan 2000 (the book), Macmillan 2000 ("Restoring" paper), Macmillan 2008 ([19]), Barker, Ratiu, plus [20] and [21], and finally a Macmillan paper not cited, "Phineas Gage: A case for all reasons" [22]. If you have trouble getting any of those I can help -- I'll even send you Macmillan 2000 if you really need it. It's that important to me that we be able to work together well. (I'd also like to know more about your talk on Gage.) EEng (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The truth is I do not have neither access nor time to read the secondary sources that I have not red (Mostly McMillian). It is true that I have not red them, but I do not doubt on the conclusions you draw from them. In that sense I believe that the distortion and misuse is a section that clearly should be maintaineed. The problem is that what I do not see anywhere in the article (but a line in the lead which should be a summary of the article which is not right now) why the case has had such an impact. This missing section is probably the most important point in the article, since with out it the article would be a non-notable anecdote of a survivor. Moreover the misuse section does not make sense without a previous section where it is said how the case has been used since its occurrence until today. We should center our efforts to decide wether this section is a neccesity and what should include.--Garrondo (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Great article!

I read the whole thing, was drawn in and was fascinated, really fantastic. It's appropriate for subject. Should be featured. Shame so many people don't recognize talented and quality work, commercial encyclopedia's would pay good money for this. The comments above about "cold" writing being required at Wikipedia is just lol. In fact Wikipedia is 95% awful writing (myself included) so when we see actual rare good work, the crowd can't stand it because it sets off the rest to look so bad and amateur. Anyway, don't take my word, look at the user reviews at the bottom of the page, and article view statistics. People love this article. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. A lot of that "professional" quality comes from the work of EEng in 2008-2010. This article was once rated a "Good Article" (in 2007), but was delisted in 2008, before EEng started working on it. It might be worth renominating -- however EEng has not edited since March of this year, so would probably not be available to deal with issues that arise. I could probably take care of minor stuff, but I'm definitely far from an expert on Gage. Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I just got out after six months in prison (they block Wikipedia) so it's comforting to find such friendly voices here on the outside. (Just kidding about being in prison -- you didn't really believe that, did you?) I can't deny I'm tickled by the praise for the article above and below. I did put a lot of work into it, but it's no false modesty when I say that it was others (Garrondo especially) that did the essential work of putting it together in the first place. If I'd started it on my own from scratch it wouldn't be nearly as good. EEng (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Just stating for the record that it was me who missed the "just kidding" part. You are all, therefore, warned as to the competency of my editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'm amazed at how little (relatively) the article has changed while I've been gone, but of course I'm gonna look it all over now. Y'all please let me know if I you think I do something unwise. EEng (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I echo the praise. Far too many Wikipedia articles are cold and sterile (if sometimes littered by the leftovers of earlier POV wars). The passion in this one makes it much more informative and interesting. Where such passion would get in the way of objectivity and NPOV, it of course would need to be toned down. And it's unrealistic to assume that all of our articles will ever get such treatment. But let's not tone it down in a search for anodyne consistency of style. I respect that there are a range of criteria for this, but as far as I am concerned, this is more deserving of being a Featured Article than many others we have. Martinp (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Very interesting read about a very interesting man. The author(s) of this article certainly did him justice. By the way, does anyone else thing that Phineas Gage bears a striking resemblence to Christopher Reeve? Van Vidrine (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The resemblance to Reeve is frequently commented on. Search [23] for Reeve (see esp. the July 24 comment). EEng (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I see this excellent article has been the subject of numerous comments already so I'll try and keep this relatively brief. I should also say at the start that I haven't consulted any of the secondary sources cited in the article so my comments should be read under the presumption of my own ignorance (I could probably get most of the articles cited but I'm less certain I could locate Macmillan's book-length treatment).

Coverage: As a reader, the one item I'm left dissatisfied about is the coverage of the manner in which the Gage case was used to advance or support theories relating to cerebral localisation or other aspects of psychology, behaviour and brain function. As it stands this is limited to a brief mention of a 19th century dispute in regard to localisation theories and Antonio Damasio's hypothesis linking the frontal lobes to emotions and decision making. Note D indicates that Harlow's (1868) account was, at least until 1974, the second most cited source in 20th century psychological texts. I would like a better sense of what theories or hypotheses Gage's case was used to illustrate or support, however erroneously.

Style: In regard to the writing style, I should preface my remarks by stating that it is excellent overall and I wouldn't favour changes that are likely to render it less engaging. However, I feel there is at times an overuse of both parentheses and dashes. I think, personally, these should be used somewhat more judiciously. Dashes are useful in lending a particularly emphasis to a section of text but retain that effect only when used sparingly. Parentheses, used to clarify a point or term, I'd really only include when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, if overused, both dashes and parentheses can lend something of juddering effect to the reading experience. In regard to the use of dashes, I think that this is most evident in the lead where in many instances I would advocate the use of commas instead. If say, you removed about half of the dashes, the text they are removed from may flow better whereas their effect where they are retained would be greatly enhanced. Similarly with the use of parentheses, some should probably be retained but many, I think, should not and the information would be more easily digested if commas were substituted for brackets or if new sentences were introduced. In fact, in some instances notes could be used.

Footnote 38 should follow the bracket, no?

Note C: I'd actually like to see some of this note integrated into the main text (esp. "The leading feature of this case is its improbability ... This is the sort of accident that happens in the pantomime at the theater, not elsewhere").

Note K: "Contrary to common reports" - assuming this observation is derived from Macmillan, why would it need a separate citation?

An excellent article overall. Will it be nominated for Good or Featured article status? FiachraByrne (talk)

GAN, McMillian and Gage

First of all I want to say that I greatly admire the work done by EEng in this article, which has led it to probably become a great piece, with fine writting and really good documentation. However, I have stated several times that while McMillian is probably a great source, it is not a definitive one, and certainly there is no consensus with his position regarding the well-doing of Gage.

In the section above EEng said: Just for the record though, it turns out Gage did not function "badly", but actually quite well. This comment defines exactly the problem I find with several parts of the article, since it clearly overstates the importance of McMillian theories: it would certainly be more accurate to say that it has been proposed by an investigator that he did quite well, or that some evidence points towards him doing better than previously thought.

I find all sections till the "theoretical use and misuse" very balanced, but from it (included) to the end of the article I believe that some undue weight is given to McMillian, giving the impression that there is consensus on his theories. I find specially troublesome the "use of the case" section, where only a few lines are given on how the case has been used along the history of neurology. However, this section should probably be one of the most important ones in the article, since independently of how truly was the case of Gage he has been an icon used for over a 100 years to explain frontal lobe disorders. This section should explain how has he become such an icon, and it certainly should give minimal importance to McMillian. Moreover, the article should also make clear that many of the problems that at some point have been proposed that he suffered are consistent with frontal brain injuries and that the MRI and neurological knowledge on the prognosis of other similar cases point towards him certainly suffering some kind of cognitive problems for the remaining of his life.

EEng has stated several times that he only has basic knowledge on neurology and neuroanatomy, and he recently indicated in other article that he was involved in the preparation of one of McMillians works. While none of the two facts actually invalidate his huge acomplishments in this article, they may be hindering the advance of the article in what I think are the final stages towards GA and even FA and work with other editors is probably the only way of moving forward from this point.

In summary: I do not think right now the article is up to GA status although it is probably close, with only some (not huge) problems in balance of content along the full article (McMillians importance should be down-toned at some points) (criterium 3) and an (important) lack of content in another section (criterium 4).

I have been involved in the article, so my evaluation does not count as the requiered review for GAN, but I hope that nevertheless is taken into account.

--Garrondo (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Some editors know from earlier discussions that I am the second author of Reference #20, and first author mentioned in Note Z, of [24]. I prefer not to broadcast this because (a) I do not want to be seen as playing the "expert card" and (2) my professional work requires that any internet presence connected to my real-life identity be extremely low-profile. I ask that other editors help keep it that way by referring to my identity only obliquely. (I'm not in the CIA or anything, so it's not like you'll be responsible for my death, but it's the nature of my work that everything I write can become the subject of discussion.)

An illuminating question

To get this discussion restarted, let me pose a question which I think will be illuminating:

The article says that Gage died in 1860, citing Macmillan. But most sources ([25]) say Gage died in 1861. So how come the article doesn't present this as some kind of controversy, explaining that sources conflict as to the year Gage died? Or should it?

Discussion of this question should encapsulate, in miniature, the larger question Garrondo is raising.

EEng (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I had not seen this after all the edits back and forth on format. I simply do not see your point. I do not see the relevance of McMillian giving a different date. He may or may not be right, we cannot know, but nobody has really discussed Gage's death date over the years (probably few care). As such there is no controversy; whereas many people have make important contributions to neuroscience using him as an example of one theory and the other and such use is by itself relevant and notable.

Once again: I have nothing against McMillian, and he may be 100% right or 100% wrong or somewhere in the middle we cannot know. Future works will go with him or against him, and there is nothing wrong with that. Howevever until them I believe it is a good idea to present his proposals as that, as proposals from an author based on data and his interpretations from that data (that is the problem of history, hardly ever based on hard data). In this sense I have to say that right now the article makes a good job in most sections since it usually presents info attributting it to McMillian and letting the reader decide how much weight he gives to it.

Once said that: even if he is 100% correct is irrelevant. Historical use of Gage's case is notable, and cannot be simply dismissed in a few lines as fully faulty, which is what is more or less done in the use and misuse section right now.

As I have always said: if you really want to improve the article in a neutral tone we could discuss how to do it.

--Garrondo (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Soft hyphens

Extended content

:::::::::The following is copied from User talk:Bender235#Phineas Gage. The edit in question, by Bender235, changed the markup (a) &emdash;, (b) &endash;, and (c) &shy; to (a) a literal em-dash(—), (b) a literal en-dash (–), and (c) a literal soft hyphen, which is nonprinting and invisible in the edit window. What was the purpose of these [26] changes? En- and em-dashes are hard to distinguish in the markup, and soft hyphens improve layout and appearance -- why did you remove them? [See below -- turns out they weren't removed, just made invisible in the edit window.] EEng (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Soft hypens are a bit too much Insp. Gadget for Wikipedia. If you look at the source of the article then, it is basically unreadable, which is something Wikipedia should always avoid. --bender235 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I see. And you changed the mdash/ndash markup to literal mdashes/ndashes because...? EEng (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Because User:Cameltrader/Advisor suggested it. And I don't see any reason not to do it. --bender235 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I said why you shouldn't do it in my initial post here: the literal em- and en-dashes are very hard to distinguish in source. So in removing the soft hyphens you impaired the quality of what the reader sees (and summarily discarded a lot of someone's work) in the name of improving what the editor sees -- a tradeoff already made, in the opposite direction, by those who actually edit the article. Then you changed symbolic dashes to literal dashes, which does nothing at all except impair what the editor sees. Please don't make choices about what is or isn't convenient for the article's editors if you're not one of them. EEng (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Okay, you better get off the high horse here. I've been editing Wikipedia long enough to have an educated opinion on what's convenient for editors and what is not. That soft hyphen overkill you (or whoever) introduced to that article is simply ridiculous. I mean, ...sec&shy;ond, com&shy;pen&shy;sat&shy;ing..., what the hell is that? Could you name any plausible scenario in which it would be necessary for the viewer's browser to break a single word three times? Is there anybody browsing Wikipedia with a 10px screen, or what? --bender235 (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Brought this case to WP:MOS. And by the way, just because you contributed to a particular article more than I did does not make you its owner. --bender235 (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC) I'm perfectly comfortable up here on my high horse, thank you. Multiple soft hyphens allow a word to be broken at the one best point among several choices. That you think they imply breaking a single word over several lines calls into question your claimed extensive experience. As it turns out your edits didn't even remove the soft hyphens -- what you actually did, using an automated tool you apparently don't understand, was to substitute a literal soft hyphen for each occurence of &shy;, similar to your substitution of — and – for &mdash; and &ndash;. But since literal soft hyphens are nonprinting (except at end-of-line), by doing so you have made it not only (as previously explained) very difficult to visually distinguish an en- from an em-dash in the edit window, you've now made it completely impossible to see where the soft hyphens are. Good work. This article is full of medical terms and majestic 19th-century quotations, making hyphenation very helpful in avoiding unsightly underfilled lines, particularly in narrow captions and multicolumn notes/references. Your argument that readability of source text (seen by less than one editor per day) trumps readability of formatted text (seen by thousands of readers per day) is nonsense. In any event this particular choice, in this particular article, was made (or accepted with no hint of objection) by editors actually working on (or at least monitoring) it. This has nothing to do with ownership -- if you showed any interest in substantive edits to the article that would be quite a different matter from what actually happened i.e. you dropped in to impose your personal ideas of what markup should look like, and moved on. When you gain consensus at MOS for regulations micromanaging soft hyphenation please let us know, assuming the universe has not run cold by then. In the meantime, since you apparently don't know how soft hyphens work, or what the automated tool you're using actually does, think twice before applying the word "ridiculous". EEng (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC) You're barking up the wrong tree. I'll give you a chance to reply at WP:MOS and explain what people there describe as a "joke edit" of yours, before I revert your edit. --bender235 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Please, no more metaphors -- so far you've got me "barking up the wrong tree" while on "the high horse". Your insistence that you are combatting "soft hyphen overkill" is ludicrous since, as already explained above, your edit did not remove the soft hyphens but merely changed them to a form making then impossible to see in the edit window. (That the soft hyphens are still there is easily seen via the hyphenated linebreaks in the live article e.g. in most image captions.) This makes no sense at all. Talk:MOS is for discussion of changes to MOS or of MOS interpretation, not forum-shopped editing disputes unrelated to anything in MOS. Soft hyphens are part of Wikipedia markup, and in the absence of guidelines to the contrary they exist to be used according to the consensus of editors of the article in question. I am copying this discussion to Talk:Phineas Gage#Soft hyphens so we can hear if any of them finds soft hyphens as objectionable as you do. EEng (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC) End of copied discussion I would recommend that both of you take a deep breath... The tone of this conversation has not been really productive. Regarding hyphens... I agree with EEng that to change them with literal literal mdashes/ndashes is a bad idea with no positive effects. On the other hand the use of soft hyphens is a tradeoff between readibility of text and accesibility of editing, being the two of them important (this is the encyclopedia that anybody should be able to edit). I have to say that sometimes I have taken a look at the editing text and it does take quite a lot of effort to understand it, so Bender may have a point there. On the other hand in the absence of policy changes in format in an article should be first consensuated. As a conclussion: I would rather not to use them unless in very specific cases since it is true that use is really extensive at several places of the article and they might be contributing to editors not being able to contribute in the article, while their positive effect is a matter of subjective aesthetic preference (I have for example no problems with spaces). --Garrondo (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I actually don't want to have this discussion here, but rather with a broader audience on WP:MOS, but let me just reply to this: "Your insistence that you are combatting "soft hyphen overkill" is ludicrous since, as already explained above, your edit did not remove the soft hyphens but merely changed them to a form making then impossible to see in the edit window. (That the soft hyphens are still there is easily seen via the hyphenated linebreaks in the live article e.g. in most image captions.) This makes no sense at all." It makes perfect sense, because the problem with soft hyphens aren't the soft hyphens themselves, but the effect they have on the readability of source code. I mean, lines like inap&shy;pro&shy;priate sex&shy;u&shy;al behav&shy;ior, ina&shy;bil&shy;ity or refus&shy;al are practically unreadable to human eye. Imagine a new editor (or any, for that matter), spotting a typo in this line and wanting to fix it: he/she would most likely have no idea what to do with this mess. Like I said, the problem aren't the soft hyphens themselves. What matters to me is keeping the source code readable. --bender235 (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC) These &shys certainly make the code much harder for the editors. Is it worth this inconvenience in order to give the reader a better article? Sure but I don't agree that this is happening. You might be reducing the blank space at the end of lines but you do so at the expense of breaking words up. A word broken over two lines is harder to read. I could see a use for soft hyphens where the word is very long and/or the space is very narrow but this is not the case here. Also, I believe Bender's suggestion to take the discussion to WT:MOS is quite reasonable; the use (or misuse) of soft hyphens is not just an issue for this article but is relevant for most articles. JIMp talk·cont 13:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC) no hyphenation (forgive the stray highlighting) with hyphenation Well, I think the difference seen in these screenshots does represent giving the reader a better article. Most of the soft hyphens are in captions and notes, where the layout is narrow. I also added them in places I saw bad breaks and underfilled lines, particularly in verbatim quotes not subject to editing anyway. I agree I've never seen any article so generously hyphenated, but so what? I don't buy the idea that soft hyphens are the straw that breaks the markup-complexity camel's back -- the markup in this article, as in any extensively annotated article, is already very complex. (Garrondo, just today in reference to a certain quotation you said [27] "I was going to be bold and move it but I have been unable due to the complex syntax used." Um, but this was after another editor had removed all the soft hyphens [28] -- so should we now remove all the < refs> as well?) Based on the screenshots I hope most can agree that soft hyphens are justified in at least some places. If editors want to discuss particular instances (or classes of instances, or some systematic way of deciding where to soft hyphenate) that's fine, but if not then mass-removal is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or perhaps WHAT­THE­FUCK'S­ALL­THIS­SHIT­I'VE­NEVER­SEEN­ANYTHING­LIKE­IT­SO­IT­MUST­BE­WRONG. EEng (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not convinced. Most articles never use soft hyphens, and they look OK. If long words in narrow columns cause problems now and then, you might sometimes justify a soft hyphen in such words if you can't fix the formatting to not have images on both sides or whatever is causing the squeeze. But the only way to get there is to remove all the soft hyphens and start over. Where did they come from, anyway? You? Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Consensus at MOS discussion for this specific articles seems that they are overall unnecessary. Moreover, the theoretical improvement throught their use is quite subjective: personally from the two images you show I find more aesthethically pleasant the first, since I really dislike breaking a word in two and have no problem with double blank spaces. I agree with their removal and then discussing if there are any places where they are essential. Also: my problem with editing is specific to this article which is really, over-marked up (and I think I am an experienced editor). Eliminating the soft hyphens might not be the solution (as you say I would have neither been able to change the quote), but it will certainly make editing easier. In this sense I think that your example using my comment is not really fair. --Garrondo (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC). Thank you, EEng, for the screen shots; I think that they well illustrate my point. Given the choice between the text with overly wide spaces and the one with a broken word, the first seems a whole lot more readable. Of course, this isn't actually the choice we're faced with; WP doesn't adjust spacing to fill the line but leaves a blank space at the end of the line (as far as I'm aware, though I've only checked Chrome, Firefox & Internet Explorer). Either way, though, it seems to me that in general breaking a word up over two lines is too high a price to pay for avoiding a little stray space. On looking at versions of the page with and without soft hyphens, it seems to me that the soft hyphens don't really do much in the way of removing line length inconsistency and the most prominent/noticeable difference is the broken words. When and where soft hyphens may be beneficial is under discussion at WT:MOS; the general consensus is that they are undesirable unless we're dealing with quite long words and/or quite narrow spaces. I don't see either here. Throw out the bathwater, there was no baby in the first place. JIMp talk·cont 07:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight of first quote

Extended content

To have a long quote on the misuse of the case in the lead is in my opinion to give undue weight to such misuse. It certainly is not mentioned in most sources on Gage and is only a central point in McMillans theories. While I think the quote is a good one, I feel that it would better fit in the specific section within the article. I was going to be bold and move it but I have been unable due to the complex syntax used.--Garrondo (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC) It's not mentioned in most sources on Gage because most sources on Gage are just a few sentences. There are only two modern authors I can bring to mind who discuss in any way the theoretical treatment of Gage, and both emphasize the doctrinal misuse of the case. One of those is Barker (cited in article) and the other is Macmillan's 600-page book and 15+ papers over 25 years. There is no controversy or dispute about Macmillan's conclusions (which are not, as you call them, "theories") and much commentary on it explicitly highlights Macmillan's theoretical-misuse point with approval -- for example (among many others, and detailed cites on request): Ammons, Psychological Reports (2001) Goldenberg, Cortex (2004) Eling Contemporary Psychology (2003): "Macmillan’s study is a colorful picture of how scientists (and subsequently all kinds of people in society) used a particular case to convince others of their own theories." Crichton, Lancet (2001) Saling, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (2001): "a study of the mutations that creep into the historicoclinical record in medicine" Long, Neurosurgery Quarterly (2002). "Even some of the most prestigious academic researchers have disseminated erroneous information about this most important injury and its outcome" Hayward, Br J for the History of Science (2002): "a stunning example of the ideological use of case histories and their mythological reconstruction." Among early sources, exasperation with theoretical misuse and distortion was expressed by Smith, Dupuy, Ferrier, and Jackson (all cited in article) EEng (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. Wait a second... I just realized there is no "long quote on the misuse of the case in the lead"! What are you talking about? EEng (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC) OK, now I know what you're talking about -- the pullquote just after the lead. I agree it looks awkward there, and I've moved it as you suggest. EEng (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC) I do not say that McMillian is wrong and he certainly makes a point that Gage could have recovered better than thought (although it is a theory since it is far from proven as we still have very little information- him appearing in pictures or even having a job are not a clear-cut proof that he had no personality changes-. He does however prove that the case has been exagerated) , but the misuse of the case should be given similar importance to other parts of the article. Right now the quote of the lead seems to indicate in my opinion that the case is most famous because of its misuse than because of its use, which it is certainly not the case. I am just proposing that it is moved to the specific section of "misuse of the case". Independently of whether the case was true or not as told, he is not famous because of the misuse, but because it is believed that his personality changed. At the very least (I am not an expert on the bibliography) A Damasio disagrees with McMillians, and uses his case as an example of personality changes due to frontal lobe injuries, with his theories having a great impact and no mention in them of the "abuse". Similarly Stuss in his (really important) book on the frontal lobes also uses Phineas as an example of personality changes due to frontal lobe injuries without any mention to its overuse. Finally all recent modellings (Ratiu, H Damasio) of the injury should also be some indication that Phineas is still more important because of what his changes could have been and have been thought to be than to what they might really have been. --Garrondo (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC) I had neither seen your last comment nor your change: problems of following the watchlist from bottom to top.--Garrondo (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC) I have finally moved the text down to the specific subsection on misuse. --Garrondo (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision to the introduction

Subject to JVdb's permission, points have been numbered below to ease discussion

• 1. I have made a revision to the Introduction, but only to put it forward. I did like the previous introduction, but maybe it can be simpler, and I hope this will help. If it is reverted, perhaps we can discuss the following and incorporate any that are agreed upon.
• 2. 'now remembered'->'remembered' as he has only ever been 'remembered' for these things.
• 3. +'at the age of 25' as I think it helps the first sentence stand alone - combined with birth and death dates it helps the reader understand he lived many years after the accident.
• 4. Regarding '—at least for a time—', I feel that any recovery he made is best relegated to later in the introduction, as his fame is due to the improbable nature of the physical accident and survival, and the medical interest in the effects. The extent of his recovery was not known until recently, meaning it was not an important aspect of his notability, and in any case the recovery fits within 'effects on his personality and behavior'.
• 5. "no longer Gage" - the sentence was already used 'profound effects'. I think "no longer Gage" can be omitted without loosing too much of the punchiness, and removing it simplifies the sentence considerably.
• 6. I feel that the last paragraph of the introduction, about the daguerreotype and social recovery hypothesis, needed to be more of a summary of the recent findings (the 2008 advert, 2009 daguerreotype, and 2010 portrait) and the impact these findings have had on scholarship and our understanding of the man. Describing the 2009 daguerreotype and not talking about the 2008 advert and 2010 portrait felt a bit imbalanced and odd.
• 7. It would be nice to say something like 'With no new primary sources about Gage having been made public since 18??, there has been three new portraits and a report unearthed since 2008, sparking a scavenger hunt in North and South American.' :-) When was the last 'new' info, prior to 2008?

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The accident

Subject to JVdb's permission, points have been numbered below (continuing the numbering from previous section) to ease discussion

• 8. I note that we don't have any details about his life before the accident. Did he have brothers or sisters? Who were his parents? Where did they live in New Hampshire, and what type of home did he enjoy? We know of one sister, and that her husband was "D.D. [David Dustin] Shattuck, Esq." and we know a little of there whereabouts.
• 9. The nature of the accident feels a bit hard to grasp quickly, due to the interspersion of quotes. A nice tight and clear description of the rod and its trajectory, using modern language, would be a good addition as it would give people something they can easily quote/reuse, afterwhich a few choice quotes could then add colour and details that only have precision in the original words.
• 10. In the process of adding a concise summary of the accident, it might be necessary to drop "the American Crowbar Case" from this section, as it could be mentioned in a section more about the myth rather than the fact. It would be nice to known when this term first appeared, and how it was popularised.
• 11. The ride into town is described by the distance traveled, however I recall the duration of the journey also being recorded, or perhaps it was the time period between accident and being seen by the physician that is known?
• 12. We read that friends attended. Are there any details available about family visiting him in Cavendish? If not, we might revise "his desire to return to his family in New Hampshire" to indicate he had not yet seen his family "his desire to return to in New Hampshire to visit his family".

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Some comments:

10. Better now?

11. No source gives the time (vs. distance, which is known) of the ride to town. (Oxcart, so a slow ride -- I don't think oxen can be inveigled upon to pick up the pace.) Later... ah, but Williams and Harlow both give time they arrived to treat Gage, which is close to what you've asked for -- now in article. EEng (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

12. Harlow's notes (1868) for Sept 14 say Gage "recognizes his mother and uncle", who apparently arrived sometime after 7 am. This is only 14 hrs after the accident, and Lebanon is 30 mi away, so the family must have summoned almost immediately (no telegraph or railroad!), consistent with the idea that Harlow and Williams quickly pronounced the injury mortal. The uncle was likely Calvin Gage (brother of Phineas' father), or possibly some brother of Gage's mother (whose names I forget at the moment. (We've invested substantial time determining where everyone was living at various points in the Gage timeline. Of course all of this is OR, but aren't you impressed?) Anyway... On the whole I don't see how this detail, on its own, adds to the reader's understanding in any useful way, but I have an idea on using it in a note on Harlow's early vs. later prognoses (vs. Gage's prognosis -- from the start he insisted he would recover).

EEng (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviations in infobox

I don't like having things abbreviated in the infobox; on first use they should be spelled out in full as not everybody will know what they mean. --John (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that I expect any further discussion on that at this point, for the record: Sure, not everyone will know that e.g. "N.H." is New Hampshire, but for that matter not everyone will know what "New Hampshire" itself means, either. Space is at something of a premium in infoboxes (though not to quite that extent as in e.g. img captions or some tables) and (I forget where) MOS explicitly endorses abbreviations in places where space is tight. I don't think it's worth it to expand the width of the entire box (at the expense of squeezing the width available for the lead -- or, in the alternative, to have an unsightly linewrap) to accommodate this one long placename "Grafton County, New Hampshire^[B]" instead of "Grafton County, N.H.^[B]" (or "Grafton Co., N.H.^[B]"), especially when a hover-popup immediately gives a gloss, in addition to the full name being given in the main text. EEng (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Image widths

The apparently randomly varied widths of the images, all down the right hand side, are ugly and distracting. I understand the problem that the indented quotes go wrong if images are as is usual alternated, but I don't see why we need images of four different widths, clumped higgledy-piggledy in rustic fashion near the top of the article, where frankly several of them do not belong. We can work around the indentation problem using :: instead of the quote mechanism (yes, I know, it's klunky), and while it is never possible to have every image exactly where it should ideally be, we can surely do a little better than the mess it is now. Take an objective look at it for yourselves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, where there's an image at left, :: doesn't work any better than {{quote}} i.e. the presence of the photo at left keeps the quote text from being indented relative to article text proper. EEng (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. --John (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not my placement and sizing but the result of two other editors' actions [29][30]. So now I've restored [31] the placement and sizing which obtained for several years, though in a moment I'll change the order a little. EEng (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:IMGSIZE the images should be at the default size to allow logged-in users to set their own sizes, unless there is a special reason to depart from this. --John (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Better look again at WP:IMGSIZE, which explicitly endorses use of the upright parameter, which multiplies image size relative to the user's Preferences-selected default image size.

• You complained about the uneven img sizes introduced by other editors, I fixed it, and you have twice now [32] returned them to their uneven-sized state. I will now once again restore the uniform sizes.
• I have also moved the iron-through-skull diagram back to the lead, where's it's been for a very long time and where I think it's appropriate. Can we leave of discussion final img placement and sizing until the text is more settled?

EEng (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. Is there a reason you want to force all the images to weird sizes? --John (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about the use of upright is preferred wherever sensible. Once again, you misunderstand the very policy (WP:IMGSIZE) you are quoting: upright=x.x (which the article uses) is not a forced image size -- you may be thinking of XXpx, which is a forced image size. The "weird sizes" of images see in the article at various times have always been the result of you and other editors messing with them. Once again, can we leave discussion of img placement and sizing until the text is more settled? EEng (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Placement of "skull dwg"

I've returned the "skull dwg" to the lead. [33] The arguments against this seem to be:

• "Sandwiching": But the same sandwiching occurs no matter where it's put, since there are enough images at right that essentially the entire right margin is images.
• "If it's at the upper left of the article, then the reader sees it before he knows what the article's about": Images aren't always right next to most appropriate text, and sometimes precede text needed to explain it.

This image is almost iconic for the Gage case, and combining it with the daguerreotype portrait lends almost instant recognition of what's going on.

Thoughts?

EEng (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that given that numerous editors have objected to it on aesthetic grounds as well as because it actually obstructs the reading flow of most readers, you might want to move it back down there. I really don't think there is any benefit whatsoever to having it there - whether or not the image is iconic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As I think you know even better than I do, last month's trainwreck was primarily devoted to certain people presenting their personal preferences as policy, the misguided pet grammar peeves of their childhood English instructor Mrs. Snodgrass as fundamental rules of writing, and so on. So with your permission I'd like to start fresh.

So how about this [34]? That at least answers the "comes before the reader knows what the article is about" issue (though I don't really buy that objection, actually -- every magazine article that opens with a full-page photo on the left page, and the article lead on the right page facing, commits this "offense").

I have some things to say about "sandwiching" but before I do -- what do you think of the new proposed placement?

EEng (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Good to hear from you again. I have some big changes I've been working on in my sandbox and I hope you'll be available for discussion.

Final comment

WP:SEEALSO and WP:PROSE are worth a look if anybody ever felt like getting this to GA standard. The verbose notes could be trimmed by about 90% as well. Good luck! --John (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As the reviewer, I disagree with your assessment that the current state of MOS compliance or lack thereof should be a hindrance for GA status. I agree that the notes should be trimmed and the prose made clearer, but it is not a requirement for GA.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have just moved one note definition from the infobox to the notes reflist. I will move the rest in a series of edits (please though continue to edit the article as normal). This will make the source correspond more closely to the display and the note text will be easier to review. --Mirokado (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Peace, love, and hapiness

Extended content

::::The following comment has been copied from User Talk:EEng In your recent edit you are doing two separate things: You are dumbing down the prose to "emit facts without relating them to each other", which is not really an improvement, but almost seem to be an attempt to make a point, and you are trimming the quantity of notes quoting primary sources at length, which I think may be an improvement. The GA article is currently at a rather delicate stage where I will be forced to fail it if the article becomes too unstable. I would really hate to have to fail it because it is a great article and your work is impressive. If you remain receptive to critique without taking it personally and discuss the recommendations with the other editors on the talkpage instead of through editsummaries, I think it should be possible to find a way to make the article work as a compromise between your personal preferences for article writing and those of other writers. As I have already said I am not a stickler about the prose, and I will not fail on prose concerns alone - especially not because it clearly is well written, just using a different style from most other articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC) End of copied comment My edit summary was not very clear. In saying I was "copyediting [perhaps I should have said undoing] ... conversion of careful prose into short declarative sentences emitting facts without relating them to one another", I was trying to explain I was restoring the careful prose, which related the facts to one another rather than just emitting them. I didn't trim the notes. An important use of notes is for extensive quotes and so on which may be of interest only to a subset of readers, while keeping the main text uncluttered for other readers. I appreciate your taking on the GA review, though I should point out I didn't nominate it, and what I was afraid would happen is what, in fact, is happening. I think most of the changes have been improvements, but many show misunderstanding of the subject, failure to consider surrounding material related to the text being modified, enforcement of misremembered fragments of alleged policy and guidelines, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and so on. I am very careful to revert or modify only the parts of others' changes I mean to alter, while leaving the rest in place, and giving very specific edit summaries explaining my reasons. That takes time, and often I've just gotten started on a series of changes when another editor rushes in to mass-revert, giving an edit summary that ignores the reasoning given in my summaries. Of course some fraction of issues won't be resolved until there's discussion on Talk, but an initial round of edits with careful, informative summaries by everyone can resolve most issues (e.g. second editor points first editor to appropriate guideline) and for the rest, lays the groundwork for discussion on Talk. It's time to trot out some comments left here about two years ago ([35] -- some irrelevant text trimmed out): Great article I read the whole thing, was drawn in and was fascinated, really fantastic. It's appropriate for subject. Should be featured. Shame so many people don't recognize talented and quality work, commercial encyclopedia's would pay good money for this. The comments above about "cold" writing being required at Wikipedia is just lol. In fact Wikipedia is 95% awful writing (myself included) so when we see actual rare good work, the crowd can't stand it because it sets off the rest to look so bad and amateur. Anyway, don't take my word, look at the user reviews at the bottom of the page, and article view statistics. People love this article. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Yes. A lot of that "professional" quality comes from the work of EEng in 2008-2010. [...] Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC) I echo the praise. Far too many Wikipedia articles are cold and sterile (if sometimes littered by the leftovers of earlier POV wars). The passion in this one makes it much more informative and interesting. Where such passion would get in the way of objectivity and NPOV, it of course would need to be toned down. And it's unrealistic to assume that all of our articles will ever get such treatment. But let's not tone it down in a search for anodyne consistency of style. I respect that there are a range of criteria for this, but as far as I am concerned, this is more deserving of being a Featured Article than many others we have. Martinp (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Yes. Very interesting read about a very interesting man. The author(s) of this article certainly did him justice. [...] Van Vidrine (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC) EEng (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC) It is always a problem when people nominate articles without the involvement of the main contributor. And I know how bad it feels when people take an article you've worked on diligently in all kinds of different directions than the one you've laid out in your mind. The hardest part of wikiediting is having to accept others ruthlessly editing one's baby-articles. And more often than not we don't think of other peoples work or ideas when we rush into to change an article according to our own tastes or our interpretations of the MOS or guidelines. As a reviewer I try to be more broadminded than some. You are right that edit summaries can be used to communicate usefully with other editors - but as you know often other editors don't read them or respond to them when making subsequent edits, which is why I think the talk page is better when there are so many editors involved here. And note that I agree with the praise you've received for a really well written and researched article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Caption style

One editor [36][37] changed this caption:

[etc etc] Note partially detached bone flap above forehead

to

[etc etc] There is a partially detached bone flap above the forehead

with the edit summary "Inform don't instruct." I've heard this before -- that it's somehow insulting to "command" the reader to note something -- and I think it's absurd. (By that reasoning, articles shouldn't have a See also section.) Note is a standard, compact way to point something out, and it's silly to bloat the caption this way. Same goes for changing above forehead to above the forehead.

The additional volume of text isn't large in this example, but where space is at a premium even a little bit can matter. Plus, it just sounds weird.

EEng (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS:NOTED. And, not to be bitchy, WP:OWN. --John (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to accuse the main contributor of ownership everytime he or she objects to some modification of their work, particularly when they do so with a sound reasoning and justification. In order to maintain a good editing environment it is necessary that contributors show a modicum of respect for those who have put in the bulk of the work, and it also sometimes require them to defer to the judgment and taste of the main contributer. This kind of respect is in fact written into several of our policies that state that MOS choices of the main contributer should be respected and not changed simply because one's taste is different. If we are to improve this article collaboratively I suggest that we start using the talkpage for reasoned argumentation, and I also suggest that we start focusing more on content and substance and less on issues of aesthetic taste and form.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Also you seem to be misapplying MOS:NOTED which is about using editorializing language in texts, and specifically talks about the phrase "note that". It is entirely encyclopedic and not editorializing to use the phrase "note ..." to draw attention to a particular aspect of an image.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a case of being different, it's a case of being wrong. Eric Corbett 14:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well from where I am standing it is a case of respecting the work and choices of a hardworking context contributer of which we have none to many.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not when they're wrong, as in this case. Eric Corbett 14:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In this case "being wrong" is apparently just another way to say "disagreeing with Eric Corbett".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You would do yourself a favour by actually reading what WP:NOTED has to say and avoiding personal remarks. Think you can do that? Eric Corbett 14:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You would do Wikipedia a favor by finding somewhere else to show off your grand editorship and knowledge of what is right and wrong so that we can get on with reviewing this article in a collegial fashion. You think you can do that? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So you can't then. Didn't really think you could. Eric Corbett 14:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You are a funny man.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Three points.
• 1) GAR is peer review. Part of that is unavoidably going to be review by one's peers, and if each suggested improvement is met with "I like it fine the way it is", then yes, that's WP:OWN.
• 2) There is no provision in policy or practice on Wikipedia for us "to defer to the judgment and taste of the main contributer (sic)". If you believe otherwise, show us where it is written down.
• 3) MoS says we should not use constructions like "Note that..." I've known that for years. I've pointed out the MoS section that states this. It's an interesting article and I can see a lot of work has gone into it. --John (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

1. No that is not WP:OWN. OF course the article writer likes it the way it is because that's why they chose it like that. That is not WP:OWN unless they do so against policy or without good justifications for their choices. 2. Yes there are several places in the MOS where it says to defer to the choice of the main contributer, for example regarding citation style. 3. MOS compliancwe is not and has never been a GA criterion. GAs are not FAs. Noone has objected to writing out contractions like "i've" etc.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Gosh what a lot of red herrings in one short post. You should start a fishmongers! We are not talking about citation style. The article does not contain the string "I've" as far as I can see. Are you thinking of a different article? --John (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I actually misread the last point you made to mean that MOS discouraged contractions like "I've known that for years" sorry about that. MOS discourages use of "note that" in the prose because that is usually editorializing, using "note feature X" in an image caption is something else entirely and is not included in the MOS injunction. IN anycase the MOS is a guideline, not a law, and GA doesn't require compliance. And the point about citation style is to show that YES the MOS does show that when there are several valid style choices the MOS tells us to respect the main contributer. As it should.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

But that discretion only applies in cases where there are equally valid alternatives, such as in citation style or date formatting. It does not apply with fundamental errors such as directly addressing the reader in an encyclopedia article. Eric Corbett 17:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Caption style: arbitrary break

MOS:NOTED and consensus here are clear that we should not directly instruct the reader to "note" things. We inform, we do not instruct. I am struggling to understand why anyone would revert this back in 5 times! --John (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you please give a diff of what you're talking about? EEng (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Which part don't you understand and I can try to explain it to you? --John (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about, for example, this edit of mine? [38] EEng (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, well done. That's right. It's the word "note" which is inappropriate. We discussed it quite recently just above and I thought we had agreed not to use it. --John (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I take it that you still haven't noticed that the word "note" doesn't actually appear in the caption? (Look at the actual caption on the rendered page.) EEng (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello? Are you still checking whether the word "Note" appears in the caption? EEng (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

May I infer from your continued silence that you now understand that the change was indeed appropriate? If I do not hear from you in 24 hours I think I'm justified in assuming the answer is Oops, I wasn't paying attention, and I was wrong. Go ahead. EEng (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Et al.

Extended content

User:Eric Corbett is edit warring over his preferred version of italics in the latin abbreviation et al.. part from being disruptive and ridiculous nitpicking this is also not warranted by the MOS which does not list it among the latin abbreviations that are exempt from italics.Some styleguides italicize et al while others do not.[39].User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC) It takes two to war Maunus. What the MoS says here is "A rule of thumb is not to italicize words that appear unitalicized in major English-language dictionaries." So in which major-English language dictionaries have you seen "et al" italicised? Eric Corbett 21:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC) MOS:ITALICS says Loanwords or phrases that have common use in English, however—praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e.—do not require italicization. Likewise, musical movement titles, tempo markings, or terms like minuet and trio, are in normal upright font. If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online. And then we have this phrase listed at Merriam-Webster Online. It takes two to edit war you know, and it appears on this point as on a couple of previous ones, you are wrong. --John (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Why do you keep avoiding the question? In which English-language dictionaries have you seen "et al" in italics? Eric Corbett 23:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC) I've reviewed some of the prior discussions at MoS, and they appear inconclusive, generally acknowledging that et al can go either way. In any case, it's not worth worrying about here, but if you want to help settle it then a discussion to get something explicit about it inserted into the MoS would be a better plan. We could say do, or don't, or take your pick, rather than the current scheme that seems maximally ambiguous. Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC) In reviewing my guides and dictionaries, I can't find any that italicize, or recommend italicizing, though Chicago suggests that using Roman is a relatively recent change of practice. I'd leave them Roman. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC) As already pointed out [40], it is in MOS viz. (or, if you prefer, "viz.") MOS:ABBR#Miscellaneous_shortenings, which lists et al. as italicized and, I believe, trumps rules of thumb and searches of style guides (though, BTW, try [41], [42], [43] to see that there's hardly unanimity on this question). However, there's also a specification that, "It should only be used in references" -- but there's no guidance on what to use in its place, and there are some intermediate cases. For a start I'm going to suggest: in "References" and "Sources and further reading", use et al. in main article text and Notes: substitute and coauthors in captions (where space is limited) use et al. Or, we could treat the only-in-references injunction is an aberration and use et al. everywhere. Thoughts? EEng (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC) But MOS:FOREIGN leans strongly the other way: "Loanwords or phrases that have common use in English, however—praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e.—do not require italicization. Likewise, musical movement titles, tempo markings, or terms like minuet and trio, are in normal upright font. If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online." And the history of discussions appears not to have resolved this discrepancy. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC) OK, fine, I don't care whether it's in italics or not. Whatever you want, I'll go along with it. But what do you think about the "only in references" problem, and my proposed solution? EEng (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC) I don't see any good alternative for how it's used now in the article to refer to findings. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC) The italicization came in in this edit in 2008, by Pmanderson, who was later banned from MOS discussions and blocked for a year for abusive sockpuppetry. It does not appear to have ever been discussed. He italicized i.e. and e.g. at the same time, but those were subsequently corrected (in this 2010 edit); the correction just didn't go far enough. Probably we should fix that. OK, changed; we'll see if it sticks. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Let's hope it does, as the MoS was clearly inconsistent. Eric Corbett 15:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Extended content

I cannot protect this article or block anybody as I am involved in editing the article. Nevertheless, I can confidently predict that it won't go well for anybody edit-warring; especially edit-warring against a copy-editor who is working on a peer review and article improvement drive, and especially when that editor is right and there is consensus in talk that he is right. One of the GA criteria is stability and this isn't stability. Having asked for other eyes on the article, why not step back until the process is finished? This seems really, really silly. --John (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Eric Corbett reverted the main contributer twice and me twice. You and him does not make a consensus. Why do you two not just find some other poor content contributer to harass with your meaningless style nitpicks so we can get on with this review?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Well, I think it this case two editors citing MoS does actually trump one editor not citing MoS, on an MoS issue. Right or wrong, it seriously isn't worth edit-warring over though. --John (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC) "rule of thumb" does not mean that it is a law written in stone that allows you to break 4RR and antagonize other editors. Both of you should step away from this article and wait until someone nominates it for FA with your inane nitpicking.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC) I have already backed off, due to your and Eeng's hostility. I am not involved in this argument, other than pointing out in talk that you are wrong on the MoS issue. I am sorry you think my (our?) "nitpicking" is "inane"; I thought this was supposed to be a peer review? --John (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC) I have failed the article now. Eric has expressed his intention to own the article by pulling it through GAR if he doesn't get it his way. I don't wish that for anyone, so I am failing out of compassion for the nominator and contributor. Peer reviews are conducted among peers - not when someone has already decided that they are the kings of the MOS and everyone else is wrong and needs to be told so in the most patronizing way possible.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC) You and Eeng have much to consider before submitting this article to a peer review again. Eric Corbett 00:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC) None of us submitted this article. Least of all for this kind of a shitshow that you call a "peer review".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC) This is a shame. I did consider how responsible it would be to nominate without being a main contributor but I believed from my knowledge of the GAC that really this article already passed. It was heartening to read that the initial reviewer nearly agreed and it was only a couple of issues that needed addressing (far fewer than some GA nominees). It is not wonderful that what should have been a relatively minor disagreement has de-railed this. At least the review will set out some goals and a regroup can occur in a few months to see if the article has addressed them. CurlyLoop (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC) You can renominate it right away and in fact EEng has said that he would like the review to continue. It will be without me as a reviewer though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC) That's some good news at least. Eric Corbett 00:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Great to hear from the "rational adult" again. Very impressive. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Shush up a minute

Extended content

If I can dodge the flack flying around hereabouts, let me query the second paragraph. Basically it says the case, which excited wonder and influenced discussion was the first case to suggest (something)". Fine, but smack in the middle of the paragraph it says "and even to subvert our physiological doctrines"—Phineas Gage influenced nineteenth-century discussion". Shouldn't those words "Phineas Gage" be replaced with the words "the incident" in context with the rest of the paragraph which is about the event? OK, resume firing. Moriori (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC) How dare you interrupt! Don't you know that if et al. is set in the wrong typeface Jupiter will leave its orbit and we'll all die in the ensuing cataclysm? (There are hazmat suits in the locker behind you -- suggest you wear one until your system adapts to the ambient toxicity.) It's common in medical writing to refer to the patient/subject himself as the case and, as well, to refer to his condition/story/circumstances/etc. as the case e.g. None of these cases was attributed to malnutrition, and only one case died. It's pretty much the same issue discussed here [44]. Thus, PG was the American Crowbar Case. He was the case which more than all others is calculated to excite our wonder. He influenced discussion of the brain. (But you might also see His was the case which more than all others... or His case influenced discussion....) There's some Latin term of rhetoric for it, but I can't remember what it is -- something like synecdoche, though that's not it. EEng (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC) You may be thinking of metonymy. --Boson (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Hmmm. I'm not sure. Synecdoche is a city in upstate New York. Metonymy is when you get bored from the same routine day after day after day. EEng (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Birthdate uncertainty

Extended content

"On September 13, 1848 Gage (aged 25) ...". If we don't know what month Gage was born in then how do we know he was 25? Eric Corbett 13:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Macmillan 2000 p. 40 has the text of a contemporary 1848 letter published in the National Eagle (Claremont, NH), titled "INCREDIBLE, BUT TRUE EVERY WORD", which states "Phineas P. Gage, the individual referred to, is of stature thick, muscular form, and rather short; is 25 years of age, and has his home in Lebanon, N.H." The book also reprints a letter in the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal on p. 383, which also states age 25. Our article ref [G] given for the paragraph cites Macmillan 2000, so I'm assuming this is where the age of 25 years comes from. However, in that same book there are other letters that don't give that age. Perhaps the article could state "reportedly 25 years of age" or something like that. I don't have access to enough of the Macmillan 2000 book chapter to see what age Macmillan gives based on his synthesis of the primary sources reviewed, and if he gives one, that would probably be the best thing to use. If the article is using Macmillan's synthesis, that should be cited; the pages covered in the ref [G] given don't appear to cover the age. Zad68 15:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC) You've been looking at the wrong note -- this note (though I've expanded it to address the age-at-accident point explicitly, and added a new pointer to it from the statement of age) is what you want. EEng (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Eccentric formatting

Why would we have line breaks and whitespace in all the refs? I've never seen that before and I wonder what advantage it confers. --John (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

At the zoom levels I use I find it particularly annoying, as I have to scroll much more than normal to navigate through the text during an edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it much easier to locate individual sentences / clauses if each sentence / clause typically starts on its own line. Similarly, refs are easier to find when they start on a new line of their own, and it's clearer where it ends (and regular text resumes) if the < /ref> is on its own line also, where it's easy to see.

So what are we to do when different editors have different preferences? Well, one approach to seeing something unusual (which, however, is clearly deliberate) would be to assume that those who have been editing the article for a long time find it helpful, and either just tolerate it or bring it up on Talk. Another approach is for every new arrival to redecorate the premises in the color and style he or she prefers, ignoring the preferences of those already present.

John, in re-removing the linebreaks you simply reverted to "your" last version, without regard for other changes (to text, references, notes, filling in citation pages numbers, correcting quotations) I had made in the meantime -- you just threw those away. That's unacceptable. Furthermore, your edit summary was "MoS compliant vsn; see talk", but as we see here on Talk, this has nothing to do with MOS compliance, but simply personal preference. In other words, you threw away real work in your hurry to make something the reader can't even see look the way you like it, and you justified that with a false appeal to MOS. You, like Malevolent Fatuous, have done this over and over in the last week. Please stop. EEng (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

... my pants are not on fire, actually. I guess there's no point adding what Sacks says about Gage. Or of suggesting where better it might fit. You'll just remove it, as it's "one of hundreds". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Goodness me. What an arrogant and unhelpful attitude EEng exhibits here. What does it say on the edit screen? Oh yes, Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. I suppose you don't think this applies to you? It does though. Your ownership of the article, if allowed to persist, would seriously retard its development. Your writing style isn't nearly as good as you think it is, and your eccentric formatting just looks stupid. So it won't be. There is loads of material that needs to be added here for completeness, as Martin said. If that's painful to you, maybe you just need to get the hell out of the way of those trying to improve the article. I do intend to continue working on the article, and in spite of what your behaviour seems to indicate, you do not own it. Think about it. --John (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the loads of material that needs to be added...

Absolutely there's lots that needs to be added e.g. re Gage's place in the history of neurology and so on. Who said there wasn't? The problem is that stuff like

He took to travelling, and visited Boston, most of the larger New England towns, and New York, remaining awhile at the latter place at Barnum's, with his iron.

is way easier to to distill for a Wikipedia article than is

For Dupuy, the damage was posterior enough to produce both symptoms. Whether Ferrier was responsible for the shift in opinion or not, after his arguments for a more frontal site, no one seems to have referred to Gage in aphasia literature as a negative instance again. Indeed, in a comprehensive review paper appearing soon after Ferrier's reply to Dupuy, Dodds cited the Gage case in relation to the role of the third frontal convolution and the island of Reil only to dismiss it.

Are you volunteering to translate this, and the hundreds of other pages in Macmillan 2000, Barker, and other sources, into article text?

EEng (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to the matter at hand

Since it's decidedly a question for those who actually edit the article, I'm proposing to add back (actually, I've added them back already [45] -- hard to explain what they are except by doing it) the visual breaks between sections, to make it easier to maneuver when editing. OK? EEng (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind if you do this while you are editing the article extensively, but these comments will of course be removed sooner or later. If I edit just one section the source ends with a huge comment with the next section title, which is completely irrelevant in that context. I suggest you remove the comments again at latest before the next GA review.

[continued below]

Symbolic versus literal dashes

Also, as far as dash encoding is concerned: these have several times now been "corrected" to the characters instead of html entities, often by automated tools which always do the change that way. Their occurrence is pretty clear in most articles following MOS:DASH: en-dash for number ranges and in some compound words, surrounded by spaces in sentences: unspaced em-dash only as an alternative to spaced en-dash in sentences. If you yet again go back to html entities you are wasting everybody else's time. Please concentrate on improving the article in substantive ways. Someone is bound to restore the characters without even realising you don't want it and, frankly, most other people do want it. I was in fact going to suggest anyway that you leave the en-dashes since it makes the number ranges much more readable. If you do decide you want to put entities back in, please try just changing the em-dashes this time. --Mirokado (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason I prefer the symbolic to the literal is that en-d and em-d are almost impossible to distinguish in the edit window -- maybe it's something about my configuration -- is it different for you? This is precisely why the symbolic markup exists, and MOS:DASH explicitly endorses its use:

Two forms of dash are used on Wikipedia: en dash (–) and em dash (—). Type them in as – (–) and — (—) or click on them to the right of the "Insert" tab under the edit window; or see How to make dashes.

It is, therefore, those who go about making such meaningless "corrections" (perhaps because e.g. "html markup consumes more server resources" or similar nonsense) who are wasting people's time.

Anyway, I think I have a resolution: instead of – and — there's {{ndash}} and {{mdash}}. Since these mindless "cleanup" tools seem to have a hardon only for html, not templates, I'm guessing that they will leave this alone. (I understand what you're saying about readability of number ranges, but while smoother-reading source is better, all else being equal, it's more important that it be correct, so unless someone can explain how to make ems and ens distinguishable in the edit window it seems to me the literals are a bad idea.)

EEng (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

How about: turn the em-dashes into {{mdash}} and leave the en-dashes as the character. Then you know which are which, the source should stay stable and the number ranges stay legible. --Mirokado (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, my editwindow uses monospace, under which hyphen, n, and m come out as - – —. Now, it's generally easy to distinguish mdash from the others, especially all set in a row as here, but even next to each other it takes a moment to tell ndash from hyphen -- and any of them embedded in some random text isn't easy to identify at all. I just don't get why editors should squint and puzzle to determine which type a given example represents. That's whar markup like {{mdash}} and so on is for. This idea that templates/escapes are bad and literal characters are good is just bullshit. EEng (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"Remarkably"

I removed this but I see it's been restored. We don't usually use words like "notably" (as it's self-evident that we are noting it) or "remarkably" (as it's self-evident that we are remarking on it). Why would we do so in this instance? --John (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you misunderstand WP:EDITORIAL. (We're talking about [46].)

• Saying something is remarkably small is little different from saying it's very or unusually small -- though sources are needed to support such adverbs, which is all WP:EDITORIAL calls for.
• The cites in the "First-hand reports" and "Distortion" sections amply support that the remarkability of the smallness of the body of known fact, but for the avoidance of doubt I'll add specific cites on this point.

EEng (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with EEng - this is not editorializing, but simply good varied language. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it's editorialising. If you really needed this in the article it could be a quote. --John (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that I provided a note with a quote supporting this passage, you have again removed it. No cognizable reason having been given for doing that, I'll be restoring it. 20:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It's peacockery. --John (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait -- a second ago it was WP:EDITORIAL, now it's WP:PEACOCK? Can't you make up your mind? EEng (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Both are subsections of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. If I'm confusing you by referring to ideas that are perhaps new to you, I can make it simple to help you. It's shit writing; it sounds like a teenage girl's diary, not an encyclopedia. Does that make it easier to understand? --John (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Stodgy writing

In what universe is went so far as to say in line with our summary style? It sure ain't this one. --John (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, what does summary style have to do with it? And in what way do you see the quoted material as "stodgy"? And why is it in red? EEng (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What does it add to the reader's understanding of the subject to include those six words where one would do? --John (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(sigh) Your insistent statements such as [47]] "We should never use language like this" and [48] "This is a word to avoid" ignore the opening words of WP:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias." So what matters is whether a particular use appropriately reflects the sources; thus if you wish to continue your campaign to find something "wrong" you'll to have to read the sources cited to compare them to the article. Until you do, you need to stop changing article text to new text with different meaning.

In the instant case, you changed Bigelow went so far as to say to Bigelow said, your edit summary asserting these have the the "same meaning". But they do not, because went so far as to say emphasizes (as do the sources) that Bigelow's presentation of Gage reflected his hostility to phrenology and suspicion of localization, and said does not. Also, without the kineticism of went, you lose the setup for the next paragraph, which describes the "reversal" in thinking represented by Harlow's second report 20 yrs later.

Good writing operates at different levels for different readers:

• An unsophisticated reader may be simply unaware of subtleties of wording apparent to more sophisticated readers.
• What we might call a "semi-sophisticated" reader, realizing that other wordings were possible, may be thereby spurred to learn more by checking out the sources or discussing with others.
• But a "sophomoric" reader, making a similar realization, simply assumes that what he doesn't understand isn't worth understanding, and sets out to unclutter his mind by eliminating it.

So to answer your query, the longer phrasing indeed serves the reader's understanding. I'm restoring it.

EEng (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This phrase only means "Bigelow's presentation of Gage reflected his hostility to phrenology and suspicion of localization" to you. To the rest of us it looks stodgy and constipated. Why not improve the poor witing, now it's been highlighted to you, rather than reverting to went so far as to say? I'd go so far as to say this is childish and unlikely to result in the improvement of the article. --John (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just putting "said" is clearer. I really don't think that the words you've used explain anything at all about the claim that "Bigelow's presentation of Gage reflected his hostility to phrenology and suspicion of localization." If that is a point that you think needs to be made, you'll have to make it separately. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My word, I was worried that the notes section was getting longer than the article. But we now have a hidden note that's longer than many of the visible ones. For whose benefit is all that material? The general article reader? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You're referring to the "hidden notes" delimeted by <!​-- and --​> as seen in this diff [49]. I often copy full passages from sources and use the commenting to excerpt it. That lets everyone see that the excerpt is faithful, and allows easy adjustment of the excerpt. In this case likely more of the passage can be used eventually, but that will require some surrounding explanation, and what's shown name is enough for present purposes. EEng (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I've augmented the text, and added a note, on this point. EEng (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Notes

I don't think I've ever seen so many notes in an article. They now account for 24,103 characters out of 63,757 in the entire article, i.e. about 38%? When you say "likely more of the passage can be used eventually" do you mean hidden notes will be unhidden, or notes will be moved into the article main body, or both? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Quantity of notes in this article is highly unusual, but that in itself is not bad. I do think that as used they help to make the article more readable, while at the same time they help to avoid original research while using primary sources (or primary and a half, which is the case with most refs on Gage). Similarly, regarding hidden notes, lets take them as the parameter quote on refs, I would say that they improve the article as they probably make eding easier regarding verifibility for all the editors involved. They might be ways of not using them... but as they are here I would not change it when there are much better ways of improving the article. --Garrondo (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

On second reading: what I would not do is to cite several times the same note, as if they were refs. They are not, they are editorial notes, and hence I believe that with one time or at most once in each section is enough- I would have them only the first time they are relevant.. If one is interested enough in reading notes, he would have red the full article sequentially with its notes. I would not have 3 times a link to the same ref as is done now for example for note E in use in the distortion section.--Garrondo (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sacks and others

I have remained aside regarding most style discussions, since I am not sure they are worth it, and the tone of them is far from what should be expected.

On the other hand , recently a line on Sacks has been eliminated.

The line was: "Gage is discussed by British-American neurologist Oliver Sacks in his 1995 book An Anthropologist on Mars." I agree with EEng that as it is, it is not helpful since it does not say how can this mention be relevant. However I do think that inclussion (as I have repeatedly stated) of other uses is indeed a good idea. To include a line on how the case was used by Sacks (and any others) could be helful from my point of view, but a bit more of detail would be needed. I have to say that It's been a time since I red that book so I do not remember how much was the case used, so might be a good idea to discuss if it is really relevant and how to word it first in talkpage. Moreover, I do think that its place would be the use and misuse section, which currently is a misnomer for "misuse according to McMillian". Once again: it seems cracy that only mention of orbitofrontal cortex along the article is in the see also section, with no mention of the last 20 years using the case as an example of frontal lobe injuries.

As an example in case I have not made myself clear I would include something alog the lines: Gage is discussed by Oliver Sacks in his 1995 book An Anthropologist on Mars, in which is portraited as an example of how a frontal lobe damage... (do not think that nationality or even profession is worth mentioning).

--Garrondo (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. Adding more detail would be better than removing it altogether. --John (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agree. I had thought Sacks' notability as a popular writer might recommend him for inclusion. His nationality and profession were context only. He's also discussed Gage in interviews (not really surprising, I guess.) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think you guys are mixing up different things. Of course the material on Gage's place in the history of neurology etc. ought to be expanded, and one imagines Sacks could be used as source that could be cited for some of that new material -- to the extent Sacks discusses Gage's place in the history of neurology in a serious way (though I doubt it -- most of Sacks' writings are popular, not academic.)

  But to use Sacks' writings as a source (as just mentioned) for something we want the reader to know about Gage is completely different from the article discussing Sacks' writings themselves (which is what the removed passage does). For that we'd need (as a gating requirement, as for any other article content) other sources discussing Sacks' writings as themselves somehow significant to an understanding of Gage -- what sources would that be?

EEng (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The single sentence on Sacks was intended as just a starting place. His work might inform our knowledge of Gage and how his case has been interpreted by neurology. Sorry if you doubt Sacks' "seriousness". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

But isn't the usual procedure to check what a source says before adding it to an article -- not to add it right off based on speculation on what it "might" say? And I didn't mean to imply that Sacks lacks seriousness in general; but re Gage vs. the history of neurology, you'll find that he doesn't treat that issue in any particularly careful way (which is fine in a popular presentation). EEng (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I must have thought this was a "popular encyclopedia article" into which a popular writer with an article on that book here alreday, might fit, rather than a learned examination of "Gage vs. the history of neurology." I read what Sacks said and thought it was relevant, digestible and accessible. That's all. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm with EEng on this one actually. I've occasionally mentioned a source directly in an article, but only when other sources have referred to it in turn, usually because they pass comment on it being critically acclaimed, comprehensive or otherwise worthy of note. In other words - is the source itself notable? If it is - put it in the article text, if it isn't, leave it out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I like that, though I think your particular wording makes it most appropriate for evaluating formal (e.g. scientific/scholarly) publications for inclusion. For popular material I have used various versions of the following, with some success, in similar situations elsewhere:

A fictional, semifictional, or popular portrayal of an article's subject is worth noting or discussing in the article on that subject to the extent that reliable secondary sources demonstrate that the portrayal adds to an understanding of the subject itself or of the subject's place in history or popular perception.

EEng (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

One thing that Sacks does say in that book is that it was Ferrier's 1879 Gulstonian lectures that "introduced the Gage case to a worldwide medical community". He doesn't say a lot, but what he does say seems perfectly sound and useful. I think you should take a look. Sacks also contributes quotes the chapter "Phineas Gage: A Case for All Reasons" in C. Code, C.W. Wallesch, A. R. Lecours, and Y. Joanette, (eds.), Classic Cases in Neuropsychology, London: Erlbaum, 1995.

Um, well, no. A Case for All Reasons is Macmillan. As to the statement that Ferrier put Gage on the world stage, that would put Sacks in moderate conflict with Macmillan, which then returns us to the question I tried to raise above with no success. Perhaps you will see the relevance where Garrondo didn't. EEng (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he quotes from it. It's Chapter 18 in that collection. He also has a long quote from Harlow, that he made 20 years later, about things he had missed. I don't see what's wrong with "moderate conflict" between commentators, or even severe conflict for that matter - I guess that they are competing claims that are each notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, well, yes. --John (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Or is this just the Macmillan show? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would not classify Sacks books exactly as popular, nor would I classify his cases as semi-fictional,. In the specific case of Gage: they are a secondary source (as reflections from Sacks on the case departing from primary sources), from an expert (as a specialized neurologist in clinical neurological cases) but not peer-reviewed. In this sense they are of similar quality to McMillians books such "An odd kind of fame" (as it is also secondary, not-peer reviewed source from an expert). In this sense I do not see the problem with them. The fact that Sacks or any other are opposed to McMillians theories is neither a problem (indeed I would say it is good to balance the article), as I would say that there is no consensus yet on McMillians and his theories. However, my point was not only for Sacks but specially for the many other publications using Gage as an example of orbitofrontal damage (examples: Damasio in more length, Stuss, Fuster, etc...) since none are mentioned enough or in a neutral way. --Garrondo (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

One of our jobs as editors is to evaluate the reliability of sources, and a given source can have different levels of reliability on different subjects. Sacks, for example, is a brilliant neurologist and I wouldn't think to question what he says about neurology per se (the nature of this or that disease, the state of the treatment art, etc). But Sacks is not a historian of neurology, so let's look at some of the things he says about Gage:

• The article currently says that Gage's accident occurred outside Cavendish, Vermont, but Sacks says it occurred "near Burlington, Vermont" -- 130 miles away. So should we change the article to say, Authorities conflict as whether the accident occurred in Cavendish, or in Burlington?

Discussion: Macmillan supplies dozens of period newspaper reports (some of them in facsimile), three extended medical-journal articles (by physicians who either treated or interviewed Gage), a sworn declaration by the man whose oxcart returned Gage to town after the accident, photographs of the accident site, and much else, all confirming that Cavendish was the scene of the accident. It's obvious Sacks simply mixed up the site of the accident (Cavendish) with the name of Gage's employer (the Rutland and Burlington Railroad). This is not a controversy or a conflict of "theories" -- it's just fact versus misinformation.

• Macmillan says that Gage "soon became the standard against which other injuries to the brain were judged," but Sacks says that Ferrier's "Gulstonian Lectures of 1879 introduced the Gage case to the worldwide medical community". Should the article read, Authorities conflict as to when Gage became well-known to doctors worldwide. Sacks says it was Ferrier's 1879 Gulstonian lectures which "introduced the Gage case to the worldwide medical community", but Macmillan claims that Gage was well known much earlier.?

Discussion: Macmillan 2000 has several chapters analysing medical articles on Gage, including articles whose authors debate the authors of earlier articles, sometimes across international boundaries. Just one page of his endnotes lists at least fourteen medical articles reporting Gage by 1850 and several textbooks by the time of the Civil War, plus articles in which physicians compare their own brain-injury patients to Gage. Without counting carefully, Macmillan cites something like 140 books and articles mentioning Gage before 1878. These include publications throughout the US, Dublin, Edinburgh, London, Paris, and elsewhere.

Ferrier himself (a Brit, let us remember) opens his discussion of Gage by referring to him as the case "known as the 'American Crowbar Case' ... this case, in addition to its importance otherwise, has lately been appealed to by Dr. Dupuy ...", though noting that it "was at one time regarded as a mere 'Yankee invention' ". Ferrier's Gulstonian made Gage famous as a piece of evidence for localization, but Gage per se was already famous. Since Sacks was writing before Macmillan 2000 appeared he can be excused for this error, but it is an error nonetheless.

• Sacks refers to Ferrier's "Gulstonian Lectures of 1879", but Macmillan refers to Ferrier's "Gulstonian Lectures of 1878". Should the article say, Sources disagree as to whether Ferrier gave his Gulstonian Lectures in 1878, or 1879?

Discussion: Ha, ha, just joking. But Sacks is mixing up the year of the Lectures with the year of their publication.

• Sacks says that "by the beginning of 1849 [Gage] was called 'completely recovered' ".

Discussion: Sacks is quoting the inscription on the tamping iron, which was inscribed at the end of Gage's visit to Bigelow in Boston. Except that was January of 1850, not "early 1849" as Sacks has it.

Sacks' treatment of Gage is not even a page and a half (excluding the extended quote from Harlow) and in that space makes four errors of fact that I could spot right off. Now then... what, sourced to Sacks, is proposed to be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 2013-06-23T22:11:22

So we might want to include this critique of Sack's pitiful non-historical commentary as a non-hidden footnote? At least he got his name right. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Changes

In line with discussion above I have made several changes: 1-Put first section in use that section on distortion. For 150 years it has been used, while weight on misuse is mainly from an author in recent years so it fits better chronollogically and also a bit less weight is given. 2-Changed title to "use". Misuse is probably an editorial point of view and it is more neutral for most of the cases (exception is surgery) to say use. 3-Moved paragraph from McMilliams from the opening of the use section to conclussion of the distortion section, since it specifically talks about how much distorted the case has been. I feel it closes really nice this section. 4-Added a line on use as an example of orbitofrontal damage. Right now is a single line with an example reference, but I hope it is a beginning to include futher and better references on the importance of the case in this sense.

--Garrondo (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A version with my changes appears here:. As I was afraid it would occur EEng has reverted it without answering or commenting here (only using edit summaries). I would like to hear other opinions on the two possible reorderings: the one I carried out and the one by EEng (previously existing) as here (as I have later carried out a partial edit that goes halfway between the two.

More specifically I want to hear other's opininions on the following questions (including of course EEng's):

• Do you think that is better to have first the section on distortion or the section on use? I favour the latter as it is more cronollogichal, and also I think than the case is more important because of its use than because of its misuse and distortion. Right now it gives the opposite impression: that its importance for neuroscience comes from its misinterpretation.
• Do you think that starting the paragraph of use with "Beyond the importance of correcting the record of a much-cited case, Macmillan writes, [...]The facts suffer so frightful is to give undue weight to McMillians and give an overall impression that all uses of the case have not been adequate? While I am not sure on what is the solution I would favour a more cronollogichal presentation of the use of the case with only commenting on the misuse on the second place.

--Garrondo (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

1. The reasons for my changes are given in my edit summaries, step by step. EEng (talk)

Yes, but still discussion on talk pages is still useful. In this sense it gives the possibility for disscussion in depth, and also for others to be involved, which is what I am seeking now (while nevertheless I value your opinion).--Garrondo (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

2. You say that "misuse is probably an editorial point of view" and "I think the case is more important because if its use than because of its misuse and distortion". The last time you and I discussed this you said [50] you had not read the sources, and if that's still true I wonder how you came to those conclusions. We shouldn't be making decisions based on what you think is "probably" in the sources. EEng (talk)

I have not red McMillians, but it is irrelevant to current discussion since I do not doubt on his conclussions. Important thing is that he is a single author with a position not backed up by others. I have red comments from Stuss, Fuster, Damasio, Sacks and other, and what prevails in their discussion of the case it is not the misuse, but the importance as an example. Regarding editorial point of view: I was only refering to the title choice, since in the content of such section you do not have references that say that such authors misused the case. It is said Thus in the nineteenth-century controversy over whether or not the various mental functions are localized in specific regions of the brain, both sides managed to enlist Gage in support of their theories: that is NOT misuse, only differences of perspective.

The section certainly did have references re theoretical misuse, i.e. See Macmillan (2000 passim), Macmillan (2008, p. 831) and Barker (1995) for surveys and discussion of theoretical misuse of Gage. [51]. And there were three direct quotes (Macmillan, Ferrier, Smith, Sacks) and cites to 2 others (Jackson, Dupuy) complaining of e.g. the inexactitude and distortion to which they are subject by men who have some pet theory to support, making the idea of "difference of perspective" silly. To make it more obvious, I've moved more of that material into the main text, and added Kotowicz as well. That gives Macmillan, Barker, and Kotowizc all in agreement on misuse. So it's not just (as you say below) "just one author" -- and these three are absolutely everyone that I know giving an historical evaluation of theoretical use. Do you know of any others? EEng (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

3. Surprising as it sounds the distortions and misuses are more important that the "uses". In fact, distortions and misuses are about all there are, because until about 15 years ago there was no clear idea of what Gage had been like after his accident -- it was all just made up. There are a lot of reasons for this but the biggest one is that it was almost impossible to find Harlow's 1868 paper, there being only about a dozen copies worldwide. EEng (talk)

EEng (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Says who? Yes I know... McMillians... Anybody else? Ummm...Would be great to have third parties that say so, until then it will stay as single author proposal and as such we should present it. --Garrondo (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask for you to start spelling Macmillan properly? I supplied a long list of such "third parties" to you just two weeks ago [52], but here they are again, plus more.

• Ammons, Psychological Reports (2001)
• Goldenberg, Cortex (2004)
• Eling Contemporary Psychology (2003): "Macmillan’s study is a colorful picture of how scientists (and subsequently all kinds of people in society) used a particular case to convince others of their own theories."
• Crichton, Lancet (2001)
• Saling, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (2001): "a study of the mutations that creep into the historicoclinical record in medicine"
• Long, Neurosurgery Quarterly (2002). "Even some of the most prestigious academic researchers have disseminated erroneous information about this most important injury and its outcome"
• Hayward, Br J for the History of Science (2002): "a stunning example of the ideological use of case histories and their mythological reconstruction."
• Kotowicz "Macmillan scoured all the sources and commentaries on the case and as far as material regarding Gage is concerned this must be a definitive work."
• Marshall, Science (2000): "The definitive account. One of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary."

In addition, as seen in the material added to the article recently, Barker as well draws on and concurs with Macmillan.

EEng (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Commentaries on a recently published book are not really the source of anything. --Garrondo (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to Garrondo on "one author's opinions"

No, reviews certainly do have value in judging sources. But if you wish, let's restrict ourselves to research papers (or in the case of Kihlstrom, a keynote address). Excluding Macmillan's own work, since 2000 there have been only five papers (that I know of) either on the subject of Gage, or at least primarily about him. Here's what they say:

• Kotowicz (2007): "Macmillan scoured all the sources and commentaries on the case and as far as material regarding Gage is concerned this must be a definitive work. ... Most commentators still rely on hearsay and accept what others have said about Gage, namely, that after the accident he became a psychopath ... The psychopath Phineas Gage has now entered scientific folklore" (citing Macmillan 2000)
• Leach, Phineas Gage and the beginnings of neuropsychology (2002): "Gage is unquestionably one of the most famous patients in neurological history, a fixture in neurological textbooks and the subject of many papers. (Regrettably these often err in their assertions about him, principally because they neglect the original Harlow reports.)" (citing Macmillan 2000)
• Ratiu (2004): "Accounts of Gage’s behavior and psychic functions following his trauma are few and sketchy, and appear inconsistent with his subsequent employment as a coach driver in Chile (Macmillan, 2000). ... Macmillan (2000) has shown that the record of how Phineas Gage’s character changed after the accident must be considered with caution..."
• Van Horn (2012): "Macmillan has noted that many reports on Gage's behavioral changes are anecdotal, largely in error, and that what we formally know of Mr. Gage's post-accident life comes largely from the follow-up report of Harlow according to which Gage, despite the description of him having some early difficulties, appeared to adjust moderately well for someone experiencing such a profound injury."
• Kihlstrom (2010). Social neuroscience: The footprints of Phineas Gage. Social Cognition, 28, 757-782 "As Malcolm Macmillan has cogently demonstrated, many modern commentators exaggerate the extent of Gage's personality change, perhaps engaging in a kind of retrospective reconstruction based on what we now know, or think we do, about the role of the frontal cortex in self-regulation."

An example from before Macmillan 2000 was published (citing Macmillan's earlier work) is

• Barker (1995): "The checkered history of the case may serve today as a cautionary whisper."

Then there's Sacks, whose short treatment refers to the "interpretations and misinterpretations, from 1848 to the present" of Gage, also citing Macmillan. The two other sources you've mentioned (Stuss, Fuster) cover Gage in two to four sentences, basically only reciting vaguely the standard story; since they are works on neurology, not the history of neurology, you wouldn't expect more from them.

So Macmillan's work is not "just one author's theories". Every paper on Gage since Macmillan 2000 was published cites Macmillan not just with approval but with enthusiasm.

EEng (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Commentary of good bye

I have found difficult to work with editor involved in the article over the years; which I have recently discovered is one of the authors of the papers he cites one and again. Several editors have over the years said similar critiques on the content of the article, namely that it is too much centred on Macmillians theories, and not enough coverage of 150 years on theories on Gage is given. A blatant example of this is that until this week there was no mention or orbitofrontal cortex, and only a line on Damasio in the article.

This said: I am not fond of working in highly debated articles, where I have to fight for every comma I add. The stress and time are not worth it. So as of today I do not think I would add a single line in this article for a few years. See you around. --Garrondo (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, Garrondo. It's always useful to have a debate, even if one fails to get in all the changes one wants. I think even Macmillan uses the occasional comma. And maybe rather controversual italics, et al. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No one's ever stopped you from mentioning the orbitofrontal. And if by "critiques of the article" you mean your idea that Macmillan is a lone apostate, see above [53]. I am sorry to see you go. EEng (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Citations

I have tweaked a few citations so the presentation is uniform (and the cite templates generate consistent metadata). I also completed the Bramwell (1888) citation using {{cite doi}} since that is a convenient way of getting a correct citation with any relevant urls. It is fairly easy to substitute the expanded {{cite journal}} if editors prefer that, but I have left cite doi for now as it is one way of keeping the article source uncluttered. --Mirokado (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

EEng has added a brief comment so we can keep track of cite doi references in the source. That seems like a good idea so I have updated the second cite doi similarly.

Searching for Ratiu while checking that change, I now notice that the same citation had in fact already appeared inside another reference and a related link as yet another external link elsewhere. This reference and its associated links are very valuable resources (the video clips worked for me once I had enabled cookies and scripts for NEMJ) but illustrate the difficulties of maintaining the rather complex net of references, citations, extra links and notes within this article. In the particular case of this reference, I think it is essential to improve the linkages to help both the reader navigate around the article and us maintain it. I will make some changes just for this reference and closely related links and then report back here. We can then discuss them as necessary. --Mirokado (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The link to the video had presumably been changed: now corrected. I have created citation anchors for "Ratiu et al." and the video itself and used them elsewhere in the article. There may be more related tweaks needed, but I can't do any more tonight.

The citation list is easier to read if is a series of (possibly nested) bullet points, so I would like to bullet the two citations in the "Ratiu et al." list item.

This use of explicit citation anchors works nicely when the citation link is to arbitrary content, but there are much better ways of generating links between more structured inline references and their citation, if we decide we want to do this more generally. --Mirokado (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Improving the citation/reference/notes/whatever-they-are system

I will continue with relatively minor citation maintenance and tidying tangles like the above if I notice them. These moves towards consistency will help when checking all the reference-citation relationships for self-consistency, I will ask about any non-obvious issues. --Mirokado (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It will still be relatively difficult for the reader to skip back and forth between citations and the references in this rather complex article, so I would like to introduce links between the existing inline citations and shortened footnotes and the corresponding citations. There is a well-developed set of templates which supports this. The result would have a very similar presentation but with wikilinks added. This would count as "changing the citation style", see WP:CITEVAR, so should not be done just for the sake of it and only with consensus. I will wait for comments before making any such changes. --Mirokado (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your work so far has really improved things, thanks! As to what you say just above...

1. I don't think you're proposing (at least I hope you're not proposing) to introduce Harvard-style refs to the main article text. I find those very intrusive.

2. What I think you're suggesting is to e.g. in this note [54] make Fleischman (2002) into a link to, I guess, the Fleischman entry in the "Sources and further reading" section lower down. Yes? However, there are so many options and flavors to the templates you pointed to that I'm unclear on how exactly this would work. Can you explain a bit more, or point to an article that's set up the way you have in mind?

3. There are two aspects of the current setup I feel strongly should be retained (subject to someone showing me I'm thinking about it all wrong, of course):

• Separation of Notes from References: Notes give you actual additional information, whereas References are just for "If you don't believe me, here's where you can look it up!" I think it's very helpful for the reader, when he runs into a superscript letter or number, whether on clicking the superscript he'll get a fun additional quotation or whatever, or just find some stuffy scholarly apparatus. (Maybe "References" should be renamed "Citations", however.)
• Subdivision of Sources: Especially since this is a subject that's frequently covered in school and college courses, I think it's useful to separate sources for specialists vs. those for nonspecialists.

4. There's also a technique I've used with success in another article -- see [55] and note the superscripts like this , which means page 23 of the reference. This worked well in that article because there were many refs to scattered single pages of a given work -- not sure it has much application here, but thought I'd throw it into the mix

5. Something else I discovered how to do in Sacred Cod is to have Notes which themselves carry their own Refs (like here [56]). I think this may have application in this article, and in fact might be an alternative to your original suggestion of Harvard refs being linked (if I'm understanding your idea correctly).

• In fact, that's the reason for the {{#tag:ref }} syntax -- you can't have <ref></ref> inside of another <ref></ref> but you can have a ref inside {{#tag:ref }}.
• However, this doesn't seem to work here in this article -- I think it's because we moved the Notes text into the Notes section itself, instead of their being out in the main article text, but I'm not sure and maybe I'm looking at it wrong. Can you see if you can figure out what's going on?

If any of this doesn't make sense, please ask me to clarify.

EEng (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

• First two points, correct: I am not suggesting changing the appearance of reference callouts in the main text of the article. Wherever there is something like "Author (year)" (in the notes and references lists), there would be a link to the corresponding full citation. Thus, apart from the links, no significant change to the article or notes presentation. I provide an example below.
• Agree with both the points you find particularly important: separation of notes for the reason you state and subdivision of sources again for the reason you state (that subdivision makes it a bit more difficult to find a particular citation without links though which is a motivation for doing this).

My fear was that this apparatus automatically generates the source list (in alphabetical order or something), but I see now that's not a problem. EEng (talk)

• The {{rp}} method you mention in Sacred Cod is most suited to the case where there are many references to different page ranges in the same work. It works nicely in Sacred Cod where about half the inline references relate to the same citation. I don't think it would be so necessary here, but the transformation needed to use it would be easy if we decide otherwise.

It's interesting to contrast the subject matter (and consequently the nature and use of the sources) in Cod vs Gage. You're right this technique has little applicability here, but potentially it has some applicability. My fear is that where the callouts (as you call them -- good term) are long e.g. [1]:123-456 then they become visually intrusive. As an experiment I'm gonna try applying it in a few places. EEng (talk)

• The support for <ref> is not recursive, but <ref>s can be placed inside inline definitions of {{#tag:ref}} containers as you have mentioned (although somebody did discover that you can have a single <ref> inside one {{#tag:ref}} in a reflist, provided that occurs before any other <ref> definitions in the reflist). At the time we separated notes from main content in the source here, there were no inline reference callouts in the notes, so I think we can live without introducing them now and the benefits of having so many notes separated in the source outweigh any possible gain otherwise. In any case I think Author (year) or similar is OK for notes.

Again here, it's useful to contrast the nature of the material at Sacred Cod vs. here. At Sacred Cod the notes material is just straight narrative or quotes which need only simply support in the form of e.g. cite to a newspaper article -- superscript callout works well for that (remember, we're talking about inside of Notes). But in Gage many/most of the notes need to explicitly call out who it is that's being quoted etc., so a Harvard-like system makes more sense. So I agree not much of a loss for Notes to not be able to contain superscript callouts to Refs. EEng (talk)

For an example of this method retrofitted successfully to an existing article, please see Anne McCaffrey (permalink) where, for example, Pringle 1985 is linked to the full citation both from note e and reference 45. That article happens not to have parentheses around the years, that is just a case of choosing which related template to invoke. (That article also illustrates that we are not restricted to author names: we had to use a book title to avoid confusion between mother and son).

Genie (feral child) uses it too, though the refs list seems like there ought to be able to compact it some way -- I don't think we have that problem here either. EEng (talk)

--Mirokado (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It's great to run into someone whose self-esteem isn't founded on imagined mastery of whether et al. goes in italics or not, and I think we have similar outlooks on how to best serve the reader. As mentioned I'm doing a little experiment and then I'll have some other questions/thoughts.

In the meantime, what do you think of the little orange and black padlocks in the Sources? They're supposed to go at the end of each entry, of course, but I think they're kind of cute, and also it catches the reader's attention with the fact that he/she can view the source. (Where a book had "limited preview") on Googlebooks I counted that as "open".)

EEng (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, this [57] was the experiment. Not sure if it accomplished much. I think even long superscripts are fine when they come at the end of a paragraph (e.g. end of Accident section), but not so good when they're in the middle of a paragraph (e.g. First-hand reports of mental changes section). I'd like to leave it this way for now while we think it over, OK?

In the meantime, I have a question: suppose we wanted to change the Sources section so that each entry is something like a ref i.e. each entry is numbered or lettered or something and can be referenced by superscript callouts elsewhere. But as already mentioned we want to control the order in which the entries are listed -- not have them come out in the order they are first referenced in the article. Is there some way to define a set of refs (like we do in Notes) and force them all to be omitted in order? The only way I can think of is maybe some kind of dummy invocation of all the entries, in the order desired, at the very start of the article, plus some hack to throw away the superscripts generated by those callouts. Get what I mean?

Also, what do you think of the External Video box?

EEng (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations, part 2

Responses to questions:

• Little orange and black padlocks: probably better after the citation, they clutter up first author's surname otherwise. But we can wait for other comments...

What I would really have liked is for the little padlocks to take the place of the bullets, but anyway, even if we decided we liked it this way sooner or later some knowitalls would show up and tell us that the future of Wikipedia is threatened by such deviancy. So with your permission I'll just migrate them to their intended position at the end of each entry.

• Experiment with rp: fine to leave it for now, but I have to say I am not all that keen, the alternation of linked and unlinked numbers seems a bit clumsy.

Hmmm. Don't see why "alternation" is a problem -- what bothers me is the visual gap the long/multiple ones create. (Where that's a problem they can be moved back to References.) But as we've already discussed I'm not so thrilled either, as things stand.

• Sources section like refs: I don't think that would be practicable, it would be another level of recursion for the ref software. Also, having the citations in some sort of predictable order (normally alphabetical by surnames, increasing year) makes it easier for someone to inspect the sources used independently of their occurrence in the article.

I must not have been clear. I definitely want to maintain keeping the Sources in an arbitrary order we specify, like you said. But instead of a bullet list, I want to express them as {{Reflist|refs= }} like the Notes are; this way the usual <ref name=foo/> can be used to generate the familiar superscript callouts from the main text to individual Sources entries. And there would be the usual abcde backlinks too.

Why? Consider this Ref [58]. It's an unnecessary steppingstone. If the Source entries could be named in e.g. <ref group=sources name=Barker> then the superscript callouts in the text would point straight to the Source, instead of going through an intermediate Ref. (Where needed rp would be used too, to generate colon-pagenumber next to the linked callout, though, for the nth time, neither of us is so hot on this currently.)

The technical issue is this. As you no doubt know, reflist outputs entries in the order they're first cited, regardless of the order in which they are listed in the refs= list. What we need is an option or something that simply directs that the order of output should , instead, follow the order of definition in refs=. This has nothing to do with recursion -- the apparatus as it is clearly has a fairly elaborate internal structure which, when it comes time to output refs, is traversed or sorted, and it shouldn't be any big deal to traverse or sort in some other order. (It's clearly not some simple FIFO structure that can't work any other way.)

Of course just because the internal structures are present doesn't mean it's easy to get at them, add appropriate syntax, and so on. I doubt seriously this will go anywhere, but I sense you might know the kind of editors who might be inspired to add such a feature.

Note also that the Sources list interjects these little subheads e.g. For specialists and I guess the refs= would have to allow normal text to be interspersed among the entries in the reflist.

• The external video box is fine in principle: a bit like the sound files which sometimes appear in composers' articles. Something else to consider in more detail when specifically reviewing image etc disposition.

Well, the complaint we're gonna get is that it's an external link, but if you read the documentation Template_talk:External_media#Bad_idea it's pretty convincing that there are times it should be used. In Gags's case it's pretty have to envision the path of the iron through his head, and this video really helps, so it's appropriate it be linked right there at the point where the accident is described.

Regarding Genie: that is an interesting and in some senses very sad article. I will probably comment on that talk page a bit later. It illustrates one of the benefits of having the automated link between reference and citation. --Mirokado (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The editor working on it is a great guy, and has been at it hammer and tongs for about 6 months now. If you see a way you can help improves the refs or anything drop him a line on the article's Talk.

Thanks for your continued interest. More later.

(later) I figured out (I think) how to do the weird thing I described above. Whether it's worth the trouble, or not, or is even something we'll want to use in the end, or not, we'll see. But now I've got this under my skin, so I wanna see what happens. I'll set it up in my sandbox (maybe tmw or even later).

EEng (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

[EEmg climbs up from a manhole -- exhausted, dirty, sweating, and smelling nasty.] Oh, what a waste of time that was. Forget it.

I say, I say, I say: why are manhole covers round? --Mirokado (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this until now. That's an old one. You usually hear two answers: (1) it allows the cover can be moved by rolling (instead of carrying/dragging); (b) it's the only shape such that the cover can't fall into the hole. EEng (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, far too serious (but both undoubtedly correct). "I say, I say, I say" (for which I find no article) introduces a traditional English joke form, with a response from the hearer and the answer. In this case:

(response) I don't know, why are manhole covers round?

(answer) Have you ever tried to play Tiddlywinks with square manhole covers?

(and, "playing Tiddlywinks with manhole covers" is also a traditional phrase used to mean "doing nothing in particular") --Mirokado (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

All right then, let's go back to the live article. I made some changes to Sources, exploiting a nifty feature of refbegin. What do you think? EEng (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Har. Sorry to spoil your fun, but I don't think the extra indentation brings the intended benefit. It further squashes anything indented by nested bullets, the bullets guide the eye to the next item anyway and anyone using a screen reader will never notice. I did try removing the column width restriction but did not think that helped as much as I had hoped. --Mirokado (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For those tuning in late, we're talking about this [59] (using hanging indents) vs. this [60] (using bullets). Are you saying you prefer bullets to handing indents overall, or does your description of drawbacks apply only to the two entries (Macmillan 2000, Ratiu) that have subsidiary entries?

• If you're saying you prefer bullets overall, I agree that bullets guide the eye to each successive item, but each name is sandwiched by other stuff linewrapped from the entries above and below, so when you're looking for a particular name the eye has to stop to focus on each one before moving on, whereas with outdents the eye just skims right down. This is, after all, why bibliographies in books are formatted this way. I asked a coupla friends to try it and they agree.

  Having said that, it's only fair to point out that if a 1-column, instead of multicolumn, fmt is used, then most of the entries are only one line anyway, so you end up with a very similar "skim down to find" situation anyway -- the lefthand vertical strip of screen contains only names, uninterrupted by other non-name information. But the single-column layout looks really, really ragged to me. Here again, I propose we let this sit while we think it over for a few days? (BTW, I repeat that I enjoy working with someone who likes to sweat these kinds of details.)

• If you're saying that the subsidiary items (Macmillan 2000, Ratiu) look awful, I agree. (This partly depends on accidents of linewrapping as a function of screen size and zoom setting.) Maybe if you experiment a bit you'll hit on some syntax I haven't thought of -- no matter what I do it seems to want to add a second hanging indent.

As far as the lock icons are concerned: Wikipedia's ethos is the provision of freely available information, so an icon saying "this links to freely-available information" is mostly redundant. I think it would be more effective to have the extra icon only for firewalled links.

But the reality is that much external material, especially the kind found in these kinds of sources (e.g. New England Journal of Medicine) is usually unfree, and by pointing out that it's available readers may be encouraged to follow links that they otherwise might not bother with, thinking they'll get blocked. It is a bit odd-looking with all that orange, though.

--Mirokado (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Question: The way you set up the links to the Ratiu entry -- using span id="Ratiu-et-al-2004" and so on -- any reason that couldn't have been done using <cite class="citation wikicite" id=Ratiu-et-al-2004 and so on (see Template:Wikicite)?

EEng (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

None at all as far as I know. I had forgotten about that one, we used it on Dragonflight and related articles. It would be tidier, I think. --Mirokado (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations, part 3

OK, now I have another question, referring to this permalinked version ("Extent of brain damage" section) [61]. When you hover (or when I hover, anyway -- who knows that Preferences or browser setting might affect this) over any of the superscript callouts e.g. K or 13 you get a nifty popup with the note or cite content. But in the text Ratiu et al. (2004, based on CT scans of Gage's skull etc etc, the word Ratiu is linked, but when you hover over that link the popup you get is just the beginning of the main article, instead of the Sources entry the link points to.

I tried looking at the rendered html to see what was going on but it gave me a headache. I tried setting up the link with wikicite instead of your div syntax, but it doesn't seem to make any difference -- didn't try that hard, however. Is there some way to make the popups work as desired in this case? Is there maybe something in all those Harvard templates that will do the trick?

EEng (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't know, but I see the same behaviour as you. I will have a look tomorrow, a bit late for me to start now. --Mirokado (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The popup I see with the cite content is part of the navigation popups addon functionality. I'm not sure what triggers the difference in behaviour with different links. I have tried various updates to the article source with no effect. With popups disabled, I still get a differing behaviour of the vanilla popups between the two links (using Firefox). Viewing the links as an IP using Chrome I see no popups. It seems clear that we should not waste too much time trying to diddle the article source for this, but it may be sensible to try to nail down the difference and propose an improvement to the popups tool or whatever. If I get any further I will report back here. --Mirokado (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Though not essential, the popup feature is nice and I didn't want to lose it through the choice of one or another other ref template family -- apparently editors create templates with willy-nilly features that happen to occur to them, so maybe one has popups and another doesn't. But as you say it's so confused what's due to intended functionality vs. which browser vs. preference settings (logged in? IP?) vs. some random whoknowswhat that it's not a good investment of time to worry about it now.

I posted a query at WP:Village_pump_(technical)#Controlling_order_of_reflist but not much luck. Not sure I'm making clear to them (or even you) what I'm after so I'm going to mock something up. I've got the bit in my teeth now.

Side point: In converting parameterized cite templates to cite doi, I've noticed a non-obvious problem: often the old cite had a url to full text, but the doi cite gives url to the PMID entry instead (which in retrospect is not surprising) so the full-text url needs to be manually edited back into the doi template. I'll take care of these in this article but thought you should know for your work elsewhere.

EEng (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations, 4

I have carried out the borderline-insane idea I attempted abortively a few days ago. It's in my sandbox here (permalink). (The few entries left in References section are meant to be migrated either to Sources or Notes, so ignore them.) See if you can figure out what's going on -- see the <! -- comment at the head of the source, and don't overlook the "trunc" template. Also, within the Sources section search for <br> to find a subsidiary hack.

Though I hate the hacks I really like the result, and believe it or not I propose we take it live into the article. If the template/referencing cognoscenti don't like it, let them provide a way of controlling the order of reference lists in a sane way. Look it over and tell me what you think. EEng (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly interesting and works nicely with the exception of the extra backlink which you mention and the unstructured way of adding the source-type separators (the <br> you mention). I would use the sandbox as an example to propose the necessary (tidied up) functionality to the referencing support, rather than using that example in a live article. --Mirokado (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Village_pump_(technical)#Controlling_order_of_reflist. I've been through this kind of thing with these two before -- they seem very fixated on explaining why you shouldn't want to do whatever it is you're asking for. [62] (this actually wasn't the end of the thread -- the rest of the discussion was an argument over whether or not the original question had been answered promptly or not). EEng (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've continued pursuing the direct-link-to-bibliography approach in my sandbox (permalink above, but go forward a few edits to see how far I've gotten).

• I think it really improves (and shortens) certain of the Notes to substitute superscript callouts for the current Harvard refs e.g. Note O in [63] becomes [64].
• We discussed before the problem of refs within refs, and if I'm reading that discussion properly if a Note is going to contain a ref then that Note can't be in a refs= list, but must be out in the main article text. So as seen in the examples just noted certain Notes have been moved back to the main text.
• As before there are still a few References which haven't been migrated elsewhere. Eventually they'll all be Notes.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the benefits to the reader of streamlining the presentation of cites outweighs the strangeness of the spurious backlink in each Sources entry. As seen at the Village Pump discussion I'll make a Wikimedia request for a non-hacked way to control order of reflist entries, but that will likely take a long time, and I don't think we should wait. Would that be OK? EEng (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well it is already clear that I would try not to use "unconventional trickery" in a live article: someone is bound to change it to something else sooner or later. I'm not going to argue with you about it though. --Mirokado (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We've had such a lovely collaboration so far -- no reason to spoil it now. By bringing it live I hope one of the following things will happen:

• Someone will show us a way to get the result we want using standard facilities without the embarrassing side effects e.g. spurious backlinks
• Someone will be inspired to add these features to the standard facilities

I've been trying to entice people to look in my sandbox (which sounds sort of vulgar, I'll admit) without success. I think taking it live is the only way to get enough exposure to enough people so that we find someone who can help.

There will likely be gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair, but I'll deal with that. I'm not asking you to agree that this is a good way of getting the lovely sources list and other benefits -- I just ask that you agree that these are benefits worth pursuing, even if there's only a not-so-good way of getting them now, so that instead of people being indignant they should be tolerant long enough for us to find a longterm solution. How would that be? EEng (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

By "not going to argue" I meant that I won't go on about, or repeat myself over, this particular issue. Yes I agree that what you would like to achieve is worthwhile, having indeed looked at the sandbox. --Mirokado (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Extensively revised

[See discussion on citation formats, immediately above]

I'm about to post a new version I've been working on for some weeks in my sandbox -- sandbox was needed because the extensive changes to the cites/notes made it impossible to keep it in a presentable state at all times.

• I believe I have incorporated all changes to the live article made during the sandbox work
• My intent was to just make a huge change to the citation system, but one thing led to another and there are many new images, quotes boxes, and so on.
• Along the way I may have inadvertently reversed changes others made during the recent GA review. Certainly I have reverted lots of those changes in the past, but always with edit summaries or Talk comment to discuss/explain. It's not my intent to use this huge revision to slip in changes others might be concerned about, without explanatory comment. Therefore I'll be comparing this new version to the one just prior to see if I made any changes inadvertently, but that will take a few days. (I want to get the cite and other changes visible for others to see without waiting for this, though.)

• There are several technical innovations which I am not completely happy with, but I hope others might come along and offer better ways to achieve the same results:
  • Using the < ref > machinery to create an alphabetized Sources list. Unhappy aspects of this:
    • It uses an an appalling hack (if you look at the source you'll see an explanatory comment very near the top) to force the entries into author/date order
    • The a link in each Source's backlink list (a b c d etc.) is spurious.
  • Similarly using the < ref > machinery to number the figures and provide a way of referring to those numbers in the text. Unhappy aspects:
    • None of the e.g. "[Fig. 1]" links actually do anything
    • The "[Fig. 1]" etc. labeling in the captions, and in the text references to the figures, have weird sizes and vertical alignment.

Please be gentle. EEng (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The two most problematical aspects of these changes are the Fig. links and the fixed-width quote boxes side-by-side with images.

• The Fig. links don't work because they all jump to the elided Fig. reflist, which means (on my Firefox on Linux at least) that the link does nothing. I don't in any case see the point of numbering all the figures if there is not a list of figures. Please see Wikipedia:Ignored feature requests#Numbering and Referencing Equations, Figures, and Tables for a generic request relating to this. Note the red warning at the top of that page!! This is something that would need to be done properly or not at all in my view. Even just jumping to a link in the caption would not be good enough here, the image itself might well not be on-screen depending on the browser implementation.

I knew the links wouldn't when I set out to do it this way. I wanted to demonstrate automatic numbering of figs etc. and this is the best I could do. The article is on 160 watchlists and as I said before, I'm hoping someone might be inspired to invent/discover a cleaner way to do these things.

• You have at present a use case for jumping to Fig. 9 from several block quotes. From the point of view of the reader I don't think that these repeated links to the front page of the paper add very much value. I would be inclined to have the image where it is and link to it from the citation too. I imagine I can do that without having to touch the Fig. stuff so I will have a go.

Yeah, originally I had the "see fig" only in the quote box immediately next to the page image -- then I thought it might look better for all the quote boxes to be consistent. Part of what's going on is that I wanted to help readers get closer to the full-text page images of Harlow 1868 available by clicking on the image of the cover page. (I've now emphasized this here [65] though -- yes I know -- we're not supposed to say "click here" because that doesn't make sense in hardcopy yada yada yada -- don't we have any way to give alternate text for online vs. hardcopy? Anyway, I'm just trying to explore new ideas...) However, there's already a path to full text via the "Sources" entry so the click-on-cover-image is sort of redundant. But then, this is the key source for the whole Gage case, and unusually interesting for readers to see. On the other hand... Also... But we must not forget... There are a lot of arguments both ways. Anyway, whether in particular there are "See fig. X" in the quote boxes isn't central -- certainly there are places in the text one might want to say "See fig X" so the question is how to make such things work. BTW, maybe it's not obvious but I don't really care whether the "See Fig X" is or isn't a link which takes you to the fig when clicked -- I'd be fine with it not being a link, but its being a link is a side effect of using the < ref > machinery to automatically number the figures. EEng (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• [RESOLVED -- see below] Quote blocks and images: these don't behave well with intermediate window widths. Just try with a non-maximised browser window and steadily reduce the width. You will find widths where the block is on its own and the image pushed below it on the right. A well-designed presentation looks reasonable at (nearly) all widths.

I was aware of this as well but thought I'd found a happy medium. The problem is there's no way to say, "Here's an image; put it at right, setting its width however you would normally according to its parameters. OK, now here's a quote box; set its width to whatever width is left over between the left margin and the image." At least, if there is a way to do that, I can't figure it out. Again, this is the sort of thing I hope some wizard will come by and solve for us. I chose the quote box widths (expressed as % of screen width) so that the collision does not occur under these circumstances:

• 125% zoom
• Screen width = cheapo narrow screen a friend has
• User-preference for default thumbnail with = 220px (which is the "default default", I believe)

...though having said that I seem to get collisions under those circumstances anyway, so maybe there's some variable I'm not controlling. For now I'll cut the quote box % width more (quote boxes don't look so good if too narrow, but it's still better than the collision which forces the image down). An alternative is to have the quote box be 100% width, with the img below the quote box, at the right margin, but those very wide quote boxes look AWFUL. EEng (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Now resolved, I believe -- see [66] EEng (talk)

You really do need to remove the Fig. stuff. Perhaps create a small user-space page illustrating what you would like to see, have a look in Mediawiki Bugzilla for any related feature requests and create one if you cannot find anything. As far as the quote boxes are concerned, some sort of substantial improvement is necessary, not sure what I can suggest at present. --Mirokado (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the short term I'd like to leave it all for a few weeks, messy as it is, in hopes some wizard will see our plight and show us better ways.
• In the mid-term (assuming no wizard-savior appears) after a few weeks I agree the figure numbering is too weird (the links go nowhere, the vertical alignment is off) and it will have to be removed -- the text can always just say "See Figure" and the reader can look around for the figure. I think the Sources system, though hacked internally, looks good to the reader and can stay, the only issue being the mysterious a backlink which goes nowhere -- I don't see anyone losing sleep over that.
• In the long term, sooner or later (though maybe not during yours and my lifetimes) there will be wonderful facilities for doing all this cleanly.

EEng (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I want to thank you for taking the time to look this stuff over and discuss. EEng (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor problem

With all the layout back and forths I have just noticed that the paragraph from David Ferrier ends oddly: The facts suffer so frightfully&nbsp..."'; not sure why or what was the intention (At first I even thought I had messed it up somehow with my edits today, but it seems its not the case).--Garrondo (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. The   was missing a semicolon.

(  means "nonbreaking space" -- meaning that the ... will always follow the frightfully on the same line in the browser, since it looks strange for a line to start with ...)

EEng (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the explanation. Every day we can learn something :-) --Garrondo (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Quote box - image interaction

To my unutterable astonishment this change [67] pretty much fixes the problems re interaction between quote boxes on left and images on right. (The change is simpler than the diff makes it seem -- all that's going on is (a) the image needs to be moved before the quote box, and (b) in the quote box make align = center and get rid of width entirely. (A hack I used earlier for the formatting the "It is due to science" attribution also had to be removed.) Remaining problems:

• A bit of the quote box peeks out just above the image. This can probably be fixed via some tinkering with the pad/border/spacing parameters of the images. [I've now decided I think it looks nice this way.]
• Where the quoted text (or the source attribution) in the quote box contains superscript Note/Source callouts, that messes up the vertical alignment where it didn't (?) before. This is seen most particularly in the "It is due to science" quote. (There's also a problem with the horizontal justification of that particular attribution -- due to removal of the hack mentioned above -- but that's a different problem which I think can be fixed.)
• Only the left "bigquote" is visible -- the right one is overlaid by the img. Where there's the limerick instead of an image, the right bigquote is visible "behind" the limerick. Likely the bigquotes should be turned off (which can be done via a param in quote box template.)

Any thoughts on either of the two bulleted issues above would be appreciated. EEng (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I can only really comment on the second one; the article does look better with the bigquotes turned off. It definitely looked a little strange to see one display one way and the others sans the right quote. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Layout

The article is currently a layout disaster. It looks like the worst of the internet anno 1997.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your putting it so diplomatically, but now tell us what you really think.

I too am less than happy with the layout, though I wouldn't go so far as "disaster". I'm particularly troubled by the map in the first section, which I feel should be large enough so that major labels (e.g. street names) are legible at 100% zoom, but this in turn causes a problem with too little article text in that section relative to img size -- see [68] at 100% zoom. Here [69] is an unusual solution I tried involving moving the caption to the left of the image instead of below (though unfortunately I can only figure out how to do that at the top of the image, not near its bottom). We could use some good ideas on that.

Other than that, what problems do you see? Ideas?

EEng (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you can get the caption left of the image I can see that working, I agree it's best to have the street names visible at 100%. If there was a way to lower the quote boxes a bit so they're not slightly over the images that'd be good, but if not I don't really see a better way to do it than the current way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

[In the name of transparency I want to say that I asked Blade for his opinion.] The sliver of quotebox above the images comes from something deep within the automated formatting, out of reach to us mortals -- probably related to vertical separating space automatically inserted above and below each image. As to the caption on the large map, I've tried various ways of floating it, but they all look awful at one or another zoom level / window size. I'm not sure what Maunus meant in his comment about 1997 -- maybe the colors of the quoteboxes and other elements? I take it you don't see any problems there? EEng (talk)

The article is way over illustrated at this point. It is also way over quoted. The amount of quotes coupled with the amount of illustrations makes the layout chaotic and makes the actual text which should be the main bulk of the article disappear. Furthermore the quotes often repeat material that is already in the text and serves no purpose for the reader, the fact that the quotes are ugly colored and overlap with the images doesnt help (sometimes the quotes even have image/video inside them), the panorama pictures that break up sections further decomposes the reading flow, the fact that the quotes being the sections means that the reader doesnt know what the quote is about before starting to read the section. I would recommend removing all of the blockquotes that arent absolutely essential in that they convey something that it is not possible to paraphase in the prose body. There should not be a block quote in every section, and they should never open the section. And I would recommend moving half of the images to a gallery at the end of the article and loosing some altogether there are currently three different pictures of his skull with the rod through it plus a cavalcade of four of the skull on it own, and the portraits is repeated three times, and there are two different images of his skull with the brain lesion marked in, and one with just the brain without the lesion. And I would get rid of the image sandwich in the lead. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Preparing for GA

I helped out during the GA process a while back, and was quite surprised to see all this today. The article contains more than enough well-cited fact to clear GA, but it has evidently become bogged down because there is now too much material. It looks like a labour of love, and I understand how painful it can be to let go of something of that kind. However, for GA an article has to address "the main aspects of the topic" - just once, without excessive detail. The article as it now stands tells what is essentially a simple, sad story - a man has a terrible accident, survives, but is permanently changed - with too many images, too many restatements, too many quibblings, and as Maunus says above, too many quotations. The simple story has become cluttered by all the embroiderings. The test for any piece of writing (not just here on WP) is whether an item moves the story forward (towards greater clarity) or not. Many items here fail that test. A short clear article on Phineas Gage could pass GA immediately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is a labor of love -- glad that shows. I think the pullquotes are entirely appropriate (if unusual) but to focus discussion I've removed them.

Gage's is not a sad story -- quite the opposite. He had (yes) a terrible accident, he (yes) survived, but (no) he was not permanently changed -- at least not in the way he was almost always presented historically. If Gage had been presented in a completely factual way over the last 150 years (but of course science is rarely so dispassionate) there would be no embroiderings to untangle -- but they are there, they are a permanent aspect of the case, and they need to be addressed in the article. Indeed in understanding Gage as an episode in the history of science, the embroiderings are as important, if not more important, than the facts on Gage himself.

What specifically do you feel doesn't belong? EEng (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

[Forgot to include this]: For the record here [70] is the version before I removed the pullquotes (as mentioned above), and... in evaluating layout, please make sure you're viewing at zoom=100% -- I recently realized that some new annoying "feature" of IE decides to set zoom=125%, which makes the images look somewhat overwhelming. EEng (talk)

I wouldn't like to get involved in editing here, and certainly not in controversy. However, since you ask, I'd say there should be just one of each kind of image, so two of Gage holding his iron is one too many, for example. The article should be left with say four or five images in all, with a pointer to a gallery page on Commons for the rest. I'd suggest the text should be roughly halved in length, divided into something like Accident, Recovery, His later life, Post-mortem studies, In popular culture, i.e. a simple comprehensible chronological arrangement. The footnotes should be reduced to 1/10 of their current length. Key points from the disputes about Gage should each be summarized simply and plainly in a sentence (with multiple refs if many voices). The vital thing is simplicity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The article should be left with say four or five images in all" Why? There are 17 images in the article currently. Along with the second portrait, which 11 others would you omit, and why?
• "I'd suggest the text should be roughly halved in length" Each detail, sentence, paragraph, or section can be discussed as worth including or not, and that may result in a long or short article. But I can't conceive of how a particular overall length, per se, can be set out as a desideratum.
• "divided into something like Accident, Recovery, His later life, Post-mortem studies, In popular culture, i.e. a simple comprehensible chronological arrangement" Um, it is divided pretty much like that: Background; Accident; Subsequent life; Death; Brain damage and mental changes (including theoretical use i.e. his place the history of neurology). What should be changed?
• "The footnotes should be reduced to 1/10 of their current length." The prior point re text length applies doubly to notes, which are outside the flow of the article and no bother to anyone who doesn't wish to consult them. Their whole point is to hold material which may be of interest to some, but not most. What possible benefit is there to limiting them?
• "Key points from the disputes about Gage should each be summarized simply and plainly in a sentence (with multiple refs if many voices)." Gage's mental changes are the reason he's in the index of most every textbook on neurology and psychology, so separating up-to-date discussion of them from defunct rehashes is critical; this is not a simple matter and cannot be done in a sentence. Since almost all this change has come in the last 25 years and will contradict what older readers learned in school it's important to be clear who the voices are on either side.

EEng (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

While a short and clear article might pass GA easily, I wouldn't like to see useful information removed in order to achieve it. This page receives 50,000 pageviews per month, and I assume a decent percentage of those are students who are studying Gage-they want detail that isnt in their textbook. Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Phineas_Gage shows readers want more information (select 'All comments' in the drop down list). I see EEng has recently re-enabled feedback, which I think is a good use of the tool. It will be interesting to see what they say (if anything). Regarding the prose, I think some of the footnotes could be rewritten as prose, and I am sure that will be necessary before this article is given WP:FA (but we are not there yet ;-)) Regarding images, again we should be including the images that help understanding, and also images that stimulate the reader to keep reading. I think we could drop the burial record without removing any encyclopedic information, and I have set it up as a transcription project on Wikisource. I would like to hear views about whether File:Frontal lobe animation.gif conveys additional information than provided by File:Simulated Connectivity Damage of Phineas Gage 4 vanHorn PathwaysDamaged.jpg. I am neutral about the picture of John Martyn Harlow being included, but the rest of the images all seem quite appropriate to me. Have I missed any that need to be discussed? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Another thing requested in feedback, BTW, was more images.

• I like the burial record because (first) it's the sort of thing readers find intriguing (fancy 19th-c penmanship, column headed "nativity", and so on) and (second) it's the proof Gage died in 1860, not 1861. However, I've moved it out of the main text, down adjacent to the note on the 1860/61 issue.
• As to Harlow's portrait, this advice from WP:MOSCAP reinforces JVDB's point above:

The caption should lead the reader into the article. For example, in History of the Peerage, a caption for Image:William I of England.jpg might say "William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, bringing a new style of government." Then the reader gets curious about that new form of government and reads text to learn what it is.

So one of the reasons I like having Harlow's img in the article is the caption: "Physician John Martyn Harlow, who attended Gage after his accident and obtained his skull for study after his death." However, there are one or two Notes focused on Harlow, and his portrait could be moved there if editors feel it overloads the main text (where it's paired with the coverpage of Harlow 1868, which I think is nice).

• BTW, the MOS advice just quoted puts to rest an idea I've seen propounded over and over -- that an image must not precede the text that discusses whatever it shows, lest the reader be confused. So, for example, the Background section has a map showing "Harlow's home and surgery", even though Harlow isn't mentioned until the end of the next section. Readers are smart enough to say, "I wonder who this Harlow is -- I'll keep reading!"
• Between "rotating brain" and "simulated connectivity" (Figs 9 and 13 here [71]) I'd take "rotating". Unfortunately "rotating" shows the entire left F.L., which is why the caption clarifies that only the forward portion was damaged. Meanwhile, in "simulated" the colored regions represent pathway bundles that were interrupted, but in each instance coloring the entire interrupted bundle, full length end to end, well beyond the point of interruption (i.e. beyond the area of damage from the iron). Especially for laymen I think this tends to confuse the area of actual physical damage, and it's not easy to explain this. I think this isn't a problem if both imgs are shown, but I wouldn't want "simulated" alone.

Also, JVDB, any thoughts about the treatment of distortion / misuse? Chiswick Chap seems to object to the generous use of quotations. But modern sources' condemnation of earlier distortions -- "grotesque fabrication", "myth of Gage the psychopath", "commitment to the frontal lobe doctrine of emotions shapes how Gage is described", "retrospective reconstruction based on what we now know, or think we do, about the role of the frontal cortex" -- is so intense that there's no way to reflect it properly without quoting it -- I don't know how to adequately paraphrase "grotesque fabrication".

EEng (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the burial record, Macmillan (2000) is the source for 1861, and that is all that is needed. We don't need, or want primary sources. That is the domain of Wikisource.

Regarding the map of Caven­dish, I think the background section could include a short background to Harlow. This resolves the image-before-text problem, which is significant. We live in a digital world; the reader wants to click something to find more. On mobile phones, later sections are not visible by default. The link needs to be underneath the first mention. Also, Harlow is central to Gage, as his publications formed much of the original myths. While addressing ordering issues, note that Bigelow is also mentioned before the link to his bio.

I think I have commented on the number of quotations previously. To me, the quotes in the 'Theoretical use, misuse, and nonuse' section are the most useful quotes in the entire article, with the large quote of Harlow's 1868 report being a very close second. I have trimmed one quote in 'Initial treatment', and think the other quote in that subsection is more text than is useful. I don't like the quote in 'Death and subsequent travels', as it avoids clarity about the facts and the voice being spoke in ('Apparently..') - the facts, as best we know them, should be summarised in prose, and a smaller quote used (if any). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the tamping iron image

No opinion on the code structure but I do think the article is better without figure 16 because you can't read the inscription and just ends up as a distraction. Ward20 (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As seen at WP:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop#Extract_legible_inscription_from_portrait_of_Phineas_Gage we're working on getting a more legible image. If that doesn't work out then probably the image should be cropped to the portion which is (barely) legible (the region around the hand) and rotated horizontally. I really hope you will continue to participate in the conversation, since you seem to have a medical background and these discussions could really use that. EEng (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

When time permits I will have a look at the sources to see if I can help. I read Toga and it was very interesting but the medical part was pretty esoteric. Ward20 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Van Horn/Toga is an interesting technical exercise but it doesn't really tell us much about Gage, except in that it confirms Ratiu's estimate of the trajectory and that damage was likely limited to the left hemisphere. Let me recommend you start with [72] [erroneous link repaited -- see below]. For closed-access sources I can email you pdfs. EEng (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused about the link above, the British_Psychological_Society. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I pasted the wrong link -- fixed now. EEng (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A smaller, contrast-enhanced closeup, on which you can just barely make out the words (and I mean barely) has been substituted. Does that help? EEng (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the smaller horizontal cropped format presents better. The out of focus image is unfortunate as it would be so much better if it was more legible. IMO it moderately adds to the article now rather than detracts.Ward20 (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This page's code is horrible

Who exactly is responsible for the code that is on this page? Is someone purposely trying to break Wikipedia's code and make it illegible? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone want to explain this "shy" template stuff to me?[73] I just removed ALL of them and it didn't negatively impact the page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Converted all refs... need to fix them now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed this mess. I can't figure out how, why or what half of this is supposed to do. Anyone care to explain?

Extended content

[[File:Phineas gage - 1868 skull diagram.jpg|thumb|upright=0.45|left<!-- Please see Talk and discuss there before moving this img (e.g. based on MOS guidelines) --> | <span style="font-size:200%;"><sub><ref group="Fig." name=lead_inset><!-- dummy to silence errmsg --></ref>{{thinsp}}</sub></span>The "abrupt and intrusive visitor".<!-- , per Harlow. Note partially detached bone flap above forehead. -->{{nowrap|{{efn-ua|name="amused"}}{{efn-ua <!-- BEGIN NOTE --> | Harlow (1868): "Front and lateral view of the cranium, representing the direction in which the iron traversed its cavity; the present appearance of the line of fracture, and also the large anterior fragment of the frontal bone, which was wholly detached, replaced and partially re-united."{{thinsp}}{{r|harlow1868|page=347,fig.2}} }}<!-- <<END NOTE -->}}<!-- <<END NOWRAP --> ]] Another: [[File:Phineas Gage GageMillerPhoto2010-02-17 Unretouched Color 02.jpg|thumb|upright=0.5|right | <span style="font-size:200%;"><sub><ref group="Fig." name=inscription_detail><!-- dummy to silence errmsg --></ref>{{thinsp}}</sub></span>Detail of inscription from {{nowrap|Miller{{ndash}}}}Hartley image<!-- link to this img --> ]] Another: <imagemap> File:PhineasGage BurialRecord GageEntry.jpg|right|thumb|upright=3.6 rect 0 0 290 387 [[:File:PhineasGage BurialRecord FullPage.jpg|Date of Burial: 1860 May 23]] rect 291 0 945 387 [[:File:PhineasGage BurialRecord FullPage.jpg|Name: Phineas B.(sic) Gage]] rect 946 0 1190 387 [[:File:PhineasGage BurialRecord FullPage.jpg|Age (yrs mos ds): 36]] rect 1191 0 1500 387 [[:File:PhineasGage BurialRecord FullPage.jpg|Nativity: New Hampshire]] rect 1500 0 1900 387 [[:File:PhineasGage BurialRecord FullPage.jpg|Disease: Epilepsy]] rect 1901 0 2280 387 [[:File:PhineasGage BurialRecord FullPage.jpg|Place of Burial (tier grave plot): Vault]] rect 2281 0 2400 387 [[:File:PhineasGage BurialRecord FullPage.jpg|Undertaker: Gray]] </imagemap> {{Quote box | align=center | quote =<!-- this quotebox acts as caption for image, but to left instead of below; however, {{nbsp}} and nowrap in following are to force caption below when window too narrow to accommodate caption at left -->{{zwnbsp}}{{nowrap|{{thinsp}}Excerpt from record book for}} [[Lone Mountain (California)|Lone Mountain Cemetery]], San Francisco, reflecting the May{{nbsp}}23, 1860 interment of Gage by undertakers [[N. Gray & Company|N. Gray{{nbsp}}& Co.]]{{zwnbsp}}{{efn-ua|name=death}}{{print version|web='' (Mouseover for transcription; [[:File:PhineasGage BurialRecord FullPage.jpg|click]] for full page.)''|print=It reads: ''Date of Burial:'' 1860 May 23; ''Name:'' Phineas B.[sic] Gage; ''Age (yrs mos ds):'' 36; ''Nativity:'' New Hampshire; ''Disease:'' Epilepsy; ''Place of Burial (tier grave plot):'' Vault; ''Undertaker:'' Gray.}}<!-- <<end print version -->}}<!-- end quote box -->

Wow... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Almost done, I think. Then the duplicated references need to be swapped in to complete it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ugh... still something is broken. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Finally fixed. In short, I had to undo and redo it to ensure that the references were still in the format that was preferred, but I stripped away this fake referencing system that negatively impacted the page and was at best superficial. I stripped out the "Fig" and "see fig" lines because the images are themselves captioned and clear. I also got rid of the font size and micromanagement of the images which causes them to clash in the browser. I removed the long image of the rod because the image did absolutely nothing - it was illegible. The external video is now in the external links. Some other tweaks were done, but the article is not constantly trying to force itself to some browser specification to compensate for some "zoom" issue on the writer's system. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You "fixed" nothing. What you did is declare your own ignorance ("I can't figure out how, why or what half of this is supposed to do" -- above) and then, apparently believing that all editors should live within your personal intellectual radius, simply destroyed whatever you didn't comprehend (see Philistinism).

In the process you made a mess of the sources, randomly reassigning them to the wrong groups. You removed the image sizes so that Gage's tiny-faced portrait and an illegible postage-stamp map now abut a fearsomely gigantic skull. "The external video is now in the external links" -- why? The "External video" template was created to make external content accessible at the point in the text most helpful to the reader.

The article as you left it ends with Cite error: There are <ref group=upper-alpha> tags or {{efn-ua}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a etc etc warning. In fact, of your 100 edits, hardly a single one didn't have literally dozens of red ERROR messages throughout. Don't you even review before saving? During the eight hours you tried to teach yourself markup syntax about 600 people visited the article -- have you no respect for them?

The "awful" code example in the collapse box above is really several examples which you, in your inexperience, jumbled together into a gigantic mass, without the linebreaks present in the actual code to show structure -- again, it would help if you previewed before saving. These code examples are, for example, an image with a footnote, and an imagemap. Nested templates can be complex, but if such constructions frighten you, perhaps you should spend less time running mindless scripts that shift whitespace around and more time actually contributing content.

If you think the presentation of the material should be changed, then fine -- discuss it. If you think the presentation of the material is achieved in a hack-ish way, then fine -- suggest better ways of achieving the presentation. But don't just make a mess of the article because you can't be bothered to understand what's going one.

EEng (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

EENG. You made a post discussing how the page was constantly broken on PDF outputs. The markup you instituted is responsible for that, but it also goes and breaks my browser as well. There is absolutely no reason to keep massive invis tags reiterating a section's name, nor is there a good reason to micromanage the font size - it is not even consistent. You can restore it if you want, but the end result of your coding is a page that is horribly inefficient and filled with needless invis tags and so many comments as to suggest that this is more of your private publication draft instead of a Wikipedia article. Rather than place sources inline, you make invisible marks saying that "this covers this and that covers this" but didn't do them inline for the infobox. Your quick to make mention of slanderous claims of abuse when it is patently false - a BLP issue if the subject was alive - but even still, there is no need for it to be seen every time you go to edit the page. I tried to fix that which was broken - if you don't like it, restore it, but your way is needlessly complex and will always mess up the pdf or even regular printing of the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Everything you're saying is nonsense.

• "You made a post discussing how the page was constantly broken on PDF outputs. The markup you instituted is responsible for that...your way is needlessly complex and will always mess up the pdf or even regular printing of the article." As already explained to you here, the article version from July 2012, which has none of the markup you complain about, doesn't render properly into pdf either. Apparently the pdf converter can't handle multiple citation groups, footnotes within image captions, or other standard features. Go here to try it yourself. Your version of the article suffers from the very same pdf-rendering problems, so "my" markup is not responsible, and what you're saying is nonsense.

• "it also goes and breaks my browser as well" In that same post I mentioned that I have checked the article in IE, Chrome, Safari, and Firefox with no problems. I asked what browser you're using and what problems you're seeing, but you didn't answer. (There was a problem -- which affected other articles too -- under a version of IE10 released about three months ago, but those disappear under IE11.)
• "It is not helpful to have small text made even smaller, that is a WP:ACCESS issue." A few of the ===-level sections are just a single paragraph, which look silly with 135% headlines. By applying "size 76%" to these headlines they are returned to 100%. So what you're saying is nonsense: there's no "small text made even smaller" and no WP:ACCESS issue.
• "There is absolutely no reason to keep massive invis tags reiterating a section's name" You're talking about the strings like <!--======Death======--> (except with a lot more ='s) at the top-level section breaks. These are simply visual aids to locating the various sections while editing. What's wrong with that?
• "nor is there a good reason to micromanage the font size - it is not even consistent." I see no inconsistencies. What are you talking about?
• "Rather than place sources inline, you make invisible marks saying that "this covers this and that covers this" but didn't do them inline for the infobox" Example: The infobox says Gage died "in or near San Francisco", with a cite. In the markup I added a note <!--cite covers death date, place, chk covers "or near"--> as a reminder to doublecheck that the cited source really does support the or near qualification. Many editors wouldn't have worried about it, but I'm very careful about sourcing. You're trying to make that look like a bad thing, and as usual that's nonsense.
• "Your quick to make mention of slanderous claims of abuse when it is patently false - a BLP issue if the subject was alive - but even still, there is no need for it to be seen every time you go to edit the page." What the fuck are you talking about?
• "filled with needless invis tags and so many comments as to suggest that this is more of your private publication draft instead of a Wikipedia article" Internal notes such as <!--get direct cite from Warren catalog on taper length--> and <!--need pg# for cite--> are completely appropriate. What the fuck is your problem?
• the end result of your coding is a page that is horribly inefficient" Your delusion that an article's markup affects some kind of "efficiency" (of Wikimedia servers, I guess) is your biggest nonsense of all. It's the same delusion that compels you to make thousands of meaningless edits that (for example) do nothing but change {{disambig}} to {{disambiguation}}. When another editor asked you to explain why you were doing this, you replied "Increase in speed and gets pages off the checklist once and for all." [74]. You actually believe that? You have no idea what you're talking about.

I'd be gentler except that you've apparently been told over and over to cut this shit out. Educate yourself and stop cluttering up article histories and watchlists with meaningless edits solving nonexistent "efficiency" problems.

EEng (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

By an amazing coincidence your AWB access has just been revoked for the behavior I mention above. [75] EEng (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: Editor ChrisGualtieri has repeatedly [76][77][78] removed parts of my post just above. I fully stand by my comments, and am once again restoring them, with the reminder to CG not to fuck with other people's talk-page posts. I'll say it again: Do not fuck with other people's talk-page posts. Comment on them if you like, but leave them be.

BTW, CG, do you have any substantive response to what I say above, or do you plan to just keep whining about how mean I am? EEng (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Shy templates and other formatting

I've removed them, again, after another editor came to the same conclusion. EEng is incorrectly using Template:Shy/doc which results in no actual benefit or usage to the page. The only significant action of its inclusion is to ostracize editors and make it incomprehensible to edit for most editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In what way is the article "incorrectly using Template:Shy/doc", which says:

This template inserts ​, which is a U+00AD SOFT HYPHEN (&shy;).A soft hyphen is an "optional" hyphen – a point at which a word may be broken at end-of-line, if necessary, in which case the soft hyphen is made visible in the rendered text; otherwise it remains invisible. (The decision about whether to break a given word is made by the browser.)

And certainly use of {{shy}} does lend "actual benefit" to the appearance of the page; whether the benefit is worth the trouble may be subject to debate, but when you start by asserting there's no benefit at all you lose all credibility, since that's obviously false. As for "ostracizing editors and making it incomprehensible to edit for most editors": that might have some weight coming from someone who showed an interest in actually editing the article.

Your "another editor" who previously removed the {{shy}}s did so with edit summary Removing {{shy}}s from the lead. I don't see what purpose they serve, and they make the article very hard to edit. Interestingly, he/she never made any edits other than that. (As for, "I don't see what purpose they serve": please don't teach that reasoning to anyone who doesn't see what purpose the oil in my car's engine serves.)

Perhaps an editnotice explaining what {{shy}} does would avoid initial puzzlement, which I think is the only real problem here.

EEng (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Show me where the shy template is required on this page. I say this because you do not understand its proper usage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri just removed 483 occurrences of {{shy}} (diff)! Wikitext is not supposed to be such a mess, and a really good reason would be needed to justify the inclusion of even a couple of those. I support removal of all those. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thank you. I also do not understand the reason to template unicode characters that are removed via AWB and other processes, either. Or for that matter why the replacement of the actual dashes themselves has been reverted to dash templates again; as seen by the {{mdash}} which litters the area. And that's just for starters; aside from the fact that nearly 10kb of wikicode is dedicated to maintaining numerical order for references and that it would break everything with the addition of new sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I started by removing the horizontal dash comments, and {{ndash}} and {{mdash}}. A lot more clean up is needed as articles should stick to wikitext unless a good reason for deviating from the normal style is available. I think all occurrences of {{zwsp}} should be removed, and a heap of other things. The introductory "Hack of all hacks" should go, as should almost all of the html comments. Such comments may suit an individual editor, but they quickly become confusing and tiresome for others. Further, they become outdated as edits are made, with the result that in a year or two the wikitext and the comments can completely diverge, resulting in even more confusion. I am watching this page and will return in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:, thank you for working on it. I have done many of the fixes before, but had been reverted by EEng. I also agree that the wikitext needs to be readable and that edits from contributors should not break the complex construction of the page's code. I'd love to contribute to this article and address the content issues, but can't because it'd break the page. With these improvements to readability and accessibility, I believe more positive contributions will and can come. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (formatting)

I continue to be amazed at the reasoning, "I don't understand why it's this way, so I'm removing it." Wouldn't it make more sense to first ask for an explanation? To the points raised above:

• With literal dashes it's hard to see, in the edit window, whether the right kind of dash is present. {{mdash}} and {{ndash}} make it clear that the right kind of dash is being used. They're helpful and do no harm. Why remove them?
• Use of {{zwsp}} ("zero-width space"): Most browsers will not linebreak right after an mdash, so that in e.g.

He saw Jonathan—momentarily (coded as He saw Jonathan{{mdash}}momentarily)

the entire string Jonathan—momentarily is unbreakable, as if it had been coded He saw {{nowrap|Jonathan{{mdash}}momentarily}}. Coding He saw Jonathan{{mdash}}{{zwsp}}momentarily tells the browser it's OK to linebreak just after the dash. Why remove them when they make the article look better?

• {{shy}}: CG, you say above that I "do not understand its proper usage." My understanding is that shy's purpose it's to hint the browser where it can (if it wants to) break a long word (inserting a hyphen) if it wants to, to help keep line lengths even. What is your understanding of its proper usage?
• CG, you said above, I also do not understand the reason to template unicode characters that are removed via AWB and other processes. What are these "Unicode characters removed via AWB"? Please explain.
• CG, you also said 10kb of wikicode is dedicated to maintaining numerical order for references and that it would break everything with the addition of new sources. No, the special code is to maintain the alphabetical order (not numberical order) of the sources, and group them into For general readers vs For specialists etc. And a new ref doesn't "break everything" -- just add it in the normal way, and it will appear at the end of the sources list. (I've added a note to the source text explaining how to maintain the alpha order -- see [79].)

EEng (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to waste my time hand-holding you through Wikipedia's Manual of Style after your dismissive and abrasive interactions from the Good Article Review. Basically you need to go through WP:1A and re-write this entire article to not be editorializing; move almost all of these notes into the main text and fix all the instances of prose like this: "Despite this celebrity the body of established fact about Gage and what he was like (before or after his injury) is remarkably small..." I am not the best copyeditor in the world, but far better writers have already had their help rejected by you. Your referencing style is abysmal, because you shorten instances of author's credits inline which goes against referencing standards and ensures that they will be broken if anyone doesn't strictly adhere to your format. Lastly, there is not one "Active" use of the Shy template and if you noticed the usage is for when the line goes beyond the margins and would otherwise distort the page. Now this case is pretty rare, but even without shys most browsers can and will automatically break a line of "wockas" up; failure to do so would require the "shy". And that is the only time it should be used. If you do not understand what Unicode is or its usage, please re-read Zero-width space and Template:Zwsp, it is the same situation as the "shy", but note that MOS:NBSP says "A literal hard space, such as one of the Unicode non-breaking space characters, should not be used, since some web browsers will not load them properly during editing." You called people who care about this "MOS Nazis", but you do not comprehend my statements above about your coding actually making the article extremely difficult to read on my browser, dismissing as my error when you do not understand what it does. If anyone with a screen reader tried to read or edit this page they would be completely overwhelmed. Whenever possible, formatting and templates should be replaced by actual endashes or emdashes, and nbsp used sparingly so as to not jar the reader either. Its not much asking for even basic MOS compliance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again I cannot understand the problems you're talking about, I ask you to explain, and you absolutely refuse to do that. I'll try again for this most recent post of yours.

• Your referencing style is abysmal, because you shorten instances of author's credits inline which goes against referencing standards Shorten what??? What are you talking about? Can you give an example?
• and ensures that they will be broken if anyone doesn't strictly adhere to your format Again, what are you talking about? All the various styles of referencing syntax (<ref></ref>, various templates, etc.) work fine. Perhaps you can give an example of a something you have tried to do that doesn't work.
• shy template:

• Lastly, there is not one "Active" use of the Shy template What is an "active use of the shy template"?
• the usage [of shy] is for when the line goes beyond the margins and would otherwise distort the page. Now this case is pretty rare, but even without shys most browsers can and will automatically break a line of "wockas" up; . You're confusing hyphenation with "word breaking" or "word wrapping" -- explained here [80]:

word-wrap is a property that has been around and supported for a long, long time. By setting its value to break-word you tell the browser to break words wherever it needs to in order to avoid text overflowing. Unfortunately no hyphens are inserted.

• failure to do so would require the "shy". And that is the only time [shy] should be used. That's clearly not what shy is for, as explained here: [81]

• If you do not understand what Unicode is or its usage I understand what Unicode is, thank you -- I was there at its inception. What I want to know is: what are these "unicode characters that are removed via AWB and other processes"?
• please re-read Zero-width space and Template:Zwsp, it is the same situation as the "shy" I'm not sure what you mean by "the same situation". I explained the use of zwsp in my earlier post above. Do you deny that's an appropriate way to use it? If so, why?
• note that MOS:NBSP says "A literal hard space, such as one of the Unicode non-breaking space characters, should not be used, since some web browsers will not load them properly during editing." What does this have to do with anything? Who's talking about using literal nbsp anywhere?
• you do not comprehend my statements above about your coding actually making the article extremely difficult to read on my browser, dismissing as my error when you do not understand what it does. I've asked you repeatedly to say what the problems you're seeing [82] #whatbrowswer but you never do that. I'm asking you again: what are these problems you're seeing on your browswer, and what browswer are you using?
• Whenever possible, formatting and templates should be replaced by actual endashes or emdashes,

nbsp [should be] used sparingly so as to not jar the reader either.

Its not much asking for even basic MOS compliance.

No it's not too much to ask, but you never point to anything in MOS that's being violated -- you just keep saying things are supposed to be this way or that way, but nothing indicates that these are anything more than your personal ideas. The last two points above are typical -- "templates should be replaced ... nbsp should be used sparingly" Why? Who says? And what in world do you mean about nbsp "jarring the reader"?

Please, for once, explain what you're talking about, or give expamples. EEng (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Much of this has already been explained to you at length, yet you demand more explanation? Aside from this "hack of hacks" your referencing structure makes it impossible to obtain the author of the source from the notes because it reads as a single line, making verification worse. Your notes comprise a large amount of the text in a completely unnecessary fashion and avoids clear contentious issues without proper in-text explanation given the prominence of matters like Gage's death and differing accounts of medical care. Though these issues are much more secondary to the simple fact that you had over 400 instances of the shy template and still do not understand that the shy template is not and has not been used at all. Most browsers can and do properly account for long strings of words, but in rare cases where the string exceeds the browser the shy template breaks it with a hyphen. It still is clear that: No instances in this article required the use the shy template. Given that, they are to be removed. Nearly 3 KB was wasted and it made the text really inaccessible to readers. Your attempt to take from Mozilla to support your argument is actually worse than the existing Wikipedia documentation, but it notes: "it suggests a place where the browser might choose to break the word if necessary." The problem is that your usage is meaningless and results in mark up like: [[physiology|physio{{shy}}log{{shy}}i{{shy}}cal]] and "introduc{{shy}}tory psycholo{{shy}}gy textbooks in three universi{{shy}}ty libraries.". You do not understand the template's usage and that is plainly clear. You also use templates over the actual endash and emdash characters and us "MOS Nazis" and any user can quickly and easily correct the en/emdashs, but why long invisible comments of nothing? All these problems and more have been discussed and explained to you, but I do not have to cater to you nor should I. If anything, you owe users like Eric Corbett and John and apology for wasting their time, because you do not seem to realize how flawed this article is and do not attempt to resolve it by learning from more experienced editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, let's just take two points and see if we can make progress on them:

• You said, Whenever possible, templates should be replaced by actual endashes or emdashes I asked where MOS says that, and you still haven't answered. I'm asking you now to either point to the MOS reference or admit you don't know of one. It's OK either way -- we all make mistakes. But what won't be OK is for you to rant again about how obvious it is that things should be done this or that way, but still not answer that very simple question. Again: Where does MOS or any other guideline say that, whenever possible, templates should be replaced by actual endashes or emdashes?
• Please explain what you mean by, "your referencing structure makes it impossible to obtain the author of the source from the notes because it reads as a single line". What reads as a single line? What browser are you using? Can you get a screenshot? Does anybody else reading this have any idea what CG is talking about?

EEng (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:Deviations, "Best practice: Use Wikimarkup and CSS classes in preference to alternatives", but notice that MOS:DASH notes they are typed in and not templated in? Same for WP:NBSP. If you read MOS:SHY (as I suggested you read ALL of the MOS) you'd note: "Use of soft hyphens should be limited to special cases, usually involving very long words or narrow spaces (such as captions in tight page layouts, or column labels in narrow tables). Widespread use of soft hyphens is strongly discouraged, because it makes the Wikisource text very difficult to read and to edit, and may have the effect of intimidating editors from working on an article..." Now, stop trying to pass this off as me making a mistake, you didn't bother to read. Before we go further you should read it and follow the link at MOS:NOTED. Though you'd get far more mileage out of going through WP:1A. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What WP:Deviations says is

Best practice: Use Wikimarkup and CSS classes in preference to alternatives: In general, styles for tables and other block-level elements should be set using CSS classes, not with inline style attributes ... In general, articles should use wikimarkup in preference to the limited set of allowed HTML elements. In particular, do not use the HTML style tags <i> and <b>...

This deprecates inline styles and HTML styles -- what in there discourages templates? Are you saying templates aren't part of wikitext?

And no, MOS:DASH doesn't, as you say, provide that dashes "are typed in and not templated in" -- It says nothing about templates either way. But it does say Type them in as &ndash; (–) and &mdash; (—), which is weird since the WP:DEVIATIONS you just pointed us to says not to use html such as &mdash;. This is a reminder that MOS isn't entirely complete and consistent, and that (as the top of each MOS page reminds us) we must "Use common sense in applying it" -- failure to mention templates as a way of inserting dashes might just be an oversight.

You still haven't explained what you mean by "your referencing structure makes it impossible to obtain the author of the source from the notes because it reads as a single line". Can you please do that?

EEng (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think my responses are being read much, if that direct quote from MOS about Shy and other ones including on the matter of limited HTML use and not using font and fontsize template... but I'll bite one last time. Are you saying that the actual characters are worse than templates in the article? Are you suggesting that your "shy templates" are justified despite repeatedly being given their proper and limited use which are not met in the article? I try to always present conflicting information found in my responses and weigh it in my arguments, but the takeaway was supposed to be that things are not always met with consensus, but various aspects are and reader and editor accessibility is important in extreme situations. The result of the changes for the shy and dashes resulted in clearer and more readable wikimarkup and did not have any impact on the rendered page other than making it load faster and reducing its file size by 5%. It is the best kind of optimization and if you have concerns about distinguishing an endash vs emdash in wikimarkup than it may be your browser or setup that is odd. The "shy" matter however would only appear under two cases, a browser that does not support it natively and only when the text would exceed the maximum width of the page and traveling off screen or through the captions into the text body. Those cases are acceptable for shy, but they are rare. Though I must say that some of the issue was exacerbated by the blown up image sizes that squashed the text together, but even then did not require shys. Lastly the references.... if you highlight your notes through in-line examination, it contains references, but you cannot reach them - this is OKAY. It is acceptable limitation of Wikipedia, the best way is to click the note and be brought down to it, where the reference can be read. The problem is that your references, includes Fleishman, cited three times, but only the one under 'b' goes to note AA. The other "a" and "c" references do not go up to their location and even searching for reference 12 yields only that one "b" appearance. This appears to be a direct result of your "fake reference" structure and gives the impression that there are more citations than really exist for the work and it makes verifying the text more difficult. Your reference format also has the result of making the reference structure for the same author cited concurrently as being a single line in the reflist and in the instance of sequential citation in the article as noted by "Ratiu et al. used CT scans of Gage's actual skull[22][23]" 22 is full but 23 has Ratiu's name omitted, so I need to look up source 22 to find out Ratiu authored source 23. As you can expect, I do not favor this, but it is far less important than the duplication via false references that break attempts to verify the text. I only recently discovered that in my attempts to fact check and analyze the article itself. I wanted to start and have you understand the simple things before the complicated matters because some of the referencing issues are not wrong, aside from the prevalence of false references, and are acceptable stylistic differences. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

COI

I noticed that EEng who has more than 1000 edits to this article is inserting their own viewpoint and research material and co-authored papers with prominence. This is unacceptable under WP:COI. This is clear from the self admission on User:EEng's page. This results in the page having questionable neutrality. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Good work, Sherlock. I mention repeatedly on this page and its archives that papers by me and by my coauthor Macmillan are cited (but I mention it only if it's relevant -- if I did so more frequently I expect you'd accuse me of "playing the expert card" to "bully" other editors). Since (as cited in the article) every paper substantively discussing Gage since Macmillan's book appeared 13 years ago endorses and recites its/our conclusions, and no one has published anything dissenting, I can't see what your concern could possibly be.

Or is what's really at issue here your lingering hurt feelings as seen in the section just before this one?

I'm removing the COI tag because it's absurd -- I can't have a close connection to someone who died 150 years ago. And before you add an NPOV tag in its place, heed its injunction to first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies ... add this tag only as a last resort. I look forward to hearing your specific issues, what you think should be changed to improve neutrality, and so on. EEng (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(Next day) You've now reinstated the COI template [83] with the edit summary "It stays", which is hardly a cogent argument. I've removed it again, of course.

As already pointed out a COI involves a "close connection to the subject", in this case a man dead 150 years, you're making a fool of yourself by continuing to assert that. Discuss it here if you want, but don't re-add the template unless you can explain here how it could possibly apply. Another thought would be for you to take the matter to WP:COIN, though if I were you I'd take care to avoid arousing renewed anger at your "serial history of forum shopping and spurious noticeboard complaints... abuse of the noticeboards and community discussion pages... responding to any discussion that does not immediately yield the result [you want] by starting a new discussion elsewhere", as someone put it well just over a month ago (WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive255#Disruptive_Noticeboard_behavior_by_User:ChrisGualtieri). EEng (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Once again editor ChrisGualtieri has removed [84] parts of my posts (just above). As before I stand by my comments, and as before I am restoring them. I am also, for the 20th time, reminding CG: Do not to fuck with others' talk-page posts. Comment on them if you like, but leave them be.

Do not remove the COI tag, you are pushing your own and your co-author's work disruptively - and your personal attack has been removed per WP:WIAPA. This is your final warning on the matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE provides:

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.

Despite multiple requests, you have given no example of anything in the article violating the above. It's perfectly obvious that you haven't the foggiest idea about the subject or the relationships of the sources -- you're just talking through your hat. I will continue to remove the tag until you either give a specific, informed justification here. Or (as suggested above) perhaps you should take it to COIN. EEng (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Phineas_Gage. I try to be as nice as I can, but the previous discussions show that this is necessary. WP:CIVIL is not optional, but you don't make many friends by being ornery or abrasive; I don't like how you use your and your coauthor's work to dominate this page's POV. So to COIN it goes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

OR re year-of-death?

This posting transferred here from elsewhere [85]

According to your own primary source document the date for his death in major sources was 1861, not 1860. Not that I doubt your claim, but the page in question does not say 1860 and more than 20 other sources state 1861 deriving from Harlow shows significant original research with: "... Harlow (though in contact with Gage's mother as he was writing) was mistaken by exactly one year implies that certain other dates he gives for events late in Gage's life—​his move from Chile to San Francisco and the onset of his convulsions—​must also be mistaken, presum­a­bly by the same amount; this article follows Macmillan in correct­ing those dates (each of which carries this annota­tion)." It is the stand out issue I noticed when I read the article. Why not just cite the book if it is in the book itself? Why do so on Wikipedia? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes present detail likely to distract the casual reader but which a more curious reader may want. Most readers won't notice that many sources repeat Harlow's incorrect 1861 date, but for those who do notice, and want to understand what's going on, the note you're talking about (Note A here) cites Macmillan 2000's discussion of Gage's death, outlines Harlow's date error, then explains that the article follows Macmillan in correcting those errors. There's no OR in any of this. EEng (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Something this important deserves an explanation in the text; too much of this article is already "notes" of some form. Why not cite Fleischmann? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes redux

Let's go through the laundry list of what has been changed.

• Formatting

1. "Hack of Hacks" removed with no negative impact on the text
2. False references removed as part of hack of hacks, references now work properly as a result.
3. Shy templates removed with no negative impact on text
4. mdash templates removed with no negative impact on text, replaced with character
5. ndash templates removed with no negative impact on text, replaced with character
6. Font size augmentations removed - Renders correctly now and in line with WP:DEVIATIONS
7. Spans removed - Fixes a larger problem
8. Subs and false reference removed to prevent error - resolved as part of "hack of hacks" fix
9. Removed thinsp templates, references should not have spaces after punctuation either.
10. Removed "see fig" set up. This is a form of editorializing.

• Images

1. Formatting changes applied here as well
2. Removed the right image in the lead, jarring and was noted as an issue by another editor
3. Removed the primary source document in notes.
4. Removed the blurry close up of the rod.

• Content

# Notes have been integrated, removed or modified. #"The 2010-identified image is in the possession of Tara Gage Miller of Texas; an identical image belongs to Phyllis Gage Hartley of New Jersey. (Gage had no known children—see Macmillan 2000;{{r|okf|page=319,327}} these are descendents of certain of his relatives—see Macmillan& Lena 2010.){{r|macm_rehabilitating|page=4}}:

• Promotional tone/advocacy removed.

1. "To better understand the question, he and collaborators are actively seeking additional evidence on Gage's life and behavior, and describe certain kinds of historical material (see "Phineas Gage: Unanswered questions" in External links, below) for which they hope readers will remain alert, such as letters or diaries of physicians whom their research indicates Gage may have met, or by persons in certain places Gage seems to have been." is direct advocacy and making a personal appeal to readers.
2. This promotional wording was fixed.[86]
3. "In the only book dedicated to the case, An Odd Kind of Fame:Stories of Phineas Gage (2000)" is patently false and has been removed.[87]
4. "; however, there is no question (Lena& Macmillan, 2010) that all Gage's injuries, including to his eye, were on the left" - Implying Lena & Macmillan discovered this.[88]

• Sources used only in notes that were removed as part of the note clean up.

{{refn|name=vanderstoep|{{cite journal |last1=Vanderstoep |first1=S.W. |last2=Fagerlin |first2=A. |last3=Feenstra |first3=J.S. |doi=10.1207/S15328023TOP2702_02 |volume=27 |issue=2 |pages=89 |year=2000 |title=What Do Students Remember from Introductory Psychology? |journal=Teaching of Psychology |url=http://faculty.weber.edu/eamsel/Classes/Practicum/TA%20Practicum/papers/VandersStoep%20et%20al%20(2000).pdf }} {{open access}} }}

More to come. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

night cap, and roller"

For the roller description, isn't it this? Ward20 (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, we gotta be careful -- medical terms have shifted over time. For example, if Harlow had mentioned using a stethoscpe it would be what's shown at right.

• Nightcap: We don't want readers imagining Gage in something like this [89]
• Roller: Then as now, doctors communicated in shorthand code language, so while the general notion of a "roller" is straightforward, Harlow assumed his readers would have a good idea how the roller would be used on a wound like this, without his having to tell them, which leaves poor us at a disadvantage.

• A. See the puzzling instructions here [90]
• B. In this [91], see plates CVII and CVIII and their accompanying text (which helps explain the "heads" and "splits" referred to in link A)
• C. More fun stuff with startling illustrations: [92] and [93]

I wonder if the nightcap and roller should remain unmentioned unless we can help the reader intelligently visualize how they would have been applied -- otherwise, with three different thingamajigs listed (compress, nightcap, roller) one easily imagines Gage bandaged up like an Egyptian mummy. Do you think including an image in the Treatment section (e.g. from link B above) would be an improvement (it could be fairly small, I think).
EEng (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Aw, when saw "nightcap", I came here hoping for a drink! Anyway, I would worry that an image might be WP:SYNTH unless we know exactly what was on Gage. However, as for the original concern, how about just replacing "over all a wet compress, night cap, and roller" with "dressings" (without quote marks)? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Since days later Harlow prescribes brandy, a reader could be forgiven for concluding that the "nightcap" was something to ease the pain! Anyway, the OR/SYNTH danger is what I was referring to when I said Harlow's vagueness "leaves poor us at a disadvantage" i.e. had Harlow said "A two-header roller was formed into Futterman's Four-Point Double-Duplex Cranium Cradle," then an image of the Futterman Four-Point would be perfectly fine; but since he didn't say that, we must be sure we're on good ground for any image.

• I think we're safe in using Plate CVII, Fig. 1 (from link at B above) for the nightcap. In surgical manuals from 1799 (if not earlier) to 1865 (at least) (OR! waaatch it!) it's often called a common nightcap, and what's depicted is exactly what you;d expect if you've read any Emily Bronte, and at least one manual warns the surgeon to be prepared to make due with what's at hand should the patient not own a nightcap -- so it clearly is the domestic item.
• I've looked carefully through the discussions of Harlow's treatment in Macmillan 2000 Ch 4 and in Barker. There's nothing there allowing us to pick an image for how the roller was deployed, and I can't think of any other source that might help us.

Therefore, how about the following text -- together with a small thumbnail of the nightcap:

After two large pieces of bone were replaced the wound was closed using resin-impregnated (i.e. adhesive) cloth strips, though leaving it partially open for drainage, and a wet compress applied. The entrance wound in the cheek was only loosely bandaged for the same reason. A nightcap, and further bandaging, secured these dressings.

EEng (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with the new proposed wording expect I don't see why we can't say roller bandage rather than further bandaging. If we're going to substitute bandage for roller anyway than why not just say roller bandage? If we can't describe the method of application, I think secured is sufficient. As far as nightcap I think it would be better to add the medical use and image (with references) of the night cap to the night cap article, or a new article strictly for the medical usage. Then we could just use a wikilink.

Ward20 (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not strongly opinionated about any of this, but, beyond what Ward20 said, I'd modify the first sentence to have a comma after "replaced", and to delete the word "though" (both trivial points). --Tryptofish (talk) 7:37 pm, Today (UTC−5)

• I omitted roller because if we can't explain how it got rolled on I don't see how it adds anything to just bandaging -- readers will understand bandages to be long strips of something, wrapped or tied somehow, and since that's all we know too, we may as well leave it at that. (I'm unsure about "I think secured is sufficient" -- is it a suggestion for a change?)
• I've added the nightcap image to nightcap (garment). But even if they don't mistake the nightcap for a shot of alcohol, I worry modern readers will imagine the pointy, tasseled thing seen in TV Christmas specials. So I still think maybe the image should be here in this article as well.

So we can see how it looks I'll add the nightcap image, with text changes (some per the discussion so far and some just tinkering). Thoughts?
EEng (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

When I think of bandaging I think of pads or tapes or rolls or even things like large band aids. With roller bandages I think of a cloth type strip rolled in a cylinder form that is unrolled around a part of the body to cover or secure something. Maybe it's just me. Concerning sufficient, it's to say it's OK the way you describe it and not a suggestion for change. The changes you did there are an improvement IMO. Ward20 (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"Dressing" of burned face?

I have couple of nits on the present wording in the first paragraph. Harlow 1848 doesn't mention Gage's burned face but does in "Harlow 1868". I don't see where Harlow says the burned face was bandaged though. Also, unless the original image of the tile page is wrong it appears the "Harlow 18481868" paper says Harlow 18491869.[94] Ward20 (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Oh I see, lecture date vs publishing date. Ward20 (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Bibliographic notes for the very, very interested

It's worse than that. Harlow read the paper to the Mass Medical Society in 1868, and it appeared in Publ of the Mass Med Soc immediately after. Then in 1869, Harlow had the paper printed up as a pamphlet. If you click the link (in the article's sources list) for Harlow 1868 you'll see in the image that the page numbers start with 1, instead of with 327 like the bibliography entry says. That's because the image is really of the pamphlet (H 1869) instead of the journal paper (H 1868). I've never figured out how to explain that in the sources list. And there are a lot of confusing titles floating around: Harlow 1848: "Passage of an iron rod through the head" Bigelow 1850: "Dr. Harlow's case of recovery from the passage of an iron bar through the head" (though the inside pages are headed "Bigelow's case of injury of head") Harlow 1868: "Recovery from the passage of an iron bar through the head" (inside pages headed, "Recovery after severe injury to the head") So you see a lot of mixed-up citations. EEng (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

[Subject to your approval I've modified the section heading.]

Ah! But the text says the face was dressed, not bandaged, and that makes a difference. Let's review:

• Harlow 1848: The hands and fore arms were deeply burned to the elbows, which were dressed,...
• Harlow 1868: The face, hands, and arms were deeply burned. (No mention of dressing them.)

So for sure the hands and arms were burned, and were "dressed"; and the face was burned -- but was it dressed? Dress is an elastic term for pretty much any treatment; it might include bandaging, but it might mean as little as just cleaning. So unless we think Harlow did all that other stuff (including sticking his finger into Gage's brain -- yuck!) but completely ignored the face, I think we can say it was dressed. On this excruciatingly tiny point I don't see breaking the flow with 15 parenthetical words to warn the reader precisely what Harlow did or didn't make explicit. Thoughts?

EEng (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like an ass, this is the purposes of notes, to clear up ambiguity in text that cannot be resolved in any other form. If you don't want to break the flow and you want the context to be clear, this would be a great place for clarifying that ambiguity and showing it is not a construction or omission on Wikipedia. I almost had to do this for my own article recently, sometimes the context is vague, its not in our best interests to go assuming or filling in the blanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Irritating as you are, your comment led me to come up with a smooth wording that follows Harlow's text precisely:

Harlow also dressed Gage's hands and forearms (which along with his face had been "deeply burned") and ordered that his head be kept elevated.

EEng (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My confusion was thinking dressing would be bandages of some sort. I understand your point about the difference and I think your change clarifies the point. Am taking a break for the Holidays or longer. Happy Holidays to All.Ward20 (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What about the nightcap image?

Yes, a day away from Wikipedia is like a month by the seaside, isn't it? But before you go, do you think the nightcap image should go or stay? (CG, I'd even like to hear from you too, as long as you don't lecture me about how Wikipedia works.) EEng (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the image adds much to the article. Readers can use the link if they want an image. I think it's less cluttered that way. Ward20 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As seen in my edit summary adding it [95], I have my doubts too now that I see it actually there. I think it does avoid possible misunderstanding but looks kind of... goofy. No harm leaving it a while so others can comment. EEng (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Tag at top of the page

In the interests of peaceful editing, would anyone object to removing the COI tag at the top of the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No objection. The most pertinent argument relating to COI was the alleged overrepresentation of MacMillan in the article sources. As has been shown here and at the COI noticeboard, while the Gage case has been referenced in a vast amount of sources, the overwhelming majority of these instances are largely superficial, derivative and quite distant from the actual primary sources. Most reviews in medical history journals that I have read, while not uncritical of MacMillan, have remarked on the (almost pathological) comprehensiveness of his treatment and there have been no serious objections raised to his overall interpretation of the Gage case and its significance. His thesis has received no substantial rebuttal, it is the most current treatment and, absent EEng from this article, I would still argue that it should be the principal source used to create content for this article. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Seeing it made me come here to find which 150+ year-old friend of Gage's had managed to figure out a computer. Sort of saddened to find it's a a problem with sources, not contributors. "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints" would probably be better, if any tag at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Confession is good for the soul

With best wishes for everyone's souls, please remember that it's best to drop the stick, lest the stick get stuck through one's skull. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I can't keep living a lie. I do have a connection to the subject... I once had dinner with person A; who was a colleague of persons B1, B2, B3,...; all of whom worked with person C; whose dad Dr. D almost certainly met Gage in 1849. Does that count as a COI? (For those who enjoy puzzles, persons A, B*, and C were US Supreme Court justices. From that fact, from the father-son relationship, and from where Gage went in 1849, it's not too hard to figure out who C and D were. Hint: Dr. D is mentioned in this article.) EEng (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC) P.S. I'm still waiting to see added to the article all those sources I've been suppressing, for balance to be restored by divvying up the citation glory more equitably, and so on. WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Sources_listed_by_CG_.28Part_1.29 I work 14 hour days and frankly I found a more important and less troublesome part of the project to deal with. I don't particularly care about the fact you are the author of some of the sources, that was the COI - and who you know and who you work with is moot to me. My own findings on numerous things are on Wikipedia and pulled from reliable sources that fixed some "urban legend" stuff that has been wrong for 20 years. I'm not linking to my book and frankly, citing myself is something I wouldn't do - but I haven't found anything wrong... though Fleishmann uses better word choice and examples than your prose. I'm not out to make anyone out to be "the bad guy" - we have too few experts on Wikipedia, and removing that personal appeal and cleaning up some things makes it much better. I'd prefer more direct methods for dealing with the notes, but I don't have five hours to go through it all right now... just as I haven't had the time to take care of other aspects. I just didn't want this page to be inaccessible and filled up with about 30% false references and really incomprehensible formatting and prose issues. The subject is not my area of expertise - but accessibility is important to me - so while Fleischmann is a source I'd like to see used more along with C. Encyclopedia's coverage, I'm not really inclined enough to fix it at this time. Problems highlighted, some fixed, others debated to not be problems - either way, its evolving and getting better. I'll be watching this, and helping out from time to time, but I'm satisfied that EEng knows that he shouldn't be making his own self-written sources so prominent. Though Macmillan should be about 20%-30% of the references and not 60%+. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC) To save others the trouble of parsing your latest rambling, largely unintelligible wall of text, please tell us if any of the following isn't true: You're absolutely certain there should be other sources in the article, but you don't have time to add even one of them. You're absolutely certain that some sources should be cited less frequently, and other sources more frequently, but you don't have time to make even one such change. You're still talking about using the Corsini "treatment" of Gage as some kind of model, but you don't have time to make even a single change based on that idea. You still advocate using a children's book (Fleischman) as a source. EEng (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC) I've asked you to be civil. I've asked you to actually read the MOS and understand some pretty basic things, but I only get abrasive and rude comments in return. Frankly, you are the reason I don't fix this. You make everything a fight, especially when its not supposed to be. Despite all this, I hope that you got my e-mail and you enjoy Questia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC) I agree that the explanatory notes should be changed so that each note is referenced only once in the main body of the text. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Bottom line is that you admit that you have not, and do not plan to, add any sources nor change anything about the way sources are used. For three weeks I've watched, without interfering, while you did whatever you wanted, so your excuses that you're so busy, and I'm so mean, are just that -- excuses. It's perfectly obvious you have not the foggiest idea what these urgent changes you insist are needed would actually be, and your talk of COI and POV and source use is pure guesswork. An enormous amount of editor effort has been wasted here on your adamant, uninformed certainty -- the kind of certainty superbly characterized by another editor here: The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. I'll wait a while longer for you to put up or shut up, and then I'll begin reviewing your recent edits. I hope Fiachra and others will be participating so that the best thinking possible will be brought to bear. EEng (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC) EEng, please let me suggest to you bluntly, that you shut up. The tag at the top of the page has been removed. And Chris has not objected. I thank Chris for that. It does nothing to improve this page to keep on spoiling for a fight. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Additions from Fleischman

Here's a breakdown of the additions I think are necessary:

1. Background medical context for the era, should be before the accident description. Basically, the fact that in 1848 that bacteria were not known to cause infection and that sterile surgery or treatment of patients was unknown. This is covered on page 11-15, 24.
2. Harlow's usage of an emetic and purgative drug in the treatment of Gage, owing to the theory of humors. Page 18-19.
3. Harlow's emotional test: Offering Gage $1000 for pebbles, but being rejected. Page 19.
4. Phrenologist/"whole brainer" coverage as Gage was the "proof" for both sides. Page 34-38.
5. The details around the 1851 publication from Dr. Sizer. Page 38.
6. Blackington's statements on Gage at Barnum's museum. Page 44-45.
7. Clarifying the unstable work matter. From 48-50.
8. Death by seizure clarification. Page 52-53.

In particular, some other good ideas and clarifications are in the text, but these I see as a priority and were not included in the article prior. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The first point should be slightly weaker. See Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (1843) and Ignaz Semmelweis (1847). Almost unknown would suffice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The text didn't present the matter, but generalized it more as a germ theory. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me say it yet again: Fleischman, being a children's book, is absolutely not an RS for any purpose (other than as a source on what it -- itself -- says, should that ever be something appropriate for the article to discuss, or as used here to attribute a colorful quote which illustrates a point cited to an RS). As to CG's "necessary additions":

• Point 1 doesn't belong in the article at all, IMO, except possibly in passing when discussing the fungi, draining of the abcess, etc., and even then a cite to an RS will be needed to give it siginificance with respect to Gage. Fleischman mentions this stuff because, as I keep saying, Fl. is a kids' book which uses Gage's gory story as a (very effective) vehicle to teach kids all kinds of stuff about science. But kids are not our audience, and the general reader will (or should) know that antiseptic/aseptic techniques and antibiotics were unknown in 1848, just has he will know that X-rays, anaesthesia, EKGs, and the rest of the modern armamentarium were unknown; and if he doesn't know these things, Timeline_of_medicine_and_medical_technology is the place for him to find out, not here. (Having said all that, a lot of kids do read the article -- exactly because Fl. has been so successful -- so there are a few places where the needs of kid-readers were indeed catered to, where that could be done inconspicuously.)
• Point 2 could certainly be used in the treatment section. (Thanks to Ward20 for getting that started, and there's lots that could be usefully added to it.) However, Fl. is completely off-base with his talk of humors, as well as about much else here (because, again, it's a kids' book). For example, Harlow did not follow "the best medical advice of the time" -- at least not entirely; in fact Phineas' survival is due, if anything, to Harlow's creative departure from standard practice at critical moments.
• Everything else is either already in the article (or in a linked article), or doesn't belong because it's not sourced elsewhere than in Fl.

EEng (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Here, I agree with EEng, that we should not be using a children's book as a reliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It does a far better job at explaining the matter than EEng has. The characterization that it is not relevant on the grounds of the target audience (which is teens) is a complete red herring here. I do not know why good context should be lost because of the source itself. As for the "reliable source", Fleischman is a science writer for American Society for Cell Biology and has been in Discover and other publications, and he's a writer for the Harvard Medical School. The book was checked for errors by Robert Pressberg, Barbara Sklonick and Jeffrey Macklis for the anatomical matters. Now moving on... the book specifically makes mention of Harlow's text, and covers the details behind the 1851 publication and while it does go into detail about the era - that's precisely what some readers want: context. Harlow's treatment for the humors does state that it may have relieved pressure in his brain, but why was the original "humors" treatment not covered? Articles are supposed to be self-contained and clear up misconceptions and inform as necessary - we do this for all of our best articles. In fact, I see more unrelated "inaccuracies" being addressed in the current article than anything else. Fleischman, to his credit, even goes into detail about the tamping iron and includes a readable picture and caption noting its date error. He gets the date of death correct, he addresses at least three aspects not covered here and does so with a weighing of the evidence. This includes that Gage was buried tamping iron and that J.D.B. Stillman removed the skull and the tamping iron from the coffin and David Shattuck brought it to Harlow. Now until I have my hands on Macmillan's book I don't know if this is in there, but it seems that by all accounts the information comes from a reputable author in a fact-checked book. Why should it not be included? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a difference between a book for teens and a book for little children. If the book has been checked by experts, and reports examination of source material in ways that other sources we have do not, then it's reasonable to evaluate its reliability as a source for certain specific bits of information, taking them one-by-one. Are there any other sources, outside of Macmillan et al., that criticize Fleischman? If so, we should use them to decide what from Fleischman to leave out, and if not, we should have some reasonable confidence in his book as a source, absent reasons not to. EEng has already argued that some points do not, in his opinion, belong on this page, for reasons other than sourcing. For those points that are relevant/encyclopedic for the page, let's go through them one-by-one, and see if there is any reason to doubt Fleischman's reliability, disregarding his target audience. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering much of the work comes from Macmillan's work, I doubt Macmillan is against the book and unless I see a source stating such, the claim is unsupported. The book opens in the acknowledgements with "To Dr. Malcolm Macmillan of Deakin University, Australia, who knows more than anyone about Phineas Gage..." And is cited as additional resources in the back of the book with praise and mentions Macmillan's webpage. This book is well written and something that is accessible to the layman, and that's part of the target audience. If there are further questions about its appropriateness, I believe that its careful analysis of the sources shows that it is better than most textbook studies of Gage's life and that - regardless of its breakdown of jargon - is more important to high school-level readers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Issues 2

Still seeing a lot of problems that were hidden within the notes and that really push the envelope pretty far, making an inference of the Damascios without proper context or analysis or a proper rebuttal in a reliable source. I've removed the text because it was not made or covered in a reliable source resulting it in being borderline OR and synthesis, both reasons to remove it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And just to add, it did nothing other than put down the researchers on the presumption of an error to further jockey for position on a matter. The article needs a complete re-write after this note matter is taken care of. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, I cannot predict what a future complete re-write would entail, but I made a point of examining every one of the edits that Chris made in the sequence of edits he refers to here. Outside of a minor quibble that I fixed with this edit: [96], I fully agree with every one of the edits that Chris made. They improved the page. I thank him for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

More integration underway, but the unspecific note which is used several quotations has to be fixed properly. The note says "Excerpted from Williams' and Harlow's statements in: Harlow (1848);[6]:390-2 Bigelow (1850);[8]:16 Harlow (1868).[7]:335-6" which is not specific for the three different instances of its usage. I was tinkering with this on a draft piece of paper, but almost all the notes are easily integrated and once that is done, the restructuring and cleaning up can be completed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay... the note issue is taken care of. Many spots of "citation needed" exist which underscore the deeper problems remain, and are now not hidden away in the notes which at first appeared to be references themselves. The article's prose is about at its absolute worst right now, since the integration combined editorializing with key facts and analysis. This article still lacks basic context and I'm reading through Fleischman which does a far better job of getting it out than this article does. Though now is not the time for polishing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

One last thing for now. I noticed that EEng reverted the cropping of main image back on December 7 simply because I didn't fix the description to say as such. And in the spirit of WP:IDD I've done exactly that and reinstated it again. While I do have some issues with WP:PERTINENCE of a few images, let's go from major issues to minor issues. The article has gone from this to this and that's major. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that "cleaning up prose", the edit summary here:[97], adequately explains the deletion of an image, although I can infer that the second sentence of the image caption is speculative. I'm restoring the image, minus that sentence, and making some layout and caption punctuation fixes. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I should have split it up. Personally, I was going to place it in the medical background or "Gage's injury" section, but I could not find an actual place to put the image itself. What pertinence does is actually have? Secondly, the image itself is sandwiching text, a major concern I had from before. The text on the background is not large enough to really handle it properly and between a too-small map and a picture of a pass that is unconfirmed to be the accident site is a tough call. Also, why do we have an image for Recovery from the passage of an iron bar through the head p2? This adds nothing of context other than showing the title of the paper - it doesn't add anything of value. This again comes against that Boston Post image which not only gets the date and details wrong, but is of little value to the reader being that it appears to be a 5 pt font or smaller and Wikipedia generally looks down on newspaper text being used in a thumbnail on an article. If its important, quote it, if its not, leave it out. Just because it's in the public domain doesn't mean image use best practices should not be followed if a better image can take its place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to hear what other editors think about those images. Personally, I don't consider them as problematic as you do, but I tend to be an inclusionist about images. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, there's nothing speculative about the caption (here [98]) -- what makes you say that?

CG, the image is too small because you earlier removed [99] all the sizing parameters from the images, which is why (in the version just linked) all the images have crazy oversized or undersized dimensions. With upright=1.3, as I had it originally, the text in the image is larger than that in the caption, so obviously that's big enough.

As for the dumping of all the notes into the article, words fail. Notes, almost by definition, are for discursive material which would disrupt the flow if it were included in the main text -- and for some reason that's exactly what you've done. Certainly there's lots of room for discussion about whether this or that fact should be in a note or promoted to main text, but you seem to think that notes must be avoided even at the cost of turning the the article into a mishmash word salad.

In addition, you've removed large amounts of material on your own whim. Everything is very carefully cited (with perhaps a handful of tagged exceptions). Your edit summaries for removal range from the tautological (e.g. "remove") to personal preference presented as fact ("this material is unnecessary") to just plain ignorant to blatant misrepresentation (e.g. "no reliable sources says this", when the sources are cited right in the material you're removing and -- please -- you obviously have not looked at them).

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask if there's a concern about some piece of content, instead of just making an assumption and ripping it out? Do you really think it's appropriate to make such sweeping changes without stopping to consider what others think? EEng (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You asked for me to start making modifications or to basically "fuck off"; so upon your request I made changes. The COI matter was also at your provocation. Every change imparted so far has been because you have been unwilling to do so. I find your attitude to be damaging and more battleground than productive - considering Fleishman actually gets more of the story down than your work does and your only retort is that its a children's book. You have a serious COI that I've been addressing and its been stated that you should not even inserting your own work into the article - much less the constant and repeated personal fluffing and appeal to you and Macmillan in the article's text. This is an encyclopedia article - it is not your personal webpage and I take issue with the non-neutral to outright attacks on other Gage researchers and casting aspersions on their work while simultaneously putting up conjecture as if it were fact. The easiest way to address this article's problems is to strip out the notes, integrate the meaningful content into the text and provide a proper background. Of which, Fleischman's work so clearly puts and where it is absent in yours. I'll be gathering copies of your and Macmillan's work, but it does take some time. I'm the only editor stubborn enough to meet abrasive interactions with hard work to fix the problem. I don't intend to hand-hold you through all the reasons why these changes that are still unfinished will yield a better article... after all, you still think the shy templates are warranted despite not one instance of ever being used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What I said was "put up or shut up", meaning start making the substantive content and sourcing changes you said were so urgent (instead of remaking the markup to your personal preference as you'd been doing), or stop complaining. That is not a carte blanche for you to run through the article like a bull in a china shop ripping out content and sources with either no explanation or erroneous explanation, at a rate that makes discussion impossible.

You are absolutely not entitled to do such things over the objections of other editors (whether there be ten of them or just one), no matter how certain you are that you are right. As WP:BRD says

Bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus.

Please stop this now so we can agree on how to discuss these things you want to do and, more importantly, what's best for the article. EEng (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

EEng: two answers. You asked me what I meant by "speculative" concerning the caption of that image. Maybe it wasn't the best choice of word, but I was trying to say that we cannot know whether it was the exact pass shown in the photo, or another one very similar to it, where the accident took place. Consequently, I felt it made better sense to restore the deleted image, but to leave out the sentence about what we do not know. In its current form, we are telling our readers that this is what that area of the rail line looks like (without getting into whether it's the exact spot), and that seems to me to be good enough.

And I'm obviously just one more editor, but I've been scrutinizing every one of Chris's recent edits very carefully, and aside from what I've already commented on, I agree with him entirely. I'm not seeing his edits as creating a problem. They aren't so much bold edits, as just very benign fixes that make this page more like other Wikipedia pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• EEng wants me to hold off, I'll hold off again. Personally, I think that the biggest prose changes were to the background around Gage's birth place and date. This should not be hidden in a note, this is very important to address directly in the text. Also, I believe that this ambiguity should be cited and attributed to Macmillan's research, as it is the source stating it, but there is no concrete fact about either. I'm waiting for the book to come in from the library, but I do intend to go through this with a fine toothed comb. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Deep breath

CG, I did not ask you to hold off -- I asked you to make or propose your changes in a way that gives others breathing room to comment, modify, criticize, augment, and discuss. That doesn't mean making literally 100 edits, in two or three intense bursts over a few days, which completely restructure the article and delete 20% of the sources (and maybe the same proportion of text) -- mostly with edit summaries either meaningless ("remove") or presenting your opinion as fact ("this is unnecessary") or making statements about things you cannot possibly know ("No RS states this conclusion" -- which you cannot possibly know since you just said you're waiting to receive the most important source).

Now look... I think you've been acting like a jerk, and perhaps you think the same about me. But jerk or no, if you're really getting a copy of Macmillan 2000 then all is forgiven, because I welcome eagerly the chance to go over the article -- with a fine-tooth comb, as you say -- with someone who actually wants to look at the sources and work to best reflect them. (I can email you copies of all the closed-access sources.)

The article will be better in every way after such an effort. I believe you will come see that everything was done the way it was done for good reason -- but that doesn't mean we won't sometimes decide it would be better to do something else.

Would you like to do that? If you'll promise to stop and consider the possibility that you've misunderstood something, or that you've misinterpreted policy, or that one of your posted comments might be, um, hard to understand, then I'll stop calling you a sophomoric fucking jerk moron idiot philistine or whatever other terrible things I said you were. (Perhaps you will want to suggest some conditions for me as well.)

The first thing we'd need to figure out is how we'll go through so many changes in any decent amount of time -- one thought would be to Skype for quicker interaction -- and who knows but that we might even end up liking each other.

But first I want to hear that you're interested in putting in real mental effort. OK?

EEng (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine to go over the source material carefully, and I also think it's fine for Chris to voluntarily hold off, whether or not EEng asked for that. What I don't think is fine is to call Chris (or anyone else) a jerk, a fucking moron, or anything of that sort. As for the large amount of changes, I'll repeat what I said before: I've been scrutinizing all of them, and aside from a few very minor points where I commented and it's been resolved for the moment, I think that they are all perfectly OK, and really not changing anything substantial, but rather bringing the page into greater conformance with normal editing guidelines. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

EEng, you have my e-mail or can send it via Wikipedia e-mail. I do have the book on inter library loan and I do have the copy of Fleischman's work in front of me. And Tryptofish, I warned EEng of WP:NPA, but honestly, I've had bigger and longer issues by far - I'm not going to bring this to an admin when EEng (who is one of the few experts Wikipedia has) is willing to provide sources and to help me get what I can't personally get from my library. I am willing to go through this more slowly, but all the changes made are backed up and I do look at the different versions to put back the content from the notes. Of interest seems to be Fleishman's description of the initial treatment... which I want to add. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A trial balloon

I said that the first thing we'd need to do is decide how to organize a review of recent edits, but given CG's positive response let's just jump right in and try one. Here goes:

This edit removed a footnote to the text of iron's inscription; the footnote had read:

Macmillan (PGIP)^[2]:D gives the text of the inscription, which was commissioned by Bigelow in preparation for the iron's deposit in the Warren Anatomical Museum. The Jan 6 1850 following Gage's "signature" corresponds to the latter part of the period during which Gage was in Boston under Bigelow's observation.

So here's my question: Why was this removed? EEng (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Based upon the edit summary, I'm making an educated guess that it was because there were two "cite needed" tags, covering almost all the content of the removed material.

Let me ask: would the material that had been tagged as "cn" actually be sourced to Macmillan (PGIP)? If no, let's leave it deleted, per WP:BURDEN. But if yes, then I think we could put it back in revised form:

"The inscription was commissioned by Bigelow, in preparation for the iron's deposit in the Warren Anatomical Museum. The Jan 6 1850 following Gage's "signature" corresponds to the latter part of the period during which Gage was in Boston under Bigelow's observation."

Both sentences cited to Macmillan, but I've removed the self-reference in the text itself: just two sentences of declarative fact. It could either be a footnote or be part of the main text. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry... what is this "self-reference" you're talking about? EEng (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Call it something else, anything else, if you prefer. I changed "Macmillan (PGIP)^[1] gives the text of the inscription, which..." to "The inscription...". --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being dense... Who or what is referencing himself/herself/itself? Please be very explicit since I've been crossing time zones. EEng (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I redacted it, and I hope you feel better soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Redacted WHAT? What is this "self-reference"??? Are you saying that the phrase Macmillan (PGIP) is a self-reference? EEng (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That is what I redacted, but I am no longer claiming such a thing. My mistake, let's move on. If you would like to discuss this any further, please take it to my user talk, where I'll be happy to discuss it with you, but it no longer belongs here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back on Earth...

Pending decision on whether The Crucible will be used as a source on witchcraft, Copenhagen as a source on the life of Bohr, and Green Eggs and Ham on childhood nutrition (see #Additions_from_Fleischman) I'll correct some of the most egregious boners in the article as it now stands. EEng (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Notes

The notes are a bit overwhelming. On such a short article with so much need for improvement, perhaps we could slim them down? --John (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And specifically, they should not be so long as to require paragraph breaks! We look to be in the realm of The Third Policeman or Lanark with these overblown notes. Presumably the comedic effect here is unintentional though...--John (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In what way are the notes "overwhelming" -- are you getting a blister on your mousepad finger from scrolling over them? They are outside the main text, so don't interfere with the flow of reading, yet supply precise and comprehensive additional detail for readers who want to know more than the main text gives them, or who wonder about the background of certain details. Why should they be limited in number or length? EEng (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for noticing that John. I removed them and re-integrated the text and a third person agreed with it, but then EEng has been restoring it and making personal attacks on editors because the ignorance of another. There is not a good enough reason to even use that quote in the first place. There has been a failure to communicate here, and I'm glad that several other editors have recognized the same problems and agree on its resolution. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree. The recent upheaval has degraded the quality of this article. Please gain consensus on the talk before removing notes again, especially removing sources from quotes and the like. There are far better solutions to be found. For example, some of the more trivial notes and hidden comments could be moved to an /FAQ subpage and a /todo. See Category:Wikipedia article FAQs and Category:Wikipedia article todo pages (just created). Unfortunately I cant quickly find some project documentation for those concepts. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  • When the sources themselves are improperly cited or just plain wrong, what should I do? Leave them in? I've been going through the book and correcting the errors and fixing the prose. There are a substantial amount of them. It is not easy to do this and I gave one case before. One note sourced three different quotes to different pieces and that makes it unverifiable. I removed it because that source cannot be verified. I took a lot of time, several hours in fact, in carefully going through what was a far far worse problem with every intention of correcting the matters. EEng will not even discuss a book that contains references for claims about the tamping rod being removed from the grave... it gives the exact name of the people involved and the details on the event. This was worse than the "shy" template matter which made editing the text headache inducing. The notes comprised more than 30% of the text and that's really unacceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary links

Do we really need to provide links for "resin" and "compress"? Why? My removal of the links was reverted with an incomprehensible edit summary. Perhaps we could discuss this here. --John (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, length of edit summaries is limited as you know. Let me translate... my edit summary here [100]:

rv removal(with edit summary"no need"--meaningless,since none of WP is "needed")of wikt glosses,by editor whose judgment of what's "needed"is demonstrably unsound,given result( enwp.org?diff=588616127 )of his prior such removals( enwp.org?diff=585456302

means

Revert removal (here [101], using edit summary "no need" -- which is meaningless, since nothing in this article, or in any article, or in WP as a whole, is "needed" -- we could just blank the entire project and go back to our daily lives) of certain wiktionary glosses. This edit was made by an editor whose judgment as to what's "needed" is demonstrably unsound, given that his previous removal [102] of similar glosses, such as wikt:exsecting, led quickly to a reader, who didn't know what that word meant, changing it [103] to expecting.

I myself despise overlinking, but my experience is that most people, even if they're heard the word resin, think it's some kind of industrial product (instead of a vegetable adhesive, as here); and people are sometimes confused by compress, esp. given the pronunciation ambiguity of COMpress vs. comPRESS.

EEng (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see much value in the compress wiktionary link. Why not resin and cold compress? Given "resin-impregnated (i.e. adhesive) cloth strips" has a {{cn}} tag on it, that needs to be addressed. Was the resin for adhesive purposes only? If so, the fact that resin was used is a distraction, and we could simply state "adhesive cloth strips". However if these resin-impregnated cloth strips had a common name in use at the time, maybe we could use that term (and maybe create an article for the concept if necessary). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Capsule summary of the following: I wasn't sure what to do so I did the best I could and figured we'd come up with something better later. Good ideas are needed.

Extended content

Re resin (or whatever): H1848 (p.390) says "the lacerated scalp was brought together ... retained by adhesive straps", which Macmillan 2000 (p.61) calls "adhesive bandages". My concern was that adhesive "straps" isn't a phrase with which the modern reader is familiar, while adhesive "bandages" might conjure an image such as seen here at right. It's clear from surgical manuals of the time (confirmed by an historian of medicine I consulted) that "adhesive straps" means cloth dipped in some kind of gunk like tree sap. That's why I wrote "resin-impregnated cloth strips", but that led to two new problems: (a) I didn't yet have a good way to get to that phrase without OR, and (b) most people don't really know what "resin" is either. So I tagged {{cn}} as a reminder something still needed doing and gave up for the present. Re compress: Harlow (1868, p.333) doesn't specify a cold compress at this point, only "wet". ("Ice water kept on the head and face" isn't mentioned until 10 days later -- p.335). WP articles often bring in stuff that doesn't apply e.g. w:resin goes into industrial resins and so on, so in a case like this if there's a wikt definition that narrowly gives what's wanted e.g. wikt:resin = "A viscous hydrocarbon secretion of many plants", I think that's best.

EEng (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Tags are back

Since EEng has no intention of actually fixing this article up and abiding by Wikipedia policies, I'll let the tag stick because the COIN matter showed EEng has conflict of interest regarding the self-promotion and unreferenced speculation not grounded in proper reliable sources (the produced map). Sources are not accurately depicted and many are WP:PRIMARY. The data also uncovered in my personal research shows that a large amount of content is also strangely absent including discussions by Macmillan. Repeatedly, specific claims as seen in Fleischman and other sources are not only categorically dismissed, but protested against. Just from the text in "Skull and iron" I can tell you that EEng is not properly covering the subject matter for which he is an expert in. This article needs to be completely re-written and despite having put many hours into the task of cleaning up much of the problems - EEng has stood in its way. EEng should not be editing this article directly, given that it has resulted in self-published and self-cited information and has resulted in a distinct POV that has not been the subject of any academic consensus. I believe that the combative and battleground behavior of EEng on the subject of the work shows that this article is a form of WP:SOAPBOXING, a platform for views not expressed equally or as prominently in textbooks or in other encyclopedias. As a result, the work, while good-meaning, is flawed enough that I think this article needs to be entirely re-written from the ground up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I was waiting for you! You said you had all these sources you were going to add and neglected points of view to supply. But if you're done I'll get right back to work. EEng (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Uh no. I pointed it out and you didn't respond and a timely manner. The problems remain so the tags will stay up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You've pointed nothing out but your usual unintelligible rambling. You've added three tags:

• COI: COIN was closed no consensus ("No COI" is rarely the outcome, for whatever reason) and the tag duly removed. Talk:Phineas_Gage#Tag_at_top_of_the_page You have no basis for re-adding it now and, as has happened so many times, your actions show a complete misunderstanding of WP policy and procedures.
• Self-published sources: I've asked you to identify these [104] and instead of doing you you've simply re-added the tag.
• Original research: Ditto. [105]

You can't just add tags because you feel like it. Your COI claim is dead in the water. As to the other two, you should not -- must not -- re-add them unless you can point to a specific point in the article that qualifies, and explain why. EEng (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In case it is not clear, allow me to make it so. You are citing yourself as a source, including a map which is listed as "own work" and has no reliable sources for that information. You've previously given yourself increased prominence with all the [references]. The COIN discussion showed that several editors including: John, Binksternet and Tryptofish, agreed. Your research connection is one problem, but your POV and your self-citation is another. The more esoteric problems, like the omission of Fleischmann's details and the frontal lobe damage theories aside, are added to make this not a NPOV. The unbalanced coverage and the representation of questionable sources as hard facts is another problem. I don't like speculation being taken as "fact", namely the date augmentation to match two sources that cannot even get Gage's name correctly. But all in all, the fact you work for/with Macmillan and that the work is upon a pedestal shows a COI by itself. I second the concern and believe you should not be editing the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As usual everything you're saying is nonsense:

• You say, You are citing yourself as a source, including a map which is listed as "own work" and has no reliable sources for that information. As always you just make shit up. The footnote to the Cavendish map's caption [106] reads, "See Macmillan (2000) (pp.25-7) and Macmillan (PGIP) (page A) for the steps in setting a blast and the location and circumstances of the accident", and this is the source of the map's annotations. Its description at commons is "own work... EEng" because work derived from a PD work is, indeed, "own work" for copyright purposes.

This has all been explained to you at least twice, and probably more times than that. First I explained (#CG_mixed_up_about_map1) that editors are allowed to create and annotate maps based on reliable sources, citing WP:OI. Then another editor pointed out (#CG_mixed_up_about_map2 that you were the one that removed the ref to the source on which the map is based, after which you complained there was no source! And here you are again bleating the same ignorant complaints. WP:ICANTHEARYOU

• You say, The COIN discussion showed that several editors including: John, Binksternet and Tryptofish, agreed. It doesn't matter what editors X or Y said in the discussion. The discussion ended with no determination of COI, and it was Tryptofish (whom you now cite for support!) who initiated removal of the COI tag. That removal was disussed and agreed upon by several editors [107], you gave no reason why removal shouldn't happen, and now a month later you're editwarring to re-add this tag.

• You say, You've previously given yourself increased prominence with all the Macmillan [references] The reason Macmillan's work (including, incidentlally, the one substantial, and one minor, piece I coauthored with him) are cited so much is that along with Barker, his work is the only reliable fact source on Gage. (Ratiu, Van Horn, and Tyler & Tyler are reliable on the special topic of the brain damage.) As one editor put it [108]:

The most pertinent argument relating to COI was the alleged overrepresentation of MacMillan in the article sources. As has been shown here and at the COI noticeboard, while the Gage case has been referenced in a vast amount of sources, the overwhelming majority of these instances are largely superficial, derivative and quite distant from the actual primary sources. Most reviews in medical history journals that I have read, while not uncritical of MacMillan, have remarked on the (almost pathological) comprehensiveness of his treatment and there have been no serious objections raised to his overall interpretation of the Gage case and its significance. His thesis has received no substantial rebuttal, it is the most current treatment and, absent EEng from this article, I would still argue that it should be the principal source used to create content for this article.

Numerous academic sources which are (or were -- depending on whether you ripped them out last month) referenced in the article cite Macmillan as the authoratative source to the exlcusion of others and you are in no position to second-guess that judgment.

You keep saying that other sources should be used, other sources should be used, other sources should be used, other sources should be used, other sources should be used, other sources should be used, other sources should be used, other sources should be used, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over like a broken record, but you've had two months to add such sources and you've done absolutely nothing. The only source you've even proposed is Fleischman, but as discussed ad nauseum F. is aimed at grades 4-6 and under no circumstances can be used as a fact source.

The documentation for template:COI says, "Like the other neutrality-related tags, this tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found." You've had two months to do what you want to "fix" this "problem" and no one's stopped you. And now you say I'm supposed to have fixed these nonexistent problems! What fucking chutzpah.

The reason you've shown up here after a month of no interest at all is that you're angry at me about this [109]. This is typical behavior from you: childish and reactive. It's incredible how much time must be wasted dealing with your ignorance and stupidity. You've posted these tags out of spite. Now cut this shit out. EEng (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand this rambling wall of text, so filled with bad faith accusations and muddled thoughts which obfuscate the reality. The matter is really simple: you are biased and work for and with the principal source. That is a COI. Throughout your edits you have demonstrated that you are not capable of a NPOV. While the COIN matter never closed; it is clear that you are invested emotionally, academically and possibly financially in this page. You even used it as a soap box to launch a personal appeal for Professor Macmillan! As a result, you should not be editing this article directly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question, why do you hate me? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you understand perfectly. And no, I don't hate you, but your combination of ignorance, foolishness and certainty has wasted a tremendous amount of editor time. EEng (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what you remove. You are removing sourced details and that is a major concern. I'll take this to DRN because a clear COI was and is noted. You dominate this page because you stand to benefit from it in several ways. Your unpublished conjecture does not belong on this page nor does removing tags on your unsourced creations. Macmillan pages 25-27 do not give that information - so it is false. Over 40 false references were in existence when I first came to this page. You made the page nearly unreadable with your arcane formatting and shy templates - you pound the table and yell because you do not understand the problems. You have a COI, you shouldn't be editing this page. Simple as that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've brought it to DRN and I've replaced the tags again. The article is not NPOV for reasons that have already been well-stated. The COI was noted by a total of four editors at COIN, one of which who noted EEng should not be editing the article directly except to revert vandalism. Given the circumstances, it is not unreasonable that EEng should not continue to edit war and refrain from editing the article at this time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record: CG says,

Your unpublished conjecture does not belong on this page... Macmillan pages 25-27 do not give that information - so it is false.

Yeah, except the citation I quoted earlier was

See Macmillan (2000) (pp.25-7) and Macmillan (PGIP) (page A)

The information is there. This kind of sloppy, fly-off-the-handle statement is characteristic of everything CG's done to this article. If he'll list 10 of his "40 false sources" I'll be happy to quote them one by one and match them to the article content. What an outrageous statement.

EEng (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Congratulations, the two of you have now gotten my full attention, and I believe that you are both acting rather badly. My very strong advice is this: EEng, please post your response to Chris at WP:DRN, and we can then see where that is going to go. Both of you: stop edit warring on the page – you are both guilty of it! – and stop commenting on one another here on the article talk page. I'm seriously thinking of requesting that the page be full protected. And the wall-of-text on this talk page is not helping either one of you. I'm going to go, slowly and carefully, through the various content and sourcing issues that have been raised, and I'm going to comment, some here on the article talk page, and some at my user talk page. In the mean time, I suggest that you both take a step back, and just wait. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Please see: User talk:Tryptofish#Gage again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To-do list

I've added a {{to do}} list of mostly minor items -- see head of this talk. There's a teensy link there for editing the list to add, or comment on, items, etc. EEng (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD (2)

Reversion of 593603640 ("birth_name" note)

I've reverted [110] this edit because it contained the following errors/issues:

• Removal of the note triggered Cite error: The named reference birth_name was invoked but never defined because it supports material at multiple points in the text, which the note's removal left without citation (as recognized by another editor who attempted to fix the problem here).
• Source for J.E. Gage's birth is Roberts, not C.V. Gage. (Macmillan 2000 p.15)
• Dexter was the middle name of Gage's brother, not uncle. (M 2000 p.490)
• Gage's second name is unknown, but it is most commonly listed as P, but has also been written as B. -- makes it sound as if there's uncertainty as to what Gage's middle initial, when in fact there isn't -- middle initial is P, though there are sources which give it as B. (M 2000 p.490)
• Macmillan doesn't say that there are no records of Gage's birth, only that certain records he consulted don't record it. (M 2000 p.16)
• Mother was not Hannah Swetland, but Hannah Trussell (Swetland) Gage.
• Mother was born in East Lebanon, not Lebanon. (M 2000 p.16)
• "gained skill with explosives on the farms" -- what farms? -- "or from iginglass mines." -- what isinglass mines?
• The edit removes mention that C.V. Gage gives no source for July 9 1823, which is needed (along with explicit statement at M 2000 p.16) to support article's statement that Gage's birthdate is uncertain. Edit also omits that BD per C.V. Gage is nonetheless consistent with contemporary statements that Gage was 25 when he was injured; this information is necessary to support article's statement re his age at that time.
• The details and records of Gage's early life are few in number... No record gives the location of Gage's birth... There are no surviving records for Gage's early life This doesn't need to be said three times.
• Macmillan did not "assume" Gage was literate; it's inferred from evidence (M 2000 p.17)
• Uncertainty about Gage's precise birthplace aside, what is known about his birthplace (Grafton Co.) has been omitted. (M 2000 p.16)

Many of these points were previously discussed t Talk:Phineas_Gage#Removing_note_B (which I'll augment in a moment).

In addition I've made certain adjustments to the text based on earlier discussions:

• Changed characterization of Lebanon/East Lebanon, Enfield, and Grafton to "possible homes in childhood and youth", instead of possible birthplaces.
• Added Macmillan 2000 p.31n5 to the general citation at the beginning of the note, clarifying that Lebanon proper is a possbile childhood homes (along with the others).

EEng (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Removing note B

The text reads with sources removed: Macmillan (2000) discusses Gage's ancestry and what is and isn't known about his birth and early life. Possible birthplaces are Lebanon, Enfield, and Grafton (all in Grafton County, New Hampshire) though Harlow refers to Lebanon in particular as Gage's "native place" and as "his home" (probably that of his parents) to which he returned ten weeks after the accident. The vital records of neither Lebanon nor Enfield list Gage's birth. The birthdate July 9, 1823 (the only definite date given in any source) is from a comprehensive Gage genealogy, via Macmillan (2000), and is consistent with agreement (among contemporary sources addressing the point) that Gage was 25 years old at the time of the accident, as well as with Gage's age—36 years—as shown in undertaker's records after his death on May 21, 1860. There is no doubt Gage's middle initial was P but there is nothing to indicate what the P stood for (though his paternal grandfather was also named Phineas and brother Dexter's middle name was Pritchard). Gage's mother's first and middle names are variously given as Hannah or Hanna and Trussell, Trusel, or Trussel; her maiden name is variously spelled Swetland, Sweatland, or Sweetland.

This is several notes worth of details at minimum.

First, Macmillan does not make any conclusion about the birthplace, raised being different, other than no records are known to exist. The assumption Harlow is referring to Lebanon is conjecture, but I believe it is the most likely place given the marriage and records provided. I used the source on page 491, from the C.V. Gage genealogy, that states the date of birth and location. Furthermore, Macmillan previously stated it was 9 September 1823 in the 1986 paper, but this matter has been rectified in the book.

The matter of the second name, the P., is not absolute. Numerous sources including the undertakers records for the internment state Phineas B. Gage. Since this record is used to correct his date of death from Harlow's assessment, isn't this an issue? While corrected, I think it is important to note nothing absolute. Though I'd like to point out EEng has not given the correct date of death according to Macmillan which is May 20, 1860 by citing Internment Records of the Laurel Hill Cemetery record. Though I'm not 100% sure as to why but the N. Gray & Co's Funeral record for "Lone Mountain Cemetery" (why a different cemetery?) says he was buried on May 23, 1860. Now... the note clearly says May 21st, the infobox says May 21st. The source is May 20. Even by itself being fixed, why is this needed in a note for "birth_name"?

That's why I split it out with the matter of the Gage's mother's name and the middle name. Which I've cross-checked and completely agree with being suitable for notes. They just should not be in the same note. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

CG, responding to your comments:

• This is several notes worth of details at minimum.

I don't understand your idea that notes are supposed to be some certain length. These topics are discussed in a single note becuase they are naturally related, they all rely on the same pages in Macmillan 2000, and they jointly support four or five points in the article. EEng (talk)

Because it reads better then a whole page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, like it or not all this material is related and as a unit supports the various points in the article at which it's cited. You might prefer it be shorter but you'd have to propose how without destroying its function, which so far you haven't done. EEng (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Macmillan does not make any conclusion about the birthplace, raised being different, other than no records are known to exist. The assumption Harlow is referring to Lebanon is conjecture

(CG, you must start making an effort to write intelligible, complete sentences -- I am not kidding. It's almost impossible to tell what you're talking about much of the time.) Lebanon and Enfield are explicitly mentioned as possible birthplaces at Macmillan 2000, p.16 -- Grafton is mentioned only as a possible place of "growing up" so I'll have to dig into my notes to see how I turned it into a potential birthplace as well. Macmillan and I discussed this at length years ago and it may be we intended to update the "Errors to An Odd Kind of Fame" webpage but didn't get around to it. EEng (talk)

This is your omission and all the more reason why that COI matter was front and center. I do not see them "explicitly mentioned" in the text as possible places of birth, I see that Lebanon and Enfield's records were searched and were not listed. The records for the school have not survived and the text cites Harlow's mention in 1868 that he was "untrained in the schools". This really presents an interesting interpretation given the next portion, but where he was born and where he was raised are entirely different matter to some. You can be born in one place and return "home" for another, the degree of accuracy may not matter much for the the 19th century. Let's call it Grafton County. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's what the infobox has always said: "Birthplace: Grafton Co." And what in the world can a minor point about Gage's hometown have to do with your COI obsession? EEng (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• The matter of the second name, the P. is not absolute.

You misunderstand Macmillan's discussion under variant names at p.490 -- saying that some sources "give the middle initial as B" is not to say not that he (or anyone else) doubts that the true initial is P. Macmillan unequivocably gives Gage's name as Phineas P. Gage (p.491), and there is no question about this whatsoever.

Consensus is clearly P. Two stray records don't change anything, even if they were likely provided by Gage's own mother. I'm just saying, it is not absolutely P, and I think that's why you went to sourcing extremes because you know "there is no doubt", but you are aware of those two contradictions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's absolutely P, and you have no idea what you're talking about when you say stuff like "likely provided by Gage's own mother". It's not our place to say what the facts absolutely or probably are -- we follow the secondary sources and they absolutely say P. Period. End of story. EEng (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• the undertakers records for the internment ... Since this record is used to correct his date of death from Harlow's assessment, isn't this an issue?

You don't understand how to use primary vs. secondary sources. The precise reason that primary sources aren't used on WP (or, actually, have very restricted use) is to avoid this kind of debate; as already explained Macmillan, the authoratative secondary source gives the middle initial as P, nobody disagrees with that, and that's the end of the matter. (In case you're wondering, Macmillan and I do know why the middle initial is wrong in the burial record, but at this point that's unpublished so it's neither here nor there.) EEng (talk)

Oh, I know how to use primary sources - see my point above because I responded to it in full there. Also, I found a color copy of that record.[111] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't still be trying to use a primary source to argue with the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. EEng (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Numerous sources ... state Phineas B. Gage.

If you'll name these "numerous other sources" (other than the interment record) that give B as the middle initial I'll be happy to address them. I can't think of any other than the interment record. EEng (talk)

I already stated this above, the two statements of the "B." were listed in page 108. One written in the text and the other in the image. Loose leaf or not, the error makes you wonder if his grave was marked as "Phineas B. Gage." Since apparently, while the record exists, it is omitting his exact age and carries the wrong initial. 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not "numerous sources" -- it's not even two sources -- it's just one source (the interment record) shown in a photo and then mentioned in the text. And it's not loose-leaf but bound -- you're mixing it up with another book -- see Macmillan 2000 p.122n17. EEng (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• EEng has not given the correct date of death according to Macmillan which is May 20, 1860

No, Macmillan gives the death date as May 21, 1860. You're referring to Macmillan 2000, p. 108, which gives: "The Interment Records of the Laurel Mountain Cemetery give the date of death of 'Phineas B. Gage' as 20 May 1860"; however, Macmillan corrects himself in Corrections to An Odd Kind of Fame: "p. 108, para 2: The year of Gage's death is 1860, but the only other date on the records is 23rd. May for the funeral/interment" i.e. there is no statement anywhere that May 20 is the death date. Macmillan gives Gage's date of death as May 21, 1860 on p.490, and he repeats that in numerous other papers. (I'll add "Corrections to OKF" to the cites at this point in the note.) EEng (talk)

[Later: Text put in BIG for ease of reference from later post. -- EEng (talk)]

• why is this [the death date] needed in a note for "birth_name"?

This note is primarily about birth, not death, but nonetheless the death date comes in, as follows -- the need is self-explanatory:

The birthdate July 9, 1823 (the only definite date given in any source) is from a comprehensive Gage genealogy, via Macmillan (2000), and is consistent with agreement, among the numerous contemporary sources addressing the point, that Gage was 25 years old at the time of the accident, as well as with Gage's age—​36 years—​as given in undertaker's records after his death on May 21, 1860.

EEng (talk)

• Laurel Hill Cemetery .. Lone Mountain Cemetery ... why a different cemetery?

Since you asked, what was commonly called Lone Mountain Cemetery was actually a complex of four adjacent cemeteries: Laurel Hill, Odd Fellows, Calvary, Masonic. EEng (talk)

In summary, except for a possible problem with listing Grafton as a potential birthplace, every single factual claim you make above is wrong. EEng (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Now this is just petty. Harlow states 10 pm May 21st, 1861, and the funeral record states May 20, 1860, which also lists his entry as "Phineas B. Gage". Harlow is claimed to be wrong. And by some combination a new date of May 21st, 1860 is given. Which is listed in the appendix in page 491. No such specificity is given even in the corrections on the site. "The year of Gage's death is 1860, but the only other date on the records is 23rd. May for the funeral/interment, and only Gray's Funeral Record gives 'epilepsy' as the cause of death." Now, as for why the specific claim of May 20, 1860 is not given more notice, I don't know. Maybe you can explain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

May 23 (not 20)

Yes, I can explain, and the explanation is that you are all mixed up again. The interment book entry is dated May 23, 1860 (not, as you say, May 20); and it's the date of burial (not, as you apparently think, date of death). So Harlow isn't "claimed to be wrong" in reporting Gage died in 1861 -- he's undeniably wrong. (Again, this is a bound ledger recording thousands of burials, entered by hand day after day over many years. Unless it's a magnificent forgery there's not a shadow of doubt about this.)

But it's not our role to debate this. This is what I can't understand about you. You go on and on about how this and that is original research (when they're not) and then you indulge in OR yourself without apparently realizing it.

As for the "specificity" (whatever you mean by that) at "Corrections to An Odd Kind of Fame", what you just quoted is what I quoted earlier, and it's perfectly specific: the burial date in the interment record is May 23, 1860. I don't know what else you'd want.

Anyway, Macmillan explains (too briefly) about the correction of dates at p. 122nn15,17. Because this is surmise on his part, the article takes pains (or used to take pains, anyway) to footnote each corrected date with an explanation of Macmillan's logic. This is a good example of the damage you're done by removing all the notes -- now the reader has no way of knowing which dates are firm vs. which are corrected.

EEng (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You still aren't reading my posts correctly. Macmillan 2000 on page 108 says the date of death was May 20. Read it yourself. Also, stop making walls of text and stop grossly misinterpreting my statements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What constitutes a "wall" (of text or anything else) depends on the observer. Something a person of normal capabilities might consider a minor obstacle, an impaired person might see as a wall.

Here once more‍—‌this time in very simple, simple steps‍—‌is why your statement that "Macmillan 2000 on page 108 says the date of death was May 20" is (as always) nonsense:

• Macmillan's An Odd Kind of Fame: Stories of Phineas Gage (2000, p.108) does indeed say:

First, the Interment Records of the Laurel Hill Cemetery give the date of death of "Phineas B. Gage" as 20 May 1860 and the burial date as 23 May 1860. Second, N. Gray & Co.'s Funeral Record 1850 to 1862 for Lone Mountain Cemetery, reproduced here as figure 6.4, also gives 23 May 1860 as the date of the funeral.

I've put it in a red box to help you focus.

• But Macmillan subsequently corrected himself. Repeat: He later said made a mistake. In other words: Macmillan said that some of what he wrote‍—‌quoted in the box above‍—‌was wrong. Macmillan's "Corrections to An Odd Kind of Fame" [112] says:

p. 108, para 2: The year of Gage's death is 1860, but the only other date on the records is 23rd May for the funeral/interment

I've put this in a green box to help you focus.

• Adding Macmillan's own correction (green) to his original passage (red), what he's saying is:

First, the Interment Records of the Laurel Hill Cemetery give the date of death of "Phineas B. Gage" as 20 May 1860 and burial date as 23 May 1860. Second, N. Gray & Co.'s Funeral Record 1850 to 1862 for Lone Mountain Cemetery, reproduced here as figure 6.4, also gives 23 May 1860 as the date of the funeral.

It's in a yellow box to help you focus. (Mnemonic aid: red + green = yellow.) Notice that the words date of death of "Phineas B. Gage" as 20 May 1860 and have been crossed out, symbolizing that they are defunct – obsolete – inoperative – surplussage – no longer in force – impotent – dead as a doornail – gone to heaven – ceased to be – expired – gone to meet their maker – "late" – stiff – bereft of life – they rest in peace – pushing up the daisies – rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. They are ex-words.

DO YOU GET IT NOW? MACMILLAN SAYS THAT THE DATE MAY 20, 1860  DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY RECORD. NOT ANYWHERE. NOWHERE. NADA, NIX, NICHTS, NYET, IXNAY. IT WAS A MOMENTARY LAPSE ON MACMILLAN'S PART THAT HE GAVE THAT DATE. MACMILLAN TELLS US HE WAS MISTAKEN IN GIVING THE DATE MAY 20, 1860.

MACMILLAN GIVES GAGE'S DATE OF DEATH (p.491) AS MAY 21, 1860. NOT MAY 20. MAY 21. OF 1860. IN THE YEAR 1860. THE TWENTY-FIRST DAY OF THE FIFTH MONTH OF THE YEAR 1860. NOT MAY 20.

SO YOU NEED TO STOP SAYING THAT MACMILLAN (OR ANYONE) GIVES THE DATE OF DEATH AS MAY 20, 1860. PLEASE... HAVE MERCY ON US, PLEASE... IF YOU HAVE ANY SHRED OF DECENCY, PLEASE... IN THE NAME OF GOD, STOP THIS CLUELESSNESS ACT, PLEASE... IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY, PLEASE... IN THE NAME OF ALL CREATURES GREAT AND SMALL, PLEASE... IN THE NAME OF ALL THE LITTLE CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN UNBORN, AND THE INNOCENT, TRUSTING CHILD THAT LIVES IN ALL OF US, PLEASE... PLEASE. PLEASE. PLEASE.

This is the third (at least) time this has been explained to you, the most recent being just a few posts back:

#just_the_most_recent_time_correction_has_been_explained_to_CG

You even quoted Macmillan's correction yourself –

#CG_quotes_the_correction_himself_but_still_fails_to_get_it

 – yet somehow you still don't get it. What does it take to get something this simple to sink it? Every single thing you've written about this article over the last three months is like this: stunning misreading, unbelievable misunderstanding, and a jaw-dropping inability to absorb even simple concepts.

I'm could go on but I'm running out of large type, boldface, and italics. EEng (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not think you understand. I am saying that Macmillan wrote and sourced a date of death for May 20. You agree the text says that. The date should be noted as such. Simple. Now, please stop the theatrics with made-up garbage about "May 24" and the like. This is not a private conversation and other colleagues are likely to watch and read these exchanges. This disruption is not productive and you are showing you cannot carry on any form of debate without being dramatic and hostile. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been explained repeatedly that Macmillan later corrected that passage, withdrawing his statement that May 20, 1860 appears anywhere in the records. Yet you are either unable to comprehend that, or are pretending that you don't comprehend. There can no longer be any doubt that you, "ChrisGualtieri", are either a hopeless incompetent or a troll‍—‌doesn't matter which. This thread is the proof. I've put the foregoing in big-bold to put other editors on notice. EEng (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The May 20 date needs to be noted, preferably either directly in the text or in some other fashion. This is a major issue and it needs to be presented properly, anyone picking up the source should know that the dates are questionable. Sources make errors, Macmillan made one, let's not omit such details when they are showing up in various sources citing Macmillan. I think it would be best to note the questionable sources in Macmillan's work as well. Several other parts of this article are out of date and touch - these also need to be fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, as seen above you are either a hopeless incompetent or a troll. I won't respond to your posts in the future, except as necessary to prevent their misleading editors who may not understand the nature of you activities here. EEng (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Phineas Gage site

What's wrong with the phineas gage site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legoboy11 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand -- what's the problem? EEng (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

25 tags

I see 25 {{cn}} or other eqivalent tags in the article. Do we have a plan for improving the sourcing on this article? --John (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed 11 of them. Most of them had sources in the article when I last looked at it, and those sources have been removed recently. The other {{cn}} tags were trivial issues, and which were trivial to find sources for. I don't have Macmillan with me as I am overseas, however I recall most of this article being covered in that text. I haven't looked closely at the other 14 tags. I suggest you and others review this old revision and restore any refs that have recently been removed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

EEng has so far been really rather confusing in this whole matter and I've been extremely disappointed with the disruptive cite bombing and the restoration of notes that do not- and I stress this - ARE NOT accurate. An easy example of this is "Harlow, John Martyn (1848). "Passage of an Iron Rod through the Head". Boston Med& Surg J 39 (20): 389–393. open access publication - free to read (Transcription.)" which is used to source a collection of things. The problem is the source in question, Harlow, lists "Published 1848 in the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 39: 389-393.", but the inline ref says "page 336". The problem also stemming from the fact that the source which is on Wikisource[113] does not state this. It does state "Is very childish; wishes to go home to Lebanon, N.H.", but this is not his "native place" and the note reads, following his soon expected death, "...to remove his remains immediately to his native place in New Hampshire." And that is on Page 454 of Macmillan. And it is Macmillan who refers to this on Page 16 as stating "Although Harlow (1868, note of 24 September 1848) gave Gage's "native place" as "in New Hampshire" and appears to have been referring to Lebanon, we cannot be certain that he was born there." This is a pretty big issue for our Gage researcher who is so anal about these things. We have the page number for the source is wrong, the source itself is wrong, the quotes itself are wrong the conclusion is mis-attributed to Harlow when Macmillan wrote the closest approximation and that Macmillan's work which contains both the source. And that's just for starters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

What you've noticed is that in those two adjacent cites I mistakenly referred to Harlow (1848) instead of Harlow (1868) -- so sue me! As in so many other cases, couldn't you have just said, "I noticed that the page # 336 is out of the cited paper's page range 389-393. Is there an error here?" -- instead of this long conspiracy-theory rant? EEng (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I keep finding error and assertion after assertion that doesn't pan out, nuanced or not. There are plenty of records, including the actual internment record which lists Gage's middle initial as B, including the one used to support his internment and date of death in this article (and correcting the otherwise reliable Harlow). The assertion "There is no doubt Gage's middle initial was P[10]:839fig.[6]:389[8]:13[9]:330[1]:490" is one that strong when Macmillan notes there is no record for the name and evidence showing, repeatedly, "B". I'd like to think that the inscription on the tamping iron... also misspelled and given the wrong date... as an intriguing matter when dealing with inscriptions of such an important item. Anyways. I'm still working on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As seen here [114] you're completely mistaken about the middle initial. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the inscription. EEng (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm still also concerned about the OR in the presentation of the map made by EEng which is not sourced or marked on the actual map itself. The size of the map also makes the notes nearly unreadable. The image used for the Boston Post doesn't appropriately cite that the report was actually a reprinting from the Free Soil Union of Ludlow, Vermont. The publication itself contains the errors originally found and the dates itself were not adjusted - if anything is going to be cited, let this be accurate as well. Though the source from which it was taken may have been the newspaper, this particular source was the American Antiquarian Society's record as reported by Macmillan on page 12. You can identify it by the distinctive markings and confirm this yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding captions and so on based on the descriptions in reliable sources is not OR -- see WP:OI. EEng (talk)

• I think EEng is becoming problematic now with all the disruptive cite tagging. Note F states: "Bigelow describes the iron's taper as seven inches long, but the correct dimension is twelve (corrected in the quotation).[9]:331[1]:26[not in citation given]" The problem is that EEng put in all these issues, including the "not in citation given" when this is patently false.[115] Page 26 states "...distance of about twelve inches to a diameter of one-quarter of an inch at the other, and weighed thirteen and one-quarter pounds." Seems to me that the description is accurate. Though if you are really going to be abrasive, the text begins on Page 25 with "Bigelow said in 1850, "unlike any other," having been made to "please the fancy of the owner" It was three feet and seven inches long, one and one-quarter inches in diameter at the larger end, tampering over a... (turn page) distance of about twelve inches..." Why was this tagged as such? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You're mixed up as usual. The {{not in citation given}} tag simply refers to the fact that the note doesn't cite the Bigelow work from which the quote is taken -- nothing to do with the taper length. It's no big deal -- why couldn't you just ask, "What's the not in citation given tag for", instead of this long irrelevant rant? EEng (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• One last thing for the moment... I've removed EEng's OR picture which he uploaded and tagged with Citation Needed in this edit.[116] I don't have time to play games with EEng - clearly, there is a substantial amount of issues here. I'll be looking into it some more, but I do not think that this article moved in the right direction by re-adding the notes which brought back so many problems beyond mere formatting. The notes are additionally deceiving because they appear to be credible footnotes that are sourced, despite the contrary. The Boston Post copy, which I also had an issue with, probably is best handled by attributing... I got so much fact checking and correcting to do that I'm simply overwhelmed and I don't have the time to do so - the delay caused by EEng's inaction cost me a book that I specifically took out to fix the citation issues. But I got An Odd Kind of Fame and I've found dozens of issues already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• You removed inline citations that were in place when you reefed out all the notes. Those citations need to be put back inline. Please focus on fixing that first. Please raise issues individually on the talk page, and give others time to reply. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

CG, please don't think I'm talking down to you, but you've gotta believe me. Your enthusiasm is great -- you're good at picking up potential issues -- but you run off half-cocked without really understanding that those issues have been addressed, or you've misunderstood what's going on in the first place. Now, please, you've got to calm down and slow down. I really mean what I said a while ago that if you want to go through stuff together that would be great, and I'll even send you copies of the many closed sources, but that won't be possible when you keep running around like a bull in a china shop.

I'd like to propose one single, well-defined issue or edit for us to go through together, so you will see what I mean and you can understand better why so much that puzzles you is the way that it is. I'm not saying that everything about the current article is "right" or "perfect" or "my way, so that's the way it will be" -- but the first step in discussing how things ought to be in the future is to at least understand why they are the way they are now, and then discuss from there.

Now, are you willing to do that?

EEng (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Very well. I'll make a section for the Note A matter. I'm not fancy about the presentation on here, but I'll give it a shot. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

An its just the 30 or so issues I've found and the fact I have to return the book is not helping. I waited a long time for the book and I only have it until the 29th - it was inter-library with "no extensions". I think I've well explained... one of the note matters below, but going so slow seems unnecessarily painful when my own questions do not get answered in kind. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Harlow's "skillful" care

If I may, I'd like to start with a different topic, because it's very narrowly circumscribed and we're less likely to get bogged down. Until recently the article said:

Despite Harlow's skillful care, Gage's recuperation was long and difficult.

Notes

O. As to his own role in Gage's survival, Harlow merely averred, "I can only say ... with good old Ambro[i]se Paré, I dressed him, God healed him" —​an assessment Macmillan (2000) calls far too modest. See Macmillan (2008), Macmillan (2001) and Barker (1995) for further discusssion of Harlow's management of the case.

About two weeks ago you simply removed the note [117] (with edit summary, "integrate to remove another note", which doesn't explain anything) though you left the "Despite Harlow's skillful care,..." untouched.

Early today, someone (quite naturally) wondered [118] whether the "skillful" is justified, so I added back the note [119] (and another nearby note at the same time). Your response was to again remove the note, and now also remove the skillful as well [120], so that the text now reads simply

Despite Harlow's care, Gage's recuperation was long and difficult.

In doing that your edit summary was, "skillful" is not an appropriate word to use here. No need to quote and note this either. Here, then, is what I'd like to discuss: can you please explain? Why in the world isn't the word skillful appropriate? Or do you think that the reader wouldn't be interested in the information which that one word conveys? EEng (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't particularly like all my discussions and points being ignored repeatedly while demands to answer brand-new ones continue to crop up. "Skillful" is a WP:PEA matter because despite all the evidence, Harlow's care was neither exceptional and quite on the contrary because he ended up making Phineas very ill with part of the treatment. In all fairness, Harlow's second phase alone is questionable and treating with the caustic was not particularly revolutionary or impressive. While Macmillan judges with praise and highlights the adaptability of Harlow's work, I do not think a blanket assertion of "skillful" should be tagged on without full and proper context. We could debate this all day, but it is controversial for quite a few matters - that we both know - and I think it is getting into the really esoteric territory to debate them. While I was inclined to leave it at first, the reading of the text has really made it more complex than a simple black and white matter of "skillful or not". It puts emphasis that has been questioned without addressing the "how" and this is where the matter with WP:PEA comes up. I'd say either attribute the claim specifically and provide the context necessary or leave it out. I got far better things to do then quibble over word choice when I'm seriously considering slapping the factual accuracy tag on this after reviewing yet more of the notes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's better to just describe accurately what he did for Gage according to the sources, rather than try to label his efforts according to conventions of the time or modern knowledge. Ward20 (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ward, glad to see you're sticking with us despite the shrapnel flying in all directions. I can see why, at first glance, your opinion might be as just expressed. However, given that two expert sources (Barker is himself a neurologist, and Macmillan consulted historians of medicine -- experts on 19thC medical care) go out of their way to mention Harlow's unusual skill as a factor in Gage's survival, I think it should be mentioned -- see below. EEng (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case I believe skillful is an understatement, the money shot is [13] below. I would Incorporate directly In the treatment section something like, In Barker's words, "Gage was lucky to encounter Dr. Harlow when he did. Few doctors in 1848 would have had the experience with cerebral abcess with which Harlow left [medical school] and which probably saved Gage's life." Ward20 (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. One thing I've been meaning to talk with you about adding to the article is Harlow's draining of the abcess -- Harlow 1868 p.336:

With a scalpel I laid open the integuments, between the [scalp wound] and the roots of the nose, and immediately there were discharged eight ounces of ill-conditioned pus, with blood, and excessively foetid.

Oh, yuck! (This is where the big scar on the forehead, visible in the daguerreotypes if you blow them up, comes from.) That would be a good place to use the "experience with cerebral abcess" quote you mention. EEng (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

CG, responding to your comments:

• I don't particularly like all my discussions and points being ignored repeatedly while demands to answer brand-new ones continue to crop up

Your "birth_name note" issues are responded to in the next section (#Removing_note_B).

• Harlow ended up making Phineas very ill with part of the treatment ... In all fairness, Harlow's second phase alone is questionable and treating with the caustic was not particularly revolutionary or impressive. Huh??? Where do you get these ideas? Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone by pretending you have any idea what you're talking about?
• While Macmillan judges with praise and highlights the adaptability of Harlow's work, I do not think a blanket assertion of "skillful" should be tagged on without full and proper context. CG, your opinion of Harlow's skill doesn't matter. The opinion of reliable sources (such as Macmillan and Barker) does matter. Using the source numbering ([3], [13]) from the passage above:

• [3] (Macmillan 2000), p.12: Harlow's "examination of the wound and assessment of the damage was so thorough, his immediate treatment so skilful, and his postaccident care so imaginatively flexible" [that Gage was soon home, etc.]
• [3] pp.59, 62: "Other aspects of H's treatment show his skillful and imaginative adaptation of traditional methods. ... skilfully adapted conservative and progressive elements from the available therapies to the particular needs posed by Gage's injury. Harlow's 1868 summary was therefore far too modest: "I can only say, with good old Ambro[i]se Pare, I dressed him, God healed him."
• [13] (Barker), p. 679-80: "Gage was lucky to encounter Dr. Harlow when he did. Few doctors in 1848 would have had the experience with cerebral abcess with which Harlow left [medical school] and which probably saved Gage's life."

That Harlow's care was "skillful" is abundantly supported, and the fact that both Macmillan and Barker spend several pages discussing it suggests it's something worth including in the article -- it's only one word! EEng (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You still do not understand this is an opinion and needs to be attributed because despite the matter, Macmillan also notes that: "When his treatment of Gage is measured against the standards of medical practice revealed by these pre-1850 reports, we see how moderate Harlow was. Page 59. Harlow's cautious search for bone fragments could have risked hemorrhaging and his divergence from Mutter is noted on page 61. The attribute "skillful" as a whole instead of the nuance of "adapted conservative and progressive elements from the available therapies to the particular needs posed by Gage's injury." are worlds apart here. The way Harlow adapted was skillful, but his treatment was moderate and several arguments can be made that Harlow's treatment (as a whole) resulted in sicking Gage. I'd be extremely cautious of attributing Harlow's medical care so broadly and without context. Ward20, would you agree that it needs to be attributed and explained, that's been the crux of my argument from the beginning. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a big fan of attributing/explaining material like this so readers and editors know its origins. Ward20 (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

So am I. That's why it's so weird that CG removed the attribution in the note, and now turns around and acts like he some attribution crusader. He can't even see the contradictions in his various random actions. Keep reading below. EEng (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Christ Almighty -- Lord in Heaven -- Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the Saints, preserve us! CG, you have got to start reading, pausing, and thinking before commenting like this, because you're making yourself ridiculous. You get everything backwards.

• Macmillan also notes that: "When his treatment of Gage is measured against the standards of medical practice revealed by these pre-1850 reports, we see how moderate Harlow was ... The way Harlow adapted was skillful, but his treatment was moderate"

You seem to think moderate means mediocre, which is ridiculous. What Macmillan's saying about is that Harlow used good judgment in not applying the radical bleeding called for, at the time, by some medical theories.

• Harlow's cautious search for bone fragments could have risked hemorrhaging ... his divergence from Mutter is noted (p.61)

You completely misinterpret what Macmillan said, which is

On two details in [Harlow's] treatment that were matters of some controversy, Harlow took the progressive view. The first was whether all the bone fragments should be removed or not. Most physicians believed [that all fragments should be removed]. But there was also the problem that an exhaustive search for bone fragments might cause hemorrhaging ... Harlow's cautious [i.e. not exhaustive] initial search for fragments seems to show a divergence from Muetter [one of Harlow's medical school instructors].

What's being said here is that H used good judgment in departing from the standard treatment (as taught to him by Muetter) by not making an exhaustive search.

• The attribute "skillful" as a whole instead of the nuance of "adapted conservative and progressive elements from the available therapies to the particular needs posed by Gage's injury." are worlds apart here.

As quoted in my earlier post, Macmillan's and Barker's evaluations of Harlow are: skilful ... skilful ... skillful and imaginative ... skilfully adapted ... Few doctors in 1848 would have had the experience.... Even if anything you're saying about the bone-fragment search, or that "Harlow's treatment (as a whole) resulted in sicking Gage" (and WTF does that mean???), it wouldn't matter because you're not allowed to substitute your personal evaluation for the explicit statement of reliable -- indeed, authoratative -- sources.

• this is an opinion and needs to be attributed

You seem to be saying there's some requirement that the article read something like

According to Macmillan, Harlow's care was skillful.

But no, there's no such requirement (though it's permitted, of course, if it's what best serves the reader) because statements presented as fact by an authoritative expert (two experts, in this case), and uncontroverted by any other RS, are usually presented by articles as straight fact, with merely a page citation. In other words we could, if we wanted, just write:

Despite Harlow's skillful care [blah blah blah] ...

However, in this situation a reader might reasonably wonder, "Skilful. Hmmm... How do they know that?" That's exactly why, instead of just a bare page cite, the article had a note:

Despite Harlow's skillful care, Gage's recuperation was long and difficult.

Notes

O. As to his own role in Gage's survival, Harlow merely averred, "I can only say ... with good old Ambro[i]se Paré, I dressed him, God healed him" —​an assessment Macmillan (2000) calls far too modest. See Macmillan (2008), Macmillan (2001) and Barker (1995) for further discusssion of Harlow's management of the case.

...thus addributing "skilful" to Macmillan, just like you're asking. (Certainly we could expand the note to provide more detail of how Macmillan and Barker came to that conclusion.)

You removed that note! [121] And now you complain that the opinion isn't attributed!

And that's not all. You're not satisfied with attribution to Macmillan in a note -- you want attribution to Macmillabn in the main article text -- neatly contradicting your earlier insistence that mentions of Macmillan be removed as "promotional" [122] (even though other sources are cited in exactly the same way).

It's like a Marx Brothers movie. Once again, everything you say is wrong. Everything.

EEng (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Will the personal attacks never cease? Please read WP:PEA. You attribute, directly, in the text. It should be written, "(attribution) describes Harlow's treatment as skillful because (reason).{fake ref>21" So much clearer, so much more authoritative. It is better than simply throwing out "Despite Harlow's skillful care" and tacking on fifty words, a separate quote and still lacking a reason why it was skillful. You do not understand the why it matters and you do not even understand what I am trying to indicate. Just like the "shy templates", you attack and attack and make these very hurtful accusations despite the fact that you do not understand the problem. Are you confused? Are you still confused about that? I've found dozens of sources and I haven't even fully gone through Macmillan's work, quite a few not even mentioned. If you calmed down and took this in stride it'd make more sense. Please rewrite the sentence with proper attribution. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Showing, as usual, that each of your points makes no sense:

• Please read WP:PEA.

Just a few posts ago your claim was

"Skillful" is a WP:PEA matter because despite all the evidence, Harlow's care was neither exceptional and quite on the contrary because he ended up making Phineas very ill with part of the treatment.

Now that it's obvious that's nonsense (you seem to agree that Harlow should be characterized as "skilful" after all) you're still saying PEACOCK applies because... well, you just keep saying it applies -- you seem to think PEACOCK applies anytime anything positive is said about anyone, no matter how securely and uncontrovertibly it's established. But for the sake of argument let's say PEACOCK does apply. So what does peacock require? Well, you say it requires that...

• You attribute, directly, in the text

But PEACOCK doesn't say that. What it says is,

Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance

There's no requirement that attribution be "directly, in the text", as you claim -- you just made that up. In-the-text is certainly allowable, but in-a-note would be OK too. So which choice best serves the reader? At this point Gage has survived the accident, and his wounds have been dressed. Yes, yes??? So what happened? Readers don't want, at this point, a digression about medical training, with the names of two researchers (Macmillan, Barker) intruded for attribution of their unanimous and uncontroverted evaluation of Harlow's care. What they want to hear is ...

Well, Harlow was a pretty good doctor [click here if you want to know more about that], but even so it was rough going for ol' Phineas.

... in other words, exactly what the article has said for years:

Despite Harlow's skillful care, Gage's recovery was long and difficult.

... with the footnote giving details and attribution. I agree that this note should be expanded with more detail about the basis for Macmillan's and Barker's evaluation, but material so expanded would be even more intrusive if moved from the note to main text.

If there were any dissent or debate about Harlow's skill, in any source, that would be different; but there's not. Macmillan / Barker's evaluation is formally a subjective one, but on the spectrum of subjectivity this point is about as close to "objective" as can be without actually being objective.

We all agree that this opinion needs attribution; whether that is best done in the text, or in a note, is certain something that can be discussed. The problem is that you insist, as you always do, that it can only be done one way -- it has to be in the text, based on your misinterpretation and misquoting of policy. So you don't see two alternatives to be compared -- you see only one imperative requirement, period. As a result, discussion of which approach would be better never gets started, because you're absolutely positive there are no choices.

EEng (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You are arguing over a single word and three people have noted that it should be attributed in the text, the 50 word note that doesn't explicitly state that is nearly worthless. Now, I don't care that much about it, the gaping content and description holes are worth more time. I think this is a complete waste of time and that you are entrenching over whether or not you attribute a statement directly in the text. I got better things to do then pick over word choices, but if you want I am sure Eric Corbett can school the both of us on this matter. I'm trying to push this to GA and all this drama is wasted effort, you are so invested in this page that it has blinded you from numerous aspects. And hate to be a broken record, but this why the "Shy template" matter was the first issue and to this day you skill do not understand the why behind it even after describing it multiple times. You may know your material well, but the format and flow fixes to the content is like pulling teeth. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you were arguing over a single word (skilful) -- claiming there was no citation, even though you were the one who removed the cite that had been there! [123] Then suddenly you stopped objecting to skilfull, switching to insisting that it must be attributed in the main text instead of in a footnote (see #oh_now_PEACOCK_is_the_issue).

As seen in this thread, it's not true (as you claim) that anyone else agreed with you on that -- only at another point when you said "it needs to be attributed" (without saying where) which of course no one ever disputed. So as usual you just make stuff up.

EEng (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

In-text vs. in-note attribution

I agreed with Chris that "skilful" needs intext attribution. I stated so at some point which is probably by now lost in miles of incessant verbiage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have half a mind to wipe all that "verbiage" and bad faith by EEng right off this page. EEng readily dismisses the previous conversation and says I am making it up despite clear evidence to the contrary. Seems to be a running issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As seen below in the (edit conflict) post, no one agreed with you in this discussion, though it turns out Maunus supported in-text attribution in an edit summary. So, since you seem to be keeping score, we have, um... (you + an edit summary) vs. (me + another editor discussing at length here on Talk) – hardly the "three editors" you say agreed with you. So yeah, you're still making stuff up. EEng (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, Maunus, I was going on what I saw here in this discussion, which you didn't participate in. Looking now through the article's revision history I see you did say, in an edit summary [124], "I think it is better then to describe which sources describe [harlow's] care as skillful and what was skillful about it. It is an evaluation that needs attribution in the text." I apologize for overlooking that.

Now that you're here, can you explain, in light of the discussion in this thread, why in-text attribution is required e.g. something like

According to Barker and Macmillan, Harlow's care was skillful...

instead of just something like

Despite Harlow's skillful care, Gage's recovery was long and difficult.

or an explanatory footnote (as the article had for a long time):

Despite Harlow's skillful care, Gage's recovery was long and difficult.

-----

Notes

A. Barker described Harlow's care as "this and that, and very creative", saying "Gage was lucky to encounter Harlow, who probably saved his life." Macmillan said "blah blah blah". Harlow himself was modest about his role in Gage's survival, writing "All I did was etc etc."

Opinions may differ on which of these approaches best serves the reader, but the difficulty I have with CG is that he keeps saying that there's only one particular way that's allowable (in this case, he says, because WP:PEACOCK requires in-text attribution). Because he takes that position, the question of what best serves the reader is never engaged. EEng (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• No matter how one approaches it saying that someone is "skillful" is a subjective evaluation, and generally it is good to attribute evaluations to those who make them. It is not absolutely necessary according to policy, but I think that stylistically it is a very good idea to at least write something along the lines of "Historians have considered Harlow's care to be skillful/described Harlow's care as skillful". In this way I think this small word is a symptom f the larger problems you are facing here at this article. I think that most of the problems with this article comes from your insistence on writing in a very specific and very personal style, that tends to use different literary techniques to make the events come alive to the reader. I personally (and I think other editors as well) find much of your style to be not fully compatible with the encyclopedic medium, nor with our implicit guidelines for how to write an article, and I think that in your insistence on enforcing your own preferred style you have made the process very much more difficult than it had to be. Your willingness to spend pages and pages of text on defending something so relatively irrelevant as a single wordchoice, to me demonstrates how intent you are on micromanaging this article. That is a problem for an encyclopedia that is in its definition collaborative.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course subjective opinions must be attributed, though the explicitness and prominence of attribution (e.g. main article vs. note, naming source of opinions in text vs. reader has to find it in citation, etc.) depends on "how subjective" the opinion is, how surprising the opinion might be to the reader, and the extent to which affection or hostility on the part of editors might be in play. Saying an obscure 18th-c doctor was skillful in handling one case is way different from saying a living person, or a well-known historical figure, "is/was" (or, "is considered to be/have been") accomplished in some way, or that Book X is (or has been called, or is considered) one of the greatest/most influential of the year/the century/ever.

Another factor is whether there is any disagreement about the evaluation. In this case, two appropriate evaluators -- an historian of the neurosciences (consulting with experts on 19th-c medical practices) and, independently, a prominent neurosurgeon -- came to identical conclusions. As I said at #oh_now_PEACOCK_is_the_issue (a few posts down from the linked point) on the spectrum of subjectivity there comes a point where you're about as close to "objective" as you can get without it actually being a mathematical evaluation like batting averages.

Taking all those factors into account (obscure doctor, unanimous opinions, not surprising) I believe that most readers will be happy to accept a passing statement of skillful (Despite Harlow's skillful care,...) with an explanatory note, for readers who really want to know, attributing and quoting the skillfulness evaluation. This also allows us to bring in e.g. Harlow's own self-evaluation -- all this way too much for the main text.

You're right, Maunus, that there's been a lot of ink spilled over the "one word" skilful. But it's a word that clearly belongs, and most of the ink spilled was to beat back CG's removal of it (saying "skillful" is not an appropriate word to use here); then dealing with his complaint that it wasn't attributed -- which was true, but only because he had removed the attribution; and then he switched to insisting attribution had to be in the main text, not a note... and so on. So while, yes, editors often dispute style, that's not what was going on here. It was one editor removing appropriate content, then complaining about a problem he'd created, then insisting that guidelines require something they don't.

Sometime later I'll restore the old note (removed by CG) which attributed the skillfulness evaluation, and beef it up with quotes. At the same time, if you look back in this thread you'll see Ward20 and I talked about adding detail, in the main text, on the abscess draining, and using that as a vehicle to bring in (to the main text) the quote from Barker that "Gage was lucky to have met Harlow... most doctors wouldn't have had the experience" etc etc. Then I'd like to know how well that fits what you have in mind. I'm glad you're back. EEng (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It is about style. I don't think a note is necessary to explain this word. The article already has way too many extensive notes. It is not the case that all subjective evaluations become more objective because they are shared by many, no matter how many people think I am a nice guy, we don't write in my wikipedia article that I am a nice guy in wikipedias voice - just like we would never write that Book X is the most influential. We attribute it. So yes, it is about style. Your writing style is quite idiosyncratic both as wikipedia articles go and in general, and your editing style is confrontational and uncompromising, insisting on having the final word on every minor detail. I don't understand what enjoyment you derive from that kind of editing, and certainly it does not do much to improve the encyclopedia. I am now unwatching this page again.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Maunus, I'm sorry to see you unwatch, because I think that you have made a lot of good points. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD

I've begun to revert various changes made by CG during December. Each of my edits is accompanied by a fully explanatory edit summary, but to facilitate discussion I've listed here each of my edit summaries (which, in turn, link to CG's edits being reverted, and quote his edit summaries).

Most of the reverted edits moved the text of footnotes into the main text, for no apparent reason -- CG's edit summaries, such as "clean up" and "remove note", giving no clue as to why. WP:FNNR provides

Explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article.

What's "too detailed or awkward" is of course a matter of judgment, but CG removed all the notes, suggesting that he doesn't understand their purpose.

EEng (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Having commented earlier at User talk:Tryptofish, I am now going to go through each of these edits here, one-by-one, with the caveat that this is a large task and will take me some time. As a general comment, I am sympathetic to EEng's request that Chris respond inline here (as I am now going to do), instead of at the end, because I think that doing so is more conducive to consensus. Everyone, please try to remember: this is about improving the page, and not about proving that you are right and the other person is wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589056212

• Edit summary: rv removal of by far the most important passage beyond bare facts of accident, removal analogous to removing "Ask not what yr country can do for you" from Assassination Inauguration of JFK
• Prior edit affected (link and edit summary): [125] Harlow's 1868 report: remove lengthy quote
• Discussion:
  • I looked at the version of the page just before the quote was removed by Chris, and I do not feel like the quote takes up too much space on the page. I think that exact quotes from the time period add to the information value of the page. Therefore, I disagree with Chris about deleting the quote. On the other hand, I agree with Chris that it is subjective and unnecessary to have described it as an "oft-quoted description". Thus I agree with Chris' removal of "oft-quoted"; simply calling it a "description" is entirely enough. Overall, though, I do not consider Chris' edit to have been disruptive or out-of-policy. Editors can disagree about the need for an extensive quote.
  • I note that EEng's subsequent edit deleted some material that came after the quote: "but other behaviors he describes appear to draw on later communications from Gage's friends or family, to the particular period of Gage's post-accident life during which each described behavior was present. Macmillan also discusses potential reluctance on the part of Gage's friends and family (and of Harlow himself) to describe Gage negatively, especially while he was still alive, and argues that an 1850 communication calling Gage "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar" was anonymously supplied by Harlow.". I think that EEng's deletion of it was a good idea. Content like "Macmillan also discusses..." is actually the kind of writing for which EEng has been criticized, validly, I think, so it's good to see this deletion. As a broad observation, I would like to see the writing of the page move away from seeming like an account of what various sources figured out, partly because it just isn't of broad interest to our readers, and partly because it gives rise to the appearance of EEng's so-called COI. Instead, it would be more encyclopedic in style to change "Macmillan also discusses potential reluctance on the part of Gage's friends and family..." (if we bring that back to the page), to "Gage's friends and family may have been reluctant(citation)...". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved the following out from within my comment above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned below, please look to the full context either in the Dec 6 version of the article, or the current version, to understand in full. In response to CG's removal I added a cite on just this point, from Kotowicz:

Harlow’s words telling us that the ‘equilibrium or balance, so to speak, between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities, seems to have been destroyed’, that he indulged ‘in the grossest profanity’ and that he was ‘no longer Gage’ are now routinely quoted...

So, as in all the other cases where CG removed material claiming it was unverifiable, or "the cites are false", huge amounts of trouble could be saved if CG had just asked for a citation instead of removing stuff.

EEng (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

End of what I moved. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll open a separate thread later re the stylistic question. It's an important one, but I think it will make things a lot easier if we keep stylistic questions separate from content questions, to the extent possible. More subtle is your idea about the article "seeming like an account of what various sources figured out", and that will need its own discussion as well. Gage is perhaps less important as a case history in neurology neurology (since both his brain damage and his behavioral changes are so poorly understood) than as a case study in the history of science, and if you ignore who thought and said what, when, you're leaving out half (or more) of the story.

As to "Macmillan also discusses"... it's been back in the page for a long time. Unfortunately, understanding the final context of material restored by each edit requires looking beyond the "after image" of that particular edit, because I can't always restore all the surrounding material (which CG often removed in single edits affecting scattered clumps) at the same time. In general the best place to look for full context is this version from 2013 Dec 6, though of course there are other changes going on so you may need to look at the current version as well. (The discussion above re "oft-quoted" is a good example, in that I added a new cite to the material while restoring it, to avoid further quibbling by CG.)

In the present case the Dec 6 article read:

This oft-quoted description appears to draw on Harlow's own notes set down soon after the accident,:90,375 but other behaviors he describes:117-8:340,345 appear to draw on later communications from Gage's friends or family, and it is difficult to match these various behaviors (which range widely in their implied level of functional impairment) to the particular period of Gage's post-accident life during which each described behavior was present.:90-5 This complicates reconstruction of how Gage's behavior changed over time, a critical task in light of evidence that his behavior at the end of his life was very different from his behavior (described by Harlow above) immediately post accident.:6-9

Y. Macmillan (2000):106-8,375-6 also discusses potential reluctance on the part of Gage's friends and family (and of Harlow himself) to describe Gage negatively, especially while he was still alive, and argues :350-1 that an 1850 communication calling Gage "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar" was anonymously supplied by Harlow.[citation needed]

Z. For example, the "fitful, irreverent ... capricious and vacillating" Gage described in Harlow (1868) is somewhat at variance with Gage's stagecoach work in Chile, which demanded that drivers "be reliable, resourceful, and possess great endurance. But above all, they had to have the kind of personality that enabled them to get on well with their passengers" (Macmillan 2000,:106 citing Austin 1977)—and note Gage was hired by his employer in advance, in New England, to be part of the new coaching enterprise in Chile.:376-7[4]:831

CG ran the notes into the main text, but cutting out random bits so that it becomes a string of non sequiturs:

The description that Gage was "no longer Gage" appears to draw on Harlow's own notes set down soon after the accident,[1]:90,375 but other behaviors he describes:117-8:340,345 appear to draw on later communications from Gage's friends or family, to the particular period of Gage's post-accident life during which each described behavior was present.[1]:90-5 Macmillan also discusses potential reluctance on the part of Gage's friends and family (and of Harlow himself) to describe Gage negatively, especially while he was still alive, and argues:350-1 that an 1850 communication calling Gage "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar" was anonymously supplied by Harlow.

The "fitful, irreverent... capricious and vacillating" Gage described in Harlow (1868) is somewhat at variance with Gage's stagecoach work in Chile, which demanded that drivers "be reliable, resourceful, and possess great endurance. But above all, they had to have the kind of personality that enabled them to get on well with their passengers" (Macmillan 2000,:106 citing Austin 1977)—and note Gage was hired by his employer in advance, in New England, to be part of the new coaching enterprise in Chile.:376-7 This complicates reconstruction of how Gage's behavior changed over time, a critical task in light of evidence that his behavior at the end of his life was very different from his behavior immediately after the accident.:6-9

I restored the old structure, with the notes, as described at #Edit_589273712 (except putting Note Y at a different, more appropriate point in the text).

EEng (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I'm unimpressed by your reply to me, and if every response I give on this talk results in a similar wall of text, my support will decline further. I am not discussing every other edit here; I'm specifically discussing the edit and revert-edit that you linked. Chris' edit that you reverted here was not primarily about a cite-needed. If you subsequently restored the material that I praised you for removing, I bet you can guess what I think about you subsequently restoring it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Everything I'm talking about happened a month ago -- see the link in my post just above. I'm sorry about the length of these discussions, but it's a lot easier for CG to rip out material without explanation than it is to explain why that material is appropriate. EEng (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Noting also what I just said on my talk page, I really need you to work with me here. In this talk section, I will continue to take the approach of treating every disputed edit individually, without letting the discussion expand into other, subsequent edits. I've already said what I think about Chris's removal of the specific quote. Anything else that was removed will be discussed in subsequent talk sections, below. If you work with me this way, you will find that, eventually, we will get through all of these issues, but we will hopefully do so in a precise and logical way, and avoid the unproductive arguing that has been getting in the way up to now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589235703

• Edit summary: Rv conversion to main text, from note, of "medical background" which is in no sense any kind of "background" & which is appropriate ONLY as note, being ancillary to Gage per se and functioning to cite&clarify unusual quoted phrases at multiple points in text
• Prior edit affected (link and edit summary): [126] "reintegrate"
• Discussion:
  • First, I reiterate: I am commenting here only on the two diffs linked just above.
  • I'm going to begin with some secondary things that are in EEng's edit. I see that you added columns to the cite list, and I think that's fine. I also see that you changed several places where it said "citation needed" to having a cite to the "amused" note. I agree with you that it is better to have a note than a cn.
  • When I look a Chris' edit that is linked here, I do not see him adding any cn's in that particular quote, but I'll WP:AGF that EEng can show other edits by Chris where the cn's were added.
  • Now, there are two substantive issues here: (1) the issue of some long passages that Chris moved out of the "amused" note and, I think, another note, and into the main text, mostly as "medical background", and (2) the issue of adding cn's that could, arguably, have been sourced to the "amused" note. As for the long passages, I think that Chris makes a good point in arguing that they should be in the main text, if they are to be here at all. I broadly agree with his moving them into the main text. As for requesting cites, it depends on the specifics, so I'll turn to the specifics next.
  • When Chris moved material into the text, it was in two parts. The first part read:

"Macmillan (2000) discusses Gage's ancestry and what is and is not known about his birth and early life. Possible birthplaces are Lebanon, Enfield, and Grafton (all in Grafton County, New Hampshire) though Harlow (1868) refers to Lebanon in particular as Gage's "native place" and as "his home" (probably that of his parents) to which he returned ten weeks after the accident. The vital records of neither Lebanon nor Enfield list Gage's birth. The birthdate July 9, 1823 (the only definite date given in any source) is from a comprehensive Gage genealogy, via Macmillan (2000), and is consistent with numerous contemporary sources, that Gage was 25 years old at the time of the accident, as well as with Gage's age—36 years—as given in undertaker's records after his death on May 21, 1860. There is no doubt Gage's middle initial was P but there is nothing to indicate what the P stood for (though his paternal grandfather was also named Phineas). Gage's mother's maiden name is variously spelled Swetland, Sweatland, or Sweetland."

Whether as a note or as main text, I would edit it as follows, per what I have been saying about changing the page from being an account of looking through the source material:

"Gage's birthplace may have been Lebanon, Enfield, or Grafton (all in Grafton County, New Hampshire), though Harlow refers to Lebanon in particular as Gage's "native place" and as "his home" (probably that of his parents) to which he returned ten weeks after the accident. The birthdate may have been July 9, 1823, consistent with numerous contemporary sources, because Gage was 25 years old at the time of the accident, and Gage's age—36 years—was given in undertaker's records after his death on May 21, 1860. There is no doubt Gage's middle initial was P but there is nothing to indicate what the P stood for (though his paternal grandfather was also named Phineas)."

• The second part, which is from the "amused" note, reads:

"A tone of amused wonderment was common in 19th-century medical writing about Gage (as well as about victims of other unlikely-sounding brain-injury accidents—see Macmillan 2000). Noting dryly that, "The leading feature of this case is its improbability... This is the sort of accident that happens in the pantomime at the theater, not elsewhere", Bigelow (1850) emphasized that though "at first wholly skeptical, I have been personally convinced", calling the case "unparalleled in the annals of surgery". This endorsement by Bigelow, Professor of Surgery at Harvard, helped end scoffing about Gage among medical men—one of whom, Harlow (1868) later recalled, had dismissed the matter as a "Yankee invention":

commented outI have the pleasure of being able to present to you, to-day, the history and sequel of a case of severe injury of the head, followed by recovery, which, so far as I know, remains without parallel in the annals of surgery.end The case occurred nearly twenty years ago, in an obscure country town..., was attended and reported by an obscure country physician, and was received by the Metropolitan doctors with several grains of caution, insomuch that many utterly refused to believe that the man had risen, until they had thrust their fingers into the hole of his head, [see Doubting Thomas] and even then they required of the Country Doctor attested statements, from clergymen and lawyers, before they could or would believe—many eminent surgeons regarding such an occurrence as a physiological impossibility, the appearances presented by the subject being variously explained away. Jackson (1870) wrote that, "Unfortunately, and notwithstanding the evidence that Dr. H. has furnished, the case seems, generally, to those who have not seen the skull, too much for human belief." But after Gage was joined by such later cases as a miner who survived traversal of his head by a gas pipe, and a lumbermill foreman who returned to work soon after a circular saw cut three inches (8cm) into his skull from just between the eyes to behind the top of his head (the surgeon removing from this incision "thirty-two pieces of bone, together with considerable sawdust"), the Boston Medical & Surgical Journal (1869) pretended to wonder whether the brain has any function at all: "Since the antics of iron bars, gas pipes, and the like skepticism is discomfitted, and dares not utter itself. Brains do not seem to be of much account now-a-days." The Transactions of the Vermont Medical Society (Smith 1886) was similarly facetious: "'The times have been,' says Macbeth [Act III], 'that when the brains were out the man would die. But now they rise again.' Quite possibly we shall soon hear that some German professor is exsecting it." The reference to Gage's iron as an "abrupt and intrusive visitor" appears in the Boston Medical & Surgical Journal's review of Harlow (1868)."

Likewise, I would edit it:

"Bigelow said: "The leading feature of this case is its improbability... This is the sort of accident that happens in the pantomime at the theater, not elsewhere". He continued, "at first wholly skeptical, I have been personally convinced", calling the case "unparalleled in the annals of surgery". This endorsement by a Professor of Surgery at Harvard helped end scoffing about Gage among medical men—one of whom, Harlow later recalled, had dismissed the matter as a "Yankee invention": "I have the pleasure of being able to present to you, to-day, the history and sequel of a case of severe injury of the head, followed by recovery, which, so far as I know, remains without parallel in the annals of surgery. The case occurred nearly twenty years ago, in an obscure country town..., was attended and reported by an obscure country physician, and was received by the Metropolitan doctors with several grains of caution, insomuch that many utterly refused to believe that the man had risen, until they had thrust their fingers into the hole of his head, and even then they required of the Country Doctor attested statements, from clergymen and lawyers, before they could or would believe—many eminent surgeons regarding such an occurrence as a physiological impossibility, the appearances presented by the subject being variously explained away." Jackson wrote that, "Unfortunately, and notwithstanding the evidence that Dr. H. has furnished, the case seems, generally, to those who have not seen the skull, too much for human belief." But after such later cases as a miner who survived traversal of his head by a gas pipe, and a lumbermill foreman who returned to work soon after a circular saw cut three inches (8cm) into his skull from just between the eyes to behind the top of his head (the surgeon removing from this incision "thirty-two pieces of bone, together with considerable sawdust"), the Boston Medical & Surgical Journal questioned facetiously in 1869 whether the brain has any function at all: "Since the antics of iron bars, gas pipes, and the like skepticism is discomfitted, and dares not utter itself. Brains do not seem to be of much account now-a-days." The Transactions of the Vermont Medical Society was similarly facetious: "'The times have been,' says Macbeth, 'that when the brains were out the man would die. But now they rise again.' Quite possibly we shall soon hear that some German professor is exsecting it." The reference to Gage's iron as an "abrupt and intrusive visitor" appeared in the Boston Medical & Surgical Journal."

• Edited in these ways, I would, on balance, prefer to have these passages in the main text, where Chris had them.
• Now as for the cns, the first cn was in the lead, in reference to describing Gage's recovery as "improbable". I don't think we need a cite for that, at all, in the lead. WP:LEADCITE allows some flexibility as to source attribution in lead sections, so long as the material is expanded upon and sourced lower on the page. Let's face it, "improbable" is pretty obvious, and the material that I'm saying could be in the text clearly backs that up. No need for a cite. The second cn would go away by moving the "amused" note back into the text. The third cn refers to describing a paper by Harlow as "triumphal". I would simply delete the word "triumphal". It's needless commentary.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• PS: In my suggested revisions, it occurs to me that I might have accidentally eliminated some source citations. (Frankly, the current system is so complicated that it confuses me, and I'm an experienced editor, so that's a reason right there to simplify the system of notes.) If so, I want to make clear that it would be very easy to fix it, simply by having two inline citations in succession. And using the <ref name=> tag makes it easy to cite the same thing repeatedly on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589255335

• Edit summary: rv removal of Harlow quote giving Gage's longterm injuries, the removal omitting facial paralysis, brain pulsations, Harlow "health good, inclined to say recovered"; & incorrectly changed "no pain in head "to" not in pain"
• Prior edit affected: [127] "clean up"
• Discussion:
  • This one is fairly easy for me to parse, and I pretty much entirely agree with EEng. On close inspection, Chris' edit was rather sloppy ("but had a but says he..."), and I agree with EEng that Chris was imprecise in paraphrasing what the source actually says. There is an editorial decision to be made about using direct quotes from the period (in this case from Dr. Harlow), and I realize that there are arguments for paraphrasing instead, partly in order to keep the page briefer (see also WP:QUOTEFARM). In this case, however, my personal opinion (just one editor's opinion) is that the page is improved by having direct quotes from the people who were there at the time, and that this is different from simply quoting from secondary sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
    • A simple prose error in the midst of a series of many revisions, I think the actual problem was also long ago fixed. This is before I had the source and was an attempt to fix it, but if it makes and issue, just drop the quote and word it better. The underlying quote issue is the problem here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm replying in the same fashion to both you and EEng here, so I will remind you that I am evaluating only the edits listed here, not subsequent editing. Yes, I understand that your error was a simple one. But it is unhelpful to simply dig in and say imperatively "just drop the quote". I have tried to offer reasons why I think this kind of direct quote is useful in this specific situation, and you haven't really engaged with what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589273712

• Edit summary: reinsert note re "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar" in more appropriate place; this material simply explicates Harlow 1848's deferral of details on mental changes, and is discursive to the main story
• Prior edit affected: [128] "integrate"

• Note: There's a to-do item for adding this item formally to the Sources list

• Discussion:
  • I haven't looked at the to-do, because I'm just focusing on the disputed edits.
  • This is a good example of where I'm talking about moving this page away from a focus on searching through the source material, and towards telling our readers the bottom line of what the source material tells us. Chris' edit took some material out of a note, and put it into the main text; EEng's subsequent edit moved it back out of the main text and into a note. In a broad sense, I agree with Chris that we need to cut back on notes, but I actually see this material as something that could largely be deleted.
  • The note as EEng restored it begins with "Harlow (1848).". That could, instead, be converted into a simple inline citation within the main text (including the page; there are several options on how to do that).
  • The note then continues: "Macmillan (2000) discusses potential reluctance on the part of Harlow, and of Gage's friends and family, to describe Gage negatively while he was still alive, and argues that an 1850 communication calling Gage "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar"consider adding to source list was anonymously supplied by Harlow.expand descr of phren piece; rewrite and relocate." (I've shown two hidden text portions in small font here.) I feel rather strongly that this page needs to get away from text (whether in notes or elsewhere) about what Macmillan et al. argue. One could make this material more encyclopedic by rewriting it as: "Harlow anonymously wrote in 1850 that Gage was "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar",[cite] but Harlow, and Gage's friends and family, may have been reluctant to describe Gage negatively while he was still alive.[cite]". In general, I want to see this page rewritten in that fashion. However, in this particular case, I'd be inclined to leave it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the circumstances. It's not a fact that Harlow is behind the anonymous note, there's just good evidence based on similarities between what the anonymous note says and other things Harlow says elsewhere, stuff like that. So "Harlow anonymously wrote" is just plain wrong. Where the source itself says it's uncertain, we need to reflect that. Argue, as you know, is a conventional way of indicating that. Actually, now that I think of it, what it needs to say is "Macmillan argues that it's likely that Harlow supplied...". Similarly for "may have been reluctant" -- that's not established fact (hard to see how it could, absent maybe a personal letter from someone involved -- "I hate to speak ill of Phineas, but he's being an ass...") but it's a sensible possiblility suggested by the source, and is worth passing on to the reader as a possible reason Harlow promised a "future communication" giving "mental manifestations", but then waited 20 years. EEng (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589275654

• Edit summary: rv conversion to main text, from note, of awkward coaching-skills quote, which conversion also omitted point that behaviors vary in implied impairment, thus completely concealing significance of quote
• Prior edit affected: [129] "remove note by integration"
• Discussion:
  • Here, I pretty much see it the same way as the edits discussed directly above. The material, whether in a note or in the main text, is full of language like "appear to draw on later communications" and "it is difficult to match these various behaviors", in Wikipedia's voice. As such, it ends up being WP:OR (no matter how much study went into it), because it mixes Wikipedia's voice with the voice of Macmillan et al. Our readers don't need this, and it doesn't belong here. The entire passage within which these edits occurred should be greatly shortened. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh? It's not OR if that's what the sources say. (If there's no cite for these points, by the way, it's because CG removed them.) The sources spend a great deal of time piecing together which statements apply to which points in time, and also mention how difficult it is to do that. And it's not just Macmillan that comments on that. Anyway, how is this mixing voices? We report the reasoned, cited conclusions of RS, cited with approval by other sources and about which there's no controversy, as straight fact.

What I don't understand, T-fish, is that here you call reporting straight fact as straight fact "mixing voices", and a few edits back you wanted "Macmillan argues Harlow supplied" changed to just "Harlow says", when that's not straight fact -- that's mixing voices. Honestly, this kind of double-bind characterizes a lot of these discussions over the past months -- first I get "why do you mention Macmillan so much" -- then a minute later, "That's just an opinion that should be attributed." There's no winning.

And our readers do need this. Figuring out when Gage exhibited which behaviors is absolutely essential to understanding him, and mentioning that it's hard to do that explains why his story was confused for the first 100 years. EEng (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589283267

• Edit summary: rv conversion to main text, from note, of highly technical ratiu material unsuitable to general reader -- a beautiful example of material appropriate to notes
• Prior edit affected: [130] "integrate"
• Discussion:
  • Another case of something that should simply be deleted. If it's important enough to have on this page, then it should be in the main text, so as far as that goes, I agree with Chris. And, per what I've been saying all along, the language (if retained) should be revised to make it less about commentary on secondary sources, and to make it less a matter of taking sides, in this case between sources by Van Horn and by Damasio. If we are having to correct "partial" (in a source) to "parietal", we are dealing with too much detail for Wikipedia. I suppose one could simply say something like, "Sources disagree as to whether the iron crossed the midline.[cite Van Horn][cite Damasio]", and leave it at that, in which case there is no need for text in a note. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Here we come to the nub re footnotes. It seems to me that your statement, "If it's important enough to have on this page, then it should be in the main text", is a nonstarter, because it implies that nothing should be in a note. As WP:FNNR says

Explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article.

Why should we leave this out? Over and over three editors have chanted that there should be fewer footnotes. But why? The only argument I've heard is that... there should be fewer footnotes. Or, in an alternative argument, it has been said that there are too many footnotes. Or that a smaller number of footnotes would be better. They are outside the main flow of text, and have zero effect on the reader who doesn't wish to read them. Why should there be any limit on them at all, per se? Both Ratiu and Van Horn explicitly repudiate Damasio's conclusions, and we should be quoting that. EEng (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589408098

• Edit summary: rv change adding misinformation that "Macmillan concludes" birthdate is July 9 & omitting cite to more info & to explanation (requested on talk) re age at accident
• Prior edit affected: [131]
• Discussion:
  • Chris' initial edit changed the position of an image, which is fine with me. The substantive issue is that Chris greatly abridged material about Macmillan's analysis of Gage's age at the time of the accident. EEng notes that Chris attributed to Macmillan a conclusion that Macmillan does not actually make, a valid concern as far as it goes. However, I think the far bigger issue is that this is yet more material that does not belong here. We should not be saying, in Wikipedia's voice, things like: "Macmillan (2000) discusses Gage's ancestry and what is and is not known about his birth and early life." The sentence tells our readers absolutely nothing about what actually is known about his birth and early life. Likewise for: "The birthdate July 9, 1823 (the only definite date given in any source) is from a comprehensive Gage genealogy, via Macmillan (2000), and is consistent with numerous contemporary sources..." The word "comprehensive" sounds like puffery for the Macmillan source. Wikipedia's voice should not be making judgments such as "is consistent with numerous contemporary sources". If Gage was 25 at the time of the accident, then say so, followed by inline cites to all of those sources. If there are other secondary sources that conclude his age was something else, then we should probably say something like: "Gage was in his mid-twenties at the time of his accident.", followed by the various sources. Chris' edit was, on balance, a step in the right direction, but I would have gone farther than he did. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Comprehensive" just means it's an extremely detailed family history starting with Mr. X Gage who came over in 1642 or something, by a Gage who apparently made genealogy his life hobby. But if you want to say, "a Gage family genealogy", sure. No one disagrees about Gage's age. The point is simply made (by the source, not WP) that the genealogy's date is consistent with what everyone agrees was his age at the accident, and what his burial record says was his age at death. EEng (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits 589415187 and 589416082

• Edit summary: Rv conversion, to main text, of note w/minutiae e.g. mother's varied names. Info needed at multiple points in text & so ideal as note; new cites
• Prior edits affected: [132] "remove birth name note", [133] "cleaning up by removing and reintegrating"
• Edit summary: Rv removal, as "useless", of note providing clarification requested by another editor
• Prior edit affected: [134] "comma, and remove useless A note"
• Discussion:

Original / restored text [135]	CG text [136]
[Infobox] Born: July 9, 1823 (date uncertain), Grafton Co., New Hampshire Home town: Lebanon, New Hampshire	[Infobox] Born: July 9, 1823 (date uncertain), Grafton Co., New Hampshire Home town: Lebanon, New Hampshire
Background Gage was the first of five children born to Jesse Eaton Gage and Hannah Trussell (Swetland) Gage, of Grafton County, New Hampshire. Little is known about his upbringing and education, though he was almost certainly literate.	Background Gage was the first of five children born to Jesse Eaton Gage and Hannah Trussell (Swetland) Gage, of Grafton County, New Hampshire. Gage's birth place is unknown, but the possible birthplaces are Lebanon, Enfield, and Grafton (all in Grafton County, New Hampshire. Harlow refers to Lebanon in particular as Gage's "native place" and as "his home" to which he returned ten weeks after the accident. Macmillan concludes that Gage's birthdate was July 9, 1823, but the vital records of neither Lebanon nor Enfield list Gage's birth. There is no doubt Gage's middle initial was P but there is nothing to indicate what the P stood for (though his paternal grandfather was also named Phineas). Gage's mother's maiden name is variously spelled Swetland, Sweatland, or Sweetland. Little is known about his upbringing and education, though he was almost certainly literate.
Gage's Injury On September 13, 1848 Gage (aged 25) was...	Gage's Injury On September 13, 1848 Gage (aged 25) was...
Notes D. Macmillan (2000) discusses Gage's ancestry and what is and isn't known about his birth and early life.Possible birthplaces are Lebanon, Enfield, and Grafton (all in Grafton County, New Hampshire) though Harlow refers to Lebanon in particular as Gage's "native place" and as "his home" (probably that of his parents) to which he returned ten weeks after the accident. The vital records of neither Lebanon nor Enfield list Gage's birth.The birthdate July 9, 1823 (the only definite date given in any source) is from a comprehensive Gage genealogy, via Macmillan (2000), and is consistent with agreement (among contemporary sources addressing the point) that Gage was 25 years old at the time of the accident, as well as with Gage's age—36 years—as shown in undertaker's records after his death on May 21, 1860. There is no doubt Gage's middle initial was P but there is nothing to indicate what the P stood for (though his paternal grandfather was also named Phineas). Gage's mother's maiden name is variously spelled Swetland, Sweatland, or Sweetland. Little is known about his upbringing and education, though he was almost certainly literate.	Notes [Note removed]

Few readers will care about Gage's unknown middle name / town of birth, or mother's name variations. This material belongs in a note available to those interested, and it's distracting to (instead) interrupt the main-text background of Gage's life with such non-information. Errors and omissions introduced by CG:

• Omitted pointer to additional info on background & upbringing. CG removed every Harvard cite to Macmillan (in this and other notes) as "promotional", which is absurd -- all sources substantively discussed in the notes are referred to via Harvard cites.
• Birthplace is not "unknown" -- it's Grafton Co. For 19C rural subjects a county is an adequate "birthplace" -- illogical to turn availability of additional information (three likely towns) into "birthplace unknown".
• Macmillan did not "conclude" Gage's birthdate was July 7 rather stated that July 7 is given by one source, without citation, and is therefore uncertain -- as the infobox says.
• Age at time of accident omitted -- needs explicit treatment because article states this.
• CG removed the citations to material in infobox and Gage's injury section -- the note was the cite, and in some cases gave necessary clarification to cited material, which is impossible to do with just bare citations.

EEng (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Here, I'm basing my comments on the table of information above (as opposed to the numerous diffs). Overall, I'm going to largely echo what I've been saying above. I'm sympathetic to Chris' desire to reduce the amount of material in notes, but I also think a lot of the material can simply be deleted.
  • The infobox: I'd be fine with sourcing material there with simple inline citations, but there is no need to have lengthy notes linked from the infobox.
  • Background: If Gage's birthplace is uncertain, we don't really need to list all the possibilities, since all the possibilities are in Grafton County. It's enough to just name the county, and say the exact place is uncertain. Where EEng says here that "Few readers will care about Gage's unknown middle name / town of birth, or mother's name variations", that's emphatically true. But I disagree with the argument that this stuff should therefore be in a note. It belongs in "further reading".
  • Gage's injury: I discussed this in the talk section directly above.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589424404

• Edit summary: rv conversion, to main text, of note giving precise evidentiary status (of interest to few readers) regarding burial of iron.
• Prior edit affected: [137] [138]Link corrected 23:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Discussion:
  • I'm probably going to be sounding repetitive at this point. Stuff about most sources saying one thing, but Macmillan et al. arguing that most sources are wrong, does not belong here. We could leave the whole thing out, or we could say something like: "Gage's iron may have been buried with him,[cite][cite][cite] although there is some evidence that it was not.[cite]" It is WP:UNDUE to give prominence to the Macmillan view, given the speculation, so I've put what seems to be the majority source opinion first, followed by the Macmillan dissent, with the potential inline cites reflecting the relative numbers. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

C'mon, quality of sources count. Take a look at WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(history)#Reliable_sources_for_weighting_and_article_structure and we'll pick up after that. EEng (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589428199

• Edit summary: rv removal of "no question all injuries on left"; absurd to call this "promotional", as it's essential to justify img reversal; see www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Letters-201003.html if you don't understand
• Prior edit affected: [139] "more promotional"
• Discussion:
  • Much of this strikes me as two editors not understanding one another. Chris was inaccurate in calling it "promotional", and I have some sympathy for EEng taking exception to that. At the same time, it occurs in the context of a lot of citing of Macmillan et al., and I have some sympathy for Chris's desire to get away from the existing wording. I think it is fine to say, in Wikipedia's voice and with cited sourcing, that "that all Gage's injuries, including to his eye, were on the left." No problem there. But it adds nothing to also say that "there is no question". That should be deleted. The only time one says that there is no question is when someone else thinks that there is a question, and this is not something to say in Wikipedia's voice.
  • The edits occur in a section that seems to me to need to be greatly shortened. Gage is not notable as a portrait model. The portraits are encyclopedic only to the extent that they tell us about the accident, its effects on Gage, and on Gage's perception by his contemporaries. The three paragraphs visible in the diffs are full of language about processes by which secondary sources evaluated the primary source material: "authenticity was confirmed in several ways", "a second portrait of Gage was identified", etc. That is not an account of Gage's biography; it's an account of his biographers. It needs to be shortened. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589430898

• Edit summary: rm movement, to (weirdly) only 1 of 2 img captions, of statement re reversal. No-context statement in caption makes no sense to reader, who doesn't care so long as img is true to life
• Prior edit affected: [140] "move to caption"
• Discussion:
  • Much as I said in the section immediately above, the text does not need a lengthy exposition on why various secondary sources decided that the daguerreotypes were originally reversed left-to-right. My preference would be for the images shown on the page to be oriented left-right as they were historically (to minimize WP:OR). I think it's helpful to have a sentence in the image captions explaining the left-right issue to our readers, as Chris attempted to do. If we use the original images, then the caption should say that the image shows things reversed; if we use reversed images, then the caption should say that the image has been reversed. It's very appropriate to say in the main text that daguerreotypes are known to be left-right reversed (cite sources), and to say that this applies to the portraits, and to how the sidedness of the injury should be understood. But we don't need an explanation of how the authors of secondary sources did the analyses that led them to these conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589431725

• Edit summary: rv removal, with edit summary "not necessary", of provenance of images and -- even more necessary -- info that these are not descendants of Gage despite their names
• Prior edit affected: [141] "not necessary"
• Discussion:
  • I can see how Chris was intending to delete the instruction to the reader to "see Macmillan& Lena 2010". That could simply be replaced by an inline citation. But I agree with EEng that it is appropriate to state the provenance of the images. I'd prefer not to call this image "the 2010-identified image", because the year it was identified is of low interest except to the people who did the identifying in 2010. I'd be fine with calling it, for example, "the image now in the possession of Tara Gage Miller of Texas", followed by the statement that "an identical image belongs to Phyllis Gage Hartley of New Jersey". There could be a clarifying statement that these are descendents of some of his relatives, but I see no reason to discuss Gage's lack of children in this section. Leave it for his life history. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589432706

• Edit summary: rv conversion, to main text, of note giving img provenances, details of l-r reversal issues, etc. Since both imgs were reversed they both need annotating; single integrated note explains well
• Prior edit affected: [142] "cleaning"
• Discussion:
  • I've pretty much covered all of this already. If we get rid of all the lengthy analyses of left-right reversals, what will be left can be said in the main text, and does not require a note, just inline citations of sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589435557

• Edit summary: rv removal, with illogical summaries "remove nonexistant note" & "remove see fig note", of necessary notes to image captions explaining reversal
• Prior edits affected: [143]  "remove nonexistant note", [144]  "remove see fig note"
• Discussion:
  • The information provided here is a little sketchy, and I'm not going to hunt it down. If the first note was really nonexistant, then it should indeed have been removed. If it existed, I'm not wild about removing it and, apparently, replacing it with a cite needed tag. As I've said before, we don't need a lot of text explaining the daguerreotypes. Since we are, in part, looking at a direct quotation (about his "constant companion") in the infobox, I believe the direct quote should have an inline citation to the source from which it comes. We should move away from text-filled notes, towards simple inline cites of sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

General comments by CG

I did not remove all the notes, but many of the issues you re-inserted have numerous issues. WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE. Your reversions keep hinging on rather weak assessments of the matter. Your comment that this should be reinstated because I removed the redundant sentencing may be of a debatable matter, but main reason for removal was because you were essentially sticking your work and name, intrusively into the text. The text removed was "however, there is no question (Lena& Macmillan, 2010) that all Gage's injuries, including to his eye, were on the left." Followed by a cite to lena_macm. This just seems to be promotional because there IS no objection, or rather there CAN be no objection because it is already sourced and that source, is without "question" is your own work. Why should the reader have to read "there is no question (Lena& Macmillan, 2010) that all Gage's injuries, including to his eye, were on the left." when it is already handled perfectly without that additional statement? It seems as if it was just a way to prominently insert your name into the article and goes against the purpose of even having references. Now I can continue by picking apart each and every reversion, but they were all peer checked. Like Macmillan's claim of the birth date, it is just a claim, there is no hard evidence or clear consensus by other researchers that definitively prove a date of birth. So attributing it as such is a matter of verifiability and accuracy - the statement that no birth (birthing) records could be obtained or found and the details upon which it is concluded represents the result of some guess-work. If you are not absolutely confident, its uncertain. If its uncertain, the source it comes from is claiming it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, you did indeed remove all the notes -- there had been 36 notes, and when you were done there was one.
• Could you please break up your post and distribute your points beneath each edit (listed above) that you want to discuss? If you'll do that I'll be able to respond.
• Re "injuries left vs. right", as mentioned above you must read www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Letters-201003.html or you won't know what you're talking about. If you haven't read it yet please do so.

EEng (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to make walls of text at this time. I am still waiting on my publications, but a third person has clearly stated that notes are not to be used in this fashion. Considering you reinserted material that has been questioned in other sources and stated above shows that there is a reasonable consideration to remove them again and properly cite it. Because this claim is simply not the case, " Macmillan& Lena: "Only Harlow[7]:342 writes of the exhumation and he does not say the tamping iron was recovered then. Although what he says may be slightly ambiguous, it does not warrant the contrary and undocumented account[s]... that Gage's tamping iron was recovered from the grave."[22]:7" If you are going to revert and do this without carrying on the reason or even pointing to the actual citation I provided - why should I continue on? I expected a rational debate about this, and its been rather ignored. And just so we are clear: "remove all the notes" means all the notes; I left the one note that was really necessary. A third or more of the article should not be notes. It will never hit GA so long as these problems are unresolved and frankly, I've been waiting for the matter on Fleischman still. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again: Please put each point related to a particular edit beneath the appropriate bullet in the list above, so that each edit can have its own discussion thread. It's impossible to carry on a conversation when you keep making these giant, vague posts. EEng (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why? WP:QUOTEFARM is applicable for sheer over-reliance and dominance of quotes in this article. You are editorializing with the medical background section, making it a note is not going to really help the reader and no one is going to want to read paragraphs on a note. And then using the note as a citation to cover is a major issue. You keep characterizing statments as " adding misinformation that Macmillan "Macmillan concludes" birthdate is July 9 & omitting cite to more info & explanation re age at accident requested on talk". This is not helpful, because I quote from the source: "Neither he nor his birth is noted as such in the Plummer-Wills records for Lebanon, and there is no entry for him in Roberts's compilation of the vital records of Enfield... The only definite date given by anyone for his birth is the 9 July 1823, and that appears without a source in C. V. Gage's genealogy." - Now that I have the source in my hands, the accuracy of the wording and conclusion as demonstrated by your notes is clarified because it comes from "a comprehensive Gage genealogy, via Macmillan (2000)" and is used by Macmillan as a source despite the fact it should not be taken as such. For page 108 shows that (contrary to your detailing) that Macmillan's comments show that the record found show 36 years 0 months and 0 days, and ponders that "Did no one, including his mother, know the correct date? Or was it being hidden?" I just got the book and I am already seeing many issues with the text here. The Boston Post paper, is straight from page 12 of the book, the map of Cavendish is from page 13. I must also add the details from the image you provided are listed as your own conclusion, which is original research. I'm reading through it, and I think some matters which I tried to fix are going to be indicative of some more complex issues - but either way, this article has many issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to respond to your rambling posts on multiple topics. For the last time: Please redistribute each of your points to the appropriate bulleted discussion thread above. (If something doesn't fit any of the bulleted items, then start a new ===-level section for it here at the bottom, I guess.) If you don't do that soon, then I guess I'll have to do it myself as best I can. EEng (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

TLDR version:No. You've dodged my inquiries and you are reverting something reviewed by a third party who was really skeptical of my claims (at first) to be making the article worse. You've gone and re-instituted your extremely long quotes and notes and you've not actually responded to my inquiries. I've been waiting so long that I've had to return my book to the library because of it. I think you've done quite enough and I'm not apt to be treated like garbage. I'm disappointed in what you've done and that you are a Type 2 who clearly needs to feel that you are "winning" or somehow superior to other editors and reject actual good-faith attempts to improve and resolve issues. Your ownership and actions on this page represent a serious problem and you will not be mollified or placated by even someone who has spent several weeks getting the sources and trying to assist. This is the shy-template matter all over again. This article has a lot of issues and while you try to clean them up, it meets almost none of the GA criteria and it will be a long long time before it will at the rate. You've asked and poked and prodded your way into the situation, but if you are going to keep doing this, you can do it yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Another to-do list (sort of)

T-fish, I'll be in contact at most intermittently for another week so here's something I think will help in the meantime. Can you work with CG to pin down specifically what he's talking about in the following? There's no way to address his concerns if I can't figure out what he's talking about.

1. "40 false references in existence when I first came to this page" [145]... "30% false references" [146]... "More than 40 false references that do not exist." [147]. Since he refers to "when I came to this page" I guess this version must be the one with all these incorrect references. Could you get CG to list, say, 10 of these? I'd like to start correcting them as soon as possible.

2. The "not enough opinions" banner. [148] Do you think you could get CG to give sample text (rough, but including citations to sources) for two or three of the opinions he feels should be inserted?

3. And finally, John_Vandenberg directed a question to CG [149] (which CG never answered) when the COIN discussion began to turn from the idea of establishing balance by adding missing material, to establishing balance by removing existing, cited material. The question was: "Which academic peer-reviewed literature published since has refuted or contested anything in the article?" Could you perhaps encourage CG to make a list of such literature he's come across while working on the article?

Thanks. EEng (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of saving time, I'm going to answer number 2 myself, because I can easily see what the answer is. Chris' concern, and I want to say that I consider it a legitimate one, is that the page devotes too much emphasis to the interpretations of primary source material by secondary sources written by Macmillan et al. If you examine what I've written in the BRD section, above, I've explained in greater detail how I view this issue. And that, in turn, leads to number 3: I don't interpret what Chris said as having found new sources, so much as referring to sources (the Damasios, for example) that appear to be WP:RS, but which have been questioned by Macmillan et al., and which may be underrepresented on this page.

So let's please focus on number 1. ChrisGualtieri, I would appreciate it if you would list here some examples of what you consider to be false references. I'm not concerned with exactly how many of these there are, just with what sources Chris regards as being "false". Ideally, I'd just like to see a couple of sources listed as a bullet list, without a lot of accompanying discussion, and I would prefer that EEng not respond to it when Chris provides it here, until after I have been able to respond myself. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was self explanatory the last time I mentioned it. The "hack of hacks" resulted in each source having fake references that do not work. When trying to verify the information, clicking on these false references did nothing. When looking at the references by themselves, it appeared as if there were more citations then were used. Each source had a false reference tied to this "hack of hacks" - so when I said "over 40 false references" - I was just giving an example because 30% of the references in the reference list were non-operational and trying to verify the information was ridiculous. It really irks me when I click on sources and they go to the wrong spot, or don't work at all. That "hack of hacks" should never have been done because the false references were generated to attain a preferred appearance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks Chris very much for your prompt reply. I understand, then, that you did not mean that the source material (particularly Macmillan et al.) were bogus sources, which may have been what EEng was concerned about. Instead, your concern is one of formatting: that clicking on certain source links failed to bring you to where it should have brought you, due to the complexity of note formatting on the page. I agree with you that we should simplify the notes, a lot, and I want to now direct EEng to what I said about the notes in the BRD section, above. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It was even more basic then the notes. It was the simple fact that in the "hack of hacks" version of the page that all the references, regardless of being in the main text or in the notes, had at least one "non-working" reference. This is the "a" ref on I think every reference. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If that is what you are worrying about, why not just say "the hack of hacks resulted in one spurious backlink for each reference", which we already know anyway. You are wasting everybody's time by implying that the references themselves are incorrect. Have you found any of the references themselves which are actually incorrect? --Mirokado (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been really busy as of late, but this gross misunderstanding is EEng's issue and its why the whole "hack of hacks" thing was front and center in my first interactions. This is months old and the problem has not existed for months - why such an issue is even being discussed is beyond me. I gave that as an example of problems in this page's history for the DRN matter, but it was not a "current" issue. Just like the 400+ Template:Shy issue, the matter was resolved and I am going out of my way now to nip this useless tangent in the bud. I've explained this matter several times before and EEng has been incredibly slow to understand the issue - constantly reiterating and twisting it. The all caps and bold screaming that I am some "troll" because I want the May 20 date noted is only a fragment of the past issues. I knew this page would be a nightmare because the Shy template matter still eludes EEng and the false references (spurious backlinks, in your wording) from the "hack of hacks" was something that is over and done with. I think this whole matter is a monumental waste of time, but here we are discussing stuff from last year that were fixed without much complaining. Why is it even being discussed? I can only see it being done to complicate or bog the progress down and wear out out editors. Now, since all issues are resolved - can we please move forward? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I said some time ago [150] that I would not be answering CG's posts except as necessary to prevent other editors being misled by them; this is one of those situations. CG, I'm calling your bluff on this:

I've explained this matter several times before and EEng has been incredibly slow to understand the issue

Since neither I nor T-fish had any idea what you were talking about, go ahead -- provide a diff showing how we should have known that your "40 false references" were a formatting glitch, not the serious problem with sourcing you wanted people to imagine. And even if you could supply such a diff somewhere (which you can't) you certainly gave no such explanation at DRN, where you wanted others to be shocked at what a fake, liar, and COI-POV pusher I must be:

Before I arrived at the article, it was a complete and utter mess. Notes that were longer then the actual body. More than 40 false references that do not exist. A vast array of useless wiki markup...

That was February 2 during your most recent forum-shopping excursion, not "last year", so it is you that are "constantly reiterating and twisting it". Turning a completely appropriate question into an attack on you has been a staple of yours for months. EEng (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've mentioned this numerous times including in a lengthy and detailed post on 17:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC). I don't have enough time to deal with your problems, but don't go repeatedly making up stuff. You even acknowledged it in the invisible text comments on ther article with "Hack of all hacks .... A side-effect of this hack is that each Sources entry has a spurious "a" backlink to the (thrown-away) reference to that entry here." Though to be fair, other cases of broken refs existed. The "spurious backlinks" are false. The definition of "spurious" is "not being what it purports to be; false or fake." Do not continue to moan and complain about this when it was you, EEng, who acknowledged and brought up the "spurious" aspect on your own. You knew this, and I believe you know exactly what "spurious" means. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to make up my mind whether the two of you need an interaction ban, which would amount to a de facto topic ban of you both from this page. I asked Chris for a clarification, because what he said was unclear to me. He provided the clarification. There is no need for a complaint about it having been unclear, because it has now been clarified. For goodness sake, move on! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that is clear enough! Mr Fish, sorry for interrupting the conversation. One way forward would be to select a particular part of the article and widen the references there. --Mirokado (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be so blunt about it, I've been sorta inactive as of late because of many things. Same as EEng. Now, in order of importance - Gage's verified life should take precedence. This article is a biography of Gage. The phrenology matter is secondary, but I see little value in Macmillan's text, when Fleischmann did a proper short analysis by showing that Gage's case was taken as proof by both "sides". The Gage case was not definitive or ended the debate, but it was a curiosity. A curiosity that has persisted, and the story has been exaggerated over time, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

For both Chris and EEng, being busy with other things is fine with me. WP:There is no deadline. Mirokado, welcome! I'm happy to have input from other editors, and I hope you'll stick around here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There may be no deadline, but four months of complaining that other sources should be included, without a single proposal for actual article text to be added or changed, is a long time. Do you think you could help CG come up with something concrete? I'm afraid, though, that I must reiterate that Fleischman is aimed at grades 4-6, ages 9-12 [151], and its inadmissability as a fact source is beyond debate. EEng (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

EEng, the book may be introductory, but has been fact checked and it is better written then anything you've produced on this page. Though is just more fussing over things like the Corsini Encyclopedia and other textbooks. And true to the hostile POV denounced in Macmillan 2000, you have repeatedly attacked other researchers and writers. You even attacked an entire university with a bizarre and twisted idea. EEng needs to stop being a bully and realize that Lena and Macmillan's POV is not "consensus" or even the majority opinion. EEng seems incapable of being objective and remaining emotionally distant in this matter. How about you actually read the book because it gives far better details and context then is present on this page - and I pointed out several instances prior. How about you stop wasting our time and actually put up those sources from up to 2013? If you are not going to remain civil or be cooperative then you are WP:NOTHERE and I think a topic ban is in order. I much rather make sure it is as accurate as possible, but I do not like someone knowingly holding back information (like the 2013 interview with Macmillan on more recent findings) and playing coy. It is deceptive at minimum and dishonest at worst. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

EEng, go back and read what I already said at #Additions from Fleischman, above, and stop making the same complaints over and over again. If you are so impatient about deadlines, then maybe you can find the time to read what I said at each section of #WP:BRD, above, instead. Chris, please don't take the bait. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I forget that the situation is only going to be resolved by third parties and no amount of input from me is really helping. Just message me when you want me to look or answer something. I should not be so quick to respond to each point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. I appreciate that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's some actual OR

Well, it looks like I returned from my trip up the Amazon at just the right moment. Tryptofish, I see you've put a lot of work in while I was gone, and I appreciate that. My connectivity will remain intermittant for a while but when I'm back to civilization first thing I'll do is look that over. Assuming I'm still not topic-banned.

While people catch their breath some might enjoy a discussion of what little can be made of this request. This is strictly OR and has no place in the article, but it's fun anyway.

There are far too many imponderables to get much handle on the velocity of the tamping iron as it left the blast hole (which is what the edit summary linked above seems to want -- let's call this the "dry" exit velocity). But a pretty good lower limit can be placed on the tamping iron's, er, um... how shall I put it... um, "wet" exit velocity -- the velocity as it exited Mr. Gage's noggin -- as follows.

A fun digression for those interested

We're told the iron returned to earth about 80 ft away. Naturally we all enjoyed high school physics, and so readily recall that a 45-degree inclination at exit from the, um, muzzle gives the most conservative estimate of muzzle velocity. So -- let's see -- 32 ft/sec/sec, add 7, carry 6, ... um, wait, no, that's impossible, wait, ... OK, right... Yeah... Got it. A projectile starting from h=0 at 45 degrees, and returning to h=0 at distance 80 ft away, has a flight time of about 2 1/4 seconds, reaches a max height of about 20 feet, and would have had a muzzle velocity (i.e. the velocity leaving the exit wound) of about 30 ft/sec = 50 mi/hr. That's on earth of course -- if Gage had been on Jupiter, or under water, we'd have to rework all this. More significantly, this neglects the elevation of Gage's head above h=0, and since the max elevation was only h=20 it's clear this introduces significant error (correction of which would lower the velocity estimate). If someone wants to work this out for initial h=5 -- assuming Gage was stooping or squatting, and not atop of some large body of rock, and' that the terrain isn't very steep -- that would be great. (Terrain likely does come in here, since Bigelow quotes a witness as saying that the iron was found "in the road below", which suggests some change in elevation. On the other hand, here in the OR-play zone we might also indulge the inference that Gage wasn't way up top the big rock seen in the article's beautiful photo: there's nothing to indicate Phineas was removed from a height by his men, and had he fallen from there his catalog of injuries should have included something orthopedic.) But even more significant is the 45-degree inclination assumption. From Harlow's and Bigelow's (slightly conflicting) descriptions of Gage's posture the iron likely emerged at 60 degrees at least, and probably more. Assuming even a 70-degree inclination we get... well, 70 deg in radians is 2 pie r squared, except pie are not squared -- cake are squared, pie are round -- so cotangerine of ... Well, this is too hard on a four-function calculator. Doesn't even have √ -- geesh! Anyway, anyone who's seen a pop-fly at the ballfield will appreciate that a projectile can be launched at very high speed yet return to earth not too far away, if its path is sufficiently near vertical. Had the exit been truly vertical, in fact, for all we know the iron reached the Van Allen belts and then came straight back down. Adopting an inclination above 45 degrees increases the exit velocity tremendously, completely swamping any error due to Gage's initial elevation above h=0. In sum, it's almost certain the iron's velocity leaving the exit wound at the top of Gage's head was at least 50 mph, and likely much more. Thus endeth the OR. References

EEng (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I admit to being greatly jealous of travel to the Amazon, and I look forward to hearing what your responses are to my advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As the IP user who initially requested the amount of blasting powder that caused the famous injury to be quantified and presented in the article and therefore readers of a ballistic persuasion, such as myself, to be armed with the necessary information to get a ballpark on the velocity of the iron bar in their own time, I am pleased that someone else also finds this question pertinent to the article.

Sadly we are of course stepping into OR territory with the above analysis but if the quantity of blasting powder was recorded, or at least a likely value estimated by contemporary sources, then I thought we could include that figure in the article to help improve it, and that is why I tagged it as "Quantify".

Lastly, having done my own back of the envelop calculations, I also arrived at a subsonic velocity, the initial hunch that is left the "muzzle"/(bored rock hole) at subsonic speeds as detailed in my above linked request, is most certainly correct. Sadly readers won't be informed on this, thus is the nature of the wiki-beast I suppose. However, why exactly was the quantify tag removed?

86.40.80.183 (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As the editor that removed the tag the first time I can give my reasons.

• It happened 165 years ago. Any documentation from day to day activities at that time is scarce and the information is very unlikely to exist. Even Gage's exact accident location is unknown.
• A few of the editors here are very knowledgeable of any known sources and would most likely have added this material before now.
• After working on construction sites where blasting took place in modern times, I know there is an art to it and there is no standard charge. It depends on many things, see Rock blasting.
• Even if you knew the exact amount of powder and composition you couldn't calculate the velocity accurately because you wouldn't know how much energy escaped between the iron and bore hole or even into the rock strata.
• I am not a fan of tags being in articles forever waiting for information that is almost certainly never to appear. Ward20 (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I was the editor who reverted it the second time, and I want to thank 86.40 for bringing this question to the talk page. I don't really have much to add, to what Ward20 already said. I agree that the reasons given in the edit summaries when the tag was added amounted to WP:OR (although I now also appreciate that 86.40 had good faith reasons for asking), and I agree that it would be unlikely that we could find information to satisfy the tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry comrades, thanks for the thoughtful replies nonetheless! I understand contemporary sources may not have any estimations for the speed of the rod, but that does not mean a modern reliable source will never come along and compute a figure that would be suitable for the article? Maybe we could even petition Mythbusters or real ballistics experts to do some cadaver(or human head facsimile) tests? Perhaps a single line could be added to the article communicating that no contemporary sources state the quantity of blasting powder involved or have an estimation for the speed of the rod but modern testing could match the injuries with a narrow range of speeds?

86.45.233.145 (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding! (Feel free to contact Mythbusters or anyone else on your own, but Wikipedia, as a collective entity, won't do that. If the results are broadcast or published, we can add them to the page, but we do not use "personal communications".) I shortened the passage you added (please see WP:CRYSTAL for why), and I moved it to fit into an existing paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the spirit of the sentence in! I understand you about my edit entering WP:CRYSTAL territory, as you can guess, I was going out on a limb with my edit. However I feel that your edit will be effective, and hopefully someday, someone will read your sentence and a light bulb will go off over their head and they'll say - hey I could find out a likely speed today at work in no time! and then, they'll share it, and their methodology with us.

86.47.78.34 (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A source touching on projectile speed

• Ordia, JI (1989). "Neurologic function seven years after crowbar impalement of the brain". Surgical Neurology. 32: 152–155. discusses the significance of projectile speeds below 1000 ft/sec in reduced concussive damage. Not clear how this can be used just now, but thought I'd throw it in since it's topical to this thread. EEng (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Chile Route 68

A recent edit [152] linked Chile Route 68 as the route used by Gage between Valparaiso and Santiago. This is an interesting idea, though the modern Route 68 can't actually be the route Gage used since the modern route passes through tunnels not built until long after Gage's death. Thus I've removed the link. However, there is some published information on the circumstances of Gage's work in Chile, and it may be possible to make use of this Route 68 idea somehow, so I'm noting it here for future use. EEng (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The Business Man

Just FYI, in case anyone is interested in some lighter editing related to Gage: Talk:The Business Man (short_story)#Phineas Gage. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

rare appearance of phineas in the media

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/05/phineas_gage_neuroscience_case_true_story_of_famous_frontal_lobe_patient.html

) Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there was recently something in the New York Times, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/opinion/sunday/beyond-the-damaged-brain.html EEng (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There is also a behind the scenes interview behind the Slate Plus paywall which requires a credit card , or fiddling with the CSS also enables reading of the text. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/slate_plus/2014/05/who_was_phineas_gage_sam_kean_explains_how_he_got_the_story.html John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

the rod and burial

We've had discussion about the burial of the rod a few times. The article now explains there are differing opinions on this, but there has been a WP:UNDUE concern raised by user:Tryptofish at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#Edit 589424404. Fleischman has been referred to a few times. I believe he tried to stick to facts (at least he says that in interviews), but his work was aimed at children and should be avoided as a source for anything controversial. (has anyone found glaring errors or embellishments in it?) There are others that have also stated that the rod was buried with him, and some of those do hint that they are recounting what may be a myth.

Before looking at the burial, I think we need to be clearer about the rod throughout his life, where we know. His giving it to Harvard (one year after the accident, around September 1848?) and then/especially reclaiming it are relevant to the section of his life called "New England" as it already mentions him having it as part of his touring act. The article says in April 1849 he visited Harlow in Cavendish, Vermont. this and that copy of Bigelow 1850 says the rod is now in Massachusetts Medical College. It is hard to follow those scattered temporal titbits. Then there is very little information about the rod in Chile and California? We know he had it in Chile, and presume he brought it to California.

I am far from satisfied with the current parenthesed article text "Though some accounts[][][] assert that Gage's iron was buried with him, there is no evidence for this.[]", with more detail in the note.

Firstly, as it is disputed whether the rod was buried with him, but the rod does appear after the exhumation, I think it is better to move this fact into the subsection "Skull and iron" and change the emphasis. I feel that some of the note can be merged into the prose to explain the situation better. Here is a suggested replacement:

"Though some accounts assert that Gage's iron was buried with him,[][][] the only extant report of the exhumation by Harlow only mentions the skull. The family personally delivered the rod and skull to Harlow in New England.[] After studying them ..." John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, Fleischman's work was peer reviewed by several scholars and was done with the help of Macmillan's research - and its a Jr. High / High school targeted work - but the details are not some fabrication. The specific naming of individuals and their accounts within, would be giant red flags otherwise. Quite of few of Macmillan's comments have in fact been disproven since 2000 which is why I consider Macmillan's conjectures to be specifically noted and highlight that Fleischman (just one of several sources) which agree with other publications, be used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

My concern at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#Edit 589424404 was about how to balance conflicting sources. I actually am pretty much neutral about John V's suggestions, but my wish is that we don't take "sides" in Wikipedia's voice when the sources are in conflict with each other. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

My suggested text is rather similar to your now archived proposal but, rather than trying to 'balance' sources which have very different levels of quality, I think we should explain why there is very different assessments on whether the rod was buried with him, as much as possible. To that end it would be good to also delve into the sources used by Fleischman and others, but that is extremely difficult when the claims are written in genre that doesnt include detailed academic sourcing (and that is part of why text books and childrens books are not rated very highly as RS on Wikipedia). Unfortunately I wont be near a decent library until the end of the month. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Its not like this information is unique to Fleischman - I'm sure EEng could provide the additional context and details - it would take me some time to recover the sources after the last episode, but I'll not throw another 30 hours into this page without some precautions in place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Checking back

I've unavoidably been away, and I want to check back now about how things are going with the content dispute that I was informally mediating. I see that most of the talk page discussion has now been archived. The part that I am the most concerned with can now be found at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD. More discussion starts around the middle of Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 4, and continues through all of Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 5 and Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6, as well as at #Another to-do list (sort of), above, as well as at User talk:Tryptofish#Inquiring minds (and brains) want to know, User talk:Tryptofish#Gage matter, and User talk:Tryptofish#Gage again.

I see that, recently, CFCF removed the dispute tags, because things have been very quiet for a while. Since EEng and ChrisGualtieri were the main disputants, I'd like to know what each of you two, in particular, would hope to see happen next.

My personal opinion is that it would not serve the purpose of improving the page simply to let things sit because the dispute has quieted down. I would hope that EEng, in particular, would work on implementing some of my advice at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD. Not necessarily everything I said, of course, but maybe meet me part way. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is still a miserable pile of conjecture and assumption spoken as if fact and EEng has not relented in the least. I got better things to do then deal with one article that is deliberately and willingly being stifled by an editor who will not drop the stick and be open and objective about the content or the POV being expressed. The vast uncertainties and repeated hostile attacks on other scholars and their motives are all indicative of numerous problems. Its ambiguous, out of date and just plain wrong. It is sad to say this, but I don't have any intention of wasting further time on this matter if EEng is permitted to edit this article further. He's failed to take the hint and he's just overtly hostile - I'll not deal with him or editors like him anymore. The past conversations and the COIN discussion are all indicative of EEng driving good editors away - including the previous GAN and that says volumes about the future of this page. Thanks for trying to assist Tryptofish, but I'll have to pass. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Chris. Putting this in plain and unemotional language, it seems to me that it now behooves EEng to work to incorporate the suggestions at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD and perhaps elsewhere. It also seems to me that, if EEng fails to make a genuine effort in this direction, that would be an indication of WP:IDHT. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe sanctions would be required to deal with EEng's COI and POV issues, specifically a topic ban. I've since returned the Macmillan book and other materials - it'd take me probably a month to get those back. So its not going to be fixed, in the short term, if a topic ban is issued. Though yes, your analysis was great and hopefully helpful for the future efforts to tackle this page's issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've asked EEng not to reply to what you have said about him personally, and I hope that he will resist that temptation. But I do very much want EEng to respond to what I have said about Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD. Let's see what we can accomplish there, and not get ahead of ourselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've unavoidably been away as well -- traveling -- and though I've been amusing myself with some lightweight non-Gage articles, I haven't had the quiet time (or even a desk) necessary for this giant project, though I hope to have some leisure for that soon.

You'll recall we discussed your comments here and there, but in thinking about how to continue the discussion I ran into the following very serious problem.

I was pursuing the BRD process last-in-first-out, because it's far easier, technically, to revert or revise multiple changes by working backward in time rather than forward. Unfortunately, that also meant that my edit summaries often referred (explicitly or implicitly) to questions of balance, consistency, and so on, that can only be judged in light of aspects of the article not present in the version visible at that step in the process, due to earlier changes by CG )mostly deletion of content and sources) which the BRD process hadn't yet worked back to. Thus over and over I found myself wanting to say, "Well, if you look in this version [link to some old version], bou'll see that this point is explained [etc etc]" and it just got too complicated. Remember the giant multicolored table explaining about birth and ancestry or whatever it was -- how exhausting!

I'm hoping that with the distance lent by the intervening weeks some fresh approach will occur to me.

EEng (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

For a start, at least, I suggest not overcomplicating the issue. Please just look carefully at what I said at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD, and indicate here your reaction to what I said there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

EEng, since I asked you the question immediately above, you have made a very large number of edits to the page. I've examined them, and they do not look to me like any sort of implementation of what I suggested at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD, and indeed a fairly large amount of it seems to me to go in the opposite direction of what I recommended there. I want you to understand that I am very serious here. If you disagree with what I suggested at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD, and can justify why, I'm happy to listen. But I will not go along with ignoring me. If you would rather respond in user talk, OK, but please respond to my question: what is your reaction to what I said at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you. I'm restoring the article to the point that we can talk about what to do without referring constantly to missing material and missing cites. Some of your comments can't be addressed until then, but I'll comment on those I can now. EEng (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm noting here, because EEng told me on my talk page, that EEng has entered some replies to my comments in Archive 6, by editing the archived material. I'm putting the archive page on my watchlist now, because, like most editors here, I assumed that archived talk pages would not be edited further – really, that's very unusual. I don't want to ask anyone else who may be interested to watchlist the archives, so I'm going to copy to here any comments to which I'm replying. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish's summary of the current situation

First, I see that EEng has made these two edits: [153] and [154], that take on board some of the suggestions that I have made. Thank you very much, and I appreciate it!

Second, I've given careful thought to EEng's replies to me at:

1. Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#Edit 589273712
2. Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#Edit 589275654
3. Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#Edit 589283267
4. Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#Edit 589408098, and
5. Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#Edit 589424404.

At #1, EEng correctly points out that I was incorrect in my assumption that the sources allow us to conclude that a note was written by Harlow. Consequently, I would revise the sentence that I suggested there to: "An anonymous 1850 note[cite] sometimes attributed to Harlow[cite] called Gage "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar", but it has been observed[cite] that Harlow, and Gage's friends and family, may have been reluctant to describe Gage negatively while he was still alive."

In #4, EEng and I seem to have a small consensus that "is from a comprehensive Gage genealogy" can be changed to "is from a Gage genealogy". From my perspective, that's a very, very small point, and it is the only place where I can see EEng agreeing with me about anything. Through all the rest, EEng appears to genuinely disagree with me, and to believe that I am failing to understand various things. I've read and re-read all of it very carefully, and I believe that I do understand, but that I just plain have a different opinion about it.

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#Personal attacks and OWN violations, John said that it was unlikely that I, by myself, would succeed at bringing editors here to consensus. With regret, I have now concluded that he was right. I don't think that my informal mediation is going to get us any further. I still would like to find a way to resolve this disagreement as a content dispute, without having to put anyone in the position of sanctions for conduct. At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 86#Phineas Gage, the closing statement recommended that, if my efforts proved not to be enough, we try the Mediation Committee. I'm going to wait a day or two to see if there are any further comments here, and if not, I'm going to follow that advice and open a MedCom request. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

#2, #3: As it happens, I completely rewrote those sections, so maybe things are going better than you thought. And lest anyway get the wrong idea, that was last night, before T-fish made his post just above.

#5: I'm sure we can work something out, but it goes to the heart of the trouble in recent months, so I'd like to take it carefully. For starters, please consider the following:

• The following from WP:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight#Aspects_of_reliability (yes, just an essay, and these are excerpts):

In assessing the suitability of a source for the purposes of research a number of aspects should be considered:

• Expertise of the originator with respect to the subject
• Declaration of sources – A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not, ideally a source should describe the collection process and analysis method.
• Age of the source and rate of change of the subject – Where a subject has evolved or changed over time a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation.

• The source ranking here:

To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

1. Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic

2. "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.

3. Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography

4. Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography.

5. Earlier scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic

6. Single item "book reviews" written by scholars that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.

7. Introductions to major scholarly works on the topic or introductions to edited collections of chapters often represent a survey of the historiography

8. Signed articles in scholarly encyclopaedias

EEng (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've been trying to deal with wide-ranging English Wikipedia problems for quite some time - there are a lot of systematic bias and other issues which are deeply engrained in the psyche of the culture. In my time, Mediation Committee is toothless and our priorities get locked up in silly things. I mean what can Mediation do if there is an impasse? As a scholar, EEng doesn't even recognize how poorly written the article is and refuses assistance. I've been fairly up to date with Macmillian, but at least his stance on the Gage story is as compelling as it is wise. I think when EEng better reflects on this he'll be more apt to work together with others, but the page is deeply personal to him. As for Mediation, it won't be fun and nothing good will come of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

user:Tryptofish, I also dont see the need for MedCom at this juncture. The article is gradually improving again. There are quite a few discussions that could be had, and a few were started but now we have discussion occurring on archived discussion pages! I think we could have a detailed and productive discussion here about how to phrase the rod burial issue (and I'll restart a proper discussion about that shortly lest the discussion continues in the archive), and others. I would really like to understand broadly what issues you see with the current content of the article, and see them thrashed out on the talk page, a few at a time I think. If you are trying to get 'consensus' from only the original parties of the old disputes, you will likely fail. But that is neither necessary nor desirable. If the regulars on this page cant agree, the appropriate course of action is to bring in other people with WP:3Os, WP:RFCs, etc.(p.s. feel free to {{ping}} me any time.) p.s. Chris, it was a much better article before you broke it. Some aspects have been improved on since then, but overall it has regressed, you are responsible, and you've not done simple things like restore citations that you removed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• OK, three of you have expressed discomfort with the idea of Mediation, and your arguments have, paradoxically, convinced me that Mediation should be the next step. EEng is more optimistic than I am about his ability to come to consensus just with me, without a more structured discussion. I, in turn, think that a more structured discussion is worth trying. Chris observes that Mediation will not be fun, and he may well be correct. I happen to agree with Chris on a fairly large number of points about how to improve the page. But if I, instead, follow the alternative approach that I am considering, which is to seek conduct sanctions against editors who are giving rise to the impasse, I'm pretty sure that both EEng and Chris will find themselves unable to edit this page at all, and that is not my idea of fun. And John V thinks that Chris "broke" the page; past experience tells me that I could also find other editors who would say the same about EEng. By the way, John V, please see Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD for my take on at least some of "what issues you see with the current content of the article". And as much as having a discussion on this talk page of the type you propose ought, in principle, to work, been there, done that. Whether or not anyone besides me chooses to participate in mediation is, of course, entirely voluntary, but I'm now definitely going to pursue it. And if it doesn't go anywhere, I'm definitely going to pursue sanctions for conduct, in which case it just might be in editors' best interests to have given Mediation a good-faith try. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that it won't be fun. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• @John Vandenberg: I know you mean well, but EEng is the source of that problem. It is entirely and completely his fault for the half-complete details in that shabby state because he objected MID-restoration. There was so much conjecture and sloppy research intermixed with general "conclusions" that the entire article needed to basically be nuked and rebuilt from scratch. Macmillan's conclusions are not evidence of anything and should be ripped out or marked properly. Numerous times Macmillan's 2000 work was outright wrong and EEng through a barrage of personal attacks and pettiness that was highly inappropriate, all in the name of protecting his colleague. Macmillan's error needs to be noted and EEng was acting like it was suddenly non-existent when its ambiguously corrected as some tiny note on a website. The pile of misinformation, errors and conjecture-as-fact was removed and I find it disgraceful that EEng would make blatant attacks on scholars and other universities. Call the effort to restore it what you wish, I was not done yet. Though if you want to look to current issues, it is EEng who is holding back information and giving gross omissions from content that he should eagerly want included. Such misinformation (still present no less) should be removed promptly and dealt with swiftly, but I think Tryptofish is aware of quite a few of the cases. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm out

It's become clear to me that editors here do not want to participate in mediation, so I have withdrawn the mediation request. I've spend a lot of time and effort trying to help editors with this page, even though I am only peripherally interested in the subject matter. I have better things to do with my time. I cannot help people who do not want to be helped. I also do not want to be bothered with asking that those who engage in WP:IDHT here be sanctioned, but if other editors pursue that, I'll be happy to contribute to the discussion. But for here, for now, I'm out. Please do not ask me to answer any further questions about the writing or content of this page, or ask me to return to these discussions, and please do not waste my time any more. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope you'll be receptive to my saying that I'm sorry it has come to this. I can certainly understand your feeling that you've put a lot of effort in which has yielded zilch, and I take partial responsibility for that, particularly in my not responding as promptly as I could to your BRD comments (though much -- but not all -- of that delay was unavoidable) and in my giving vent (a coupla times) to my own frustration in sub-optimal ways. Perhaps in some halcyon future, when peace and love are again ascendant here, you will find yourself able to participate again. EEng (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that – I at least try to make it my editing style not to be angry at the people who are behind the edits (not that I always succeed). And I'm not concerned about any delays in responding to me, only about the nature of the responses when they happened. Now, allow me to leave some advice to the editors here (not just to you). You have unresolved disagreements about this page. Instead of letting those disagreements fester, try to focus them down to discreet questions, and open content RfCs about them, on this talk page. Maybe you can get some new eyes that will help. Don't try to "win". Treat every edit you make, and every talk comment you make, as though it will be subjected to scrutiny, perhaps by ArbCom, because that very well could happen in the future. Don't let anyone have reason to think that you try to "own" the page, that you personalize the disagreements, that you call anyone else names or are sarcastic towards them, that you don't really listen to what other editors are saying, that you are fillibustering, or that you are unwilling to meet someone else half way. As I said, this looks like something that could find its way up the dispute resolution ladder, on the conduct side, and it's my personal observation that ArbCom has become very willing to site ban editors who come before it, on both "sides" of disputes. Again, I'm saying that to everyone here, not just to any one editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom is like mutually assured destruction - and they don't deal with content disputes in the typical sense. I left a whole editing area to spare another editor the banhammer, many people are quick to punish. The whole matter of forgiveness is something that seems strange when editors have power over others and the connections are impersonal. The Phineas Gage page is relatively important to Wikipedia, but its a single page and I much rather have a scholar on Wikipedia than a no scholars. I may not like EEng's actions, but as I've said months back - I'm not going to press the issue and the matter unless directly challenged. It was the direct challenge which lead to this - whatever. I got some 40,000 more articles to watch and I have no concept of ownership over pages. Sometimes its hard to see the forest through the trees, but I see a bunch of seedlings that need nurturing... each day spent on this mess is another page or two that sorely needs expansion from 6+ years of being a stub. I see EEng is doing some other pages, its a self-discovery thing at this point, hope it goes well. See ya round the wiki everyone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

@Chiswick Chap, Bgwhite, and ChrisGualtieri: EEng, just reverted me as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

They also reverted all changes made by Frietjes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Contrary to what ChrisGualtieri says, I don't have "a big problem with MOS". What I have a problem with is editors who clothe their personal preferences in the aura of nonexistent MOS provisions:

In that regard, how amusing that Bgwhite invokes MOS:MARKUP, which says "An HTML entity is sometimes better than the equivalent Unicode character, which may be difficult to identify in edit mode" i.e. MOS recommends against the most widespread of the changes being pushed here -- the substitution of literals for symbolics.

• I've looked in vain in Help:Citation Style 1 for anything about not using templates in citations. Maybe it's somewhere else -- can you point us to it?

Template:Cite_web#COinS Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Now I understand. Thanks. EEng (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hidden comments are specifically endorsed at Help:Hidden_text. Many of them simply ask that page numbers be confirmed and so on; if you don't have time to do that yourself, why remove the note so others can't either?

Help pages don't count. Not policy, guideline or MOS. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to engage on this. Here's what WP:MOS#Invisible_comments says:

Editors use invisible comments to communicate with each other in the body of the text of an article. These comments are visible only in the wiki source...

Invisible comments are useful for flagging an issue or leaving instructions about part of the text, where this is more convenient than raising the matter on the talk page. They should be used judiciously, because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors.

The question, then, is what "judiciously" means, so that the clutter doesn't outweigh the usefulness of whatever's being communicated. The following illustrates the functions that a large proportion of the hidden comments serve:

As Kihlstrom put it:

{{quote|[M]any modern commentators exaggerate the extent of Gage's personality change, perhaps engaging in a kind of retrospective reconstruction based on what we now know, or think we do, about the role of the frontal cortex in self{{hyp}}regulation.{{efn-ua|

{{r|kihlstrom}} See also Grafman:{{r|grafman|page=295}}

"Although <!--the classic story of the nineteenth-century patient Gage who suffered a penetrating PFC lesion--> [Gage] has been used to exemplify the problems that patients with ventromedial PFC {{bracket|[[prefrontal cortex]]}} lesions have in obeying social rules, recognizing social cues, and making appropriate social decisions, the details of this social cognitive impairment have occasionally been inferred or even embellished to suit the enthusiasm of the story teller{{mdashb}}at least regarding Gage" (citing Macmillan 2000).{{r|okf}}

}}<!---<<END NOTE-->}}<!--<<END QUOTE-->

• You'll notice that part of the quotation has been commented out, replaced by [Gage]. I do it this way (instead of simply deleting the unused words) so that other editors can judge whether the replacement is "fair".
• When templates are embedded in other templates the braces can become confusing, especially where they pile up at the end. The END NOTE / END QUOTE are to help keep them straight.

These two "use cases" are about half the hidden comments. They are intended to help other editors understand what's going on, but if you guys think it has the opposite effect, I have no objection to removing them. After that we can discuss the remaining instances. But first -- thoughts on the two use cases above?

EEng (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Chiswick Chap's changes were made under the color of "GA", but as noted the GA criteria have nothing at all to say about formatting, much less the markup that achieves it. Against that (again repeating what I said in my earlier post) is the directive at the top of every MOS page not to change from one format to another without good reason. Good reason requires reasons. Even several editors saying "I like it better this other way" isn't a good reason -- in fact it's not a reason at all. This is even more manifest when one considers that almost none of the changes changed the rendered page at all -- just changed to equivalent markup which does the same thing.

Beyond My Ken wrote a very insighful passage on this some time back:

The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. In the grand scheme of things, "ownership" may cause conflicts when two editors take the same degree of interest in a particular article, and disagree with it, but mostly it helps to preserve what is best in an article. On the other hand, hit-and-run editing, including the plague of hit-and-run tagging that's defaced so many Wikipedia articles, is a much more serious problem, because it's more difficult to detect, frequently flies under the flag of the MoS (and therefore is presumed at first blush to be legitimate), and is more widespread. Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on. 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just because the markup here isn't like markup you're used to doesn't mean it's inadmissable or inferior. Maybe it's better. Or maybe some of it's better and some of it's not. Where would you like to start the discussion?

EEng (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Name calling does no good. I don't see Chris, Chiswick, or Tryptofish as "hit and run editors". Stop your name calling. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I'd also like to point out that EEng appears to have created Template:Mdashb in January and that it has just 87 transclusions. The "Thinsp" one is primarily used for Talk page mark up has a spattering of main space uses, many of which can be traced to EEng.[155]. The markup you see today is a fraction of what it used to be. Aside from EEng's hack of hacks type of false references, there were over 900 templates being used when they did not need to be used. EEng has repeatedly reinserted the formats and attacked editors who disagree. Take a look at this edit with the summary: "There's no reason for you to care about the internal, reader-invisible formatting of an article in which you show zero interest except for dropping in periodically to support your fellow gnomes and MOS Nazis". Yes, EEng insisted on keeping invisible comments like that.

As the article's used to be

==Gage's injury==<!---======================================= G A G E ' S A C C I D E N T ==============================---> {{anchor|ratiu_video_external_link}} {{external media | float = left | width=18em<!--<<expressing width in ems allows controlled linewrap--> | video1 = [http://www.nejm.org/action/showMediaPlayer?doi=10.1056%2FNEJMicm031024&aid=NEJMicm031024_attach_1&area= Video recon{{shy}}struc{{shy}}tion of tamping iron passing through Gage's skull] (Ratiu et al. 2004).{{zwsp}}{{efn-ua|name="ratiu_hinged"}} }}<!--end external media--> [[File:PhineasGage BostonPostStory.jpg|thumb|upright=1.3 |<span style="font-size:200%;">_{<ref group="Fig." name=post_notice><!--dummy to silence errmsg--></ref>{{thinsp}}}</span>The ''[[Boston Post]]'' for Sept.{{nbsp}}21, 1848 (under{{shy}}stat{{shy}}ing the dimen{{shy}}sions of Gage's tamp{{shy}}ing iron and overstat{{shy}}ing damage to the jaw).{{zwsp}}{{efn-ua |name= note_post<!--BEGIN NOTE--> |^(See{{nbsp}}<ref group="Fig." name=post_notice/>⁾''[[Boston Post]],'' Septem{{shy}}ber{{nbsp}}21, 1848,{{r|anonymous_bostonpost}} crediting an earlier report (unknown date) in the ''Ludlow Free Soil Union'' (Ludlow, Vermont). This early report misstates the length of the tamping iron, and confuses its circumfer{{shy}}ence with its diameter. Also, despite its reference to the "shatter{{shy}}ing [of the] the upper jaw", that did not in fact happen. See Harlow (1868) for a descrip{{shy}}tion of the iron's path.{{r|harlow1848|page=342}}<!--bring in others' path descriptions, also sequence of issues in brain damage determination i.e. path + location of brain + varied locus of functional regions + ... --> }}<!--END NOTE--> ]]<!--<<end file:PhineasGage BostonPostStory--> [[File:Simulated Connectivity Damage of Phineas Gage vanHorn ProbablePaths.jpg|thumb|upright=0.70 |<span style="font-size:200%;">_{<ref group="Fig." name=vanhorn_hinged><!--dummy to silence errmsg--></ref>{{thinsp}}}</span><!--Likely paths of iron center{{shy}}line per Van Horn et{{nbsp}}al., with skull "hinging" open as suggested by Ratiu et{{nbsp}}al.-->Gage's skull "hinged" open as the iron passed through.{{efn-ua|name=ratiu_hinged}}<!--though ratiu originated the hinging idea, this is vanhorn's img -- that needs to be made clear--> ]]<!--<<end file:simulated-->

If you want to see just how unintelligible EEng made the article, I suggest examining this version. Just a bit of a warning, most editors will be completely floored by noting that the above snippet is not actually the worst part. Though it does show that EEng's complete confusion by going so far as to insert a Template:Shy and nbsp into an invisible comment. None of us are "hit-and-run editors" like tagging a page that problems exist and failing to try and discuss, but this problem has persisted for over a year. I seriously believe that EEng was attempting to make the article so difficult to edit that it would deter others outright. I simply cannot find any logical reason that such ignorance would come with such complex markup. And for the record, EEng, has direct ties to this pages appearance - as both the author of its sources and as working for Professor Macmillan, whose sources comprise the great majority. The WP:COI matter came to a lot of WP:IDHT on EEng's part, but I find the markup concerns to be an attempt to further WP:OWN this article. @Magioladitis:, I do not think this is "drama board"-level, but EEng has a history of reverting back to his template-ladden version whenever others look away. And this sparked the matter now, but I believe some 8-9 people have already been involved in this (and other pages) and disagreed with EEng. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• My opinion has not changed since I last commented here. I still agree with the majority of editors in this discussion. I also left EEng a note about 3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Me too, actually. I understand that EEng has contributed largely to the article over the years, but this does not add up to ownership, something that Wikipedia does not endorse, and we should go with the majority opinion here. This is a worthy article and as I said earlier, perfectly ready for GA as long as we have it in a tidy state, for instance the way I left it. We do ne to move on here, one way or another, and I'm open to any reasonable suggestions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As WP:Consensus#Consensus-building in talk pages says,

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

I'd really appreciate it if you'd join the discussion I'm having with BGwhite, above, about specific formatting issues.

EEng (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great work you have done on this article EEng, but it's time to move on now. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

+1 to what Johnuniq said. EEng, I hope that you will believe me, when you ask editors here to join the discussion about specific formatting issues, that I've spent a lot of time over the past few months thinking hard about those issues, and I've read and thought about every comment in this discussion thread, so I'm not just tossing out an inadequately considered "I don't like it". I've looked at it carefully, and I've reached an opinion, maybe incorrect, but in good faith, and I'm not seeing you persuade anyone else. Please, let it go. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving on

• ChrisGualtieri points out that it was I who created {{mdashb}}. And guess what? Within a few months the following was added to MOS:DASH:

Also, it is recommended to use templates that provide formatting improvements over plain versions of dashes, such as ... ‍—‌, which inserts an em dash while allowing a line break after it.

The lesson? That at least one of the formatting innovations you tsk-tsk here is now a standard option for Wikipedia at large. Who knows? Maybe some of the others will end up in MOS too, if they're not strangled in the cradle in the name of anodyne uniformity.

• There being no opinion expressed on the question (in the Discussion section, above) I'm gone ahead and deleted the two types of comments mentioned there (unused quote material, START/END markers) since I gather editors find them to have low signal-to-noise ratio.
• However, I've restored many of the deleted notes, which were typically things like:

<!--chk pg #s-->

<!--get pg #s-->

<!--add specific pg #s-->

<!--a secondary source in layman's terms desirable here-->

These are exactly the sort of the material that belongs in hidden notes.

• I've added cites to the material tagged cite-needed.
• Per the guideline BGwhite pointed to, I've deleted templates from cite templates

EEng (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That addition to MOS was by a single user without much discussion who meant well, but seemed unaware it caused issues with data when contained in other templates. Please stop your name-calling, you were the one who decided to use those templates in invisible comments. Explain to me why you insist on restoring template markup in an invisible comment that does not render on the page itself. Then we can begin moving on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What "template markup in an invisible comment"? Please locate what you're talking about in the current version (permalink) and say what section it's in, and give a search string, or quote some text, so I can tell what you're talking about. Just so you know, I have to go out again tonight and don't know when I'm back, and tomorrow I'll be at the dentist (yikes!) from the early morning for an unknown amount of time. EEng (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. Oh wait -- tmw's Friday and I'll be traveling for the wkend.

• You fixed them, I didn't see it in your last edit! Sorry. The section was <!--In con{{shy}}sid{{shy}}er{{shy}}a{{shy}}­tion of this important omis{{shy}}sion, --> Though you fixed this and all my major concerns with the last edit before it was protected, as seen here. Perhaps it was text from before that was commented out, can't be bothered to worry or check about it now.... You removed some of those invisible notes that were helpful...but you did fix all the CS errors and resolved them all quite nicely, even gave quite a bit of ground on things that really didn't need to be changed. Look, I think much of the matter is blown out of proportion on ANI - I don't think you need to be blocked. This is a subject you are an expert in, but I find it sometimes quite difficult to work with you. I just wish it could be like this type of positive interaction back and forth. I don't mind being pointed out when I am being dumb or making a mistake - it happens to the best of us. I'm just afraid to bring up the matter of the text again after the last time. But one thing at a time, right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Cite errors

I noticed that there are two citation errors in the references list, for undefined refnames. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Acually...

• One is a "used but not defined" for "name=blakesmore" -- there's a "blakemore" and a "blakeslee" and it looks like I struck a compromise. Now fixed.
• The other is "defined but not used", left over from this edit [156], which we're currently discussing. I just left it until we've decided what to do.

EEng (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Fully-protected edit request 28 August 2014

Please fix the citation template for references #41, used in note T, and fill in the missing title as The Process of Compensation and some of its Bearings on Prognosis and Treatment. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I already did it. I meant to come back and update this request, but forgot. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Grumble

I just noticed that the page has a "bots-deny" template, with the hidden text, "kindly excuse this article from the ministrations of these bots, which have chronically made damaging, worthless, or trivial changes e.g. changing _ to space in img filenames, removing or changing markup without previewing to be sure rendered page is still OK, adding unwanted whitespace". So this page becomes malformatted if an image filename has _ changed to a space? Good grief. No, don't explain it to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Since others are watching I feel I should explain anyway. Changing _ to space comes under the category of -- not damaging -- but rather worthless and trivial. [Bolding added -- see below] We've all had the experience of losing a complicated edit to a slip of the finger in the wake of an edit conflict -- that's just life -- but how infuriating to find that the conflicting "editor" is a mindless bot implementing someone's dream of an unterstreichenrein Wikipedia [157]. (Such trivial cleanups would be unobjectionable if piggybacked onto an edit which corrects something which really does need correcting, but to waste others' time and clutter edit histories for these ridiculous tinkerings is absurd.)

In the category of actually damaging are e.g. the edits being reverted here [158] and here [159]

I've been putting up with this for years. Plenty more examples of time wasted cleaning up after "cleanup" bots and their script-drunk masters, who are too busy to preview changes before saving, on request. EEng (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

removed it. denying particular bots doesn't really address the issue, since there are many more editors using AWB and simply denying these three bots won't stop the problem. if a particular bot is repeated breaking the article, then we should address the problem by fixing that bot. there are enough people watching this page that any breakage won't go unnoticed. note that even frequent editors forget to preview (e.g., the error fixed here and here). Frietjes (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Tried that route several times, and got the usual oblivious certainty from Bgwhite and his pals. [160] (For the record, I never did -- as Bgwhite says I did -- tell him to fuck off. He's probably got me confused with someone else pissed off at his wasting their time.)

Not sure what you think is demonstrated by exhibiting errors I've made. We all make errors, but as I mentioned in a recent edit summary, "there's a difference between an error made in the course of adding to or improving the article, and one made while merely scratching one's obsessive-compulsive itch."

I agree that denying these bots (notice I didn't list bots that have a history of making only, or mostly, useful changes, such as Anomiebot) is only a partial solution to the problem of automated or semiautomated timewasters, but in an imperfect world it's something at least.

Experience shows that others watching do not fix bot-induced breakage. But tell you what. If you're volunteering to fix all these things as they happen, I've got no problem omitting the deny for now. Let's see how you do. EEng (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I was not arguing that we should delete the deny-bot template, by the way. There are plenty of valid reasons to deny bots on certain pages, and I'm fine with that. My issue was with the assertion that the page would be made worse if the underscores in image filenames were to be changed to spaces. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

...which you now, I hope, understand I wasn't asserting. See bold text above. EEng (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That's clear here, but wasn't clear in the now-deleted hidden text. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the hidden text was ambiguous as to which examples fell in which category, but let's drop it, shall we? I'm really glad you've managed to put up with all these silly things we get into sometimes, and persevere in participating in the real discussions about the article. EEng (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC) P.S. You better not turn out to be my old roommate or something.

Together again!

This section appeared originally on my talk page, but since it so clearly relates to the development of the article and is linked to from the article talk page, I am archiving it here. --Mirokado (talk)

Remember last year we talked about adapting the citation system seen in Anne McCaffrey for use in Phineas Gage? I'd like to get going on that. Can you be available to act as Senior Supervising Creative Consulting Overlord Editor? EEng (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do remember and will be happy to contribute in the suggested capacity... Mirokado (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

<Rubs hands together.> Good. Goooooood! My plan is working perfectly! <Laughs diabolically.> BTW... you know how resistant people can be to change, so do you know of an FA/several FAs (or even just GAs) that use the same system, or variations? EEng (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Tintin in Tibet and Æthelwold ætheling are probably good examples to look at. I prepared this table of the referencing systems used in the September 2014 FAs. --Mirokado (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! But that table... I wouldn't have thought compiling it was humanly possible. EEng (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Question: Suppose I want to do something like:

A big book said something.^{{{bracket|[[#B1]]}}}

==References==

*{{cite book|title=A big book|author=John Scholar|ref=B1}}

(Since you put together that incredible table I'm pretty sure you get how that's supposed to work.) And here's the question: Isn't there template (taking B1 as its parameter) to do the callout, without all that manual < sup> stuff? EEng (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at {{SuperScriptLinked}}. --Mirokado (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I guess that could be adapted. (How do you know all this stuff, anyway?) I'm vaguely aware there's a syntax by which an arbitrary page can be invoked as a template, so is the best way to sandbox a new template (without cluttering the real template space) to create the experimental template as a subpage in my userspace/sandbox/whatever and invoke it from my sandbox/whatever? Or is there a more streamlined setup hidden somewhere for such activities? EEng (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well it looks as if {{superScriptLinked|#B1|B1}} is just what you would need, but it is currently not used in any articles, so you would once again be going out on limb with it. If you do need to develop a new template, there are always {{X1}} etc. Don't forget documentation and testcases (which help during development anyway) for a new template... --Mirokado (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I thought it was understood that would be your part of the collaboration. ;) First I need to mock up what I have in mind and then we can talk more. EEng (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Wheelchair trainer where I used <sup>[[#a-aerobics|[aerobics]]]</sup> a few times to provide descriptive callouts for groups of references. Distributing the brackets like that avoids having to escape them. Ping @EEng: since BB trod on my edit summary. --Mirokado (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the bracket syntax. Wow. Didn't you get pushback re the long callouts, the lack of backlinks from the refs back into the main text, etc?

Remember we talked about putting the sources in alpha order. But I also like the style for page numbers, instead of the intermediate thingees

3. ^ Senders (2005), p. 355

What I want to do is something like this:

Cats are furry.^[S3]:3-5 Dogs too.^[S5]:355

Sources and further reading

For general audiences

• J3. Johnson, Adam (1958). The Bird Book.
• S2. Samson, Joan (1977). The Cat Book.
• S3. Sanders, Ted (2003). The Cow Book.

For specialists

• J5. Jones, Bill (1968). The Snake Book.
• S5. Senders, Jim (2007). The Dog Book.
• S7. Stimson, Dorothy (1993). The Dinosaur Book.

Unfortunately this means the designators J3 etc. have to be manually assigned. There are some not-completely-clear-what-to-do questions about how to do that, but what do you think so far. Or can you think of some better way? Remember, all this fuss is basically because there's no way to get list-defined references (called out via < ref>) into a certain desired order. EEng (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That is quite good, but just one letter and one digit look a bit too much like index numbers, I didn't get it at first. I have seen in some books and articles references of the style [Jo1958] (Two letters for the first author surname, more letters to disambiguate if necessary, you may need four digit years as the refs span three centuries) for Johnson 1958. That would be obvious enough to be self-explanatory. It might occasionally be necessary to use 1958a, 1958b etc, but that is already accepted for sfn and friends so should not be a problem. Having the full years would be good since there are several references of historical value. Thus your example (I'm thinking no need for the keys before the author names and this is an example where explicit bold is preferred to the semicolon markup as it is bit friendlier for screenreaders) would look like:

Cats are furry.^[Sa2003]:3-5 Dogs too.^[Se2007]:355

Sources and even further reading

For general audiences

• Johnson, Adam (1958). The Bird Book.
• Samson, Joan (1977). The Cat Book.
• Sanders, Ted (2003). The Cow Book.

For specialists

• Jones, Bill (1968). The Snake Book.
• Senders, Jim (2007). The Dog Book.
• Stimson, Dorothy (1993). The Dinosaur Book.

I had no pushback on that article, but I suspect very few people are watching it. The natural grouping of those references into four blocks meant that the limited use of the unconventional links added value to the article in that particular case. --Mirokado (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely love working with you. My problem with Jo1980a is that the callouts become visually intrusive. (In your wheelchair example the long callouts seemed appropriate because there were few of them, and as a group they helped the reader see the structure of the article.) Worse, the most common sources (Macmillan, Harlow) will also require a b c, making them even longer!

To refresh your memory re groupings into General, Specialists, etc., take a look at this old version [161]. The current article [162] has about twice as many sources, broken down something like this (approximate, since current article's sources are all mixed up):

• General (Gage): 6
• General (portraits): 8
• Middle school: 1
• Researchers: 15
• Historical interest: 80

So this gives me some ideas. (This plan would still require that the sources-list entries be labeled. Personally I don't mind the labels, though if they're confusing at first -- as you found them -- then we need to fix that somehow.)

• 1. In general make the labels of the sources be authors's first two letters, except in about 20 of 100 cases add a digit (e.g. Sm1, Sm2) for uniqueness. Thus these are mostly two digits, sometimes three -- compact!
• 2. For a few authors who each have 4+ publications (Macmillan, Damasio, Harlow, Wilgus) we can use M1, M2, M3, D1, D2, D3, etc. What I like about this is that these are also the most-cited sources, so we've made the most cited the most compact. (Or, following your approach, use last two digits of year: M86, M99, etc. But again this gives up compactness.)
• 3. The VERY most cited -- Macmillan 2000, Harlow1868, Bigelow1850 -- could be just M, H and B. Unfortunately Barker, Harlow1848, and a few others are also cited a lot, and B and H are already taken, but too bad. OR... really, it's not necessary that the whole scheme be uniform and consistent -- Barker could be C (next letter available given B is Bigelow) and Harlow1848 could be I.
• 4. In fact, since we won't be using < ref>, arabics are available as well. Maybe the General/Middle school could be 1-9, A-F or something (for maximum compactness), and the Aa/AaN system used for Researchers and Historical. BTW the General groups will change hardly ever if at all, so renumbering a 1-9A-F system would hardly ever be needed.

Of course, some authors appear in multiple sections so it's not as clean as I'm making it sound.

BTW, to avoid confusion between these new source labels and text footnotes (which are now A B C etc.), change text footnote labels to lowercase a b c. (Since there are no abcde backlinks from sources back to article anymore, lowercases are available for that now -- of course the backlinks are semantically disjoint from etc, but I always thought it would be way to confusing to use in an article that also has a b c backlinks from the refs.)

So NOW what do you think? A special role I hope you can play is keeping this from becoming unnecessarily baroque (baroque is OK, but unnecessarily barouque we should avoid) because you know how the villagers get upset when things are too unfamiliar -- they want to storm the Doctor's castle with their torches, rakes, and pitchforks. EEng (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Ha! I just realized we could use e.g. </nowiki> for the callouts! (Just kidding ... sort of.)

A bit too late for me to start looking at this tonight – bis Morgen. --Mirokado (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Long night? EEng (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 'fraid so, and too late for a careful response now, but I will get to it on Saturday. --Mirokado (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ref tags

I think a fairly uniform schema would be easier for editors to understand than one with lots of trickery to get the number of characters to an absolute minimum. Readers would be helped if the callouts have a small number of recognisable patterns. I've had a look at the distribution of names and dates and it looks as if the following would be a good starting point:

• first two letters of the name, if distinct
• first two letters of the name plus last two digits of the date, if distinct
  • add suffixes a, b, c if the key for a year is duplicated

This is implemented in the following table (with a couple of full names without date), any fine tuning could I think be done by hand. This schema would be distinct from either or for notes. I would prefer as none of the others would start with a small letter. I don't think there can be any confusion between callouts and backlinks as they occur in different contexts. --Mirokado (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Script-generated original

Tag   Ref Au Austin 1977 Ba Barker 1995 Be91 Beaumont 1991 Be50 Bennett 1850 Bi50 Bigelow 1850 Bi68 Bigelow 1868 Bl77 Blakemore 1977 Bl94 Blakeslee 1994 Br88 Bramwell 1888 Br76 Brown 1976 Bu Burton 1849 Ca51 Campbell 1851 Carey Carey Ca94 Carlson 1994 Ch Changeux 1985 Co40 Cobb 1940 Co43 Cobb 1943 Cr Crider 1983 Da83 Damasio 1983 Da94 Damasio 1994 Da96 Damasio 1996 Da69 Davidson 1869 Di Dimond 1980 Du Dupuy 1911   Tag   Ref Fe77 Ferrier 1877 Fe78 Ferrier 1878 Fl Fleischman Fo69 Folsom 1869 Fo38 Fowler 1838 Fu Fuster 1897 Ga64 Gage 1964 Ga42 Gall 1942 Gr02 Grafman 2002 Gr82 Groves 1982 Ha96 Hamilton 1896 Ha48 Harlow 1848 Ha49 Harlow 1849 Ha68 Harlow 1868 Ha75 Hart 1975 Ho97 Hockenbury 1997 Ho08 Hockenbury 2008 Ho09 Hooper 1809 Hu Hughes Ja49 Jackson 1849 Ja70 Jackson 1870 Je Jewett 1868   Tag   Ref Ka Kalat 1981 Ke Kean 2014 Ki Kihlstrom 2010 Ko Kotowicz 2007 La Lahey 1980 Le Lena 2010 Ma96 Macmillan 1996 Ma00 Macmillan 2000 Ma01 Macmillan 2001 Ma08 Macmillan 2008 Ma09 Macmillan 2009 Ma10 Macmillan 2010 Ma11 Macmillan 2011 Ma12 Macmillan 2012 Me Merwin 2002 Mo12 Moffat 2012 Mo96 Morris 1996 My Myers 1995 Nu Nuland 2011 Or Ordia 1989 Ra Ratiu 2004 Re Restak 1984   Tag   Ref Sa Sacks 1995 Sc20 Schneider 1920 Sc48 Scott 1848 Sd Sdorow 1990 Si Sizer 1886 Smith Smith Sm84 Smith 1984 Sm85 Smith 1985 Sm09 Smith 2009 St Stuss 1992 Su Sutton 1850 To Tow 1955 Tw Twomey 2010 Ty Tyler 1982 Va47 Van Hoosen 1947 Va48 Van Horn 1848 Va00 Vanderstoep 2000 Wilgus Wilgus Wi09 Wilgus 2009 Wi48 Williams 1848 Wi79 Wilson 1879 Ya Yakovlev 1958

EEng started playing with the tables - with my permission.

Tag1 and Tag2A -- Defunct!

For general audiences (Gage)   Tag1   Tag2A Ref Ha68 H Harlow 1868 Ke Ke Kean 2014 Ma00a M Mac2000 (OKF) Ma08 M4 Macmillan 2008 Ma09 M5 Macmillan 2009 Ma11 M6 Macmillan 2011 Ma12 M7 Macmillan 2012 For general audiences (portraits)   Tag1   Tag2A Ref Le LM Lena & Macmillan 2010 Tw Tw Twomey 2010 Wi09a W Wilgus 2009a Wi09c W3 Wilgus 2009c Wi10 W4 Wilgus 2010 For middle-school students   Tag1   Tag2A Ref Fl Fl Fleischman For researchers and specialists   Tag1   Tag2A Ref Ba Ba Barker 1995 Bi50 B Bigelow 1850 Fu Fu Fuster 1897 Gr02 Gf Grafman 2002 Ki Ki Kihlstrom 2010 Ko K Kotowicz 2007 Ma96 M1 Macmillan 1996 Ma00b M3 Mac 2000 ("Restoring") Ma01 M4 Macmillan 2001 Ma10 ML Macmillan & Lena 2010 Ra04a R1 Ratiu 2004a Ra04b R2 Ratiu 2004b Ty TT Tyler & Tyler 1982 Va00 Vd Vanderstoep 2000 Va48 V Van Horn 1848 Other works cited   Tag1    Tag2A   Ref Au Au Austin 1977 Be91 Bm Beaumont 1991 Be50 Bn Bennett 1850 Bi68 B2 Bigelow 1868 Bl77 Bm Blakemore 1977 Bl94 Bs Blakeslee 1994 Br88 Bw Bramwell 1888 Br76 Bn Brown 1976 Bu Bu Burton 1849 Ca51 Cm Campbell 1851 Carey Cy Carey Ca94 Cn Carlson 1994 Ch Cx Changeux 1985 Co40 C1 Cobb 1940 Co43 C2 Cobb 1943 Cr Cr Crider 1983 Da83 D1 Damasio 1983 Da94 D Damasio 1994 Da96 D3 Damasio 1996 Da69 Dv Davidson 1869 Di Di Dimond 1980 Du Du Dupuy 1911 Fe77 F1 Ferrier 1877 Fe78 F2 Ferrier 1878 Fo69 Fs Folsom 1869 Fo38 Fw Fowler 1838 Ga64 Gg Gage 1964 Ga42 Gl Gall 1942 Gr82 Gv Groves 1982 Ha96 Hm Hamilton 1896 Ha48 H1 Harlow 1848 Ha49 H2 Harlow 1849 Ha75 Hr Hart 1975 Ho97 H1 Hockenbury 1997 Ho08 H2 Hockenbury 2008 Ho09 Hp Hooper 1809 Hu Hg Hughes Ja49 J1 Jackson 1849 Ja70 J Jackson 1870 Je Jw Jewett 1868 Ka Ka Kalat 1981 La La Lahey 1980 Me Me Merwin 2002 Mo12 Mf Moffat 2012 Mo96 Mr Morris 1996 My My Myers 1995 Nu Nu Nuland 2011 Or Or Ordia 1989 Re Re Restak 1984 Sa Sa Sacks 1995 Sc20 Sn Schneider 1920 Sc48 Sc Scott 1848 Sd Sd Sdorow 1990 Si Si Sizer 1886 Smith S1 Smith 1886 Sm84 S2 Smith 1984 Sm85 S3 Smith 1985 Sm09 S4 Smith 2009 St St Stuss 1992 Su Su Sutton 1850 To To Tow 1955 Va47 Vs Van Hoosen 1947 Wi09b W2 Wilgus 2009b Wi48 Wm Williams 1848 Wi79 Wn Wilson 1879 Ya Yk Yakovlev 1958

--Mirokado (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's agree right away on one of your suggestions:

Labels beginning with a capital letter e.g. [M] [Ma] [Ma2] [Ma24] -- whatever -- are always sources (not "explanatory notes" or anything else).

Not sure about what to use for notes -- I sometimes think something very explicit such as or might be good, because otherwise some readers may never realize there's "more to know down below". But we can leave that for later.

Is there some significance to the way the table is broken into 4 pieces?

I added a column to the table for an amended system -- yours is Tag1, mine is Tag2. I just kind of hacked it out and it's not done yet so don't comment too much. EEng (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, we can agree on that! No, I just wanted four columns to make things more compact while still having a table and each entry on a new line in the source (easy to generate). Carry on, I won't panic. --Mirokado (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's add another rule:

First letter of label is always first letter of author's last name (first author's last name, if there are multiple authors)

Now (bouncing around a little)... Last year we agreed that the grouping of sources was a good idea. But what do you think about the particular group headings (used in the Dec 2013 version linked a few posts back):

• For general audiences (Gage) Short list of highly readable sources, mostly online (Macmillan 2000 is very dense in chapters on background medical history, but completely accessible in the chapters on Gage himself)
• For general audiences (portraits) Also highly readable, but only about the portraits -- didn't want to mix them in with first group since that would be frustrating for readers wanting to know about Gage
• For middle-school students
• For researchers and specialists Sources not accessible to laymen
• Of historical interest Older sources, primarily used in the Distortion section

EEng (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so now I've done a couple of things -- and I hope you'll forgive my mutilation of your table.

• I've put the sources into their groups. I wanted to do this to bring out one thing, which is that because there are four groups, there are really four parallel alpha sequences of author names. As a result, no matter what we do the sequence of tags is going to be somewhat broken, with "Jo05" and "Jo06a" in one group, and "Jo06b" two groups later. It's partly for this reason I don't mind the somewhat arbitrary was I've formed the two-letter tags. At least, I think I don't mind.
• The most-cited sources are the ones with tags in bold -- together they're about 275 of the 350 callouts in the article. I've compressed their tags, where possible, to a single letter.
• I've used (as you can obviously see) arabics 1 2 3 instead of year-last-2-digits. The great thing about year-last-2 is it gives you a 98% certain non-collision when new sources are added, even for someone with a common name like Smith i.e. if we're adding Sm76, it's unlikely there's already a Smith, or Smothers, with a paper published 1976 to cause a conflict. On the other hand, I do like those visually compact callouts!0

Too baroque? Or just over-tinkered? Please opine. I don't think I need to explain most of it to you -- ask if it's unclear why something's the way it is. I also wasn't all that careful so there are probably errors, but I wanted to bring out the general look.

Again, this is just a somewhat different, more organic approach to forming the tags than your very systematic one. I'm not saying this is what we should do. Let's just see how they both feel. EEng (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Changed Of historical interest to Other works cited. EEng (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Horrible, mean response from Mirokado that made EEng cry! ;)

Well, I would say that is both too baroque and over-tinkered! Please ask yourself questions like:

Q1. how will anyone notice if there are problems with the tags, such as M2 missing in the table above?

Q2. if they notice, how should they attempt to correct them?

Q3. why do we have W, W3 and W4 in the first group and W2 in the last group?

Q4. if someone adds a new reference, how will they decide what tag to give it?

These questions indicate that such a scheme will be virtually impossible to maintain. I can almost guarantee that other editors will not accept it. In particular, extensive use of hand-maintained index numbers is I think a no-no. I have been thinking about ways of supporting the splitting of citations into thematic sections, several come to mind, and will post again, perhaps tomorrow evening. No more time now. --Mirokado (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

EEng gets over his sulking

Certainly a good alternative idea for splitting into sections would be very welcome. In the meantime...

Partly because of you friendly un-enthusiasm, and partly because I got pooped before I was really done thinking 2A through, I've reworked to create 2B (below), which I think you'll find somewhat less crazy. Basically, it gives more weight to uniformity than to other goals I had. I doubt it fixes your concerns (not all of them, anyway) but, well, take a look and see if this altered scheme isn't at least easier to wrap your mind around.

Answers to your questions:

A1. M2 wasn't missing -- it got compressed to just "M". (If that doesn't really make sense, don't worry about it.)

A2. Not sure what to say. If you make a mistake, go back and redo it without making the mistake.

A3. Series like W, W1, W2 might straddle groups as an unavoidable consequence of there being several "W" sources, in various groups. However, the fact of such splits should be less distracting in the 2B version than it was before. At least I hope it is.

A4. The facial answer to this is the same in Tag1, Tag2A, and Tag2B i.e. To add a new source, think of a candidate tag, see if that tag is already in use, and if it is, fix that.

The differences between Tag1 and Tag2B (forget 2A -- defunct) are these:

• Tag1 has much lower chance of collision in the first place, because they're long and occupy this big space of AaNN, where collision frequencies are unlikely. Tag2B's way of constructing tags is more compressed, and depends on whether you're in the one of the first four groups, or the "other" group. (See if you can see the pattern of how Tag2B's tags are formed, and why I did it that way.) And...
• If there is a collision, Tag1's way to "fix it" is to add a suffix a or b or whatever. In Tag2B, you add a suffix 1 2 etc.

You say, "extensive use of hand-maintained index numbers is I think a no-no", but actually I don't think the Tag1 and 2B schemes are as different as it seems in terms of the difficulty of adding a new source. Although Tag1 has a smaller chance of an initial collision when adding a sources, you still have to check for a collision, and you have to make that check globally, not just locally in the group the new source is joining -- same in Tag2B. (Actually, the tags in the first 4 groups are disjoint from those in the Other group, so you either have to look through the first 4 groups or through the last group, but not both. Also, the tags are always in alphabetical order within any group, the looking much easier.)

So really they're both hand-maintained. I think the main difference is the more nuanced way 2B's tags are formed. Bear in mind, as well, that the article is very well developed at this point, and new sources will be added very seldom.

So, again, see if 2B gives you less of a headache, and feel free to repeat your concerns in its context. And certainly if you can think of some other way of indicating "groups" -- especially if it somehow makes for one linear alphabetic list, instead of the several smaller sequences -- by all means speak up.

BTW, just in case it's not clear the bolding is just to remind us which are the most-used 14 sources, comprising about 80% of the callouts. The bolding isn't part of the actual encoding and wouldn't be in the actual article.

Tag1 and Tag2B

For general audiences (Gage)   Tag1   Tag2B Ref Ha68 H Harlow 1868 Ke K Kean 2014 Ma00a M Mac2000 (OKF) Ma08 M1 Macmillan 2008 Ma09 M2 Macmillan 2009 Ma11 M3 Macmillan 2011 Ma12 M4 Macmillan 2012 For general audiences (portraits)   Tag1   Tag2B Ref Le L Lena & Macmillan 2010 Tw T Twomey 2010 Wi09a W Wilgus 2009a Wi09b W1 Wilgus 2009b Wi09c W2 Wilgus 2009c Wi10 W3 Wilgus 2010 For middle-school students   Tag1   Tag2B Ref Fl F Fleischman For researchers and specialists   Tag1   Tag2B Ref Bi50 B Bigelow 1850 Bi68 B1 Bigelow 1868 Ba B2 Barker 1995 Fu F1 Fuster 2008 Gr02 G Grafman 2002 Ha48 H1 Harlow 1848 Ha49 H2 Harlow 1849 Ki K1 Kihlstrom 2010 Ko K2 Kotowicz 2007 Ma96 M5 Macmillan 1996 Ma00b M6 Mac 2000 ("Restoring") Ma01 M7 Macmillan 2001 Ma10 M8 Macmillan & Lena 2010 Ra04a R Ratiu 2004a Ra04b R1 Ratiu 2004b Ty T2 Tyler & Tyler 1982 Va48 V Van Horn 1848 Other works cited   Tag1   Tag2B Ref Au Au Austin 1977 Be91 Ba Beaumont 1991 Be50 Be Bennett 1850 Bl77 Bk Blakemore 1977 Bl94 Bl Blakeslee 1994 Br88 Bm Bramwell 1888 Br76 Br Brown 1976 Bu Bu Burton 1849 Ca51 Cb Campbell 1851 Carey Ce Carey Ca94 Cl Carlson 1994 Ch Cn Changeux 1985 Co40 Co Cobb 1940 Co43 Co1 Cobb 1943 Cr Cx Crider 1983 Da94 Da Damasio 1994 Da83 Da1 Damasio 1983 Da96 Da2 Damasio 1996 Da69 Dd Davidson 1869 Di Di Dimond 1980 Du Du Dupuy 1911 Fe77 Fe Ferrier 1877 Fe78 Fe1 Ferrier 1878 Fo69 Fs Folsom 1869 Fo38 Fw Fowler 1838 Ga64 Gg Gage 1964 Ga42 Gl Gall 1942 Gr82 Gv Groves 1982 Ha96 Ha Hamilton 1896 Ha75 Hr Hart 1975 Ho97 Hn Hockenbury 1997 Ho08 Hn1 Hockenbury 2008 Ho09 Hp Hooper 1809 Hu Hu Hughes Ja49 Ja Jackson 1849 Ja70 Ja1 Jackson 1870 Je Jw Jewett 1868 Ka Ka Kalat 1981 La La Lahey 1980 Me Me Merwin 2002 Mo12 Mf Moffat 2012 Mo96 Mr Morris 1996 My My Myers 1995 Nu Nu Nuland 2011 Or Or Ordia 1989 Re Re Restak 1984 Sa Sa Sacks 1995 Sc20 Sc Schneider 1920 Sc48 St Scott 1848 Sd Sw Sdorow 1990 Si Sz Sizer 1886 Smith Sm Smith 1886 Sm84 Sm1 Smith 1984 Sm85 Sm2 Smith 1985 Sm09 Sm3 Smith 2009 St St Stuss 1992 Su Su Sutton 1850 To To Tow 1955 Va00 Vd Vanderstoep 2000 Va47 Vh Van Hoosen 1947 Wi48 Wm Williams 1848 Wi79 Ws Wilson 1879 Ya Ya Yakovlev 1958

EEng (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Yes that suggestion is better than your previous one. I agree that the article refs may be relatively stable now (particularly new refs for a given author are quite likely to be later than refs we already have). The general point I wanted to make with my questions is that having to worry about what tag to choose, and particluarly maintaining indexes spanning groups, is probably too complicated. We are lucky if editors bother to add refs even approximately matching an existing format, let alone even noticing how a new citation might interact with various others. A complicated schema imposes a maintenance burden on future article custodians.

You will get pretty short callouts with the vanilla sfn mechanism which also has fairly low maintenance overhead and high consistency. Unfortunately the intermediate list linking callouts and citations would be quite long for this article. You could make that intermediate list shorter by keeping the page numbers with the callout, but you might get asked to justify that, if only because we then lose the consolidation when the same page number list is referenced many times.

The combination of callout and page numbers can get quite long^{[42]:9,11,51[1]:119,331} ...

I do agree that grouping the citations is a good idea.

--Mirokado (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm hoping that someday someone will set up a template suite to handle this with less manual intervention, or at least some error checking e.g. to see if a tag has been assigned to two different sources.

I agree we're "lucky if editors bother to add refs even approximately matching an existing format" but don't we have that problem even with sfn? For example, in Æthelwold_ætheling there's Miller 2004a and 2004b, and doesn't someone have to manually recognize that and assign the a and b? As already mentioned that happens a lot less with the Harvard approach (Naaaame YYYYa) but it still happens and still has to be checked for and handled when it comes up, so it's not qualitatively different, only quantitatively.

sfn requires you to list all the sources (right?) in the order you want them (alpha, or alpha-within-groups, or whatever) so that's the same in both systems.

Let's have some terminology. We've got the "callouts"

Dogs have tails. Most have wet noses.

and "intermediates"

37. ^ Scholar 2004, pp. 6-9

38. ^ Scholar 2004, p. 11

and the "sources"

• Scholar, James (2004). A book on dogs. Tailwag publishers.

There are about 350 callouts in the article, and maybe 300 of those are unique combinations of source+page# (just guessing). So with the system above we'd have about 300 intermediates. And, to actually see what the source of anything is, you've got to first click the callout to get to the intermediate, then click the intermediate to get to the source.

If we move the pg#s into the callouts, the two intermediates collapse into one, and we get this.

Dogs have tails. Most have wet noses.

37. ^ Scholar 2004

• Scholar, James (2004). A book on dogs. Tailwag publishers.

In this setup, there's exactly one intermediate for every source -- 103 sources, 103 intermediates -- and the intermediates are just deadweight -- meaningless steppingstones to the sources. This is what I want to get rid of.

Look at callout [32] here [163] and trace it through the intermediate to the source. Note that the ref string Dragonholder was manually assigned. (This article is a bit of a mishmash of automatic and manual stuff.) Now, wouldn't this look cleaner if all those intermediates [32]-[41] were gone, and the callouts just included the page #s i.e. etc.? The problem (and this is the nub of the whole thing) is we don't want the callout to be but rather or or something. So that's where we are, and thus we have this question of assigning these little tags, if you accept my reasoning and choices so far.

So what do we do? Give up and go with straight sfn and have 300 intermediates? Still use sfn but move the pg#s into the callouts, and have the 103 utterly stupid intermediates? Or use something like the scheme I've described, with the compact tags but more difficult maintenance? Or can you think of something better? (I hope so!)

On another note, none of this is made simpler by the 5 groups, each with its own alpha order. I've thought about having just one big alpha order with some kind of designator that tells you which group the source is in, but that sprinkles the seven "For general readers (Gage)" sources among 100 other sources. But we want these 7 to be the easiest to find! Any bright ideas on this?

OK, enough for now. Thanks for keeping with this. Maybe someday all articles will use the Mirokado-EEng citation system! EEng (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A major simplification

Tag1 and Tag2B

For general audiences (Gage)   Tag1   Tag2B Ref Ha68 H Harlow 1868 Ke K Kean 2014 Ma00a M Mac2000 (OKF) Ma08 M1 Macmillan 2008 Ma09 M2 Macmillan 2009 Ma11 M3 Macmillan 2011 Ma12 M4 Macmillan 2012 For general audiences (portraits)   Tag1   Tag2B Ref Le L Lena & Macmillan 2010 Tw T Twomey 2010 Wi09a W Wilgus 2009a Wi09b W1 Wilgus 2009b Wi09c W2 Wilgus 2009c Wi10 W3 Wilgus 2010 For middle-school students   Tag1   Tag2B Ref Fl F Fleischman For researchers and specialists   Tag1   Tag2B Ref Ba B Barker 1995 Bi50 B1 Bigelow 1850 Bi68 B2 Bigelow 1868 Fu F1 Fuster 2008 Gr02 G Grafman 2002 Ha48 H1 Harlow 1848 Ha49 H2 Harlow 1849 Ki K1 Kihlstrom 2010 Ko K2 Kotowicz 2007 Ma96 M5 Macmillan 1996 Ma00b M6 Mac 2000 ("Restoring") Ma01 M7 Macmillan 2001 Ma10 M8 Macmillan & Lena 2010 Ra04a R Ratiu 2004a Ra04b R1 Ratiu 2004b Ty T2 Tyler & Tyler 1982 Va48 V Van Horn 1848 Other works cited [1] Austin 1977 [2] etc i.e. just use the usual < ref> machinery for these -- they won't be in alpha order but this isn't a "Suggested reading" list like the other groups, so it doesn't matter. Any new source added by a casual editor will end up in this group; if need be, it can be "promoted" to one of the other groups, and given a custom tag.

That looks promising. Unusually, I have no immediate quibbles! --Mirokado (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a shame, because your quibbles have always led to improvements. This last design change makes the whole scheme suddenly much less trouble to just install, to see how it really looks. Do you think I should just do that (putting a pointer on the article Talk to this discussion)? EEng (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think you could do this. I've been looking at recent contributions to the Journal of the Society for the Propagation of Simple Section Names. Please post to the talk page to give other editors a heads up before starting. I suggest you add {{in use}} with the first edit so people don't panic if all is not perfect immediately. With so many citations, I think we should have the citation definitions in the reflist and the much shorter named ref callouts in the article source for the plain-old-ref references, <ref name="Austin-1977"/> or whatever. --Mirokado (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Implementing in sandbox

Actually, I'm developing it in User:EEng/sandbox, and will add a pointer to this discussion at Talk:PG before installing it -- not sure whether that can be today, but in any event please keep an eye since there will likely be some consternation, even though I'll explain it's just an experiment.

One thing I did, just to see what it looks like, is try upper-romans for the explanatory notes -- not sure what to make of that, but anyway...

One problem is how to get the indenting, etc. of the 4 "manual" sections to be just like "Other" section, which is generated by the usual < ref> machinery. The only way I've been able to come up with is to use a borderless table.

Not sure I understand what you mean in the sentence starting "With so many citations..." -- I think it's already like what you're saying. One point, though, is that (at least according to my experiments a yr or more ago) the explanatory notes cannot be "list-defined" -- they have to be embedded in the main text. The reason is that if the {{efn}} text itself includes {{r}} or < ref>, it all blows up, randomly and unpredictably, if you try to put the efns at the end in a reflist.

There is a certain detail I'd like your thoughts on, but it's best explained after I develop the sandbox better. EEng (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking good so far. You already have the other citations defined in the reflist so I've struck that comment. Yes I agree we can't have the notes in the reflist. I'll think about the list section indentation. --Mirokado (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can see I've used nbsp to hack in alignment of column contents, compensating for one- versus two-character tags, etc. I find the syntax of tables infuriatingly confusing, but maybe you know what to do about this. I think the idea is to have a fixed col width of a few ems for the first col (the tag) and have the second col take up whatever width is still available in the window (or column -- speaking here of the column-of-page set up by {{refbegin}}, not of the columns within the tbl). EEng (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Har. I wasn't expecting you to use tables in the reflists! That was just a convenient way of generating the initial summary information. The tables don't break nicely into multiple columns so I don't think they will work for the real article. I usually leave the lists of citations full-width anyway, since they are all quite long, you could try leaving the 33em off the refbegin invocations so you just have a single column for the enclosing reflists. -- Mirokado (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, one column or two, a table is the only way I've been able to get the first 4 groups to line up exactly with the Other group -- no combination of :-indents and so on does the trick. (Some items still aren't quite right because there are some old nbsps left over from attempts using colon-indents.)

Now, as just as I'm writing to you, some stupid thing is happening causing one source to have it's tag (left column) on at the bottom of the left side of the page, but the body of the citation at the top of the right side of the page. It's your fault. You jinxed it! But we'll figure it out. Can you do me a favor? Can you figure out the syntax to make all entries in one column (the first column, with the tags) right-aligned? It seems to me there ought to be some syntax involving column headers using !align="right" or something, but I can't figure it out and of course we don't actually want a column header. But even if you do that, I won't be satisfied. I also want you to figure out how to add a whitespace padding on the right side of that column, i.e. enforced whitespace between these right-aligned values and the dividing border with the next column. This pad is to allow the position of the tags to match the position of the tags in the Other section. Does that make sense?

This is a lot of goddam work just because the geeks who maintain reflist can't get off their asses to allow control of the order in which the ref items are output. EEng (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You can use a combination of scope and width to set the width for a whole column:

| scope="col" width="28px" |B.||{{cite journal

The align="right" attribute works, but only if you specify it individually for each cell in the column. I don't think that is necessary: it is at least as arguable as anything that the initial capital letters should be aligned to help the reader navigate the list by eye.

I also had a look at

{{refbegin}}
{| border="0" style="margin-left: 1em;"
|- valign="top"
| scope="col" width="18px" |B.||{{cite journal

which doesn't look too bad to push the first column over a bit. I'm not sure that the "px" is necessary in "18px", since it didn't seem to make any difference when I said "18em", but in any case there are some parameters to play with. --Mirokado (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so here's [164] the first use of our brand new {{ranchor}} ("reference anchor") template. Whaddya think? EEng (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Not too bad. The brackets enclosing the callout display are missing in the documentation expansions. If this is taken into use, the documentation can be expanded to be the same format as used for {{r}}, but that can come later. Ideally we also want a template which can define each line of the reference list without using tables and hiding whatever trickery is necessary from the user. --Mirokado (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Installed live

I used some of your code above in a new template {{rma}}. Overall it works really quite well, but there are still some alignment problems and I'm crosseyed after switching the article over to the new system. If you're inspired to adjust the column width, padding, whatever, please feel free. Otherwise, what do you think? I guess it's time to move the discussion over to Talk:PG. EEng (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No catering to the ballistics inclined?

Seen as I posted this to EEng's talk page and I don't want to cause any suggestion of soliciting edits clandestinely, I thought it was best I put it here too:

Hello again, I believe the article Phineas Gage is potentially going to be a featured article soon and I was wondering, seen as we had that discussion a few months ago here in the talk page archive Talk:Phineas_Gage/Archive_7#A_source_touching_on_projectile_speed, I was wondering if you could assist the edit process so that some mention to speed/velocity is in the article, specifically the most certainly sub-sonic speed of the projectile given your journal reference, and our back of the envelop calculations. - Ordia, JI (1989). "Neurologic function seven years after crowbar impalement of the brain". Surgical Neurology 32: 152–155. discusses the significance of projectile speeds below 1000 ft/sec in reduced concussive damage.

Thanks, as I can't imagine leaving the article with all its (to me) superfluous info but failing to even mention speed or that no contemporary sources ever calculated the likely speed etc. it's like going to buy a car and the sales rep is frustratingly lecturing you all about the minutae of the trim and electronic crap you don't want to know about, you just want to know, or even get an estimate on, how fast can it go and what is its fuel economy. 92.251.141.157 (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added a footnote [165] summarizing sources' commentary on this point. Eventually this should be part of a larger discussion of "why" Gage survived (perhaps in the main text instead of a note) but this is a start on addressing your request, anyway. However, there's no way we can bring our own back-of-the-envelope estimates into the article. EEng (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk about misattributed behaviors!

Another thought. I would also be willing to go through the page and boldly delete every occurrence of "shy" in words shorter than some number of letters (in the main text, leaving captions and boxes alone). Could you live with that? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Holy bleep, EEng, I just looked – and there aren't any! My apologies! I looked closely at the "shy's" for the first time, and I only find them in image captions, not the main text. I had just assumed that they were in the main text, too, based on the complaining by other editors. As for the image captions, I'm more amenable to using the template there, because of the small amount of text and space. Perhaps, though, it would be better to have just one "shy" template per word – pick the one place where a hyphen if needed makes the most sense. Anyway, I am not shy about admitting it when I am incorrect about something (and you, EEng, might want to try that too!). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I admire your boldness, but there aren't any {{shy}}s in the main text. I could add some if it would give you pleasure to then remove them. EEng (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As to my "trying that too", you wound me a bit there, because since junior high school (I was indeed a precocious brat) I have tried to conduct myself, according to the following passage from J.S. Mill's On Liberty:

In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognisant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers—knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter—he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process.

In short, I love to find out I'm wrong about something, because that means I know more than I did before. And it doesn't embarrass me to do so, because I know that this is a habit of the kinds of minds I try to emulate, and I know that people whose respect is worth earning understand that. EEng (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(Tryptofish, grinning, replies to John Stuart Eng): OK, then, timestamp 20:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC), and then timestamp 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC). Those software developers really ought to get to work on fixing that time lag, because that's way too long for an acceptable edit conflict. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You have to be careful, because it looks like Wikimedia isn't making the same timezone adjustment to both timestamps you quote -- unless I miss my guess if you look at the Saved (not raw or Preview) version of them, one is (UTC) and the other is tagged (UTC - [something]).

In database terms the conflict arises because I opened the edit window ("read"), took a break of hours and hours somewhere during composition, then finally attempted to save the edit ("write"), during which time you made a conflicting edit ("read" and "write"). This would be the log R1[x]R2[x]W2[x]W1[x], which is not serializable i.e not equivalent to any serial log, so as long as we remain within the read-write serializability model there's no possibility of automated resolution of the situation -- so don't blame any developers. This is intended, of course, to impress you mightily. When I was a young undergraduate P.A. Bernstein was my advisor [166] and for many years this kind of mumbojumbo was the center of my professional work. Believe it or not I know more about this stuff even than I know about Gage. EEng (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For your sake, I hope that you do! (Evil laughter, and not personal attack) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Page ranges

Welcome back, EEng. About [167], it seems to me that most pages use n-dashes for page ranges. If there is a problem with the lengths of callouts, an alternative solution is to shorten the callouts. And CITEVAR isn't really what this is about. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no problem with the length of the callouts, but there's no use making them any bigger than they need to be. Contrary to what many editors think, the choice of hyphen versus endash in many situations is not one of correctness but of just plain what looks better. In the teeny superscript citation callouts, endash and hyphen are close to indistinguishable at best (or at worst, endash looks oversized) so hyphen is either just as good a choice or the better choice. That's just my opinion of course.

Of course, MOS gives direction on hyphen versus endash in many cases, but when it comes to citation style, WP is very catholic (small-c catholic, of course), and many style guides allow or even dictate hyphen for page ranges. So where CITEVAR comes in is its injunction that

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change.

As you know, many things were changed over the last year under the banner of consistency among articles, as if that's a fundamental desideratum, which of course it's not except where MOS says so. One example was the change from hyphens to endashes in callouts, so I've changed them back. (Notice that endashes continue to be used for ranges outside of superscript callouts, as MOS directs.) Of course, if you think endash really looks better, we can discuss that. This is a question to be worked out among editors on a particular article, not one of global enforcement by those with a taste for such activities.

In the meantime, I contacted an editor who worked extensively on the article last summer -- our work was interrupted by the outbreak of the recent war. We got talking about how to implement certain decisions we'd made last year before the commencement of hostilities, and... Well, take a look Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 7#Together again! EEng (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at that discussion, and, well, it certainly is complicated. From it, I followed the link to your sandbox version, and I think that categorizing the sources as you are starting to do, such as differentiating between general interest and specialist, is a very promising idea. I think it's a good idea to pursue. For me (maybe not for all the other editors who have disputed with you about this page), what matters most isn't so much some abstract idea of making this page more like other pages, but making it like other pages in the sense of being written for the same general audience as the other pages. Take a look at WP:NOTHOW, items 6, 7, and 8. Even if the language is lucid (as it is here), formatting can make the page feel like a complicated academic text. Oh, and that passage you quoted from CITEVAR, that's about changing from one kind of citation style to another, not about little details within the style, such as hyphenation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think a citation style does include all the little details, but we can talk about this, and everything else, more after I catch my breath. See next section. EEng (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

But changing a little detail doesn't change the kind/category of citation style (changing hyphens to n-dashes doesn't change the style from MLA to Harvard) which is what CITEVAR is talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's right [168]. EEng (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I wasting my time discussing these things with you here? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't think so. After a long period of wasted of time (as I see it) attempting to address the frequently incomprehensible plaints of an another editor, I think there's been significant improvement to the article due largely to your suggestions -- the conversion of several notes to main text comes to mind right away.

On this particular point, I happen to put great value on the attractive presentation of words -- this is a tradition in mathematics and computer science especially -- and, within the bounds of what MOS allows I see no reason not to pursue that to the extent possible. There is no progress without deviation from the majority, and most of what's desirable and good in standard Wikipedia/Wikimedia practices and facilities started as someone's deviant desire to do better than what most pages achieved. For reasons I've explained I think the hyphen looks modestly but definitely better in superscript callouts, so if your only concern is that ndash, not hyphen, is used for page ranges in other WP contexts (though very few pages use {{rp}} -- i.e. page ranges in superscript callouts -- in the first place) then I'd like to ask that you allow me to exercise that judgment on this page, and encourage others to allow it as well, absent an counterargument other than "I don't see that on most other pages!" EEng (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wasting my time. It seems to me that if I make an edit or a suggestion with which you happen to agree, everything is just fine. But if I make a suggestion with which you disagree, then you always want to be allowed "to exercise that judgment on this page". You still haven't given a good reason not to implement what I suggested about the sources for all those mis-attributed behaviors. Do you realize how insulting it was to me that you quoted [169]? First, it wasn't about CITEVAR, and second, I replied to that linked comment back then, so your quoting it back to me was like saying that my reply back then was of no value, that I should just allow "the professional" to edit without interference. The way to make progress about deviation from the majority isn't simply to edit however you wish and expect that everyone will be persuaded by your edits. If someone, like me, raises questions, and you respond to those questions by asking me not to prevent you from making progress about deviation from the majority, then you haven't really made any progress at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I used the link only for its references to CITEVAR and external styles that use hyphens for page ranges. You should know better than to think I number you among the slaves of misinterpreted guidelines, and defunct grammarians, who have lately come and gone.
• The fundamental difference between us, Tfish, is that you keep saying that the article ought to "look more like most other articles" (or variations on that), and I reject that as a desideratum per se. I just don't see how "looking like most other articles" trumps consideration of what just plain looks good, reads well, and serves the understanding of the reader (remembering that we have different kinds of readers, working, as always, within whatever latitude MOS allows).
• I didn't, and never have, asked you to give me carte blanche "to exercise [my] judgment on this page", rather I've asked that in matters of utterly trivial import within the latitude allowed by MOS (like hyphens versus ndashes for page ranges in superscript callouts -- what an obscure question!) that we just leave things be and spend our time on things that really matter.
• I have several times told you why I think your citation approach for the "misinterpreted behaviors" is a really bad idea: it makes it impossible to tell which of 30 cites support which of the 20 behaviors, and I think that violates WP:V. No article should ever piles a dozen cite callouts in a row -- that's either overciting, or a verification nightmare. EEng (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I keep saying variations on that? Just above, I said "For me (maybe not for all the other editors who have disputed with you about this page), what matters most isn't so much some abstract idea of making this page more like other pages, but making it like other pages in the sense of being written for the same general audience as the other pages." That is not "of utterly trivial import". So, now you have explicitly said that you want me to defer to you on matters "within the latitude allowed by MOS" because they do not really matter. If they do not really matter, you sure act like they matter a lot to you. And yes, you've said several times that you want the cites for the behaviors to be behavior-specific. But your most recent comments to me about it before now were of the form: "I have some minor cleanup, wording/citation fixes, page #s to fill in, etc. that have stacked up recently, so during that time I'd like to spend on those what little brainpower I'll have available here. It's likely that along the way inspiration will come to me re integrating further note material into the main text, so you may find yourself pleasantly surprised along those lines as well. OK?" And I said OK. I've been very accommodating of you. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised. Now, I'm unpleasantly surprised. I see you asked Looie for a third opinion, so I'll give a little time for that. But if it ends up still being just the two of us, you can expect an RfC. Please understand, I'm not angry at you personally, not at all. But I am dissatisfied with how this page is coming along. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I made 4 separate points above, and you've kind of merged what I said about one into what I said about the other. (I've now added bullets to make the separation clearer.) To clarify:

• I didn't say that the general style of the page (e.g. "should be for general readers" -- and I agree with that) is of trivial import. I said that hyphens-versus-endashes is of trivial import (in the larger scheme of things, that it -- it's not trivial if you care about the clean typographic appearance of the page).
• I did not ask you to defer to me on matters "within the latitude allowed by MOS" because they do not really matter -- I suggested that when such things do not really matter, that we spend our time on things that really do matter. So far I haven't even heard that you care about hyphens-ndashes -- throughout this thread you haven't even expressed a preference.
• I'm sorry I wasn't, in fact, able to pleasantly surprise you over the last 4 weeks -- the source grouping project, and the heave-ing, took much more of my attention than I expected. Thus my prediction that "inspiration will come to me re integrating further note material into the main text" didn't come true -- so sue me.
• Look, obviously we agree that the article's first priority must be to serve the general reader. Good. Beyond that, you seem to think that it currently fails to do that as well as it could, but I'm still unclear why. Is it the presence of footnotes? If so I still need that explained to me. As I've said so many times, notes are a place where additional detail can be added (for the benefit of specialist readers) that might overwhelm the general reader if it was included in the main text. We get the best of both worlds. Is that what you object to? I don't get it. (And as also mentioned before, plenty of FAs have extensive footnotes, though admittedly not as extensive as those here -- but is this really a quantitative question?)

Nonetheless, many notes came into being because, at the time they were written, there was no place in the main article for that stuff to go, and you've pointed out many places where notes now do have a place in the main article. Six months ago there were something like 40 notes (as I recall), and now there are 22 or something. You and I made a list somewhere above of maybe 5 more that we were talking about doing something with. Can't we just continue that discussion? Can't we all just get along? EEng (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that Looie has, rather more wisely than I, decided not to get enmeshed. As for #Comparison of proposals, I could, if you would find it helpful, work up a third version, in which all of the behaviors would be indicated for the sources they are taken from. Would it be helpful if I did that? Or would it be better if I went straight to an RfC? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My major concerns are (a) that the reader be able to tell which specific source(s) support assert or discuss each behavior (or small group of related behaviors), so he doesn't have to wade through a huge undifferentiated source list to find the one or two sources relevant to a particular behavior; and (b) that the main article text not look like the ugly thing I had originally [170], with every single word overshadowed by it cites. If there's some way, that you like, to achieve those I'd love to see it. EEng (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

[I've clarified a bit above, because it appears that my choice of the word "support" misled one of my esteemed fellow editors [171].] EEng (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Good. It will take a bit of time, but I think I might be able to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Source groupings

I've reimplemented the grouping of sources in, well, groups (e.g. "For general readers"). This idea was first discussed in this very long discussion [172], and a very strange way of implementing it tried (by yours truly). This new method relies on more standard machinery, after an also-very-long discussion at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 7#Together again! EEng (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC) P.S. I thought this might affect the "bundling" question we suspended some weeks ago (above), but in the event it looks like it doesn't. Deep breath, then time to get back to that, I guess. EEng (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess one thing I am learning from watching this page is about the existence of all kinds of Wikipedia templates that I never knew existed. So, does template:ranchor generate rancor?

I do like the concept of source groupings. If possible, I'd like to see that very long miscellaneous group at the bottom categorized like everything else. If it isn't obvious where those sources go, then I would say that they default to being for researchers or specialists. And I think that putting that one Fleischman source all by itself in a kiddies section is a bit pointy. If it's suitable for middle school students, then it's another source for general audiences.

By "bundling", I figure you mean our discussion about all those behaviors that were misattributed to Gage. I'm still looking forward to getting back to that discussion when you are ready. I think that, perhaps, one possible way that source groupings could affect notes etc. is that, once we have identified content that is sourced to references that are specifically for people who are academic specialists, as opposed to general readers of Wikipedia, then we will be in a better position to determine what belongs on this Wikipedia page and what does not. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the bundling discussion I was talking about.

The function of the all but the last group is to highlight sources for readers who want to learn more either about either (a) Gage ("general readers" and "middle school"); or (b) Gage's place in medical history, or technical medical details ("researchers/specialists"). The "other works cited" group is for sources that aren't reasonably useful for that, but are there for the reason 99 44/100% of sources are there in all articles: WP:V. I don't see any point in subgrouping this pile here, just as they're not grouped in other articles. What further grouping did you have in mind?

Also, as Mirokado pointed out in the discussion linked above, we need at least one group of sources that use the usual < ref> machinery, so that if a casual editor adds a new source in the usual way (i.e. using < ref>), that source will actually be displayed instead of just an error message (as we'd get if there was no {{reflist}} section).

Worse, every source that's grouped, instead of just "Other", must be manually assigned a tag (like M, K1, etc. in the current source list) and the burden of doing that for all 100+ sources -- and keeping them consistent and nonduplicative as new sources are added -- almost sank the entire grouping scheme. You'll see that in the linked discussion too.

EEng (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For me, the value of bundling is to distinguish between sources for the general reader (the typical audience of Wikipedia) and sources for the academic specialist (not the typical audience of Wikipedia). That's basically two groups. It shouldn't be that difficult to figure out which of two groups a source fits into. As for the other issues that you point out, there is an alternative solution, which is to format this page like most Wikipedia pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I think we're confusing bundling (the question discussed at #Comparison of proposals and so on) with source grouping (identifying a small group of sources as "For general readers", "For specialists" etc.). As mentioned in the discussion linked at Mirokado's talk page, this approach to formatting (or at least something very like it) is used in many other WP articles, even if not most. EEng (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've archived the source grouping discussion mentioned above at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 7#Together again! since it so clearly relates to the development of the article (links fixed). --Mirokado (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Review of content issues

Since the formatting has been largely dealt with, let's hammer out some content issues. Do not split into this list and blow them up into a mess, for this is part of my review of what should be done before the article should become a GA.

Issues list recapitulated below in List "A"

Background "He may have gained skill with explosives on his family's farms or in nearby mines and quarries..." Speculation from Macmillan. Attribute it. Gage's date of birth in the infobox is not covered here when it should be covered and noted in proper context of its sourcing. Gage's accident Does not address numerous theories presented or Gage's actions prior to accident. EEng knows all too well this subject. I think Ratiu and Van Horn's material needs to be pointed out because the evidence shows that Gage had his mouth open and was speaking at the time the rod passed through his skull. I do not know why this is absent. I have issues with the section, but I'll hold off on the excessive quoting and measurement issues for now. Subsequent life and travels "abt. February he was able to do a little work abt. ye horses & barn, feedg. ye cattle &c; that as ye time for ploughing came he was able to do half a days work after that & bore it well." - Paraphrase. Would Gage's mental impairment belong here? I think it would be helpful. Missing Gage's time in New Hampshire prior to Chile. Chile and California is missing the account of Gage's doctor and missing some other tidbits, not too bad - but everything related to his mental improvement and the regaining of normalcy in his life is absent without reason. This is also the key section that Macmillan's research becomes quite useful as a case argument. Death and subsequent travels Still glaringly missing the details surrounding his return home, illness and death. Also, the exhumation details - which was in Fleischman's book - is entirely absent. This little episode in the Gage story is something which is important. Other matters Analysis and actual examination of the claims and details surrounding Gage and his role in science has been well- mostly avoided by the article. Instead of proper detailing of the injury and Gage's role in history. Only a few hundred words on Gage's mental impairments were written yet lengthy quotes are used. Using "passim" and other issues in citing Macmillan is also a cop-out and would merit a verifiability failure. Not even that, it doesn't even credit Macmillan when it should. Notes A substantial part of the text is hidden away in these notes. These complex, rambling, and citation filled messes that only make verification more tedious. A note like "V" which reads " See Macmillan & Lena;[34]:9 Harlow;[12]:332,345 Bigelow;[11]:16–17 Harlow;[9]:390 Macmillan.[1]:86" is just improper. Note X - "Macmillan's book provides one of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary ... the definitive account ..."[57]" - is just the type of note we do not need. There is a lot of issues that remain - but the next biggest is the Notes issue. It comprises a substantial amount of the non-quote text and should be easiest to rectify. Though I figure the content issues might be easier under the current situation... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Now this is the kind of approach to discussion I like. What we need to do is find a way to keep track of all these issues, discuss them (separately or in clusters -- whatever works best in various cases), then figure out how to implement what we decide, etc. Now, I really have to get to work now (sometimes I go to work in the middle of the night -- quieter, no distractions) but let me quickly suggest the following. Would you mind if, later, I reorder these to bring related issues together, maybe group them into headings, and number them? Then it can be a kind of master checklist while we open separate discussion threads on each issue or cluster, referring to them by number, etc. As new issues come up we can add them under the appropriate heading in the list, and come back to it later if need be. Also, if we get stuck on something (e.g. "Need to get book X at library" or "EEng and CG decided to take a break on this one before they kill each other") we can just note that in the list as the status for that issue, and switch to another issues for a while. Would that be OK? I'd like to be the one to set up this organization, just because (I hope you will agree) I have a better mastery of all the "moving parts" in the Gage story and how they fit together. In the meantime though, if you're eager to get started ASAP, let me ask you about two of your points so far: "Missing Gage's time in New Hampshire prior to Chile." See, already here I wish I could just say "re Issue A3" or something. Can you say more what you'd like to see on this? "Still glaringly missing the details surrounding his return home, illness and death" -- same question. EEng (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC) P.S. I may have little chance to interact tmw, but this is a good start -- let's keep our cool and preserve it. I rather not have them reordered or anything like that. For Gage's time in New Hampshire, didn't he spent 18 months in a horse stable? I don't know what you mean by "re-issue A3", but he was in Chile for about 7 years, correct? Then he returned and rested for awhile before becoming a farm laborer - I'm not sure if this is on one or several farms, but wasn't the convulsions following a day's labor on the farm? The seizures became worse and he was treated prior to his death, but these details are absent. That's my concern about that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC) OK, no reordering. But can we give them designations, like this? I'm calling it "List A" so we can start a new list later without confusion. If you don't like it we'll work something else out, but we really need some way to refer to issues without saying, "Hey, getting back to that thing we were talking about, the bit where it says that Gage was traveling, not the bit about the time when he blah blah blah." One point: we absolutely cannot refer to "Note X" and "Ref 22" and so on. These designations shift around as the article is edited and we will go completely crazy. In the below, I've substituted permalinks instead.

Issues list "A"

Extended content

A1 Background A1a  Done A1a Attribute speculation "He may have gained skill with explosives on his family's farms or in nearby mines and quarries..." Speculation from Macmillan. Attribute it. A1b  Done Gage's date of birth in the infobox is not covered here when it should be covered and noted in proper context of its sourcing. It's fully detailed in note "b" [173]. I'm closing this subject to reopening if someone cares. EEng (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC) A2 Gage's accident A2a  Done Does not address numerous theories presented or Gage's actions prior to accident. EEng knows all too well this subject. I think Ratiu and Van Horn's material needs to be pointed out because the evidence shows that Gage had his mouth open and was speaking at the time the rod passed through his skull. I do not know why this is absent. I have issues with the section, but I'll hold off on the excessive quoting and measurement issues for now. The only "numerous theories presented [on?] Gage's actions prior to the accident" is the uncertainty re whether he was sitting or standing, which I don't think is worth bothering the reader with. That Gage's mouth was open (whether he was actually speaking cannot be established) is given in the caption on the right halfway through the Accident section [174]. I'm boldly marking this done, but anyone please feel free to reopen. EEng (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC) A3 Subsequent life and travels A3a  Done A3a Paraphrase "abt. February he was able to do a little work abt. ye horses & barn, feedg. ye cattle &c; that as ye time for ploughing came he was able to do half a days work after that & bore it well." - Paraphrase. A3b  Done A3b Mental impairment goes here? Would Gage's mental impairment belong here? I think it would be helpful. A3c  Done Missing Gage's time in New Hampshire prior to Chile. A3d  Done A3d, A3e Subsequent life and travels Chile and California is missing the account of Gage's doctor and missing some other tidbits, not too bad - but everything related to his mental improvement and the regaining of normalcy in his life is absent without reason. A3e  Done A3d, A3e Subsequent life and travels This is also the key section that Macmillan's research becomes quite useful as a case argument. A4 Death and subsequent travels A4a  Done Still glaringly missing the details surrounding his return home, illness and death.

• A4b  Done Also, the exhumation details - which was in Fleischman's book - is entirely absent. This little episode in the Gage story is something which is important.

Extended content

For the 100th time, this is a children's book, according to the publisher's own data [175]: "Grade Level: 4,5,6 Age Range: 9,10,11,12". Another editor's recurring claims that it's "peer-reviewed" (because the author thanks Dr. X and Dr. Y for checking the anatomical statements, and Macmillan for general assistance) are absurd. There's no debating this. And no, "this little episode in the Gage story" is not "something which is important". Here's what it says: With her son-in-law and the mayor of San Francisco, who happens to be a physician, standing by as witnesses, Phineas's coffin is uncovered and carried to a shed. There, Dr. J.D.B. Stillman, a local surgeon, removes the skull. The huge fracture on the forehead is unmistakable. Dr. Stillman removes something else from the coffin -- the tamping iron that Phineas carried everywhere, even to his grave. These details are cited to nothing, complete fiction, and utterly trivial. Tfish, I'd like your explicit concurrence, based on the link above, so we can quit wasting time on this. EEng (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I repeat that, as a science book for kids, Fleischman does a wonderful job, and I thoroughly recommend it if you have any kids, nieces, or nephews in the right age range. <bump> EEng (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Monthly bump. EEng (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC) After a long delay, I'm now going to reply. I want to start with a big thank-you to EEng for your generous patience with me over this long delay. Based on the note at User talk:Tryptofish#Winding up, A4 is the first of the places on this talk page where you have asked for my reply, so I'm starting here, and will make an edit subsequently for each of the points listed at my talk. I've looked at the coverage this page now gives to the exhumation, and I do not see any need to add a description of what might have happened as the exhumation was actually performed. Those details are not necessary here, and given concerns about primary sourcing, let's leave it out. On the other hand, I've followed the link that EEng gives just above, and I cannot find anything about the publisher's data regarding recommended ages. I looked at the Google Books excerpt, [176], and I don't find it, or the exhumation passage itself, there either. For me, then, the decision to leave it out does not rest on any characterization of the source, but just on my perception that we have enough details about it already. No need to edit the page on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the publisher modified its site during your, ahem, brief absence. ;P So that this thread will be a permanent record of Fleischman's status, and we never have to go through this again, please confirm that you see:

• [177] "John Fleischman - Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Nov 1, 2004 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 86 pages"
• [178] "Phineas Gage - Hardcover | Grades 5 - 7

EEng (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I hereby clearly raise my right fin and affirm that I have seen and read those two links, and I confirm that they say what you quote. Hereby duly sworn, etc., etc. But please let me clarify where my saying that really comes from, for whatever it may be worth. When I hear the phrase "children's book", what pops into my mind is something like the books of Dr. Suess. This is a book for, well, somewhat older children. In past discussions, you have used the characterization of the book as a children's book to find fault with the other editor's recommendations. In some significant ways, I agree with you, but I am also sensitive to how another editor might feel unfairly dismissed by the characterization. This is not a big deal, certainly, and not worth arguing about, but because you asked me on my talk page to, in part, serve the role of providing a stamp of approval that the other editor's concerns were adequately considered, I feel a responsibility to point it out. That's all. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

High school texts are almost never RS because they oversimplify and are often just wrong. Even undergrad college texts -- it's a rare one that's considered an RS. A book aimed at below high-school age is completely off the reservation. EEng (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• A5 Other matters

• A5a  Done Analysis and actual examination of the claims and details surrounding Gage and his role in science has been well- mostly avoided by the article. Instead of proper detailing of the injury and Gage's role in history.

Extended content

To the extent I can tell what this is talking about, it's covered in the Theoretical use section [179]. (Within that, the Cerebral localization subsection should certainly be expanded, and if instead of waiting for me to do it someone wants to research that and help with it, please pitch in.) Other than the cerebral localization debate Gage didn't have a role in science, and I don't know what "proper detailing of the injury" means. EEng (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Tfish, is this OK with you? EEng (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Monthly bump. EEng (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC) It's difficult for me to really know what to say, because it's unclear to me what anyone else might think is missing from the page. It's certainly appropriate to report what scientific findings may be derived from the case, to the extent that sourcing permits, but the page already makes clear that the most reliable sources recognize that scientific conclusions are precluded by imprecision in localizing the injury, and there's diminishing returns to Wikipedia reporting every case of what is described in the Ferrier quote. On the other hand, the second half of the last sentence of the Theoretical use and misuse section contains a pet peeve of my own, and this goes to some of the other A5 matters, below. Why say "and Macmillan surveys theoretical use and misuse of Gage"? Macmillan doubtless surveys lots of things, and there's no point in telling Wikipedia readers that Macmillan does so, unless one tells us what Macmillan concludes. I'd rather delete that phrase, ending the sentence after Oliver Sacks, and relocate any appropriate Macmillan sourcing from that sentence, to the end of the first sentence of the section. Likewise, please go through the entire page, with pruning shears directed at any instance of "Macmillan writes about...". As I've said previously, that will help to make the page about Phineas Gage, as opposed to being about the study of Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Because the theoretical abuse idea is so very sweeping, I wanted to show that (a) it's a longstanding concern (thus the Ferrier quote) and (b) even in modern times it's not just Macmillan who's talked about it (Sacks being a name many readers will recognize). I could move that last sentence into a footnote (I think it was a footnote at one time) but I really think the diversity of sources on misuse is helpful for the reader to see. In addition, the "Macmillan surveys" bit, with the long string of cites, tells the reader who wants to see a comprehensive treatment where to find it. Or, I could... oh, wait, I'm about to suggest what you already suggested further on in your comment. Stand by... OK, done. Great minds think alike. With respect to the other places Macmillan's name appears, as you know I've been jerked around a good deal, with some editors insisting some statements are opinion requiring in-text attribution, then later other editors claiming that attributing so much is promotionalism. In the main text, almost all the mentions of Macmillan are attributions of quotations; in the notes, most or all are either attributions of quotations/opinion, or a natural way to tell the reader where to find out more if he wants e.g. "Macmillan[M]:14-17,31n5,490-1 discusses Gage's ancestry..."; "Macmillan[M]:116-19,ch13-14[M3]:C[M6] compares accounts..."; "Macmillan gives background on Cavendish..." etc. I know you have this idea about the page being "[about Gage instead of about the study of Gage]" but I'm sorry -- they're inseparable. What has been said about Gage, and untangling it, is at least as important -- probably more important -- than the (very few) facts we have about him per se. In this sense he's very much like Kitty Genovese and the Hawthorne effect. (Maybe not the best examples, but best I can think of at the moment.) EEng (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the new edit, and I want to repeat that the progress on this page has been excellent. I still think I have a valid point, that Gage, and the study of Gage, are indeed separable. If you come across other places on the page where you can make a similar edit, you will be doing yourself a favor in the event that editors would otherwise raise such objections in the future. Your (great?) mind agreed with my (great?) mind in this instance, so please just keep an open (great?) mind about whether there might be other sentences that are similar. I agree with you that it's a tough position to be in when editors turn around and complain about non-attribution. But I think you can make some progress with it by differentiating between (a) situations where authors express opinions, in which case attribution is desirable, and (b) situations like this one, where authors have reviewed the literature, and an inline cite at the end can often be enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• A5b  Done A5b, A5d Other matters

  Only a few hundred words on Gage's mental impairments were written yet lengthy quotes are used.

• A5c  Done A5c Passim etc

  Using "passim" and other issues in citing Macmillan is also a cop-out and would merit a verifiability failure.

• A5d  Done A5b, A5d Other matters

  Not even that, it doesn't even credit Macmillan when it should.

• A6  Done Notes

• A6a A6a Too much text hidden in notes

  A substantial part of the text is hidden away in these notes. These complex, rambling, and citation filled messes that only make verification more tedious.

Extended content

Done A6b Complex callouts A note like [180] which reads " See Macmillan & Lena;[34]:9 Harlow;[12]:332,345 Bigelow;[11]:16–17 Harlow;[9]:390 Macmillan.[1]:86" is just improper. A6c  Done Note [181] - "Macmillan's book provides one of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary ... the definitive account ..."[57]" - is just the type of note we do not need. Well, it was needed, because you objected that the word comprehensive (describing Macmillan's survey of accounts of Gage) wasn't supported. Since then that passage has been rewritten to eliminate that point, rendering the question moot. EEng (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC) There is a lot of issues that remain - but the next biggest is the Notes issue. It comprises a substantial amount of the non-quote text and should be easiest to rectify. A7  Done Image links A8  Done Cavendish, Vermont 1869 Map A9  Done Proving a negative A10  Done "poor form to footnote a quote's reference to another quote with the quote and that quote's citation"

A1a Attribute so-called speculation

Extended content

It's not speculation, but a statement of liklihood synthesized by one source based on appropriate other sources -- explosives were routinely used on farms throughout Hew Hampshire, and in Grafton Co. specifically mining was an important industry in which local men and boys were employed. Regardless, it is attributed already, via inline citation. You seem to be asking for in-text citation ("Macmillan writes that Gage may have gained skill...") but that's not only not required, it's unnecessary for a point like this, which is completely uncontentious -- there's no one saying, "I disagree. There's little chance Gage learned to work with exposives as a farmboy, because..." EEng (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Anyone have any comment? I'd prefer to close each of these issues on a consensus. EEng (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC) I'm going to try to respond to your "bumps" here, especially because Chris said at COIN that he might be stepping away from this page. My preference is to go with inline cites, and not with "MacMillan says...", so I'm OK with the status quo. It does not strike me as particularly speculative, but a suggestion I can make is to change "skill" to "experience", because the prior experiences referred to do not necessarily imply a high level of skill, and so the one aspect of the sentence that might be speculative is about that skill level. After all, the very fact of the famous accident raises at least a little bit of dubiousness about his "skill". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC) We'll discuss your bumps further, if you like, when we get more into the article's coverage of phrenology. EEng (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Who said they were on my head? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Oops, I should have said my bumps. EEng (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC) and now lady lumps, ffs! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC) ..... "gotta get this metal bar outta my head!!" Honestly, Martin, you always crack me up. EEng (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC) You're making a kind of res ipsa loquitur argument, and it's not an unreasonable one, but (surprise!) there's a good deal that tells us why it doesn't apply to Gage and his accident. For the moment, take a look at [182] and this new tidbit about Gage's work on an earlier rail project near NYC [183]. Then tell me what you think. I'm glad you're persevering. EEng (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC) My argument is purely mea nasum prurit, and I don't really care that much. I think what you are citing shows that he gained skill from earlier railway work, as opposed to, for example, growing up on a farm. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Somehow [184] seems just right. Without worrying about exactly when he became skilled (in the sense of better-than-common skill) the employers' praise later is enough to cover that. EEng (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A3a Paraphrase archaic language

Extended content

Why? A paraphrase would be longer, no more informative, dull, and forego the opportunity to educate the reader at multiple levels. Others' comments? EEng (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC) I guess the issue was that the abbreviations and "ye" come across as quaint, and that it might be better to summarize in present-day English. I can see some merit to that, but it's not a big issue for me. Could you please expand on the "multiple levels"? Perhaps if I could see what those are, I could provide a better response in terms of the trade-off between helping the reader with those levels of understanding, versus helping the reader with a smoother read. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Merely that, in addition to informing the reader about Gage's continuing recuperation, it gives a window into what private notes and correspondence (between intimates, anyway) of the day looked like. Naturally, smooth reading is always to be striven for (everything else equal) but here, with just a little extra effort the reader has the fun of decoding the doctor's quaint notes for himself. I especially like that using Jackson's original words enhances the image of him scribbling things down even as Gage's mom was speaking to him (which is apparently what happened). It's weird how some people (and I don't mean you) think that any evidence that the writer went out of his way to increase the reader's pleasure must for some reason be rooted out and destroyed. EEng (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)p OK, that's good enough for me, no need to paraphrase. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A3b Mental impairment goes here?

Extended content
As explained elsewhere, the biographical sections only outline where Gage went and things he did. Mental changes are discussed later, don't help the reader understand the bio material any better, and would interrupt its presentation to no advantage. EEng (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC) That's OK with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A3c For Gage's time in New Hampshire, didn't he spent 18 months in a horse stable?

Extended content

The article says Gage subsequently worked for the owner of a livery and coach service in Hanover, New Hampshire Harlow says this began sometime in 1851 and, "He remained there, without any interruption from ill health, for nearly or quite a year and a half." This fits with JMH's (JHM = John Martyn Harlow) information that PG went to Chile in August 1852. How about if we change it to For about eighteen months he worked for the owner of a livery and coach service in Hanover, New Hampshire Thoughts? EEng (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Yes, that works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)  Done EEng (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A3d, A3e Subsequent life and travels

Extended content

I don't know what is meant by "Chile and California ... account of Gage's doctor ... other tidbits" is talking about. There's nothing published about Gage's doctors in Chile and California. As to "everything related to his mental impairment [etc]": the biographical sections simply follows where Gage went and what he did in those places. Everything about mental changes is discussed later in the "Brain damage and mental changes" sections, and that's done for a very good reason: discussion of Gage's mental changes jumps around in time, and requires an understanding of Gage's biographical framework to make sense. EEng (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC) I have no idea what "Macmillan's research ... as a case argument" means. Anyone have any ideas? I don't know. Given that we don't know, I don't see a need to add content now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A4a missing details surrounding return home, illness and death

Extended content

"but he was in Chile for about 7 years, correct? Then he returned and rested for awhile before becoming a farm laborer - I'm not sure if this is on one or several farms, but wasn't the convulsions following a day's labor on the farm? The seizures became worse and he was treated prior to his death, but these details are absent." -- Points raised by ChrisGualtieri What the article currently says about this is... In August 1852, Gage was invited to Chile to work as a long-distance stagecoach driver there, "caring for horses, and often driving a coach heavily laden and drawn by six horses" on the Valparaiso–Santiago route. ... After his health began to fail, in mid-1859, he left Chile for San Francisco, where he recovered under the care of his mother and sister, who had relocated there from New Hampshire around the time Gage went to Chile. Then, "anxious to work", he worked for a farmer in Santa Clara. In February 1860, Gage had the first in a series of increasingly severe convulsions; he died status epilepticus" in or near San Francisco on May 21 Harlow says Gage "had been ploughing the day before he had the first attack; got better in a few days, and continued to work in various places;' could not do much, changing often, 'and always finding something which did not suit him in every place he tried.' On May 18, 1860, three days before his death, he left Santa Clara and went home to his mother. At 5 A.M. on May 20, he had a severe convulsion. The family physician was called in, and bled him. The convulsions were repeated frequently during the succeeding day and night, and he expired at 10, P.M., May 21" This is quoted in one of the footnotes you hate so much [185] so how about if we change the last bit to say... In February 1860, Gage had several convulsions, and lost his job. For three months he "continued to work in various places [but] could not do much." On May 18 he "went home to his mother. The family physician was called in, and bled him. The convulsions were repeated frequently during the succeeding day and night," and he died status epilepticus‍ in or near San Francisco on May 21 Then we can dispense with the footnote. Yipee! What do you think? EEng (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC) This also works well. I do not have an issue with footnotes that dispel very important and prominent errors or require editorial comments to the readers. The editorial comment part being the being most important here. I got my first workings with this in Ghost in the Shell (film) where the first note was about "The Wachowskis", previously known as the "Wachowski brothers" due to repeated editors changing actual quotes and text as revisionist historians would. The second illuminates a censored line critical to understanding the text, but most English audiences would be unaware of the original and hence the requirement of a footnote. The text should be entirely readable and clear without reading a single footnote, because footnotes are there to inform in cases of doubt or confusion to a highly specific matter instead of a general additive note. Additive footnotes should not be footnotes at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)  Done Done, though with some small changes -- please take a look. EEng (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A5b, A5d Other matters

Extended content

Anyone have any ideas what this is suggesting in terms of changes to the article? EEng (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Again, I don't know. The only thing I can think of would be to convert quotations to paraphrases, and I think that would probably be a step in the wrong direction. It does not seem to me that the page has too little material about this topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A5c Passim etc

Extended content

I've changed the two passims to a specific page and chapter #s. Can you explain about the "other issues in citing Macmillan"? EEng (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC) " Gage had also (writes psychologist Malcolm Macmillan) ..." is poor writing and it references two separate publications for the same quote. Adding confusion as to which the quote is found within. Then within the quote, there are modifications which diminish the quotes impact so that plain paraphrasing would work better. And due to multiple publications by Macmillan, the year of the publication should be noted in the text to prevent confusion. As Macmillan's theory has developed over time. Entire sentences like "Attributes typically ascribed to the post-accident Gage which are either unsupported by, or in contradiction to...." are not cited inline as per WP:MINREF. Many of these issues spill over to the footnotes sections as well. Which we should deal with as noted above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC) The "Attributes typically ascribed..." passage has needed cites for a long time, so (since you brought it up) I took a few hours to add them [186]. Regarding giving publication years, do you mean they should be supplied everywhere? Wouldn't it be better to add them only in specific places they would help the reader understand some particular point? EEng (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Just a followup to note that after I added the cites he complained were missing, CG said that I was "ref bombing" the article. [187] EEng (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A6a Too much text hidden in notes

Extended content

I think that this point is worth addressing explicitly. I agree with the subjective parts of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC) I don't need to tell you when material goes in a note: when its potential value to some readers is outweighed by the distraction to most readers of including it in the main text. So all we have to do is decide which pan of the scales is heavier, for each note. (A third option, of course is -- as with all content -- to just drop it completely. However, IMO, a very convincing case would have to be made for the removal of all but the most obviously valueless content that's in a note -- in addition to NOTPAPER, there's the added point that, again, notes material comes at the very end of the article, and doesn't interrupt or clutter the main text.) As usual, I've got some old thoughts on shelf which your comment prompts me to bring out from the shadows. There are at least a few notes which I think might be candidates for integration into the main text (with various adjustments, some bits scattered elsewhere, and so on). Note I use permalinks, without which reference to "Note A", "Note B" etc. will eventually make us crazy as the article evolves.  Done [188] (Note C) I think this could be a new section at the very end of the article, "Contemporary receptions" or something.  Done [189] (Note W) Move into main text?  Done [190] (Note H) This is an example of something which, in principle, could be moved into the main text as a parenthetical. However, the point at which the note is invoked is very near the beginning of the article and therefore, I think, a bad place to add weight like this. However, it might fit really well as a parenthetical at the very end of the "Early observations" section, I just noticed.  Done [191] (Note J) The first sentence is an excellent example of material that (a) needs to be in the article somewhere, since it explains a correction to a direct quote; yet (b) really only acts as a matter of record, and serves all but the most esoterically-minded reader not at all. However, the rest of Note J, together with Note N  Done [192], might make a new section on something like "Factors favoring Gage's survival/Harlow's treatment" or something. But offhand I don't see any really good way of organizing that, or where to put it. Thoughts? EEng (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Here are my thoughts. I'm quite receptive to analyzing these issues according to your very useful metaphor of a scale, which strikes me as a good way to think about it. It seems to me, and please understand that I am saying this in good faith, that part of what is going on here is that you are putting a thumb on the scale, not because of any bad faith on your part, but because you are so close to the writing of the page that it pains you to consider shortening anything that you have labored over. I do think that just dropping some things completely is appropriate here. But I'm willing to simply say that, for now, while acceding to your preferences, for now, not to delete any of it. That way, you know what I think, but I'm not pushing you where you are uncomfortable going. Is that fair? I've looked at each of those notes, and in every case, I'm in favor of moving them into the main text, and then assessing where we stand. I'd welcome you going ahead with that, for every note that you listed here. For some of them, it sounds like you know where you'd like to put them. For the others, I agree with you that it's best not to put the material too early in the text. For the J–N material where you are unsure, I would suggest putting it around where the page discusses Harlow's treatment, not necessarily in a new sub-section, and without worrying about whether it makes the existing section long. Then, let's step back, take a deep breath, and contemplate how that looks. I'm probably going to argue that most of the relocated material is just fine, maybe after a little tweaking for paragraph flow. I'm also probably going to argue that some of the material is just too much – but there are multiple options available to us if/when that happens: (1) you tell me you adamantly disagree, in which case I'll probably just say OK, (2) we agree to prune it, or (3) we move those smaller bits back into notes, but the notes will end up being simpler than they are now. In a more general sense, where you refer to the side of the scale that reflects not distracting most readers, my experience as a reader myself is that such distraction can also be avoided by just skipping over passages that don't interest me. The material doesn't necessarily need to have been moved out of the way, into notes. But if it has been moved into notes, I'm likely to ignore it, so that means that it is not essential. Keeping in mind that this is the English Wikipedia and not a scholarly treatise, it seems to me that references and notes are, first, about verifiability, and not about giving the reader every source that exists. So we don't have to give readers every existing source, just enough sources to make the text pass WP:V. Of course, I would never argue that we cannot offer more than the minimum sourcing, because additional sourcing can be helpful to our readers. But I think that we can consider WP:CITEKILL without doing our readers any disservice. And something else: it is also distracting to a reader to, first, be directed to a lettered note, and, then, be redirected to a numbered source. For the reader, that's a multi-step process. When we can, instead, make it a single step going to the numbered source, we need to really have some added value if we make the reader go through an extra step. I want to add some more notes to the list that we are scrutinizing. Using this [193] version of the page, these are notes K Done, U Not done [see below], V Done, Y Done, and AC Done. I picked these notes because the text within the notes is pretty much expendable, and they could each be converted into numbered inline cites, without needing the notes. I also think that notes F Done, L Not done [see below], Q Done, R Done, T Done, and W Done are short notes where it would be easy to move a bit of material into the main text and no longer need the notes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Authorial Vanity Every author, however modest, keeps a most outrageous vanity chained like a madman in the padded cell of his breast. Logan Pearsall Smith (1931). Afterthoughts. I fully understand re author's blindness and (let's face it) vanity. I'm pretty sure I've trotted out one of my favorite aphorisms (see right) in at least one discussion we've shared in the past. Beyond that... quickly... I predict you will find I agree with much more of what you say than you probably imagine I do, though it's all in the definitions and subjectives that the rubber meets the road, of course. But let me jump right in and take care of some of the first group. I'm going to get interruptions, so it will be sporadic. EEng (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks! That is excellent! Although it may perhaps be "the padded cell of the beast". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Are you joking about beast/breast? (A "beast/breast jest", as it were)? EEng (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC) As you see, I've done a few, and though some rough bits need smoothing I think it's all for the best. Continuing to add ideas I've been thinking for awhile about how to expand "Theoretical use, misuse, and nonuse". This is complicated (a) because of the complexity of the underlying theoretical frameworks (localization in its various flavors, inhibitory theories, etc. -- and I am far from an expert on this stuff); and (b) because while most of these theoretical uses of Gage were for now-defunct theories, Ferrier was right about locatization; but (c) Ferrier was mistaken in using Gage to illustrate his (correct) thesis. (Warning: oversimplified summary!) So there are a lot needles to thread there. Anyway, assuming we can figure out how to handle that, I thought that the paragraph beginning "Thus in the nineteenth-century" could become two or more subsections: Phrenology (which could absorb Note Z Done -- working from your same permalink!) and Localization (which could absorb Q Done -- not mentioned there yet is that the woodcuts were sent to England years later, so Ferrier could use them in his lectures on location), and maybe more. I have a heave week coming up so progress will be sporadic. EEng (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Heave week: 1. (medical, rare) A week during which the patient vomits continually. 2. (commerce) A week during which much cargo must be loaded quickly, as in "Heave - HO!". 3. (civil engineering) The worst part of the winter, during which the greatest number of potholes appear on paved roads, due to heaving caused by the freeze-thaw cycle. 4. (higher education) Rush week. 20:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC) It looks good to me, and there's no hurry. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Close? Can we close this? Note U (this version [194]: I see no sensible way of working into the text (it's just too boring) but this info really should remain somewhere in the article. Note L: There's a serious problem with the content here (19C medical meaning of fungus) which will need some quiet research to finish resolving. At that point we can take this us again. Trust me, I won't forget. Anything else can be taken up in new threads of their own. OK? EEng (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC) <bump> EEng (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Monthly bump. EEng (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC) This one leaves me feeling for bumps on my own head! As you know, I'm heave-ily predisposed to want to simplify, simplify, simplify. I decided to compare the notes on the page currently, with what the page looked like circa September 2014. And I have to say that it's a major improvement! I think it could doubtless be improved further, but, whatever. This has been a big step in the right direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A6b Complex callouts

Extended content

Original complaint: A note like [195] which reads " See Macmillan & Lena;[34]:9 Harlow;[12]:332,345 Bigelow;[11]:16–17 Harlow;[9]:390 Macmillan.[1]:86" is just improper. As explained at WP:CITEBUNDLE, "Sometimes the article is more readable if multiple citations are bundled into a single footnote." In fact, inspired by a review of CITEBUNDLE's examples, I've now given the very ugly citations in the passage on behaviors attributed to Gage the same treatment [196]. I hope you agree it looks a lot better this way. EEng (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Anyone have any comment? EEng (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC) My comment is that I, too, dislike those kinds of citations. I'd rather just see a string of inline citations, like: [1][2][3][4]. So shoot me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Sorry, bullets are too valuable to waste on minor annoyances, though some arrows will be coming in soon and I guess I could deliver the coup de grace with one of those. In the meantime... I agree that [1][2][3][4] is best left as is. But what about -- Way old version comparison Attributes and behaviors ascribed to the post-accident Gage which are either unsupported by, or in contradiction to, the known facts include mistreatment of wife and children (of which Gage had neither); inappropriate sexual behavior, promiscuity, or impaired sexuality; lack of forethought, concern for the future, or embarassment; parading his self-misery, and vainglory in showing his wounds; inability or refusal to hold a job; irresponsibility and untrustworthiness; vagrancy and begging; aggressiveness and violence; plus drifting drinking, bragging, lying, brawling, bullying, psychopathy, inability to make ethical decisions, loss of all respect for social conventions, and acting "like an idiot". -- should it be left that way? Or is it better like this -- Behaviors ascribed to the post-accident Gage which are either unsupported by, or in contradiction to, the known facts include mistreatment of wife and children (of which Gage had neither); inappropriate sexual behavior, promiscuity, or impaired sexuality; lack of forethought, concern for the future, or embarassment; parading his self-misery, and vainglory in showing his wounds; inability or refusal to hold a job; irresponsibility and untrustworthiness; vagrancy and begging; aggressiveness and violence; plus drifting, drinking, bragging, lying, brawling, bullying, psychopathy, inability to make ethical decisions, loss of all respect for social conventions, and acting "like an idiot". Notes X. Sources attributing behaviors to Gage, or discussing or falsifying these attributions: wife and children sexuality; lack of forethought/​​concern/​​embarassment, parading self-misery, vainglory; employment inability; employment refusal irresponsibility, untrustworthiness; vagrancy, begging; aggressiveness, violence; drifting; drinking; bragging; lying; brawling; bullying; psychopathy; ethical decisions, social conventions, "idiot". (current version) --? (The two versions are diffed at [197].) Please note that I was inspired to investigate guidelines' suggestions for such situations after another editor first complained that refs were missing, then after I added them [198] (in a classic damned-if-I-do) complained that I'd "started ref bombing the text into an unreadable state" [199]. I'd like to hear how other editors think this might be handled better. EEng (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Looking at those two options gives me a headache. Unless there is something particularly contentious in the middle of the paragraph (please point it out to me if there is), then what I would prefer is a third option, that has all the citations at the end of the paragraph, where "X" is in the second example, but instead of creating a complex "note X", just have a long series of superscript notes at the end of the paragraph – more than the [1][2][3][4] example I gave, but the same idea, with a cite for each source that is contained in "note X". That way, we neither interrupt the paragraph needlessly, nor end up with a needlessly complex note. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC) What, like this? Another way old version comparison Behaviors ascribed to the post-accident Gage which are either unsupported by, or in contradiction to, the known facts include mistreatment of wife and children (of which Gage had neither); inappropriate sexual behavior, promiscuity, or impaired sexuality; lack of forethought, concern for the future, or embarassment; parading his self-misery, and vainglory in showing his wounds; inability or refusal to hold a job; irresponsibility and untrustworthiness; vagrancy and begging; aggressiveness and violence; plus drifting, drinking, bragging, lying, brawling, bullying, psychopathy, inability to make ethical decisions, loss of all respect for social conventions, and acting "like an idiot".​ Surely you jest -- WP:INTEGRITY. Remember, we're discussing here conflicts of sources, and I think it's necessary to be specific about which sources relate to which point. EEng (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Well, no, I wasn't jesting. But – OMG! – this is why so many editors react as I do to trying to edit this page. There are two issues, so let's treat them individually. The first is where you cite WP:INTEGRITY. We are dealing here with a single sentence of main text (as astonishing as it is to me to realize it). It isn't necessary to differentiate the sources for vainglory from those for bragging. It isn't. Having the sources at the end of the sentence is acceptable with respect to INTEGRITY in this case. The second point is that there are, sorry, a shitload of sources cited. Some of this can (and should have been) addressed by not repeating the same source multiple times, which you did in your example here. By my tedious count, you are citing reference numbers 1, 2, 8, 41, 42, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82. That's still an amazingly large number. But you repeat many of these numerous times, so if we have them as a group at the end of the sentence, it will be less overwhelming than you made it look once each numbered reference appears only once at the end of this sentence. Then, we might want to consider WP:CITEKILL. Maybe we don't need to cite all of these – maybe, instead, just the best one or two for each of the behaviors. That would shorten it a little more. And, perhaps (I'm not sure), not all the page numbers are needed, very likely just one page per behavior at least. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Well, collapsing all the duplicates doesn't do very much (here not bothering to put the pg #s in order). Ref [1] is 600 pages (and the others with pg #s are longer papers) so the pg #s are necessary. As for the number of cites per behavior, there are generally two, and need to be two: one for where the behavior is asserted, and one for where the non-behavior is discussed. Even in places where (in Note X) it looks like there are more than two cites per behavior e.g. -- sexuality; -- in fact if you look at the main text there are actually three different behaviors -- inappropriate sexual behavior, promiscuity, or impaired sexuality; -- so in fact there's one cite for each behavior, plus a combined place where they're discussed. In maybe 5 cases there's a spare cite that can be dropped. So, even before reaching the question of whether it's acceptable to pour all the cites into a pile for compactness, IMO the compactness isn't nearly compact enough, and it looks awful. I just don't get what the objection is to using notes for these auxiliary purposes. It's one of the things they're for -- getting potentially distracting stuff out of the main text, yet leaving it available for those interested. EEng (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC) In part, it can be made a little bit better by not repeating the same page numbers for reference 1. Fix that, and we get. But, looking at the page, I see that a very large number of these references are cited only at this one place on the page. That buys us a lot of simplification. Create one inline citation (not formatted as a lettered note, but as a numbered citation) at number 60 (the first of those that are cited only once), and place within it what are now the other such cites, numbers 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82. (For what that looks like, see for example Animal rights#Notes, where there are several examples, with note 89 being a good one.) The remaining citations above number 60 would then be renumbered (so 62 becomes 61, 64 becomes 62, 75 becomes 63, and 83 becomes 64). And that gives us this. Taking it one step further, create one more new inline citation, at number 64 (it could be number 60, actually, but I don't feel like renumbering what I just wrote). In 64, link back to citation number one, but give the page numbers in the inline citation. And that gives us this. All of this is done without any lettered notes, without overly cluttering the page, and without eliminating any of the source or page information (even though I suspect that you protest too much in regard to WP:CITEKILL). Problem solved. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC) What is our goal here? Can you remind me again what problem we were solving (relative to the "Note X" approach)? EEng (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC) How disappointing. You know perfectly well, but you just don't want to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Watch it, or I'll have you at ANI for violating AGF. Shall I template you? Anyway, I'm utterly serious. I thought we were looking into alternatives to the Note-X-lettered-note approach, and one alternative we've come up with is the put-all-the-singleton-sources-in-one-numbered-callout-and-compress-the-rest-to-a-smaller-but-still-quite-a-mouthfull-at-the-end-of-the-sentence approach, and while each has its plusses and minuses I don't see that any "problem" is being solved by moving from one to the other. AFAICS it's just a question of preferences -- not that preferences don't matter, since aesthetics matter in improving an article. If I'm wrong, and there really is a problem, please say what it is -- really, if there is one I didn't pick that up. Having said that, getting this deep into the details of citations and such brings us into intersection with an old outstanding to-do, which was to restore the rationalization of the presentation of the sources (so they're not a gigantic jumble in accidental order) which had been discussed at Talk:Phineas_Gage/Archive_3#Citations, implemented in a not very good way, and later removed by you-know-who. I fear you'll find that discussion quite long. Anyway, I think it's best to suspend this until that's done, so we can continue in that context. EEng (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "I fear you'll find that discussion quite long." So, what else is new? But anyway, I'll try to explain once more. As you said, "we were looking into alternatives to the Note-X-lettered-note approach". I agree; that's what this discussion is about. You go on to describe my suggestion of with a sarcastic multi-hyphenated phrase. The problem, as I have said to you multiple previous times, is that this page has become a perennial locus of other editors getting pissed off at you, and not all of them are bad editors, and it keeps leading to you being at ANI, with or without a template. That's an ongoing problem, and I think you should be interested in fixing it instead of looking down on the editors who disagree with you. This goes beyond being purely about preference, in that we are really talking about the collective preferences of the Wikipedia editing community, as seen at 99%+ of other pages here. I am interested in getting away from having, not just Note-X-lettered-note, but Note-A-lettered-note, Note-B-lettered-note, Note-C-lettered-note, and on to Note-Z-lettered-note, Note-AA-lettered-note, and so on. We have been discussing, for a long time, whether or not it is possible to get away from such notes while still preserving all of the references and associated information. And here, even in this particularly challenging example, I was able to do it. What I propose is very much like most pages on the English Wikipedia, except for a bit of WP:CITEKILL, and preserves all of the information, even page numbers. I see no reason to put this off any further, unless you would like me to pose this as a Choice A versus Choice B RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC) I wasn't being sarcastic. You seem to be operating from the premise that footnotes are to be avoided, though no explanation has ever been given for that idea. Your proposal increases the visual clutter of the article's main text (a bad thing) effectively destroys the reader's ability to verify any particular behavior -- i.e. he'll have to consult, literally, up to two dozen different sources (and in one of them, any of twenty scattered pages) in order to find the relevant one -- (another bad thing); and drops a lettered footnote (matching the behaviors to the sources) in favor of a numbered cite stringing fifteen sources together (a good thing, I suppose, if for some reason you think numbers are prettier than letters) And the WP:INTEGRITY problem is real, which is why that guideline says The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed. It also warns that (where large strings of callouts are appended to a single passage) Identifying which inline citation supports which fact may be more difficult unless additional information is added to the inline citations to explicitly identify which portion of the sentence they support, which is what Note X does and your proposed [60] pointedly declines to do‍—‌and which WP:BUNDLING explicitly gives an example of: 5. ^ For the sun's size, see Miller, Edward. The Sun. Academic Press, 2005, p. 1. For the moon's size, see Brown, Rebecca. "Size of the Moon," Scientific American, 51(78):46. For the sun's heat, see Smith, John. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2005, p. 2. As for the apparent idea that a lot of footnotes are a bad thing, it's quite easy to find FAs with extensive notes [200][201][202][203]. I'm sorry, but I really, honestly, don't get what the advantage of the "[60]" approach is, and it has definite problems, which contradict guidelines. EEng (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Since Martinevans123 was, as I recall, the first to wonder whether the notes were too much, I'm pinging him for a 3O. Goodness me, I thought I understood footnotes. What was the question, sorry? I got as far as "a shitload of sources" but then I think I lost my way. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC) You might start by going back a few posts to the section header What is our goal here? and reading forward from there. The question is whether to stick with -- Yet ANOTHER way old version comparison Current presentation Behaviors ascribed to the post-accident Gage which are either unsupported by, or in contradiction to, the known facts include mistreatment of wife and children (of which Gage had neither); inappropriate sexual behavior, promiscuity, or impaired sexuality; lack of forethought, concern for the future, or embarassment; parading his self-misery, and vainglory in showing his wounds; inability or refusal to hold a job; irresponsibility and untrustworthiness; vagrancy and begging; aggressiveness and violence; plus drifting, drinking, bragging, lying, brawling, bullying, psychopathy, inability to make ethical decisions, loss of all respect for social conventions, and acting "like an idiot". Notes X. Sources attributing behaviors to Gage, or discussing or falsifying these attributions: wife and children sexuality; lack of forethought/​​concern/​​embarassment, parading self-misery, vainglory; employment inability; employment refusal irresponsibility, untrustworthiness; vagrancy, begging; aggressiveness, violence; drifting; drinking; bragging; lying; brawling; bullying; psychopathy; ethical decisions, social conventions, "idiot". -- (where etc. are in the sources list as usual -- see the article [204]) should be changed to Alternative presentation (Note X is dropped; of the cite callouts it made, about half go back into the main article at the end of the paragraph, and the other half go into a new "cite [60]", a kind of "supercite") Behaviors ascribed to the post-accident Gage which are either unsupported by, or in contradiction to, the known facts include mistreatment of wife and children (of which Gage had neither); inappropriate sexual behavior, promiscuity, or impaired sexuality; lack of forethought, concern for the future, or embarassment; parading his self-misery, and vainglory in showing his wounds; inability or refusal to hold a job; irresponsibility and untrustworthiness; vagrancy and begging; aggressiveness and violence; plus drifting, drinking, bragging, lying, brawling, bullying, psychopathy, inability to make ethical decisions, loss of all respect for social conventions, and acting "like an idiot". Sources 60. Moffat, Gregory K. (2012). Angela Browne-Miller (ed.). Fundamentals of Aggression. ABC-CLIO. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-313-38276-5. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) Myers, David G. (1995). Psychology. Worth Publishers. ISBN 978-0-87901-644-9. Crider, A. B.; Goethals, G. R.; Kavanagh, R. D.; Solomon, P. R. (1983). Psychology. Scott, Foresman. Graham Beaumont; Pamela Kenealy; Marcus Rogers (1991). The Blackwell Dictionary of Neuropsychology. Wiley. Groves, Philip M.; Schlesinger, K. (1982). Introduction to Biological Psychology (2nd ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Brown. Kalat, James W. (1981). Biological Psychology. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Smith, A. (1985). The Body. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. Lahey, B. B. (1992). Psychology: An Introduction (4th ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Brown. p. 63. Abnormal Behavior. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. 1980. Morris, C. G. (1996). Psychology: An Introduction (9th ed.). Prentice-Hall. Dimond, Stuart J. (1980). Neuropsychology: A Textbook of Systems and Psychological Functions of the Human Brain. London: Butterworths. Tow, Peter Macdonald (1955). Personality changes following frontal leucotomy: a clinical and experimental study of the functions of the frontal lobes in man. With a foreword by Sir Russell Brain. London, New York: Oxford University Press. Restak, Richard M. (1984). The brain. Bantam Books. Hart, Leslie A. (1975). How the Brain Works: A New Understanding of Human Learning, Emotion, and Thinking. Basic Books. Brown, H. (1976). Brain and Behavior: A Textbook of Physiological Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, A. (1984). The Mind. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Wilson, Andrew (January 1879). The old phrenology and the new. Vol. CCXLIV. pp. 68 85. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) Hughes, C. D. "Neurological progress in America". Journal of the American Medical Association. 29 (7): 315–23. Sdorow, Lester (1990). Psychology. Dubuque, Iowa: Brown. Changeux, Jean-Pierre (1985). Neuronal Man: The Biology of the Mind. Tr. by Laurence Garey (1st American ed. ed.). Pantheon Books. pp. 158–9. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) Tfish, do you think that's a fair summary? Somehow [64] became [60] -- whatever. Your proposal had said that [60] would " link back to citation number one, but give the page numbers in the inline citation" but I don't know what you mean by that -- the only interpretation I can give to it isn't technically possible, because of limits on cites citing other cites. But fix the above to put it at best advantage, if you wish (or install it live in the article so we can really see what it looks like in context -- except, sorry, since the above was only a mockup, some of the sources and stuff might be mixed up -- I wasn't as careful as I usually would be). EEng (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Yes, I might. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Do I think that's a fair summary? No, I don't. And I don't mean that in a snippy way, but just that you have made a lot of errors, and they are significant. I was not recommending what you show, with . It can be made easily into a single inline cite, and all you have to do is look at some of the FAs you cited, Frank Pick, Pedro Álvares Cabral, or Peasants' Revolt, to see how it can be done. The way you displayed it makes it look worse than it needs to be. I haven't gone back and checked your #60 source list, but I AGF that it's correct. But, on the page, it won't be in the larger font that the main text is in, so what you display here looks bigger and messier than it actually will be. One way of doing it is at the Cabral page, another is what I already pointed you to, at Animal rights#Notes, number 89 for example. Now let's look at those four FAs that you selected as examples. Not one of them really looks like this page! Frank Pick: 21 notes, almost all of them with only one or two inline cites Pedro Álvares Cabral: 8 notes, considerably simpler than the ones here Demosthenes: the most similar to this page, but with only 14 notes Peasants' Revolt: 15 notes, with no more than a single source for each But the page here has 29 notes, and they are far more complex than the notes at the four pages above. You've really provided evidence in favor of the changes that I and other editors have been recommending! You ask what our goal is here. My goals: To save readers the extra steps of being directed to a note, from which they are then directed to a source. That makes the experience of reading the page more complicated than it needs to be. To make this page more like, well, the four FAs you just pointed to, as well as more like most of Wikipedia. To achieve this without depriving the reader of useful information. You think that it's very important that readers be able to check references for one behavior versus another. If this were a book published by a university press, you would be right. But it isn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC) I just remembered that I have another goal, and it's a significant one. I want to decrease the "dramah" over this page. And the way to accomplish that is not to denigrate the editors who disagree with you as being drive-by editors. (Say what you will about me, I'm not just driving by!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC) I never thought of you as, or called you, or implied that you were, anything like a drive-by editor. In general you've been here through thick and thin. EEng (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Yes, of course. What I meant was that you have said it about other editors, but they, like me, have good-faith concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Um, I'll check back in a few days. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC) I don't blame you, not one bit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC) "What is our goal here?" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC) At least that was a soccer ball and not an iron rod! Hilarious video, by the way! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC) My new goal is to keep making these small-font comments so that EEng keeps getting edit conflicts and can never reply. De facto topic ban! I win! Evil laughter! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC) You gonna hafta do betta den dat. EEng (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Curses! Foiled again! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC) As said before, I wasn't super-careful in putting together the "[60]" sources, since it was just a mockup. But there's the right number of them, I think. If you look at the markup, you'll see I meant them to be in small, but through a subtlety of the parsing that only functioned for the first bullet entry. Now fixed. Also as said before, I didn't understand, and still don't understand, what you want to do with the stuff. Can you adjust the mockup to show what you mean it to look like? It's your proposal, so can you make it look the way you want? After that we can talk about pros and cons to both approaches, not to mention goals. EEng (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC) The way I suggest dealing with the page numbers for reference 1 would be like: Macmillan, 2000, pp. 39,99,107,116,118,119,316,319,321,323,327–8,331. That's not formatted, but it shows what the inline citation would consist of. (It would look like [60] or a similar number at the end of the sentence in the main text, and the listing in the references list, corresponding to that number, would be like the line above.) There are various ways to do it, but perhaps Template:Sfn, which is used at some of those FAs, would be a good way to do it. I can do a full mockup of it, but not until tomorrow or so. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Comparison of proposals Here are the two versions that we are considering. I've reproduced both of them, in order to be able to fully display the references. As a result, the reference numbering is altered from what it is on the page, but I think that does not make it difficult to compare and contrast the two options. (I was actually able to condense the inline citations in my suggested change more than I had previously said in talk, once I got into the weeds of doing it. Unless I made a mistake, I have preserved all sources and page numbers.) As the page is now: Cited earlier on the page: Behaviors ascribed to the post-accident Gage which are either unsupported by, or in contradiction to, the known facts include mistreatment of wife and children (of which Gage had neither); inappropriate sexual behavior, promiscuity, or impaired sexuality; lack of forethought, concern for the future, or capacity for embarassment; parading his self-misery, and vainglory in showing his wounds; inability or refusal to hold a job; irresponsibility and untrustworthiness; aggressiveness and violence; vagrancy and begging; plus drifting, drinking, bragging, lying, brawling, bullying, psychopathy, inability to make ethical decisions, loss of all respect for social conventions, and acting "like an idiot".T Notes T. Sources attributing behaviors to Gage, or discussing or falsifying these attributions: wife and children sexuality; lack of forethought/​concern/​embarassment, parading self-misery, vainglory; employment inability; employment refusal irresponsibility, untrustworthiness; aggressiveness, violence vagrancy, begging; drifting; drinking; bragging; lying; brawling; bullying; psychopathy; ethical decisions, social conventions, "idiot". Sources and further reading Proposed change, V1 Proposed change: Cited earlier on the page: Behaviors ascribed to the post-accident Gage which are either unsupported by, or in contradiction to, the known facts include mistreatment of wife and children (of which Gage had neither); inappropriate sexual behavior, promiscuity, or impaired sexuality; lack of forethought, concern for the future, or capacity for embarassment; parading his self-misery, and vainglory in showing his wounds; inability or refusal to hold a job; irresponsibility and untrustworthiness; aggressiveness and violence; vagrancy and begging; plus drifting, drinking, bragging, lying, brawling, bullying, psychopathy, inability to make ethical decisions, loss of all respect for social conventions, and acting "like an idiot". Sources and further reading In my opinion, the major advantage of the status quo is that the reader can locate sources according to the specific behavior. And the major advantages of my suggested change are that it saves the reader the extra step of looking first at a very hard-to-read note that repeats the main text, before getting to the sources, and also makes this page more like the FAs that were cited in the talk section directly above. In addition, I believe that it may be possible simply to delete some of the sources, per WP:CITEKILL. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC) An afterthought: If we feel that it is important to differentiate the sources by the associated behaviors, it would be possible to annotate the citations numbered 5–9 in my proposal, by naming the behavior(s) at the end of each one. For example: Abnormal Behavior. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. 1980 (employment refusal), etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks for taking all that trouble. Problems: In Proposed Change, will we be breaking out the page numbers for each of sources 5-8 by behavior, as you mentioned doing for 9? A couple of the sources in giant Source 9 go with multiple behaviors. How will that be indicated? Let's say a prurient reader wants to verify promiscuity. Is he supposed to click, in turn, on , then scan each of those for the word promiscuity? And if he's looking for forethought as in (lack of forethought, concern for the future, or capacity for embarassment), will we labeling each of the several sources related to that, with the words lack of forethought, concern for the future, or capacity for embarassment? And even assuming we do all this, how does the reader even understand how it works? How does he know he's supposed to scan all these sources for these words? CG (cheered on by you) spent a lot of time pressuring me into removing all the Harvard cites and changing them to -type callouts (because, it was said, the many appearances of the name Macmillan was "promotional"). Now you seem to want them back. How is clicking on , by which one is taken to Damasio 1994, pp. 9,11,51., on which one must then click to get to Damasio, H.; Grabowski, T.; Frank, R.; Galaburda, A. M.; Damasio, A. R. (1994). "The return of Phineas Gage: Clues about the brain from the skull of a famous patient". Science. 264 (5162): 1102–1105. doi:10.1126/science.8178168. PMID 8178168. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) -- any less an example of the two-clicks-required-to-get-to-the-source that you so dislike? The sources list is the article's bibliography, and shouldn't be mixed up with page citations pointing to other members of the same group. Worse (and as a consequence of that) the backlinks "lie" by being incomplete e.g. 3. ^ Damasio, H.; Grabowski, T.; Frank, R.; ... has the cute ^ implying to the reader there's only one cite to this source, when in fact there's actually another i.e. "Source" 7 (which isn't a source, but a link to source 3). BTW, there's a bug in all this apparatus such that clicking e.g. Source 7 in "Proposed" actually takes you to Source 3 in As the page is now. (Remember when CG used to rail about the extra backlinks that didn't point anywhere, calling them the "49 false sources which do not exist?" I wonder what he'd accuse you of -- "Surreptitiously hiding multiple references to one source by knowingly obscuring required backlinks!"?) As I mentioned a few posts back, CG removed the alphabetization of the sources, and only now will I have time to put that back, though using a much better method (discussed at the other side of the link I posted a whiles back). I'd like to do that, and then we can pick this up again. I won't be able to do that for maybe 10 days (takes sustained concentration to avoid introducing errors) however. Can you wait that long? Heave-ho and all that. EEng (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Yes, it was a lot of trouble, particularly just figuring out where all the citations were on the page, which is very confusing to try and edit. As I said above, I think the principal issue here is how to weigh, on the one hand, providing readers with sources that are labeled or organized according to the specific behavior, and on the other hand, arranging the page like a good encyclopedia page, such as the FAs cited above, instead of like a complicated scholarly reference. I have pretty much come to the conclusion that we just do not need to identify the sources by behavior, such as your "promiscuity" example. It's not worth it, and readers will not care about it. If you continue to feel that it is so important that we need to do it, then I think we should have a community RfC about it, and I'd be happy to do that. But I really want to ask you to set aside your personal feelings, the beast/breast stuff, and particularly your resentments about that other editor. It's time to move past that. This isn't about bad things that might have happened in the past. It's about what makes for a good page, going forward. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Nothing to do with the other editor, just trying to explain why there's been a year's delay in installing the improved Sources list. I don't know how much that will affect what we're talking about now, but it might, and so it's prudent to defer this thread for a bit. As I think about this (between heaves) I vaguely envision it might make much of our difference on this become moot. So can we hold off just for now? We can proceed as best we can on further Notes integration in the meantime, as time permits, OK? EEng (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC) On the one hand, I'm a big believer in WP:There is no deadline, so I'm happy to say that there's no pressure to do anything rapidly. On the other hand, I've come to have the feeling that you sometimes ask to put things off when you feel that the discussion isn't going "your" way. I want you to know that I care about reducing the number and complexity of notes on this page, and about simplifying it generally. I'd be fine with having a specifically-worded RfC about this anytime. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Tfish, that's beneath you. I said way long ago, as soon as the discussion got into the visual details of this question #having said that that it might be mooted by other changes, so to avoid wasted effort it would make sense to suspend this question: getting this deep into the details of citations and such brings us into intersection with an old outstanding to-do, which was to restore the rationalization of the presentation of the sources ... I think it's best to suspend this until that's done, so we can continue in that context. You wanted to press on, and now again it strikes me that some of what you're proposing has overtones like something already in the pipeline, so why not do that first and maybe it will clear up this issue to some extent, or moot it? And really, cut out the attribution of dark motives. That's bullshit. EEng (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC) I've struck the part you objected to. At least you are angry at me instead of at the other editor now. I think it's important to move away from over-reliance on notes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC) I'm not angry at you in the slightest. I knew you'd snap out of it. EEng (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC) I see. OK then, I want you to know that I care about reducing the number and complexity of notes on this page, and about simplifying it generally. I'd be fine with having a specifically-worded RfC about this anytime. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC) You just said that. For the love of Pete, will you let me heave in peace for 10 days? I have some minor cleanup, wording/citation fixes, page #s to fill in, etc. that have stacked up recently, so during that time I'd like to spend on those what little brainpower I'll have available here. It's likely that along the way inspiration will come to me re integrating further note material into the main text, so you may find yourself pleasantly surprised along those lines as well. OK? EEng (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Having also said that there is no deadline, I wish you an enjoyable heave, and hope that you'll return refreshed, happy, and snapped out of it. I've got plenty of other things to do in the mean time, and of course all editors are free to discuss this here and edit the page in the mean time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC) So far the week's been pretty heave-y, hasn't it? Stay tuned. EEng (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Yes indeed, to say the least. I'm happy to see you back! There's no hurry here, so take your time. And I really meant something I said at your user talk, which is that we need you to stick around here, and that it would be awful if Wikipedia were to give you the heave. May your editing here be peaceful! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Alternative, with behaviors Proposed change, V2 Proposed change, version 2: Cited earlier on the page: Behaviors ascribed to the post-accident Gage which are either unsupported by, or in contradiction to, the known facts include mistreatment of wife and children (of which Gage had neither); inappropriate sexual behavior, promiscuity, or impaired sexuality; lack of forethought, concern for the future, or capacity for embarassment; parading his self-misery, and vainglory in showing his wounds; inability or refusal to hold a job; irresponsibility and untrustworthiness; aggressiveness and violence; vagrancy and begging; plus drifting, drinking, bragging, lying, brawling, bullying, psychopathy, inability to make ethical decisions, loss of all respect for social conventions, and acting "like an idiot". Sources and further reading EEng, I've tried as best I could, and I think I succeeded, at pairing every behavior with every corresponding source and page. It's only cites 5–9 at the end of the main text, with no intervening note, and all information verifiable in the references. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC) The problem, Tfish, is that for each behavior there are two sources: one that asserts the behavior, and one that discusses that assertion in the context of the available evidence. Someone wanting to read more about a particular behavior needs both, but this approach loses the "discussion" sources. You've really put a lot of effort into these mockups, but they just don't give the necessary information for WP:V, IMO. Mirokado, maybe you can see something I'm blind to in what Tfish is trying to do? EEng (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC) I have a work panic this week, but I will have a look at this over the weekend. --Mirokado (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC) EEng, first of all, you said here what your concerns were (then), and this wasn't one of them. Furthermore, the page as it is now does not make that distinction, so if that were really make-or-break, you would similarly object to your own version. Those two things together make me very concerned that you are just going to object to anything that isn't your own idea, and that the only way for me to get a consensus one way or the other is to hold an RfC. But, all that said, there is a way to address your new concern in this format, and I'm willing to do it. All that has to happen is to indicate, in the wording for each behavior, whether it is an "attribution" or a "falsification". (If you prefer other words instead of those, that will probably be fine with me.) For example, we could have, for each of Wilson, Hughes, and Smith 1984: "(drinking, attribution)" – and for Macmillan 2000, pages 118, 316, 321: "(drinking, falsification)". That would have no effect at all upon the main text, and would provide the reader with considerably more specific information than the page does now. (Since the page does not currently provide that information, you would either have to tell me, or I'll just have to assume that Macmillan is always the falsification and everyone else is the assertions, and ask you to subsequently correct any mistakes I will have made.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Really, Tfish, you gotta stop it with these AGF lapses. I said that "Someone wanting to read more about a particular behavior needs [both the source that asserts the behavior, and one that discusses that assertion], but [your] approach loses the 'discussion'". I didn't say anything about the two types of sources needing to be identified or distinguished from each other, and as you point out my own presentation in the article [205] makes no such distinction -- so instead of jumping to the conclusion that I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, it might have been better had you gone back and carefully reconsidered your interpretation of what I've written. Therefore, your Version 3 tries to meet a concern I never expressed -- sorry. (There's nothing wrong with distinguishing the "assertion" sources from the "discussion/falsification" sources, but it adds wordiness for little or no benefit.) But whether it's Version 2 or Version 3 (and I really am trying to accommodate your preferences and concerns here) I kind of see what you're trying to do, but I'm still puzzled by some things. First of all, why are [5][6][7][8] and [9] five separate segments? They're all called out just once, from that one point in the article, so why not merge them? Now, I won't have time for this tonight, but as I write I think (I hope, I pray) I see a way forward working from your V2/V3, so unless you're really, really fired up, don't do a V4 until you see what I have in mind. EEng (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC) And remember, cut it out with the AGF lapses! I'm going to AGF that you started to compose that comment before you had an opportunity to see my two subsequent drafts below. As for your telling me to "cut it out", please feel free to take it up at ANI. I'm just taking what you say, as it is written here. At this point, I do not know what you really want. You seem to me to be saying that "Someone wanting to read more about a particular behavior needs both, but this approach loses the "discussion" sources." Are you saying that this approach leaves out some of the sources, as in failing to cite some of them? I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Or are you saying that some kind of "discussion" of the sources is missing? If so, what is missing? Is there a problem with the grouping in citation number 9, as in mixing in some sources that were not, in fact, attributing behaviors? (If that's the case, there's no way any reader would have known that.) I just don't know! You ask me now about why 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are separate sources. I'm receptive to combining them further, if you want. As you know, I began combining sources so as not to have a huge sequence of superscript numbers at the end of the sentence, something I think we both want to avoid. I left out 5, 6, 7, and 8, from the grouping in 9, simply because 5–8 are also cited elsewhere on the page. But it doesn't have to be that way. We could combine all of them into a single cite. Or we could recombine them into two cites, one for "discussion" sources and the other for "assertion" sources. Let me know what you prefer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Correction: I just made a trial run at combining the sources more, and it looked to me like sources cited with the "sfn" template do not display within the "ref" tags. Maybe there's another way, or maybe having 5–9 is just fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Two apologies: (a) When I first said (above) you left out the "discussion" sources, I guess I was still looking at "proposed change" (which did leave out the "discussion" sources -- or at least, didn't tell you which part of them related to which behavior) not "version 2"; (b) Yes, I didn't realize you'd created a V4 when I posted the above. EEng (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC) That's perfectly OK! Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Good. Now take a break and let me think about something I had in mind last night.. EEng (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Now, while you're away for a while, I'm going to blank the page. Evil laughter. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Or, a slight variation on that. (Will follow in my next edit, this edit is a placeholder.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Proposed change, version 3: Cited earlier on the page: Behaviors ascribed to the post-accident Gage which are either unsupported by, or in contradiction to, the known facts include mistreatment of wife and children (of which Gage had neither); inappropriate sexual behavior, promiscuity, or impaired sexuality; lack of forethought, concern for the future, or capacity for embarassment; parading his self-misery, and vainglory in showing his wounds; inability or refusal to hold a job; irresponsibility and untrustworthiness; aggressiveness and violence; vagrancy and begging; plus drifting, drinking, bragging, lying, brawling, bullying, psychopathy, inability to make ethical decisions, loss of all respect for social conventions, and acting "like an idiot". Sources and further reading Now, there is clear attribution of when behaviors are attributed, or disputed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Rewritten with a different emphasis As my attention has been drawn to the assert-refute nature of the source material, I find myself thinking that a different approach to the main text may be needed: V4 Proposed change, version 4: Cited earlier on the page: Numerous other behaviors have been widely ascribed to the post-accident Gage, based on very little evidence, including: mistreatment of wife and children (of which Gage had neither); inappropriate sexual behavior, promiscuity, or impaired sexuality; lack of forethought, concern for the future, or capacity for embarassment; parading his self-misery, and vainglory in showing his wounds; inability or refusal to hold a job; irresponsibility and untrustworthiness; aggressiveness and violence; vagrancy and begging; plus drifting, drinking, bragging, lying, brawling, bullying, psychopathy, inability to make ethical decisions, loss of all respect for social conventions, and acting "like an idiot". However, every one of these attributed behaviors is either unsupported by, or in contradiction to, the known facts. Sources and further reading This doesn't really change the content of the main text, but it provides a better allocation of weight between Macmillan and all the other sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Arbor-treeish break Re V4: It's inappropriate to "allocate weight between Macmillan and all the other sources" because the other sources aren't sources for facts about on Gage -- they're just sources for their own statements about Gage. And the "based on very little evidence" isn't supported by [5][6][7] -- none of those sources say, "I'm going to say Gage was a drunkard, although I'm saying that with very little evidence" -- so there's a WP:V problem with the way you're trying to split "attribution" and falsification. (And, BTW, there's not "very little evidence" for these statements -- there's no evidence whatsoever.) So I'd like to go back to your V3 and work from there. [Hours later] Abort! Tfish, I've really tried to find a way to fix the technical problems with your V3, but I just can't do it. I see this way and that way to modify it to fit it into the article somehow, but I can't tell what you would want, because rereading this whole thread, I honestly don't see what the motivation for the "Proposed change" version in the first place -- it's just another way of presenting the sources for this one very source-dense passage. Mirokado, thanks for "volunteering", and I (we, I'm sure) look forward to your bringing some fresh perspective to this. You might start at #Comparison of proposals (comparing "As the page is now" to Version 3 further down). EEng (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC) OK, let me start with some pleasant things. I've looked at the edits to the page that you've made in the past 24 hours or so, I like the edits, the way you simplified some things by removing some quotes, very much. Thanks! And I am perfectly content with the way that you collapsed some earlier discussions on this talk. And – I'm equally happy to work with you on V3 relative to V4 or any other V-number. Now, to answer the questions you have posed to me. I'll retract my choice of words with respect to allocation of weight. My point was that we, as editors approaching the source material neutrally, have to evaluate the extent to which we have different sources with different points of view but roughly equal validity as reliable sources, versus the extent to which we have old sources that have been refuted by newer sources. Now, the Amazing Tryptofish will put my fin to my head and divine EEng's thoughts, which are that Macmillan et al. really did correct errors in earlier source material. Continuing my clairvoyance, I divine that other editors who may at some time return to this page will think that evil EEng is showing his COI. So I was floating the idea of moving the Macmillan material from the beginning to the end of the paragraph, and seeing what reaction I would get from you. That said, the Amazing Tryptofish also believes, in this instance, that it's pretty obvious that Macmillan et al. really did correct errors in the earlier literature, so I'm OK with going back to V3 from V4, if Mirokado (and anyone else who might comment) agrees with you about this point. Now as to your abortion (wait a minute, not what I meant), I'll start with the technical issues that you might have run into, although it would help if you could spell out what they were. It probably wasn't about my parenthetical additions of the behaviors, but I don't care much about those, having only put them in because, apparently, I had misunderstood something you said earlier. (V1 shows what that looks like without any of the behaviors, and V2 with behaviors but without indicating "attribution" versus "falsification".) Did it have something to do with my use of "ref" tags? I do know from looking at the discussions you had with Mirokado that you asked me to look at, that the two of you have been considering what might happen when other editors try to add sources using "ref" tags. I think that I only used "ref" for citation [9]. Depending on what we decide, we may decide to go various ways with the source formatting, so that brings me to the "why" of my proposals. As I said when I first presented the #Comparison of proposals, the difference relative to the way the page is now lies in the elimination of the Note. I see that, as I have been writing these comments in talk, you have been simplifying some of the notes, much as I suggested below in #Notes. Good for you! Thanks!! We first got into discussing this note as a result of other editors getting angry at you over it, and you and I getting into a discussion growing out of that earlier discussion, in which I argued that even though FAs and such do use notes, the notes tend not to be as lengthy and, well, fussy, as this one. And I've demonstrated that it is possible to eliminate the note entirely, with just a short string of superscript numbers for citations at the end of the paragraph, with absolutely zero loss (correct me if I'm missing something) of information. Simpler, less eccentric relative to other Wikipedia pages, and just as useful to readers. So, I think we come to a question about whether, per the technical issues, it's worth the effort to change some things about the way the page is formatted, in order to make this improvement in citation possible (as in making it possible to use "ref" tags, and thus being able to get rid of an unhelpful note). If that is something you can work with, great. If not, I'm going to start an RfC and determine whether other editors agree with me that getting rid of that note will be a good thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC) I've now read through the above contributions and had a look at the current article, but it is a bit late tonight (Europe) to formulate a careful response, so I will post again on Sunday. --Mirokado (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Psychotic break Thanks, Mirokado, you have amazing fortitude. I know we both look forward to your shining some light on this. In the meantime, in response to Tfish's concerns about the cite syntax and so on: The article uses {{r|smith87}} instead of <ref name=smith87/> and uses {{efn | NOTE TEXT}} (efn apparently stands for "explanatory foot note") instead of <ref group=lower-alpha> NOTE TEXT </ref> because they're cleaner and more compact. These are merely alternative syntaxes, and anything you can do with the usual <ref>...</ref> syntax you can do with r/efn too, and do it the same way. (And if an editor does add something using the usual <ref>...</ref> syntax, that would work fine too, just like normal -- you can mix the syntaxes no problem.) Whatever problems you're having are nothing to do with the r/efn syntax. The problem seems to be that what you're trying to do violates the hierarchy ARTICLE TEXT - NOTES - SOURCES. In general article text can invoke {{efn}} and {{r}} freely; but in a note (i.e. within {{efn}}) you can use {{r}} but not another {{efn}}; and in a source you can't use either {{efn}} nor {{r}}. You're also trying to use {{sfn}} in ways it's not designed for -- it's meant for use in article text, or notes, but you can't use it within a source to refer to another source to create a Harvard "short footnote" (e.g. Macmillan (2000) p. 123) which links to a full cite in a bibliography section -- not to link to another "source" entry. The actual technical limitations are slightly less rigid than just stated, but the exceptions are baroquely technical (e.g. some things are possible if you do things in exactly one particular order). And, again, I've expressed the above in terms of the r/efn syntax, but <ref>...</ref> has the same limitations (actually somewhat more limitations, if you really want to know). Mirokado, can you confirm the above, please? Yes that is a fair general summary. --Mirokado (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Because of these limitations your mockups can't actually be realized in the article, or in any article, and no RfC is going to change that. I've been discussing them here in the hopes that, once I understand what it is you're after, I could install something like it in the article for you. Really, I've really been wanting to do that so we could bring this accursed thread to an end! But after all this conversation, I still can't understand what it is you're after, because the only goal I can see stated in your last post is, "I've demonstrated that it is possible to eliminate the note entirely". Ironically, because of the hierarchy limitations just explained, the only way to use sfn the way you want would be to somehow move the Macmillan (2000) p. 123 strings to notes, which would increase the number of notes! And even ignoring that, your approach removes a systematic enumeration of which sources assert/discuss which behaviors and, in its place, substitutes a confusing presentation broken into 5 pieces and full of parentheticals, so that the reader has to look all over (probably must use text search of the page) in order to find the sources related to e.g. employment inability. (Try searching employment inability on this Talk page to get the picture.) This is entirely against the whole purpose of citation, which is to show the reader the specific sources that support a given point. All this to reduce the note count by one? I just don't get it. Mirokado, save us! EEng (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Well, let us see what I can suggest... First, though, a late breakfast calls. --Mirokado (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Technical break(-through) It is possible to integrate Tryptofish's version 3 into the article: install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js if you have not already done so substitute the new "Behaviors ascribed ... like an idiot" content and preview correct the "Cite error: A list-defined reference named "wilson" is not used in the content" errors by removing the mentioned citations. This is made easy by EEng's disciplined use of list-defined references. correct the "Harv error: link from #CITEREFMacmillan2000 doesn't point to any citation" errors (these are what you need HarvErrors for) by adding |ref=harv to the corresponding citations. place the behaviours ref in the list-defined references consistently with all the others but the very long behaviours reference list causes problems with column breaks: although the start of this list happens to be just after a column start with two or three columns, we get a nearly empty third column with five columns. Clearly a variation of number or order of references could cause this problem to arise unexpectedly during normal editing (and we see it in the uneven column lengths in the example above) so I don't think this is practicable. We would need to think of ways of splitting that very long reference or reducing its length. For example: three of the citations are only present to support an unsubstantiated claim of "drifting", three more only for "employment inability" and so on. Are all these duplicates really necessary? See below. EEng (talk) assuming that 5 concatenated callouts are about as many as we would want, we could consolidate the embedded citations differently so there are several blocks of shorter citations (numbers as in ex 3): 5 + 6: Discussion and presentation of evidence falsifying the claims 7 + 8 plus citations from 9 like aggressiveness, violence, bulling: Attribution of antisocial attitudes and behavior citations relating to employment, drifting, begging citations relating to interpersonal issues (wife, children, sexuality, ...) anything which would not fit in one of the above? if a review article already lists these unsubstantiated claims in detail along with the supporting citations, it would be ok I think to use that reference to support the list in the article content, which means we could get rid of all this complexity. Originally there was just a footnote mentioning Macmillan's comprehensive reviews on mis-ascribed behaviors [206], but another editor objected [207], so at tremendous labor I added cites for each behavior [208], after which that same editor complained [209] I was "ref bombing the text into an unreadable state". So after researching guidelines like WP:CITEBUNDLE I addressed that using the setup seen in the article now [210], and after just two brisk months and 250k of discussion here we are! The reason there are 2-3 cites for each behavior is that these are the behaviors frequently ascribed to Gage. If I we set the bar any lower we'll need a separate article, List of behaviors ascribed to Phineas Gage with no evidence at all, and even that might need to be divided into subarticles to avoid crashing the servers when someone accesses it. So yes, we could go back to just citing Macmillan again (and not as a footnote anymore, just as a superscript callout, since the footnote material seen in this post's first diff has been split off already) but sooner or later the legendary other editor will show up and complain about my ongoing plan to give references to Macmillan "undue prominence" in the article by excluding other citations. Then we can start the whole process over again! EEng (talk) Does this help? I'm reminded of the old adage: "Be careful what you ask for, you may get it!". --Mirokado (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Yes, it really helps. EEng (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Tfish, my apologies for not realizing that there's a 37-step iterative procedure which does, indeed, make Version 3 possible... at least... I think... um... not sure I quite follow all the steps described without actually trying it. (And Mirokado, how do you know about all this obscure js and stuff? You are indeed the Citation Whisperer.) [Technical side note to Mirokado: I think my statement re "trying to use {{sfn}} in ways it's not designed" is indeed correct, but I think I see why this setup might function anyway -- the outgoing links from the "short cites" e.g. Macmillan (2000) p. 123 are simply blind references to anchors, no matter where those anchors may be on the page. The machinery that generates the short cites, and the outgoing links underlying them, neither knows nor cares how the targets of those links are generated, nor where on the page they are, and so none of the "hierarchy" limitations mentioned above come into play -- so long as the anchors do get generated somehow.] How do I know things? People mention something and I have a look at it (just as I have now mentioned HarvErrors to you). Also, if I see something in an article, I look to see how it was done. Yes you are correct about harv/sfn following id attributes (anchors). --Mirokado (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) But, Mirokado, I have a question: Putting aside your role as the Superhero Citation Whisperer, and just in your everyday role as a mortal editor like the rest of us, do you have an opinion on whether what we get under Version 3 is, or is not, an improvement relative to the way the article presents the material now? I'm thinking in particular of my concerns above, in the paragraph just before the #Technical break(-through) section heading. EEng (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC) I continue to like the edits to the page that the two of you are making. To some extent, I feel like the best thing I can do now is to get out of the way and let Mirokado have at it. I think one part of what I see in Mirokado's comments above is that we might not need to have so many sources cited at all, and I would be very happy to go along with reducing the number. And EEng, I'm sure that we will find that formatting can be technically possible, although I'm the least knowledgeable of the three editors here as to how to accomplish it. Please don't let concerns about formatting difficulties get in the way of decisions about what is good for the page in terms of what is visible to readers. The fact that formatting methods, that are only visible in the edit window, may have to be changed is not a good reason to reject improvements in the format that is visible to readers of the page. I've looked closely at your point about "sfn" being used for a short references section, followed by a full references section, but not for mixing short and full references within one section, and I went and reread WP:CITE with that in mind. I'm a little out of my editing comfort zone here, and I might be mistaken, but I'm not actually seeing a guideline that short and full references must always be in separate sections. --Tryptofish (talk) 3:38 pm, Today (UTC−5) For reasons that mystify me, EEng's most recent comment generated one of those red notifications to me, even though it looks like it was more a reply to Mirokado, so if there's a question or comment to me that I missed, please set me straight. I saw what EEng said about adding the other cites so that it isn't just citing Macmillan, and I feel your pain. I don't think we should wholesale delete all the "attribution" citations. They are useful and should stay, at least some of them. But we could cut them back to one "attribution" source per behavior, which would shorten the list by about half, and I would like that (it might even make the "sfn" issue moot!). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC) No idea why you got pinged, especially since I always refer to you as "Tfish" -- the system's not that clever, is it? If we take out or reduce the "attribution" sources, then you're in charge of dealing with you-know-who if he drops in for another visit. I hope the system isn't smart enough to figure out who "you-know-who" is, so that it pings him now! That you say, "formatting methods, that are only visible in the edit window, may have to be changed" means I failed badly in explaining things earlier -- again, using the r/efn syntax instead of the < ref>...< /ref> syntax does not in any way limit what can be done or change how you go about doing it. To the extent there are concerns with using sfn within the "sources" section, mixing short and full references within one section, etc., those concerns don't stem from anything about guidelines, but rather are entirely technical. Clearly sfn isn't designed to be used that way; and though it turns out (Mirokado suggests, and I think I now agree) that it will work that way, that's only because of an accident of its design. But if it works, and it's indeed an improvement for the reader, I'm willing to take advantage of that accident. I'm going to leave it to Mirokado to break the 1–1 tie over which approach is better for the reader, but (tee-hee) I'm also going to leave it to him to figure out how to implement any change because, after all, he is the Citation Whisperer. Congratulations, Mirokado, you're in charge! EEng (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks to you both for the comments. I will make the change Monday evening (Europe), it is a bit late now. I'll go with version 3 above, with the citations redistributed a bit, as I suggested. That removes the current word-callout-salad and should go some way to bring related citations near each other. Editors will of course be welcome to tweak things once the basic framework is in place, in particular to get the one-citation-per-issue balance right. --Mirokado (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Everything's so easy when you're around. I know whatever you do will be consistent, attractive, technically sound and so on, so I won't urge those goals on you. But please organize the cites so that those related to Behavior A are grouped together, then those for Behavior B, etc., so that the reader only has to look one place to find out about a given behavior. This is "almost" easy, as follows. In the current version [211], sources [37]-[60] are only used for this behavior stuff, so to a first approximation we can just organize them like this Wife and children: {{cite book|author=Smith|year=1972}} {{cite book|author=Jones|year=1982}} Sexuality: {{cite book|author=Anders|year=1999}} {{cite book|author=Billson|year=1998}} where those items are what used to be in [37]-[60]. The flies-in-the-ointment are that [42], [49] are used in multiple behaviors, and [42], [1], [M], [M1] are used outside the behaviors list as well in it. The trick, as I see it, is how to present those along with the simple, one-time {{cite book}} refs, in as consistent and understandable a way as possible. Good luck EEng (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Thank you, Mirokado. (And that's all I'm going to say for now.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Discussion relating to these behavior citations in particular now continues in #Disposition of behavior citations. --Mirokado (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A7 Image link issue

Extended content

I've removed the links that bypass normal image linking procedures. The effect of this link was to link to the image and then upon clicking, link directly to the image and bypass the options to access relevant licensing information. It now works properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC) The way image is presented in the article. Thumbnail presents a cropped "closeup" of part of the image, so that "organs" of Veneration and Benevolence can be made out. Clicking on takes you to the formal description page, while clicking on the image itself takes you to the full, uncropped image. You're mistaken. The required link is still there even when |link= is used -- it's the little double-rectangle thingamajig in the upper-right of the caption area. It happens that in most thumbs, clicking the image itself takes you to the same place that the double-rectangle thingamajig does, but that's not required. In these cases, the reason for using the |link= parameter is so (for example) the thumbnail is a cropped "zoom in" like you see at right, but when you click the image, you get the full, uncropped img. (Try it.) But if the reader wants the image description page for the thumb, he clicks the little overlapping rectangles. What the thumbnail would look like -- illegible -- if we don't use a crop for the thumbnail. If we didn't do that, then what would appear in the article would be the whole, uncropped img squeezed into a thumb, like you see at right, which is illegible. Does this make sense? I've put the links back because, if we're going to discuss this further, it's easier if we can see what we're discussing. EEng (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC) While that is nice and all, the images source and licensing information needs to be accessible. The way in which you have it structured completely conceals it and prevents users from accessing the information. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Please re-read what I wrote. The icon always takes the reader to the image description page, and that's all that's required. For another example in which clicking on the image takes you somewhere other than the image description page, see WP:Picture_tutorial#Image_maps. Do you see now? EEng (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Caption caption caption caption caption caption caption caption caption caption Clicking on the image should go to the image, not another image. if you want to use the cropped version, then clicking on it should go to the cropped version. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (You seem to have added the image seen here at right to illustrate the way you think things should work.) Just to be clear, the word "should" in your comment means that you prefer it that way, not that it's required to be that way. The guidelines (here's another: WP:Picture_tutorial#Links) not only allow it to be otherwise, they give examples of where you'd want it to take advantage of that. Why would we make editors choose between making the thumbnail legible and giving the reader the full image when he clicks? What purpose is served by that? EEng (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Anyone have thoughts on this? EEng (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC) I'm trying to think of a way to satisfy everyone's concerns. It seems to me that, from the perspective of what the reader might want to find out, we need to consider two competing considerations. The first is that we absolutely do need to show the cropped image in order to make the relevant brain regions legible. The second is that the un-cropped image is very helpful in locating where those regions are, within the brain as a whole. Perhaps a solution would be to make use of Template:Multiple image, and show both images together. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Tell me you didn't just make an edit with the edit summary "adjust pus". Yuck!! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Apparently you missed explain laudable pus [212] and pus backstory [213]. EEng (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Are you really building a sub-article on phrenology, here inside the Gage article? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Tfish, I wonder if you fully understand the "operation" of the image as it currently exists in the article, which is the same as in the first image in this section (the A7 section). The thumb presented is the crop, so he can read it. If he clicks the crop, he is taken to the full image, shown very large. Doesn't that serve both your competing considerations, but resolve the competition? (And if the reader clicks the he gets the description page for the crop, but that's just a formality.) I can't see why we'd present the full and the crop together. The only thing I can think to change might be to add to the caption something like Click to see diagram of full head EEng (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Yes, I fully understood that when I made my previous comment, I promise. I agree with Frietjes in that "Clicking on the image should go to the image, not another image." It's not that there is anything magically important about that rule, but it's just the way things are on 99.999% of pages on the English Wikipedia, and I'm trying to drag you, kicking and screaming, into compliance with common practice. I accept that what I'm saying isn't, strictly speaking, a policy or guideline requirement, but I still think that it's a good idea to conform to common practice even if it isn't absolutely required. The reason I suggested a double image is the same reason why you are considering clicking through to the uncropped image: so that readers can see both (one, with the relevant detail more visible, the other, with the position within the entire head accessible). I suppose I could also support a variation on the explicit "click here to see...", if what the reader would click on would be a blue link to the uncropped image, in the image caption. (In other words, click on the cropped image and you get the cropped image file page, but if you click on the link in the caption, you get the uncropped image.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Bump When the user clicks he's saying "I want to get a better view". Usually that returns just a blown-up version of exactly what the thumbnail shows, but if the thumb was cropped it's hard to imagine the reader objecting to being shown the uncropped full context. What is the point of making the user click a special link to see the uncropped image when it's natural for him or her to just click the image? Besides, in the grand tradition of commentary on this article, it's been decreed that "We don't do this" [214][215] -- and we certainly can't run against such imperial imperious commands, can "we"? And, as discussed, the formal requirements (licensing etc.) are satisfied by the little icon-thingee in the caption. I'm <bump>ing this thread in the hope we can resolve it expeditiously with Mirokado's help. Mirokado, what do you think of the use of the |link= feature so that clicking a cropped thumb takes you to an uncropped image "behind"? EEng (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC) BUMP! Mirokado, where art thou? EEng (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Arrr. I am in fact away for a few days, but I have been thinking a bit about this and will continue to do so over this weekend. --Mirokado (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Enjoy! EEng (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks, I certainly did! Longest run 3800–2000m took about half an hour, good snow and weather. I'll get back to this over the next day or so. --Mirokado (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I've updated the two files on Commons so they each show a thumbnail of the derived or derivative work. That I think clarifies the attribution. --Mirokado (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Mirokado, if I were on a sinking ship, and technical knowledge of WP or Commons was my ticket to safety, you would be the one editor I would choose to have with me. Tryptofish, does that resolve your concerns? EEng (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC) It seems to me that what Mirokado did was to resolve your concerns, rather than mine. Mirokado, please see what I said just above the "Bump" header. Again, I'm not saying that any of this is really wrong, just that it's unconventional. In fact, at the same time I'm telling you that, I'm also thinking how much I disapprove of the "Media Viewer" that the nice folks at WMF gave us, so that leaves me with a lot of ambivalence all around. I'm still very much digging my way out of a "heavey" week of my own, and I just haven't had time to give this page the attention that is required if I'm going to really be of help here, but give me several more days, and I will. It is very much my impression that the work both of you have been doing on this page has been very helpful, so my sincere thanks to both of you about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I actually didn't have a concern, but it was nice that Mirokado installed the technically precise template to clarify the relationship between the full and the cropped image, thereby resolving any concern about attribution, which was the "problem" with which you-know-who opened this thread. I hate the image viewer thingee too, though I really don't know what that has to do with anything here. While we await your heavey return, perhaps Mirokado can give his opinion on the general question of the appropriateness of using |link= with a cropped image to take the user to the uncropped image (or, more precisely, to the description page for the uncropped image). EEng (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC) It is clearly allowed to do that (Wikipedia:Picture tutorial which has already been mentioned) and I would not have complained about it here. It is also clearly rare to do it, which makes it reasonable to look for the best way to provide a high quality user experience in this case. I am certainly happy for the article to remain as it is while we continue to discuss alternatives. What we have now was the simplest change I could think of, and in any case improves the description pages. The point about media player is that if that is enabled, you don't get to the description page with one click, so you don't see the other_version images. I have several other ideas, some related to suggestions which have already been made, but no more tonight... --Mirokado (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Something crossed my mind, and I just thought I should point it out. Perhaps some editor at Commons will decide to edit the file pages there in such a way as to thwart what we are trying to do here, and that could lead to some cross-project disagreement. That could be an argument against unconventional fixes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC) There's nothing about the way the files are described at Commons that's unusual -- one file is a crop of the other. Mirokado just indicated that in a more elegant way than I had, with all the just-right values in the Source and Author fields and so on. I agree with him that all we need to do here is determine the "best way to provide a high-quality user experience". AFAIK the current setup provides that, but if something better can be suggested then I'd be in favor of switching to that. What I'm not in favor of is reducing the quality of the user's experience on the mere possibility that some editors will be hostile to techniques that are perfectly acceptable -- even preferable -- but with which they aren't familiar. Here's a particularly egregious example of an editor thinking that what he's seen defines what's acceptable, no matter what guidelines say -- note the telltale sudden silence at the end, when that realization finally sinks in. Let's wait to here what MacGyver comes up with. EEng (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC) There are lots of ways we could present these images a bit differently. I will try some out probably over next weekend and post any promising suggestions here. As far as commons-vs.-en is concerned, we can always upload here and add {{Do not move to Commons}} for something like, for example, a derivative work specifically designed for display in a particular way in a particular article, but I will try to avoid that. --Mirokado (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC) OK, Gyro Gearloose, we await your results. But I don't get this concern about Commons -- what's this potential problem everyone's worried about? EEng (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC) It's just that commons is very generic, so we can't really insist on details (particularly any trickery) relied on by one particular article being retained. --Mirokado (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC) I still don't get it. What is the trickery we're using? It's just two images, one of which happens to be the crop of the other. Why would anyone tinker with those "details"? EEng (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Not something to worry about, we would just localise the image if it has been designed very specifically for the one article. This is not currently a problem. --Mirokado (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Drum roll, please.... Phrenology map with inset, using ImageMap. How about something like this? --Mirokado (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC) It's kind of like a map of Country X with a little inset showing where Country X is relative to other countries in Asia or whatever. At first I was excited because I imagined that if you clicked on the "full image inset" you'd be taken to the full image. But I was wrong, of course (though I think that might be possible with image maps, except they're very broken and have been for years.) Sorry to be dense, but I still don't see what's wrong with the current setup. Why would anyone, on clicking on the crop, object to being taken to the uncropped? "Damn those Wikipedia editors! I did not want to see the other parts of this diagram of a head! EEng (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Well its just that the result is a surprise, even if a nice one once you think about it. I've now had a look at ImageMap, which seems to work fine in this simple case, even playing nicely with image parameters, and added some imagemap definitions for the image with inset. --Mirokado (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Well, I don't see anything wrong with a surprise if it's a nice surprise. I welcome you're to have a go with imagemap, but... I fear you're in for frustration: I put substantial effort into a use of imagemap once, only to realize later it goes utterly haywire as zooms change (or something -- I forget exactly, and maybe only on IE, but "only on IE" is enough). As I recall I eventually found archived comments complaining of the same problems, and a response basically saying "Fixing this is too hard, and since no one uses the feature anyway I/we aren't gonna bother." The inset idea is a typical brilliant one from you, but search the page source for link= to find the several other images in which I used the same technique -- each for a good reason, I think you'll see, and not all susceptible to the "inset" idea. Even if we can make imagemap work (and if you do, I have an entirely different place I'd want to use it!) I'll still be asking: what's wrong with a nice surprise which gives the reader everything he asked for, plus a little more he would have asked for had he known it was available? EEng (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC) How can I possibly be frustrated if "typical" and "brilliant" appear in the same sentence? We can live without imagemap, I think. I just tried it out because you mentioned it. I had a look at the other uses of |link=. Mostly, the thumbnail shows the main detail without background − the full picture is not really a surprise. In this case, though, we are rather more choosing a restricted peekhole because the reduced size of the full picture would be illegible, and the full picture looks very different. There is also the issue that many readers, I suspect, never bother to click through to the file page for every image, so there needs to be some clue here that it might be worth doing so. For these reasons I suggest that we use the image with the inset in the article, with the current |link= unchanged. This would mean that the thumbnail really does contain the full image that the reader sees when clicking through, thus a reasonably familiar user experience. If we do this, I will transfer the image with inset to commons. --Mirokado (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, excellent. This way we don't even need imagemap. It's like the current setup, except as you say giving a hint to the reader of what he'll get when clicking. If it's not too much trouble, the inset has a tiny caption just below it that can never be legible -- can that be eliminated? Actually, can you move the inset "hard" left and "hard" to bottom i.e. [Diagrams removed because they cause some sort of formatting craziness] EEng (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC) I'd prefer to leave the picture as it is: the inset acts as a thumbnail for the original drawing, the illegible caption may be an extra temptation to the user to click through, the white border outside the drawing frame is intended to give the impression of a piece of paper laid over one corner of the enlargement. --Mirokado (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Very wise as always. EEng (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC) And so (to be clear) you're OK with the other uses of link=? Frankly, I think it's a very underused technique, allowing both thumbs and full-size imgs to each do their jobs as best possible. Yes I am happy with the other uses of link=. I would like to go through the file descriptions to clarify the attribution as I did for the phrenology pic, if you don't mind? There is also at least one link to an en: file page which should be changed to the commons file. The excerpt from the record book at the end of the Exhumation section is not showing a link over the image as I would expect (Firefox 34.0.5, linux) but it is not clear to me why this would be. I will look further. --Mirokado (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I was wondering when you would notice that. It's an artifact of the oh-so-clever way I used quote box|align=center to position the caption to the left of the image, instead of below. Read the <! -- hidden comment, and see what happens as you narrow the browser window. For some reason this reduces the clickable area to just the tiniest border around the image. I like caption at left (and the little trick of using nobreak to relocate the caption underneath when the window gets narrow -- an idea that struck me later) but I'm guessing we should probably switch to the standard arrangement before some know-it-all gives us a hard time for it. (I just now added link=, which another editor had removed some time ago and which I overlooked to restore. But this doesn't change anything I've just said.) Your advice, O Wise One? EEng (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC) By all means make any adjustments you like to file descriptions etc. EEng (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC) I only wish there was a thumb syntax allowing a tuple (Xbegin%, Xend%, Ybegin%, Yend%), which would specify a rectangular crop of the specified File: to be used as the thumb, without having to upload a special cropped version just for use in the thumb. (Does that make sense?) {{Annotated image}} and {{annotated image 4}} allow us to display a cropped extract from an image, but unfortunately they do not play nicely with thumbnails and the user's default settings. The results particluarly with larger images are miserable, see p-Hydroxynorephedrine as you make the window narrower. --Mirokado (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, as with imagemap I was very excited by the possibilities of annotation, then disappointed by the reality. I annotated this [216] but then realized that the annotation only works when you're actually on the description page -- doesn't work when you mouseover the thumb in the article, so really what's the point. On top of that, I vaguely recall, you need to have something enabled in your user prefs, and it only works on the commons description page, not on the WP description page (which, depending on your prefs, is where you land when clicking on the image). All in all another good idea completely screwed up. EEng (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)</small< Tfish, now are you on board, or are we still missing your concern? EEng (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC) <Rubber baby buddy BUMPers> EEng (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Monthly bump. EEng (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC) This exact technique is used on the WP Main Page As seen here [217] this precise technique is used even on WP's very own Main Page, so it seems what we have here is yet another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and/or WP:ONLYTHINGSIKNOWABOUTAREOK. Mirokado, I don't know if you noticed that Tfish has had a personal emergency. I don't want to take advantage of his absence, but I think now this is one subtopic we can close with confidence, and with regard to this one, at least, I'd like to take the opportunity to reduce the mass of stuff I'll need to pester him about when he's back. What do you think? EEng (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC) I had not noticed but have now responded, thanks for the info. With 216 page watchers, I think we can assume that this method is now accepted. I'm still waiting for the inset image to be copied to commons so I can finish the tidying up, but we can do that as part of routine editing. So yes, as far as I am concerned, mark this as resolved. --Mirokado (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I have now transferred the inset image to commons so I will start the tidying up of the images (adding other versions, etc) when convenient. --Mirokado (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what tidying you're talking about but you always know what you're doing. BTW, have you any idea the cause of the weirdness in the rendering here [218]? EEng (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No idea. Perhaps the software tries to parse all those pipe symbols in the ascii art by mistake? --Mirokado (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A digression re some bug

Here's a reduced exemplar with the same failing:

+---------------------+ In the source, this text comes AFTER the ascii art.

Extended content
In the source, this text comes BEFORE the ascii art. +---------------------+
| +---------+-----------+ not +---------------------+
| |

My guess is that the ascii art with | as the first nonblank on a line is being somehow mistaken for a table. This only happens in the presence of the collapses, so God only knows what's going on. It's frightening to think that a parsing error like this can span such a long distance. EEng (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Here we go: search the Collapse top/bottom discussion page [219] for this: most browsers, on encountering non-table content inside an unclosed table, will move it above the table. I think it's pretty clear something like this is what's happening. I'm sure the technognomes have this in hand, one way or another. EEng (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A8 Cavendish, Vermont 1869 Map

Extended content

This map constitutes original research and I've made mention of this before. The map in question indicates the town 21 years after the incident in question. The map as published in Macmillan does not provide the information or mark up in question. As result this image is not appropriate for Wikipedia because it represents a synthesis to produce original research. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) As WP:OI says, Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. The published information which is the basis for the annotation (i.e. the three letters/arrows) is explained on the image description page for the uncropped map [220] and also in a footnote to the map's caption [221] i.e. Macmillan gives the steps in setting a blast, the location and circumstances of the accident, and the location of Gage's lodgings and Harlow's home and surgery.[1]:23–9[6]:151-2[5]:A. Thoughts on this? As with the image links, I've put the map back so we (and others) can see what we're talking about. EEng (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC) You take from this source, we get that, but I still find it problematic that you use a much later map and proceed to mark it up. I think you are selectively reading again because WP:OR states: "Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for deletion." I think using a decades late map that has no grounding in the situation at hand falls under "materially affected" and negatively impacts it. It also takes quite a bit of reading to understand where your map marker notes would be related - nor do you cite this clearly. Though instead of using the 1855 map, you opted for the 1869 map - bringing even more time between the events, needlessly. Or is it because you noted issues in the map - such as the river changing directions? The matter has become muddled by your actions and they do materially affect the article and readers understanding. Rather than make the matters clear, you've made it needlessly complex and difficult to understand even basic things about the image in question. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I used the 1865 map for the simple reason that the 1855 map doesn't include the area in which the accident occurred. You only partially quoted WP:OR, which actually says It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for deletion. The link (given in the original text at WP:OR) behind photo manipulation defines it as "the application of image editing techniques to photographs in order to create an illusion or deception after the original photographing took place." Adding letters and arrows to an old map to point out locations is nothing like that. EEng (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC) The facts of the image were already distorted without adding an extra decade and a half into the mix and requiring another document which is based off a map not drawn to scale to interpret and draw lines to a nearly unreadable document which provides no context or note of these facts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, I don't understand. "requiring another document" -- what other document? What isn't drawn to scale? What context or notes should be provided? EEng (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Well, that honeymoon didn't last long. I just made an edit, in which I tried to make the date of the map, and the subsequent addition of the red markings, more explicit, so as to make it clear to the reader. I also made the wording about the accident site more cautious, so as to decrease any unverifiable inferences. I don't see an OR problem with using the image, so long as we don't label it misleadingly. With the changes I made, I'm not seeing any remaining problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Personally I think readers will know that the "locations added in red" are modern, without being told, but I'm fine with that. And I like switching from "possible accident sites" (i.e. it might be this specific site or that other specific site) to "region of the accident" (i.e. it was somewhere in this region). However, there's no "possible" about the region i.e. we can either say (A) The two possible accident sites or (A) Region of the accident site but not (A) Possible region of the accident site because there's no doubt this is the right region (only which of the two "cuttings" there is the right one). I've installed this with minor rewording. OK? EEng (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I agree, and I corrected it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Looks like we're  Done with this one. EEng (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) P.S. CG's attempt to have the map deleted from Commons failed. [222]. EEng (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A9 Proving a negative

Extended content

This regards a recent edit [223] to the passage Macmillan's comprehensive survey of accounts of Gage (scientific and popular) found that they almost always distort and exaggerate his behavioral changes... which removed the word comprehensive. This is a delicate point and I want to come up with something everyone can live with. I think there are two questions here. First, Was Macmillan's analysis indeed comprehensive? No one who's been participating have any doubt on that, but just in case, open the collapse list. Extended content "first rate example of carefully done historical work" (Psychological Reports, 2001) "obstinately searched all possible sources. It seems very unlikely that anyone else could find a relevant piece not considered (Cortex, 2004) "fastidious archaeological removal of the layers of legend" (Lancet, 2001) "Even some of the most prestigious academic researchers have disseminated erroneous information..." (Neurosurgery Quarterly, 2002) "The definitive account. One of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary." (Science, 2000) "Macmillan scoured all the sources and commentaries on the case and as far as material regarding Gage is concerned this must be a definitive work. (History of the Human Sciences, 2007) "Macmillan has shown that the record of how Phineas Gage’s character changed after the accident must be considered with caution..." (New England Journal of Medicine", 2004) Second, Do we need to say the analysis was comprehensive? IMO I think we do, because it the analysis assserts a negative, which requires extraordinary research; just saying Macmillan found no mention omits that such extraordinary research was in fact done. (Two examples from the collapse box: "Macmillan has obstinately searched all possible sources. It seems very unlikely that anyone else could find a relevant piece not considered"; "The definitive account. One of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary.") Without such a clear statement, we get edit summaries such as this one: [224]. Actually, there's a third question: Do we need to include a quotation (such as the "further research is not necessary" -- above) supporting the comprehensiveness? I don't think the reader needs that. I had put it in a footnote to the article recently only because another editor had questioned the comprehensiveness -- in other words, the quotation was there for editors, not readers, and this discussion can take its place. So what I suggest is that the article say Macmillan's comprehensive analysis of accounts of Gage..., where [97][98][99] cite to a few of the sources supporting the comprehensiveness, but without quoting them. What do you think? EEng (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Just so we are clear: You are intent on having three references or a footnote linking to those three references not to support any direct or related information to Phineas Gage, but instead on supporting the description of Macmillan's analysis as "comprehensive"? It is statements like that which are brought low by the fact that Macmillan's actual text asserts a non-existent document concerning Gage's death that Macmillan personally examined? That said non-existent document, which lead to a major dispute, cannot be permitted a footnote or warning to readers consulting this comprehensive text? How does that make any sense? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC) When a 500-page book has an error in relating a date on a document, for which the author issued a correction even before the book was released, that hardly casts doubt on the rest of that author's research. And the footnote [225] discussing the date of Gage's death explicitly points the reader to the book's "Corrections page". For those who are wondering, here's the correction we're talking about: p. 108, para 2: The year of Gage's death is 1860, but the only other date on the records is 23rd. May for the funeral/interment, and only Gray's Funeral Record gives 'epilepsy' as the cause of death. Shocking! There is no "non-existent document" involved and I have no idea what that is you're talking about. Anyway, do you have anything to say about my proposed wording? A statement like "No examples of X were found" doesn't mean much unless the reader is told whether the survey of sources was extremely complete, some kind of sample, or just a spot check. EEng (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I have nothing more to say to you about this because that major error exists and it is on that page. It specifically states: Despite the authority of Harlow's source, Phineas died in 1860, not 1861. No death notice appeared in a newspaper, and if a death certificate was issued it seems to be have been destroyed. What, then, grounds my certainty? Two documents that I have examined personally. First, the Internment Records of the Laurel Hill Cemetery give the date of death of "Phineas B. Gage" as May 20 1860 and the burial date as May 23, 1860. Second, N. Gray & Co.'s Funeral Record 1850 to 1862 for the Lone Mountain Cemetery, reproduced here as figure 6.4, also gives 23 May 1860 as the date of the funeral. Both give the cause of death as "epilepsy."[17] Macmillan 2000 clearly noted date of death as May 20, not May 21. Then later said that no such detailing exists - exactly why that needs to be footnoted. This is the type of thing is made all the worse by Macmillan's confidence in the matter. Both documents do not give the cause of death and the date of death is not listed on either source. This issue was discussed before. The text is misleading with the note stating "...as well as with Gage's age—​36 years—​as given in undertaker's records after his death on May 21, 1860." This does not explain the synthesis done and it reads that his date of death in the undertaker's records was May 21, 1860 when no date is given for his death in that record and that his birth date cannot be ascertained because age aspect for day is absent unlike others. Rather than explaining in a footnote the matter - here we are again. You are so selective and dismissive of your text's faults that it is impossible to work with you on meaningful changes based on errors or poor wording. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I've made some changes that I hope will clear up any confusion. [226] EEng (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I previously discussed the issue of "comprehensive" at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#Edit 589408098, and per what I said there, I pretty much agree with Chris on this one. EEng replied to me in the earlier talk that "comprehensive" simply described the nature of the family history analysis, and although I do not question that intent, I believe that the effect of the word, as it would be understood by our readers, is to sound WP:PEACOCKy about the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Chris, we're falling into that old mode where as soon as there's a difference of opinion you ascribe dark motives -- You are intent on having ... You are so selective and dismissive ... -- and change the subject. We started talking about Gage's mental changes, and suddenly you're talking about the death date and some "nonexistent document", then without warning it's the birthdate. It's impossible to have a discussion like that. Tfish, with apologies, I realize I've been looking at this sideways, because the comprehensiveness on accounts of Gage in general isn't essential to proving the negative, only comprehensiveness on first-hand accounts. So I'm happy with the current Macmillan's survey of accounts of Gage, but with the suggestion that we change survey to analysis, since to some people survey = "small percentage sample". OK? EEng (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Seems EEng has gone and put words into my mouth again. Last time he called me a troll, sensing a pattern here. I'm removing the "comprehensive note" and if EEng is going to continue in this fashion then it seems remaking the entire article from scratch and moving to replace the current incarnation is going to be the most logical option for dealing with the issues. Considering the push back he makes over trivial matters like having three references in a footnote for a useless "comprehensive" claim of Macmillan's text and not allowing any discussion of Macmillan's errors. This article is so flawed and so terrible in so many aspects that either topic banning EEng or remaking the entire page will be the only way the problems can be resolved with appropriate effort to noise ratios. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC) This discussion is running downhill fast, and I'm not interested except to say that we are better off without "comprehensive". EEng, "analysis" is fine with me, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC) EEng: I'm glad my layout edits were helpful, thanks. If I followed the most recent edits correctly, I think you changed "survey" to "analysis", but then changed it back again. I wonder if that was unintentional. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)  Done, un- Done, re- Done. I think I developed the all-imgs-stacked-right format when there was significantly less text, so that alternating imgs left-right created many places where text was sandwiched between two images -- so many it was impossible to control images widths in such a way that the sandwiching isn't too narrow. Now, with more text, imgs can be spaced enough to avoid the sandwich, at least in some places. However, I recommend we not put too much effort into img placement and sizing until content issues are better settled, because the quantity of text in various sections can strongly affect img formatting. EEng (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A10 Removed Note

Extended content

I removed this note because it is poor form to footnote a quote's reference to another quote with the quote and that quote's citation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC) It's very common for a passage to carry a footnote which gives a citation plus additional information (whether quotations or other material) related to that passage. Nonetheless, as it happens I was just thinking earlier of moving the Van Horn quote into the main text, so I've done that. [227] If there's a concern about how a piece of content is presented, the issue should be raised here so a better presentation can be found, or a bold edit made improving the presentation, rather than the content being deleted outright. As explained at WP:PRESERVE, Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. EEng (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC) You've just actually made a better case for removing it because you've gone and made it a poorly flowing redundant paragraph that cannot keep from gushing. Considering your issue with images and quotes... paraphrasing is ideal. Also, in looking at the references you use - you've basically gone and made the article have even more issues.... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC) For those who are wondering, this regards the following passage: The portraits reinforce the social recovery hypothesis already described. "That [Gage] was any form of vagrant following his injury is belied by these remarkable images", wrote Van Horn. "Although just one picture," Kean commented in reference to the first image, "it exploded the common image of Gage as a dirty, disheveled misfit. This Phineas was proud, well-dressed, and disarmingly handsome." That the portraits help falsify the old depiction of Gage is frequently commented on in both scientific and popular publications. I've added cites to two more just now, for a total of five (more could be easily added); to let two particularly well-phrased quotes represent all of this material seems to me entirely appropriate. I don't see how these quotations can be paraphrased without completely losing the point of including them in the first place -- they'd just become "and X and Y also said thing like that". EEng (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I've looked at this issue (not easy to follow), and I think that the way it is at this time, with the last paragraph of the Portraits section as it is, is good. I think these quotes are appropriate to have in the text of that paragraph, and I agree with EEng that the actual quotes improve the reader's understanding of the topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)