Talk:Phineas Gage

Ready for GA?

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

Thanks for your edits—they look good. Re cleaning the wikitext: there are still 37 {{hyp}} and 5 {{hyphen}}—I think they should be replaced with hyphens as well in order to give simple wikitext that editors expect. On that line, why not replace {{ndash}} and {{mdashb}}? Are all the {{nbsp}} and {{zwsp}} needed? There are still a few page number ranges using a hyphen (some using a template) rather than an en dash. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Done some more. I think the nbsp chars are probably all right; the zwsp chars are likely not needed but a matter of opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It does look massively better, I fully support the Wiki markup corrections and note that there is a clear consensus for those changes, previously I and other editors have removed them only for it to be repeatedly restored. As part of the GA matter, I still believe there are some significant issues here related to improper OR and such. The "CavendishVermont_1869Map_Beers_AnnotatedPhineasGageLocations.jpg" is an OR created by EEng that does not exist in any published source. I see no reason to use quotations like "abrupt and intrusive visitor" instead of appropriate writing. The article still needs a copyedit by most means and there is still an issue of the omission with his known appearances and return to New Hampshire. The issue of the date of death needs to be covered properly because Macmillian's actual book makes an error in the details itself. Also, despite evidence and several accounts that say Gage was buried with the tamping rod, the sources didn't come from Harlow's text. The names and circumstance of the exhumation were given and how Harlow came to possess the item - things which Harlow did not recount. Quotes being used without citation as per WP:MINREF are an issue to. Nevermind the Notes section issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I also support making a lot of the formatting more standard, per typical good Wikipedia pages, and even some paring back of the footnotes. If GA review will improve this page in those ways, then I think that it will be a good idea. I also feel the need to point out the possibility that such changes to the page may end up being contentious, and so anyone seeking to be bold may need to be prepared for that eventuality. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, please see Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD for a lengthy list of issues that ought to be fixed as part of a GA review. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've restored the removed material, with cites where they had been missing.
• I've also reverted most of the markup changes. As MOS says, "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." Making the markup more like "typical" pages (read: what certain editors happen to be used to seeing) is not a good reason -- otherwise there would be only one way to do things, which there isn't; and note that WP:Good_article_criteria has nothing at all to say about formatting. MOS explicitly encourages use of many of the elements that were removed e.g. {{mdashb}} and {{thinsp}}.

EEng (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• And EEng continues to repeatedly return all the faults to the article. Apparently, EEng does not care that templates within cite templates messes up the data. Also it seems that EEng's invisible comments, like that of what he finds "attractive formatting", are supposed to be allowed to remain despite not performing a usable function. EEng seems more content to let editorial comments and other issues like Template:Shy matter remain indefinitely. Gosh, this is a bad case of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT which is highlighted by EEng's continued ignorance of the matter despite numerous attempts to inform, by myself and others. Not only that, despite three editors in this very discussion, EEng chose to revert them again and continue the matter from many months ago. It seems EEng has a big problem with MOS and I'll place a formal notice that the MOS is also under discretionary sanctions by Arbcom because it seems the problem is continuing on the actual discussion pages as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, EEng was already made aware and the filter seems to have noted that it has not been one year since last posting, or so it seems. I also noted this in July. Though I am not keen on going through more of this MOS and other issues with EEng. It is like SSDD and not even pointing out that the templates being used offer any advantage to readable characters, or even function, seem to give pause. @Chiswick Chap:, another editor, @Bgwhite: further highlighted the problem with EEng's persistence of using templates within cite templates and removed them. Discussions with EEng have been useless and this is becoming a problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have to agree that removing most of EEng's peculiarities is a good thing. Other users will be editing this page, not just EEng. Having strange and unnecessary formatting only complicates things. From MOS:MARKUP, "The simplest markup is often the easiest to edit, the most comprehensible, and the most predictable." Majority of the zwsp, nbsp, ndash templates should be removed. There are cases where it is needed. nbsp just before ellipsis per MOS:ELLIPSIS for example. Just because {{nbsp}}, {{mdashb}} and {{thinsp}} can be used, doesn't mean they have to be used. In the case of this article, over used. EEng reverts of mine goes directly against cite template documentation. It appears EEng is editing against consensus. If this is the case, ANI or other forum should be used. Bgwhite (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap, Bgwhite, and ChrisGualtieri: EEng, just reverted me as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

They also reverted all changes made by Frietjes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Contrary to what ChrisGualtieri says, I don't have "a big problem with MOS". What I have a problem with is editors who clothe their personal preferences in the aura of nonexistent MOS provisions:

In that regard, how amusing that Bgwhite invokes MOS:MARKUP, which says "An HTML entity is sometimes better than the equivalent Unicode character, which may be difficult to identify in edit mode" i.e. MOS recommends against the most widespread of the changes being pushed here -- the substitution of literals for symbolics.

• I've looked in vain in Help:Citation Style 1 for anything about not using templates in citations. Maybe it's somewhere else -- can you point us to it?

Template:Cite_web#COinS Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Now I understand. Thanks. EEng (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hidden comments are specifically endorsed at Help:Hidden_text. Many of them simply ask that page numbers be confirmed and so on; if you don't have time to do that yourself, why remove the note so others can't either?

Help pages don't count. Not policy, guideline or MOS. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to engage on this. Here's what WP:MOS#Invisible_comments says:

Editors use invisible comments to communicate with each other in the body of the text of an article. These comments are visible only in the wiki source...

Invisible comments are useful for flagging an issue or leaving instructions about part of the text, where this is more convenient than raising the matter on the talk page. They should be used judiciously, because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors.

The question, then, is what "judiciously" means, so that the clutter doesn't outweigh the usefulness of whatever's being communicated. The following illustrates the functions that a large proportion of the hidden comments serve:

As Kihlstrom put it:

{{quote|[M]any modern commentators exaggerate the extent of Gage's personality change, perhaps engaging in a kind of retrospective reconstruction based on what we now know, or think we do, about the role of the frontal cortex in self{{hyp}}regulation.{{efn-ua|

{{r|kihlstrom}} See also Grafman:{{r|grafman|page=295}}

"Although <!--the classic story of the nineteenth-century patient Gage who suffered a penetrating PFC lesion--> [Gage] has been used to exemplify the problems that patients with ventromedial PFC {{bracket|[[prefrontal cortex]]}} lesions have in obeying social rules, recognizing social cues, and making appropriate social decisions, the details of this social cognitive impairment have occasionally been inferred or even embellished to suit the enthusiasm of the story teller{{mdashb}}at least regarding Gage" (citing Macmillan 2000).{{r|okf}}

}}<!---<<END NOTE-->}}<!--<<END QUOTE-->

• You'll notice that part of the quotation has been commented out, replaced by [Gage]. I do it this way (instead of simply deleting the unused words) so that other editors can judge whether the replacement is "fair".
• When templates are embedded in other templates the braces can become confusing, especially where they pile up at the end. The END NOTE / END QUOTE are to help keep them straight.

These two "use cases" are about half the hidden comments. They are intended to help other editors understand what's going on, but if you guys think it has the opposite effect, I have no objection to removing them. After that we can discuss the remaining instances. But first -- thoughts on the two use cases above?

EEng (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Chiswick Chap's changes were made under the color of "GA", but as noted the GA criteria have nothing at all to say about formatting, much less the markup that achieves it. Against that (again repeating what I said in my earlier post) is the directive at the top of every MOS page not to change from one format to another without good reason. Good reason requires reasons. Even several editors saying "I like it better this other way" isn't a good reason -- in fact it's not a reason at all. This is even more manifest when one considers that almost none of the changes changed the rendered page at all -- just changed to equivalent markup which does the same thing.

Beyond My Ken wrote a very insighful passage on this some time back:

The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. In the grand scheme of things, "ownership" may cause conflicts when two editors take the same degree of interest in a particular article, and disagree with it, but mostly it helps to preserve what is best in an article. On the other hand, hit-and-run editing, including the plague of hit-and-run tagging that's defaced so many Wikipedia articles, is a much more serious problem, because it's more difficult to detect, frequently flies under the flag of the MoS (and therefore is presumed at first blush to be legitimate), and is more widespread. Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on. 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just because the markup here isn't like markup you're used to doesn't mean it's inadmissable or inferior. Maybe it's better. Or maybe some of it's better and some of it's not. Where would you like to start the discussion?

EEng (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Name calling does no good. I don't see Chris, Chiswick, or Tryptofish as "hit and run editors". Stop your name calling. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I'd also like to point out that EEng appears to have created Template:Mdashb in January and that it has just 87 transclusions. The "Thinsp" one is primarily used for Talk page mark up has a spattering of main space uses, many of which can be traced to EEng.[4]. The markup you see today is a fraction of what it used to be. Aside from EEng's hack of hacks type of false references, there were over 900 templates being used when they did not need to be used. EEng has repeatedly reinserted the formats and attacked editors who disagree. Take a look at this edit with the summary: "There's no reason for you to care about the internal, reader-invisible formatting of an article in which you show zero interest except for dropping in periodically to support your fellow gnomes and MOS Nazis". Yes, EEng insisted on keeping invisible comments like that.

As the article's used to be

==Gage's injury==<!---======================================= G A G E ' S A C C I D E N T ==============================---> {{anchor|ratiu_video_external_link}} {{external media | float = left | width=18em<!--<<expressing width in ems allows controlled linewrap--> | video1 = [http://www.nejm.org/action/showMediaPlayer?doi=10.1056%2FNEJMicm031024&aid=NEJMicm031024_attach_1&area= Video recon{{shy}}struc{{shy}}tion of tamping iron passing through Gage's skull] (Ratiu et al. 2004).{{zwsp}}{{efn-ua|name="ratiu_hinged"}} }}<!--end external media--> [[File:PhineasGage BostonPostStory.jpg|thumb|upright=1.3 |<span style="font-size:200%;">_{<ref group="Fig." name=post_notice><!--dummy to silence errmsg--></ref>{{thinsp}}}</span>The ''[[Boston Post]]'' for Sept.{{nbsp}}21, 1848 (under{{shy}}stat{{shy}}ing the dimen{{shy}}sions of Gage's tamp{{shy}}ing iron and overstat{{shy}}ing damage to the jaw).{{zwsp}}{{efn-ua |name= note_post<!--BEGIN NOTE--> |^(See{{nbsp}}<ref group="Fig." name=post_notice/>⁾''[[Boston Post]],'' Septem{{shy}}ber{{nbsp}}21, 1848,{{r|anonymous_bostonpost}} crediting an earlier report (unknown date) in the ''Ludlow Free Soil Union'' (Ludlow, Vermont). This early report misstates the length of the tamping iron, and confuses its circumfer{{shy}}ence with its diameter. Also, despite its reference to the "shatter{{shy}}ing [of the] the upper jaw", that did not in fact happen. See Harlow (1868) for a descrip{{shy}}tion of the iron's path.{{r|harlow1848|page=342}}<!--bring in others' path descriptions, also sequence of issues in brain damage determination i.e. path + location of brain + varied locus of functional regions + ... --> }}<!--END NOTE--> ]]<!--<<end file:PhineasGage BostonPostStory--> [[File:Simulated Connectivity Damage of Phineas Gage vanHorn ProbablePaths.jpg|thumb|upright=0.70 |<span style="font-size:200%;">_{<ref group="Fig." name=vanhorn_hinged><!--dummy to silence errmsg--></ref>{{thinsp}}}</span><!--Likely paths of iron center{{shy}}line per Van Horn et{{nbsp}}al., with skull "hinging" open as suggested by Ratiu et{{nbsp}}al.-->Gage's skull "hinged" open as the iron passed through.{{efn-ua|name=ratiu_hinged}}<!--though ratiu originated the hinging idea, this is vanhorn's img -- that needs to be made clear--> ]]<!--<<end file:simulated-->

If you want to see just how unintelligible EEng made the article, I suggest examining this version. Just a bit of a warning, most editors will be completely floored by noting that the above snippet is not actually the worst part. Though it does show that EEng's complete confusion by going so far as to insert a Template:Shy and nbsp into an invisible comment. None of us are "hit-and-run editors" like tagging a page that problems exist and failing to try and discuss, but this problem has persisted for over a year. I seriously believe that EEng was attempting to make the article so difficult to edit that it would deter others outright. I simply cannot find any logical reason that such ignorance would come with such complex markup. And for the record, EEng, has direct ties to this pages appearance - as both the author of its sources and as working for Professor Macmillan, whose sources comprise the great majority. The WP:COI matter came to a lot of WP:IDHT on EEng's part, but I find the markup concerns to be an attempt to further WP:OWN this article. @Magioladitis:, I do not think this is "drama board"-level, but EEng has a history of reverting back to his template-ladden version whenever others look away. And this sparked the matter now, but I believe some 8-9 people have already been involved in this (and other pages) and disagreed with EEng. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• My opinion has not changed since I last commented here. I still agree with the majority of editors in this discussion. I also left EEng a note about 3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Me too, actually. I understand that EEng has contributed largely to the article over the years, but this does not add up to ownership, something that Wikipedia does not endorse, and we should go with the majority opinion here. This is a worthy article and as I said earlier, perfectly ready for GA as long as we have it in a tidy state, for instance the way I left it. We do ne to move on here, one way or another, and I'm open to any reasonable suggestions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As WP:Consensus#Consensus-building in talk pages says,

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

I'd really appreciate it if you'd join the discussion I'm having with BGwhite, above, about specific formatting issues.

EEng (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great work you have done on this article EEng, but it's time to move on now. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

+1 to what Johnuniq said. EEng, I hope that you will believe me, when you ask editors here to join the discussion about specific formatting issues, that I've spent a lot of time over the past few months thinking hard about those issues, and I've read and thought about every comment in this discussion thread, so I'm not just tossing out an inadequately considered "I don't like it". I've looked at it carefully, and I've reached an opinion, maybe incorrect, but in good faith, and I'm not seeing you persuade anyone else. Please, let it go. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving on

• ChrisGualtieri points out that it was I who created {{mdashb}}. And guess what? Within a few months the following was added to MOS:DASH:

Also, it is recommended to use templates that provide formatting improvements over plain versions of dashes, such as ... ‍—‌, which inserts an em dash while allowing a line break after it.

The lesson? That at least one of the formatting innovations you tsk-tsk here is now a standard option for Wikipedia at large. Who knows? Maybe some of the others will end up in MOS too, if they're not strangled in the cradle in the name of anodyne uniformity.

• There being no opinion expressed on the question (in the Discussion section, above) I'm gone ahead and deleted the two types of comments mentioned there (unused quote material, START/END markers) since I gather editors find them to have low signal-to-noise ratio.
• However, I've restored many of the deleted notes, which were typically things like:

<!--chk pg #s-->

<!--get pg #s-->

<!--add specific pg #s-->

<!--a secondary source in layman's terms desirable here-->

These are exactly the sort of the material that belongs in hidden notes.

• I've added cites to the material tagged cite-needed.
• Per the guideline BGwhite pointed to, I've deleted templates from cite templates

EEng (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That addition to MOS was by a single user without much discussion who meant well, but seemed unaware it caused issues with data when contained in other templates. Please stop your name-calling, you were the one who decided to use those templates in invisible comments. Explain to me why you insist on restoring template markup in an invisible comment that does not render on the page itself. Then we can begin moving on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What "template markup in an invisible comment"? Please locate what you're talking about in the current version (permalink) and say what section it's in, and give a search string, or quote some text, so I can tell what you're talking about. Just so you know, I have to go out again tonight and don't know when I'm back, and tomorrow I'll be at the dentist (yikes!) from the early morning for an unknown amount of time. EEng (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. Oh wait -- tmw's Friday and I'll be traveling for the wkend.

• You fixed them, I didn't see it in your last edit! Sorry. The section was <!--In con{{shy}}sid{{shy}}er{{shy}}a{{shy}}­tion of this important omis{{shy}}sion, --> Though you fixed this and all my major concerns with the last edit before it was protected, as seen here. Perhaps it was text from before that was commented out, can't be bothered to worry or check about it now.... You removed some of those invisible notes that were helpful...but you did fix all the CS errors and resolved them all quite nicely, even gave quite a bit of ground on things that really didn't need to be changed. Look, I think much of the matter is blown out of proportion on ANI - I don't think you need to be blocked. This is a subject you are an expert in, but I find it sometimes quite difficult to work with you. I just wish it could be like this type of positive interaction back and forth. I don't mind being pointed out when I am being dumb or making a mistake - it happens to the best of us. I'm just afraid to bring up the matter of the text again after the last time. But one thing at a time, right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Fully-protected edit request 28 August 2014

Please fix the citation template for references #41, used in note T, and fill in the missing title as The Process of Compensation and some of its Bearings on Prognosis and Treatment. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Review of content issues

Since the formatting has been largely dealt with, let's hammer out some content issues. Do not split into this list and blow them up into a mess, for this is part of my review of what should be done before the article should become a GA.

• Background

"He may have gained skill with explosives on his family's farms or in nearby mines and quarries..." Speculation from Macmillan. Attribute it.

Gage's date of birth in the infobox is not covered here when it should be covered and noted in proper context of its sourcing.

• Gage's accident

Does not address numerous theories presented or Gage's actions prior to accident. EEng knows all too well this subject. I think Ratiu and Van Horn's material needs to be pointed out because the evidence shows that Gage had his mouth open and was speaking at the time the rod passed through his skull. I do not know why this is absent. I have issues with the section, but I'll hold off on the excessive quoting and measurement issues for now.

• Subsequent life and travels

"bt. February he was able to do a little work abt. ye horses & barn, feedg. ye cattle &c; that as ye time for ploughing came he was able to do half a days work after that & bore it well." - Paraphrase.

Would Gage's mental impairment belong here? I think it would be helpful.

Missing Gage's time in New Hampshire prior to Chile.

Chile and California is missing the account of Gage's doctor and missing some other tidbits, not too bad - but everything related to his mental improvement and the regaining of normalcy in his life is absent without reason. This is also the key section that Macmillan's research becomes quite useful as a case argument.

• Death and subsequent travels

Still glaringly missing the details surrounding his return home, illness and death. Also, the exhumation details - which was in Fleischman's book - is entirely absent. This little episode in the Gage story is something which is important.

• Other matters

Analysis and actual examination of the claims and details surrounding Gage and his role in science has been well- mostly avoided by the article. Instead of proper detailing of the injury and Gage's role in history. Only a few hundred words on Gage's mental impairments were written yet lengthy quotes are used. Using "passim" and other issues in citing Macmillan is also a cop-out and would merit a verifiability failure. Not even that, it doesn't even credit Macmillan when it should.

• Notes

A substantial part of the text is hidden away in these notes. These complex, rambling, and citation filled messes that only make verification more tedious. A note like "V" which reads " See Macmillan & Lena;[34]:9 Harlow;[12]:332,345 Bigelow;[11]:16–17 Harlow;[9]:390 Macmillan.[1]:86" is just improper.

Note X - "Macmillan's book provides one of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary ... the definitive account ..."[57]" - is just the type of note we do not need.

There is a lot of issues that remain - but the next biggest is the Notes issue. It comprises a substantial amount of the non-quote text and should be easiest to rectify. Though I figure the content issues might be easier under the current situation... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Now this is the kind of approach to discussion I like. What we need to do is find a way to keep track of all these issues, discuss them (separately or in clusters -- whatever works best in various cases), then figure out how to implement what we decide, etc. Now, I really have to get to work now (sometimes I go to work in the middle of the night -- quieter, no distractions) but let me quickly suggest the following. Would you mind if, later, I reorder these to bring related issues together, maybe group them into headings, and number them? Then it can be a kind of master checklist while we open separate discussion threads on each issue or cluster, referring to them by number, etc. As new issues come up we can add them under the appropriate heading in the list, and come back to it later if need be. Also, if we get stuck on something (e.g. "Need to get book X at library" or "EEng and CG decided to take a break on this one before they kill each other") we can just note that in the list as the status for that issue, and switch to another issues for a while. Would that be OK? I'd like to be the one to set up this organization, just because (I hope you will agree) I have a better mastery of all the "moving parts" in the Gage story and how they fit together.
• In the meantime though, if you're eager to get started ASAP, let me ask you about two of your points so far:

• "Missing Gage's time in New Hampshire prior to Chile." See, already here I wish I could just say "re Issue A3" or something. Can you say more what you'd like to see on this?
• "Still glaringly missing the details surrounding his return home, illness and death" -- same question.

EEng (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC) P.S. I may have little chance to interact tmw, but this is a good start -- let's keep our cool and preserve it.

I rather not have them reordered or anything like that. For Gage's time in New Hampshire, didn't he spent 18 months in a horse stable? I don't know what you mean by "re-issue A3", but he was in Chile for about 7 years, correct? Then he returned and rested for awhile before becoming a farm laborer - I'm not sure if this is on one or several farms, but wasn't the convulsions following a day's labor on the farm? The seizures became worse and he was treated prior to his death, but these details are absent. That's my concern about that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, no reordering. But can we give them designations, like this? I'm calling it "List A" so we can start a new list later without confusion. If you don't like it we'll work something else out, but we really need some way to refer to issues without saying, "Hey, getting back to that thing we were talking about, the bit where it says that Gage was traveling, not the bit about the time when he blah blah blah."

One point: we absolutely cannot refer to "Note X" and "Ref 22" and so on. These designations shift around as the article is edited and we will go completely crazy. In the below, I've substituted permalinks instead.

Issues list "A"

• A1 Background

• A1a "He may have gained skill with explosives on his family's farms or in nearby mines and quarries..." Speculation from Macmillan. Attribute it.
• A1b Gage's date of birth in the infobox is not covered here when it should be covered and noted in proper context of its sourcing.

• A2 Gage's accident

• A2a Does not address numerous theories presented or Gage's actions prior to accident. EEng knows all too well this subject. I think Ratiu and Van Horn's material needs to be pointed out because the evidence shows that Gage had his mouth open and was speaking at the time the rod passed through his skull. I do not know why this is absent. I have issues with the section, but I'll hold off on the excessive quoting and measurement issues for now.

• A3 Subsequent life and travels

• A3a "bt. February he was able to do a little work abt. ye horses & barn, feedg. ye cattle &c; that as ye time for ploughing came he was able to do half a days work after that & bore it well." - Paraphrase.
• A3b Would Gage's mental impairment belong here? I think it would be helpful.
• A3c Missing Gage's time in New Hampshire prior to Chile.
• A3d Chile and California is missing the account of Gage's doctor and missing some other tidbits, not too bad - but everything related to his mental improvement and the regaining of normalcy in his life is absent without reason.
• A3e This is also the key section that Macmillan's research becomes quite useful as a case argument.

• A4 Death and subsequent travels

• A4a Still glaringly missing the details surrounding his return home, illness and death.
• A4b Also, the exhumation details - which was in Fleischman's book - is entirely absent. This little episode in the Gage story is something which is important.

• A5 Other matters

• A5a Analysis and actual examination of the claims and details surrounding Gage and his role in science has been well- mostly avoided by the article. Instead of proper detailing of the injury and Gage's role in history.
• A5b Only a few hundred words on Gage's mental impairments were written yet lengthy quotes are used.
• A5c Using "passim" and other issues in citing Macmillan is also a cop-out and would merit a verifiability failure.
• A5d Not even that, it doesn't even credit Macmillan when it should.

• A6 Notes

• A6a A substantial part of the text is hidden away in these notes. These complex, rambling, and citation filled messes that only make verification more tedious.
• A6b A note like [5] which reads " See Macmillan & Lena;[34]:9 Harlow;[12]:332,345 Bigelow;[11]:16–17 Harlow;[9]:390 Macmillan.[1]:86" is just improper.
• A6c Note [6] - "Macmillan's book provides one of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary ... the definitive account ..."[57]" - is just the type of note we do not need.

• A7 Image links
• A8 Cavendish, Vermont 1869 Map
• A9 Proving a negative

A3c For Gage's time in New Hampshire, didn't he spent 18 months in a horse stable?

Extended content

The article says Gage subsequently worked for the owner of a livery and coach service in Hanover, New Hampshire Harlow says this began sometime in 1851 and, "He remained there, without any interruption from ill health, for nearly or quite a year and a half." This fits with JMH's (JHM = John Martyn Harlow) information that PG went to Chile in August 1852. How about if we change it to For about eighteen months he worked for the owner of a livery and coach service in Hanover, New Hampshire Thoughts? EEng (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Yes, that works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)  Done EEng (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A4a missing details surrounding return home, illness and death

Extended content

"but he was in Chile for about 7 years, correct? Then he returned and rested for awhile before becoming a farm laborer - I'm not sure if this is on one or several farms, but wasn't the convulsions following a day's labor on the farm? The seizures became worse and he was treated prior to his death, but these details are absent." -- Points raised by ChrisGualtieri What the article currently says about this is... In August 1852, Gage was invited to Chile to work as a long-distance stagecoach driver there, "caring for horses, and often driving a coach heavily laden and drawn by six horses" on the Valparaiso–Santiago route. ... After his health began to fail, in mid-1859, he left Chile for San Francisco, where he recovered under the care of his mother and sister, who had relocated there from New Hampshire around the time Gage went to Chile. Then, "anxious to work", he worked for a farmer in Santa Clara. In February 1860, Gage had the first in a series of increasingly severe convulsions; he died status epilepticus" in or near San Francisco on May 21 Harlow says Gage "had been ploughing the day before he had the first attack; got better in a few days, and continued to work in various places;' could not do much, changing often, 'and always finding something which did not suit him in every place he tried.' On May 18, 1860, three days before his death, he left Santa Clara and went home to his mother. At 5 A.M. on May 20, he had a severe convulsion. The family physician was called in, and bled him. The convulsions were repeated frequently during the succeeding day and night, and he expired at 10, P.M., May 21" This is quoted in one of the footnotes you hate so much [7] so how about if we change the last bit to say... In February 1860, Gage had several convulsions, and lost his job. For three months he "continued to work in various places [but] could not do much." On May 18 he "went home to his mother. The family physician was called in, and bled him. The convulsions were repeated frequently during the succeeding day and night," and he died status epilepticus‍ in or near San Francisco on May 21 Then we can dispense with the footnote. Yipee! What do you think? EEng (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC) This also works well. I do not have an issue with footnotes that dispel very important and prominent errors or require editorial comments to the readers. The editorial comment part being the being most important here. I got my first workings with this in Ghost in the Shell (film) where the first note was about "The Wachowskis", previously known as the "Wachowski brothers" due to repeated editors changing actual quotes and text as revisionist historians would. The second illuminates a censored line critical to understanding the text, but most English audiences would be unaware of the original and hence the requirement of a footnote. The text should be entirely readable and clear without reading a single footnote, because footnotes are there to inform in cases of doubt or confusion to a highly specific matter instead of a general additive note. Additive footnotes should not be footnotes at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)  Done Done, though with some small changes -- please take a look. EEng (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A5c 'Using "passim" and other issues in citing Macmillan is also a cop-out and would merit a verifiability failure'

I've changed the two passims to a specific page and chapter #s. Can you explain about the "other issues in citing Macmillan"? EEng (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

" Gage had also (writes psychologist Malcolm Macmillan) ..." is poor writing and it references two separate publications for the same quote. Adding confusion as to which the quote is found within. Then within the quote, there are modifications which diminish the quotes impact so that plain paraphrasing would work better. And due to multiple publications by Macmillan, the year of the publication should be noted in the text to prevent confusion. As Macmillan's theory has developed over time. Entire sentences like "Attributes typically ascribed to the post-accident Gage which are either unsupported by, or in contradiction to...." are not cited inline as per WP:MINREF. Many of these issues spill over to the footnotes sections as well. Which we should deal with as noted above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The "Attributes typically ascribed..." passage has needed cites for a long time, so (since you brought it up) I took a few hours to add them [8]. Regarding giving publication years, do you mean they should be supplied everywhere? Wouldn't it be better to add them only in specific places they would help the reader understand some particular point? EEng (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A7 Image link issue

I've removed the links that bypass normal image linking procedures. The effect of this link was to link to the image and then upon clicking, link directly to the image and bypass the options to access relevant licensing information. It now works properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Caption caption caption caption caption caption caption caption caption caption

You're mistaken. The required link is still there even when |link= is used -- it's the little double-rectangle thingamajig in the upper-right of the caption area. It happens that in most thumbs, clicking the image itself takes you to the same place, but that's not required. In these cases, the reason for using the |link= parameter is so (for example) the thumbnail is a cropped "zoom in" like you see at right, but when you click the image, you get the full, uncropped img. (Try it.) But if the reader wants the image description page for the thumb, he clicks the little overlapping rectangles.

Caption caption caption caption caption caption caption caption caption caption

If we didn't do that, then what would appear in the article would be the whole, uncropped img squeezed into a thumb, like you see at right, which is illegible.

Does this make sense? I've put the links back because, if we're going to discuss this further, it's easier if we can see what we're discussing. EEng (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• While that is nice and all, the images source and licensing information needs to be accessible. The way in which you have it structured completely conceals it and prevents users from accessing the information. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. The icon always takes the reader to the image description page, and that's all that's required. For another example in which clicking on the image takes you somewhere other than the image description page, see WP:Picture_tutorial#Image_maps. Do you see now? EEng (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A8 Cavendish, Vermont 1869 Map

This map constitutes original research and I've made mention of this before. The map in question indicates the town 21 years after the incident in question. The map as published in Macmillan does not provide the information or mark up in question. As result this image is not appropriate for Wikipedia because it represents a synthesis to produce original research. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As WP:OI says,

Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.

The published information which is the basis for the annotation (i.e. the three letters/arrows) is explained on the image description page for the uncropped map [9] and also in a footnote to the map's caption [10] i.e.

Macmillan gives the steps in setting a blast, the location and circumstances of the accident, and the location of Gage's lodgings and Harlow's home and surgery.^{[1]:23–9[6]:151-2[5]:A}.

Thoughts on this? As with the image links, I've put the map back so we (and others) can see what we're talking about. EEng (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You take from this source, we get that, but I still find it problematic that you use a much later map and proceed to mark it up. I think you are selectively reading again because WP:OR states: "Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for deletion." I think using a decades late map that has no grounding in the situation at hand falls under "materially affected" and negatively impacts it. It also takes quite a bit of reading to understand where your map marker notes would be related - nor do you cite this clearly. Though instead of using the 1855 map, you opted for the 1869 map - bringing even more time between the events, needlessly. Or is it because you noted issues in the map - such as the river changing directions? The matter has become muddled by your actions and they do materially affect the article and readers understanding. Rather than make the matters clear, you've made it needlessly complex and difficult to understand even basic things about the image in question. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I used the 1865 map for the simple reason that the 1855 map doesn't include the area in which the accident occurred.
• You only partially quoted WP:OR, which actually says

It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for deletion.

The link (given in the original text at WP:OR) behind photo manipulation defines it as "the application of image editing techniques to photographs in order to create an illusion or deception after the original photographing took place." Adding letters and arrows to an old map to point out locations is nothing like that.

EEng (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The facts of the image were already distorted without adding an extra decade and a half into the mix and requiring another document which is based off a map not drawn to scale to interpret and draw lines to a nearly unreadable document which provides no context or note of these facts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A9 Proving a negative

This regards a recent edit [11] to the passage

Macmillan's comprehensive survey of accounts of Gage (scientific and popular) found that they almost always distort and exaggerate his behavioral changes...

which removed the word comprehensive.

This is a delicate point and I want to come up with something everyone can live with. I think there are two questions here.

• First, Was Macmillan's analysis indeed comprehensive? No one who's been participating have any doubt on that, but just in case, open the collapse list.

Extended content

"first rate example of carefully done historical work" (Psychological Reports, 2001) "obstinately searched all possible sources. It seems very unlikely that anyone else could find a relevant piece not considered (Cortex, 2004) "fastidious archaeological removal of the layers of legend" (Lancet, 2001) "Even some of the most prestigious academic researchers have disseminated erroneous information..." (Neurosurgery Quarterly, 2002) "The definitive account. One of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary." (Science, 2000) "Macmillan scoured all the sources and commentaries on the case and as far as material regarding Gage is concerned this must be a definitive work. (History of the Human Sciences, 2007) "Macmillan has shown that the record of how Phineas Gage’s character changed after the accident must be considered with caution..." (New England Journal of Medicine", 2004)

• Second, Do we need to say the analysis was comprehensive? IMO I think we do, because it the analysis assserts a negative, which requires extraordinary research; just saying Macmillan found no mention omits that such extraordinary research was in fact done. (Two examples from the collapse box: "Macmillan has obstinately searched all possible sources. It seems very unlikely that anyone else could find a relevant piece not considered"; "The definitive account. One of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary.")

  Without such a clear statement, we get edit summaries such as this one: [12].

• Actually, there's a third question: Do we need to include a quotation (such as the "further research is not necessary" -- above) supporting the comprehensiveness? I don't think the reader needs that. I had put it in a footnote to the article recently only because another editor had questioned the comprehensiveness -- in other words, the quotation was there for editors, not readers, and this discussion can take its place.

So what I suggest is that the article say Macmillan's comprehensive analysis of accounts of Gage..., where [97][98][99] cite to a few of the sources supporting the comprehensiveness, but without quoting them. What do you think?

EEng (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Just so we are clear: You are intent on having three references or a footnote linking to those three references not to support any direct or related information to Phineas Gage, but instead on supporting the description of Macmillan's analysis as "comprehensive"? It is statements like that which are brought low by the fact that Macmillan's actual text asserts a non-existent document concerning Gage's death that Macmillan personally examined? That said non-existent document, which lead to a major dispute, cannot be permitted a footnote or warning to readers consulting this comprehensive text? How does that make any sense? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• When a 500-page book has an error in relating a date on a document, for which the author issued a correction even before the book was released, that hardly casts doubt on the rest of that author's research. And the footnote [13] discussing the date of Gage's death explicitly points the reader to the book's "Corrections page". For those who are wondering, here's the correction we're talking about:

p. 108, para 2: The year of Gage's death is 1860, but the only other date on the records is 23rd. May for the funeral/interment, and only Gray's Funeral Record gives 'epilepsy' as the cause of death.

Shocking! There is no "non-existent document" involved and I have no idea what that is you're talking about.

• Anyway, do you have anything to say about my proposed wording? A statement like "No examples of X were found" doesn't mean much unless the reader is told whether the survey of sources was extremely complete, some kind of sample, or just a spot check.

EEng (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)