Talk:Phineas Gage

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 [1] [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?[2] 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." [3]. 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. [4] EEng (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: Editor ChrisGualtieri has repeatedly [5][6][7] 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)

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 [8] 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 [9] 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 [10]

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)

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 [11].)

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 [12]:

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: [13]

• 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 [14] #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)

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.[15]
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.[16]
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.[17]

• 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 [18]
• 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 [19]
• B. In this [20], 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: [21] and [22]

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.[23] 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 [24], 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, December 22, 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)

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: [25], 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:[26], 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 [27]) -- what makes you say that?

CG, the image is too small because you earlier removed [28] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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): [29] Harlow's 1868 report: remove lengthy quote
• Discussion: [Please add comments here]

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
• Discussion: [Please add comments here]

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: [30] "clean up"
• Discussion: [Please add comments here]

Edit 589273712

• Edit summary: reinsert note re "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar" in more appropriate place; this point simply explicates Harlow 1848's deferral of details on mental changes, and is discursive to the main story
• Discussion: [Please add comments here]

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: [31] "remove note by integration"
• Discussion: [Please add comments here]

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: [32] "integrate"
• Discussion: [Please add comments here]

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: [33]
• Discussion: [Please add comments here]

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: [34] "remove birth name note", [35] "cleaning up by removing and reintegrating"
• Edit summary: Rv removal, as "useless", of note providing clarification requested by another editor
• Prior edit affected: [36] "comma, and remove useless A note"
• Discussion:

Original / restored text [37]	CG text [38]
[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)

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: [39]
• Discussion: [Please add comments here]

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: [40] "more promotional"
• Discussion: [Please add comments here]

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: [41] "move to caption"
• Discussion: [Please add comments here]

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: [42] "not necessary"
• Discussion: [Please add comments here]

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: [43] "cleaning"
• Discussion: [Please add comments here]

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: [44]  "remove nonexistant note", [45]  "remove see fig note"
• Discussion: [Please add comments here]

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)

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 [46]:

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 [47], 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 [48] of similar glosses, such as wikt:exsecting, led quickly to a reader, who didn't know what that word meant, changing it [49] 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)

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)

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[50] 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 [51] 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.[52] 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.[53] 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 [54] (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 [55] whether the "skillful" is justified, so I added back the note [56] (and another nearby note at the same time). Your response was to again remove the note, and now also remove the skillful as well [57], 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! [58] 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" [59] (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)

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.

Because it reads better then a whole page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:59, 11 January 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.

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)

• 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)

• 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.)

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.[60] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:59, 11 January 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.

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)

• 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.)

• 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.

• 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.

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)

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 [61] and instead of doing you you've simply re-added the tag.
• Original research: Ditto. [62]

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 [63] 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 [64], 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 [65]:

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 [66]. 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)