Talk:Phineas Gage

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 [10] 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 [11] 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 [12]

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

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

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

Changes redux

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

• Formatting

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

• Images

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

• Content

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

• Promotional tone/advocacy removed.

1. "To better understand the question, he and collaborators are actively seeking additional evidence on Gage's life and behavior, and describe certain kinds of historical material (see "Phineas Gage: Unanswered questions" in External links, below) for which they hope readers will remain alert, such as letters or diaries of physicians whom their research indicates Gage may have met, or by persons in certain places Gage seems to have been." is direct advocacy and making a personal appeal to readers.
2. This promotional wording was fixed.[13]
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.[14]
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.[15]

• 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 [16]
• 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 [17]
• B. In this [18], 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: [19] and [20]

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.[21] 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 [22], 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: [23], 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:[24], 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 [25]) -- what makes you say that?

CG, the image is too small because you earlier removed [26] 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)

Having commented earlier at User talk:Tryptofish, I am now going to go through each of these edits here, one-by-one, with the caveat that this is a large task and will take me some time. As a general comment, I am sympathetic to EEng's request that Chris respond inline here (as I am now going to do), instead of at the end, because I think that doing so is more conducive to consensus. Everyone, please try to remember: this is about improving the page, and not about proving that you are right and the other person is wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589056212

• Edit summary: rv removal of by far the most important passage beyond bare facts of accident, removal analogous to removing "Ask not what yr country can do for you" from Assassination Inauguration of JFK
• Prior edit affected (link and edit summary): [27] Harlow's 1868 report: remove lengthy quote
• Discussion:
  • I looked at the version of the page just before the quote was removed by Chris, and I do not feel like the quote takes up too much space on the page. I think that exact quotes from the time period add to the information value of the page. Therefore, I disagree with Chris about deleting the quote. On the other hand, I agree with Chris that it is subjective and unnecessary to have described it as an "oft-quoted description". Thus I agree with Chris' removal of "oft-quoted"; simply calling it a "description" is entirely enough. Overall, though, I do not consider Chris' edit to have been disruptive or out-of-policy. Editors can disagree about the need for an extensive quote.
  • I note that EEng's subsequent edit deleted some material that came after the quote: "but other behaviors he describes appear to draw on later communications from Gage's friends or family, to the particular period of Gage's post-accident life during which each described behavior was present. Macmillan also discusses potential reluctance on the part of Gage's friends and family (and of Harlow himself) to describe Gage negatively, especially while he was still alive, and argues that an 1850 communication calling Gage "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar" was anonymously supplied by Harlow.". I think that EEng's deletion of it was a good idea. Content like "Macmillan also discusses..." is actually the kind of writing for which EEng has been criticized, validly, I think, so it's good to see this deletion. As a broad observation, I would like to see the writing of the page move away from seeming like an account of what various sources figured out, partly because it just isn't of broad interest to our readers, and partly because it gives rise to the appearance of EEng's so-called COI. Instead, it would be more encyclopedic in style to change "Macmillan also discusses potential reluctance on the part of Gage's friends and family..." (if we bring that back to the page), to "Gage's friends and family may have been reluctant(citation)...". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved the following out from within my comment above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned below, please look to the full context either in the Dec 6 version of the article, or the current version, to understand in full. In response to CG's removal I added a cite on just this point, from Kotowicz:

Harlow’s words telling us that the ‘equilibrium or balance, so to speak, between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities, seems to have been destroyed’, that he indulged ‘in the grossest profanity’ and that he was ‘no longer Gage’ are now routinely quoted...

So, as in all the other cases where CG removed material claiming it was unverifiable, or "the cites are false", huge amounts of trouble could be saved if CG had just asked for a citation instead of removing stuff.

EEng (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

End of what I moved. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll open a separate thread later re the stylistic question. It's an important one, but I think it will make things a lot easier if we keep stylistic questions separate from content questions, to the extent possible. More subtle is your idea about the article "seeming like an account of what various sources figured out", and that will need its own discussion as well. Gage is perhaps less important as a case history in neurology neurology (since both his brain damage and his behavioral changes are so poorly understood) than as a case study in the history of science, and if you ignore who thought and said what, when, you're leaving out half (or more) of the story.

As to "Macmillan also discusses"... it's been back in the page for a long time. Unfortunately, understanding the final context of material restored by each edit requires looking beyond the "after image" of that particular edit, because I can't always restore all the surrounding material (which CG often removed in single edits affecting scattered clumps) at the same time. In general the best place to look for full context is this version from 2013 Dec 6, though of course there are other changes going on so you may need to look at the current version as well. (The discussion above re "oft-quoted" is a good example, in that I added a new cite to the material while restoring it, to avoid further quibbling by CG.)

In the present case the Dec 6 article read:

This oft-quoted description appears to draw on Harlow's own notes set down soon after the accident,:90,375 but other behaviors he describes:117-8:340,345 appear to draw on later communications from Gage's friends or family, and it is difficult to match these various behaviors (which range widely in their implied level of functional impairment) to the particular period of Gage's post-accident life during which each described behavior was present.:90-5 This complicates reconstruction of how Gage's behavior changed over time, a critical task in light of evidence that his behavior at the end of his life was very different from his behavior (described by Harlow above) immediately post accident.:6-9

Y. Macmillan (2000):106-8,375-6 also discusses potential reluctance on the part of Gage's friends and family (and of Harlow himself) to describe Gage negatively, especially while he was still alive, and argues :350-1 that an 1850 communication calling Gage "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar" was anonymously supplied by Harlow.[citation needed]

Z. For example, the "fitful, irreverent ... capricious and vacillating" Gage described in Harlow (1868) is somewhat at variance with Gage's stagecoach work in Chile, which demanded that drivers "be reliable, resourceful, and possess great endurance. But above all, they had to have the kind of personality that enabled them to get on well with their passengers" (Macmillan 2000,:106 citing Austin 1977)—and note Gage was hired by his employer in advance, in New England, to be part of the new coaching enterprise in Chile.:376-7[4]:831

CG ran the notes into the main text, but cutting out random bits so that it becomes a string of non sequiturs:

The description that Gage was "no longer Gage" appears to draw on Harlow's own notes set down soon after the accident,[1]:90,375 but other behaviors he describes:117-8:340,345 appear to draw on later communications from Gage's friends or family, to the particular period of Gage's post-accident life during which each described behavior was present.[1]:90-5 Macmillan also discusses potential reluctance on the part of Gage's friends and family (and of Harlow himself) to describe Gage negatively, especially while he was still alive, and argues:350-1 that an 1850 communication calling Gage "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar" was anonymously supplied by Harlow.

The "fitful, irreverent... capricious and vacillating" Gage described in Harlow (1868) is somewhat at variance with Gage's stagecoach work in Chile, which demanded that drivers "be reliable, resourceful, and possess great endurance. But above all, they had to have the kind of personality that enabled them to get on well with their passengers" (Macmillan 2000,:106 citing Austin 1977)—and note Gage was hired by his employer in advance, in New England, to be part of the new coaching enterprise in Chile.:376-7 This complicates reconstruction of how Gage's behavior changed over time, a critical task in light of evidence that his behavior at the end of his life was very different from his behavior immediately after the accident.:6-9

I restored the old structure, with the notes, as described at #Edit_589273712 (except putting Note Y at a different, more appropriate point in the text).

EEng (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I'm unimpressed by your reply to me, and if every response I give on this talk results in a similar wall of text, my support will decline further. I am not discussing every other edit here; I'm specifically discussing the edit and revert-edit that you linked. Chris' edit that you reverted here was not primarily about a cite-needed. If you subsequently restored the material that I praised you for removing, I bet you can guess what I think about you subsequently restoring it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Everything I'm talking about happened a month ago -- see the link in my post just above. I'm sorry about the length of these discussions, but it's a lot easier for CG to rip out material without explanation than it is to explain why that material is appropriate. EEng (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Noting also what I just said on my talk page, I really need you to work with me here. In this talk section, I will continue to take the approach of treating every disputed edit individually, without letting the discussion expand into other, subsequent edits. I've already said what I think about Chris's removal of the specific quote. Anything else that was removed will be discussed in subsequent talk sections, below. If you work with me this way, you will find that, eventually, we will get through all of these issues, but we will hopefully do so in a precise and logical way, and avoid the unproductive arguing that has been getting in the way up to now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589235703

• Edit summary: Rv conversion to main text, from note, of "medical background" which is in no sense any kind of "background" & which is appropriate ONLY as note, being ancillary to Gage per se and functioning to cite&clarify unusual quoted phrases at multiple points in text
• Prior edit affected (link and edit summary): [28] "reintegrate"
• Discussion:
  • First, I reiterate: I am commenting here only on the two diffs linked just above.
  • I'm going to begin with some secondary things that are in EEng's edit. I see that you added columns to the cite list, and I think that's fine. I also see that you changed several places where it said "citation needed" to having a cite to the "amused" note. I agree with you that it is better to have a note than a cn.
  • When I look a Chris' edit that is linked here, I do not see him adding any cn's in that particular quote, but I'll WP:AGF that EEng can show other edits by Chris where the cn's were added.
  • Now, there are two substantive issues here: (1) the issue of some long passages that Chris moved out of the "amused" note and, I think, another note, and into the main text, mostly as "medical background", and (2) the issue of adding cn's that could, arguably, have been sourced to the "amused" note. As for the long passages, I think that Chris makes a good point in arguing that they should be in the main text, if they are to be here at all. I broadly agree with his moving them into the main text. As for requesting cites, it depends on the specifics, so I'll turn to the specifics next.
  • When Chris moved material into the text, it was in two parts. The first part read:

"Macmillan (2000) discusses Gage's ancestry and what is and is not known about his birth and early life. Possible birthplaces are Lebanon, Enfield, and Grafton (all in Grafton County, New Hampshire) though Harlow (1868) refers to Lebanon in particular as Gage's "native place" and as "his home" (probably that of his parents) to which he returned ten weeks after the accident. The vital records of neither Lebanon nor Enfield list Gage's birth. The birthdate July 9, 1823 (the only definite date given in any source) is from a comprehensive Gage genealogy, via Macmillan (2000), and is consistent with numerous contemporary sources, that Gage was 25 years old at the time of the accident, as well as with Gage's age—36 years—as given in undertaker's records after his death on May 21, 1860. There is no doubt Gage's middle initial was P but there is nothing to indicate what the P stood for (though his paternal grandfather was also named Phineas). Gage's mother's maiden name is variously spelled Swetland, Sweatland, or Sweetland."

Whether as a note or as main text, I would edit it as follows, per what I have been saying about changing the page from being an account of looking through the source material:

"Gage's birthplace may have been Lebanon, Enfield, or Grafton (all in Grafton County, New Hampshire), though Harlow refers to Lebanon in particular as Gage's "native place" and as "his home" (probably that of his parents) to which he returned ten weeks after the accident. The birthdate may have been July 9, 1823, consistent with numerous contemporary sources, because Gage was 25 years old at the time of the accident, and Gage's age—36 years—was given in undertaker's records after his death on May 21, 1860. There is no doubt Gage's middle initial was P but there is nothing to indicate what the P stood for (though his paternal grandfather was also named Phineas)."

• The second part, which is from the "amused" note, reads:

"A tone of amused wonderment was common in 19th-century medical writing about Gage (as well as about victims of other unlikely-sounding brain-injury accidents—see Macmillan 2000). Noting dryly that, "The leading feature of this case is its improbability... This is the sort of accident that happens in the pantomime at the theater, not elsewhere", Bigelow (1850) emphasized that though "at first wholly skeptical, I have been personally convinced", calling the case "unparalleled in the annals of surgery". This endorsement by Bigelow, Professor of Surgery at Harvard, helped end scoffing about Gage among medical men—one of whom, Harlow (1868) later recalled, had dismissed the matter as a "Yankee invention":

commented outI have the pleasure of being able to present to you, to-day, the history and sequel of a case of severe injury of the head, followed by recovery, which, so far as I know, remains without parallel in the annals of surgery.end The case occurred nearly twenty years ago, in an obscure country town..., was attended and reported by an obscure country physician, and was received by the Metropolitan doctors with several grains of caution, insomuch that many utterly refused to believe that the man had risen, until they had thrust their fingers into the hole of his head, [see Doubting Thomas] and even then they required of the Country Doctor attested statements, from clergymen and lawyers, before they could or would believe—many eminent surgeons regarding such an occurrence as a physiological impossibility, the appearances presented by the subject being variously explained away. Jackson (1870) wrote that, "Unfortunately, and notwithstanding the evidence that Dr. H. has furnished, the case seems, generally, to those who have not seen the skull, too much for human belief." But after Gage was joined by such later cases as a miner who survived traversal of his head by a gas pipe, and a lumbermill foreman who returned to work soon after a circular saw cut three inches (8cm) into his skull from just between the eyes to behind the top of his head (the surgeon removing from this incision "thirty-two pieces of bone, together with considerable sawdust"), the Boston Medical & Surgical Journal (1869) pretended to wonder whether the brain has any function at all: "Since the antics of iron bars, gas pipes, and the like skepticism is discomfitted, and dares not utter itself. Brains do not seem to be of much account now-a-days." The Transactions of the Vermont Medical Society (Smith 1886) was similarly facetious: "'The times have been,' says Macbeth [Act III], 'that when the brains were out the man would die. But now they rise again.' Quite possibly we shall soon hear that some German professor is exsecting it." The reference to Gage's iron as an "abrupt and intrusive visitor" appears in the Boston Medical & Surgical Journal's review of Harlow (1868)."

Likewise, I would edit it:

"Bigelow said: "The leading feature of this case is its improbability... This is the sort of accident that happens in the pantomime at the theater, not elsewhere". He continued, "at first wholly skeptical, I have been personally convinced", calling the case "unparalleled in the annals of surgery". This endorsement by a Professor of Surgery at Harvard helped end scoffing about Gage among medical men—one of whom, Harlow later recalled, had dismissed the matter as a "Yankee invention": "I have the pleasure of being able to present to you, to-day, the history and sequel of a case of severe injury of the head, followed by recovery, which, so far as I know, remains without parallel in the annals of surgery. The case occurred nearly twenty years ago, in an obscure country town..., was attended and reported by an obscure country physician, and was received by the Metropolitan doctors with several grains of caution, insomuch that many utterly refused to believe that the man had risen, until they had thrust their fingers into the hole of his head, and even then they required of the Country Doctor attested statements, from clergymen and lawyers, before they could or would believe—many eminent surgeons regarding such an occurrence as a physiological impossibility, the appearances presented by the subject being variously explained away." Jackson wrote that, "Unfortunately, and notwithstanding the evidence that Dr. H. has furnished, the case seems, generally, to those who have not seen the skull, too much for human belief." But after such later cases as a miner who survived traversal of his head by a gas pipe, and a lumbermill foreman who returned to work soon after a circular saw cut three inches (8cm) into his skull from just between the eyes to behind the top of his head (the surgeon removing from this incision "thirty-two pieces of bone, together with considerable sawdust"), the Boston Medical & Surgical Journal questioned facetiously in 1869 whether the brain has any function at all: "Since the antics of iron bars, gas pipes, and the like skepticism is discomfitted, and dares not utter itself. Brains do not seem to be of much account now-a-days." The Transactions of the Vermont Medical Society was similarly facetious: "'The times have been,' says Macbeth, 'that when the brains were out the man would die. But now they rise again.' Quite possibly we shall soon hear that some German professor is exsecting it." The reference to Gage's iron as an "abrupt and intrusive visitor" appeared in the Boston Medical & Surgical Journal."

• Edited in these ways, I would, on balance, prefer to have these passages in the main text, where Chris had them.
• Now as for the cns, the first cn was in the lead, in reference to describing Gage's recovery as "improbable". I don't think we need a cite for that, at all, in the lead. WP:LEADCITE allows some flexibility as to source attribution in lead sections, so long as the material is expanded upon and sourced lower on the page. Let's face it, "improbable" is pretty obvious, and the material that I'm saying could be in the text clearly backs that up. No need for a cite. The second cn would go away by moving the "amused" note back into the text. The third cn refers to describing a paper by Harlow as "triumphal". I would simply delete the word "triumphal". It's needless commentary.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• PS: In my suggested revisions, it occurs to me that I might have accidentally eliminated some source citations. (Frankly, the current system is so complicated that it confuses me, and I'm an experienced editor, so that's a reason right there to simplify the system of notes.) If so, I want to make clear that it would be very easy to fix it, simply by having two inline citations in succession. And using the <ref name=> tag makes it easy to cite the same thing repeatedly on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589255335

• Edit summary: rv removal of Harlow quote giving Gage's longterm injuries, the removal omitting facial paralysis, brain pulsations, Harlow "health good, inclined to say recovered"; & incorrectly changed "no pain in head "to" not in pain"
• Prior edit affected: [29] "clean up"
• Discussion:
  • This one is fairly easy for me to parse, and I pretty much entirely agree with EEng. On close inspection, Chris' edit was rather sloppy ("but had a but says he..."), and I agree with EEng that Chris was imprecise in paraphrasing what the source actually says. There is an editorial decision to be made about using direct quotes from the period (in this case from Dr. Harlow), and I realize that there are arguments for paraphrasing instead, partly in order to keep the page briefer (see also WP:QUOTEFARM). In this case, however, my personal opinion (just one editor's opinion) is that the page is improved by having direct quotes from the people who were there at the time, and that this is different from simply quoting from secondary sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
    • A simple prose error in the midst of a series of many revisions, I think the actual problem was also long ago fixed. This is before I had the source and was an attempt to fix it, but if it makes and issue, just drop the quote and word it better. The underlying quote issue is the problem here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm replying in the same fashion to both you and EEng here, so I will remind you that I am evaluating only the edits listed here, not subsequent editing. Yes, I understand that your error was a simple one. But it is unhelpful to simply dig in and say imperatively "just drop the quote". I have tried to offer reasons why I think this kind of direct quote is useful in this specific situation, and you haven't really engaged with what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589273712

• Edit summary: reinsert note re "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar" in more appropriate place; this material simply explicates Harlow 1848's deferral of details on mental changes, and is discursive to the main story
• Prior edit affected: [30] "integrate"

• Note: There's a to-do item for adding this item formally to the Sources list

• Discussion:
  • I haven't looked at the to-do, because I'm just focusing on the disputed edits.
  • This is a good example of where I'm talking about moving this page away from a focus on searching through the source material, and towards telling our readers the bottom line of what the source material tells us. Chris' edit took some material out of a note, and put it into the main text; EEng's subsequent edit moved it back out of the main text and into a note. In a broad sense, I agree with Chris that we need to cut back on notes, but I actually see this material as something that could largely be deleted.
  • The note as EEng restored it begins with "Harlow (1848).". That could, instead, be converted into a simple inline citation within the main text (including the page; there are several options on how to do that).
  • The note then continues: "Macmillan (2000) discusses potential reluctance on the part of Harlow, and of Gage's friends and family, to describe Gage negatively while he was still alive, and argues that an 1850 communication calling Gage "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar"consider adding to source list was anonymously supplied by Harlow.expand descr of phren piece; rewrite and relocate." (I've shown two hidden text portions in small font here.) I feel rather strongly that this page needs to get away from text (whether in notes or elsewhere) about what Macmillan et al. argue. One could make this material more encyclopedic by rewriting it as: "Harlow anonymously wrote in 1850 that Gage was "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar",[cite] but Harlow, and Gage's friends and family, may have been reluctant to describe Gage negatively while he was still alive.[cite]". In general, I want to see this page rewritten in that fashion. However, in this particular case, I'd be inclined to leave it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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:
  • Here, I pretty much see it the same way as the edits discussed directly above. The material, whether in a note or in the main text, is full of language like "appear to draw on later communications" and "it is difficult to match these various behaviors", in Wikipedia's voice. As such, it ends up being WP:OR (no matter how much study went into it), because it mixes Wikipedia's voice with the voice of Macmillan et al. Our readers don't need this, and it doesn't belong here. The entire passage within which these edits occurred should be greatly shortened. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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:
  • Another case of something that should simply be deleted. If it's important enough to have on this page, then it should be in the main text, so as far as that goes, I agree with Chris. And, per what I've been saying all along, the language (if retained) should be revised to make it less about commentary on secondary sources, and to make it less a matter of taking sides, in this case between sources by Van Horn and by Damasio. If we are having to correct "partial" (in a source) to "parietal", we are dealing with too much detail for Wikipedia. I suppose one could simply say something like, "Sources disagree as to whether the iron crossed the midline.[cite Van Horn][cite Damasio]", and leave it at that, in which case there is no need for text in a note. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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:
  • Chris' initial edit changed the position of an image, which is fine with me. The substantive issue is that Chris greatly abridged material about Macmillan's analysis of Gage's age at the time of the accident. EEng notes that Chris attributed to Macmillan a conclusion that Macmillan does not actually make, a valid concern as far as it goes. However, I think the far bigger issue is that this is yet more material that does not belong here. We should not be saying, in Wikipedia's voice, things like: "Macmillan (2000) discusses Gage's ancestry and what is and is not known about his birth and early life." The sentence tells our readers absolutely nothing about what actually is known about his birth and early life. Likewise for: "The birthdate July 9, 1823 (the only definite date given in any source) is from a comprehensive Gage genealogy, via Macmillan (2000), and is consistent with numerous contemporary sources..." The word "comprehensive" sounds like puffery for the Macmillan source. Wikipedia's voice should not be making judgments such as "is consistent with numerous contemporary sources". If Gage was 25 at the time of the accident, then say so, followed by inline cites to all of those sources. If there are other secondary sources that conclude his age was something else, then we should probably say something like: "Gage was in his mid-twenties at the time of his accident.", followed by the various sources. Chris' edit was, on balance, a step in the right direction, but I would have gone farther than he did. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

• Here, I'm basing my comments on the table of information above (as opposed to the numerous diffs). Overall, I'm going to largely echo what I've been saying above. I'm sympathetic to Chris' desire to reduce the amount of material in notes, but I also think a lot of the material can simply be deleted.
  • The infobox: I'd be fine with sourcing material there with simple inline citations, but there is no need to have lengthy notes linked from the infobox.
  • Background: If Gage's birthplace is uncertain, we don't really need to list all the possibilities, since all the possibilities are in Grafton County. It's enough to just name the county, and say the exact place is uncertain. Where EEng says here that "Few readers will care about Gage's unknown middle name / town of birth, or mother's name variations", that's emphatically true. But I disagree with the argument that this stuff should therefore be in a note. It belongs in "further reading".
  • Gage's injury: I discussed this in the talk section directly above.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589424404

• Edit summary: rv conversion, to main text, of note giving precise evidentiary status (of interest to few readers) regarding burial of iron.
• Prior edit affected: [39]
• Discussion:
  • I'm probably going to be sounding repetitive at this point. Stuff about most sources saying one thing, but Macmillan et al. arguing that most sources are wrong, does not belong here. We could leave the whole thing out, or we could say something like: "Gage's iron may have been buried with him,[cite][cite][cite] although there is some evidence that it was not.[cite]" It is WP:UNDUE to give prominence to the Macmillan view, given the speculation, so I've put what seems to be the majority source opinion first, followed by the Macmillan dissent, with the potential inline cites reflecting the relative numbers. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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:
  • Much of this strikes me as two editors not understanding one another. Chris was inaccurate in calling it "promotional", and I have some sympathy for EEng taking exception to that. At the same time, it occurs in the context of a lot of citing of Macmillan et al., and I have some sympathy for Chris's desire to get away from the existing wording. I think it is fine to say, in Wikipedia's voice and with cited sourcing, that "that all Gage's injuries, including to his eye, were on the left." No problem there. But it adds nothing to also say that "there is no question". That should be deleted. The only time one says that there is no question is when someone else thinks that there is a question, and this is not something to say in Wikipedia's voice.
  • The edits occur in a section that seems to me to need to be greatly shortened. Gage is not notable as a portrait model. The portraits are encyclopedic only to the extent that they tell us about the accident, its effects on Gage, and on Gage's perception by his contemporaries. The three paragraphs visible in the diffs are full of language about processes by which secondary sources evaluated the primary source material: "authenticity was confirmed in several ways", "a second portrait of Gage was identified", etc. That is not an account of Gage's biography; it's an account of his biographers. It needs to be shortened. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589430898

• Edit summary: rm movement, to (weirdly) only 1 of 2 img captions, of statement re reversal. No-context statement in caption makes no sense to reader, who doesn't care so long as img is true to life
• Prior edit affected: [41] "move to caption"
• Discussion:
  • Much as I said in the section immediately above, the text does not need a lengthy exposition on why various secondary sources decided that the daguerreotypes were originally reversed left-to-right. My preference would be for the images shown on the page to be oriented left-right as they were historically (to minimize WP:OR). I think it's helpful to have a sentence in the image captions explaining the left-right issue to our readers, as Chris attempted to do. If we use the original images, then the caption should say that the image shows things reversed; if we use reversed images, then the caption should say that the image has been reversed. It's very appropriate to say in the main text that daguerreotypes are known to be left-right reversed (cite sources), and to say that this applies to the portraits, and to how the sidedness of the injury should be understood. But we don't need an explanation of how the authors of secondary sources did the analyses that led them to these conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589431725

• Edit summary: rv removal, with edit summary "not necessary", of provenance of images and -- even more necessary -- info that these are not descendants of Gage despite their names
• Prior edit affected: [42] "not necessary"
• Discussion:
  • I can see how Chris was intending to delete the instruction to the reader to "see Macmillan& Lena 2010". That could simply be replaced by an inline citation. But I agree with EEng that it is appropriate to state the provenance of the images. I'd prefer not to call this image "the 2010-identified image", because the year it was identified is of low interest except to the people who did the identifying in 2010. I'd be fine with calling it, for example, "the image now in the possession of Tara Gage Miller of Texas", followed by the statement that "an identical image belongs to Phyllis Gage Hartley of New Jersey". There could be a clarifying statement that these are descendents of some of his relatives, but I see no reason to discuss Gage's lack of children in this section. Leave it for his life history. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589432706

• Edit summary: rv conversion, to main text, of note giving img provenances, details of l-r reversal issues, etc. Since both imgs were reversed they both need annotating; single integrated note explains well
• Prior edit affected: [43] "cleaning"
• Discussion:
  • I've pretty much covered all of this already. If we get rid of all the lengthy analyses of left-right reversals, what will be left can be said in the main text, and does not require a note, just inline citations of sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 589435557

• Edit summary: rv removal, with illogical summaries "remove nonexistant note" & "remove see fig note", of necessary notes to image captions explaining reversal
• Prior edits affected: [44]  "remove nonexistant note", [45]  "remove see fig note"
• Discussion:
  • The information provided here is a little sketchy, and I'm not going to hunt it down. If the first note was really nonexistant, then it should indeed have been removed. If it existed, I'm not wild about removing it and, apparently, replacing it with a cite needed tag. As I've said before, we don't need a lot of text explaining the daguerreotypes. Since we are, in part, looking at a direct quotation (about his "constant companion") in the infobox, I believe the direct quote should have an inline citation to the source from which it comes. We should move away from text-filled notes, towards simple inline cites of sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

General comments by CG

I did not remove all the notes, but many of the issues you re-inserted have numerous issues. WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE. Your reversions keep hinging on rather weak assessments of the matter. Your comment that this should be reinstated because I removed the redundant sentencing may be of a debatable matter, but main reason for removal was because you were essentially sticking your work and name, intrusively into the text. The text removed was "however, there is no question (Lena& Macmillan, 2010) that all Gage's injuries, including to his eye, were on the left." Followed by a cite to lena_macm. This just seems to be promotional because there IS no objection, or rather there CAN be no objection because it is already sourced and that source, is without "question" is your own work. Why should the reader have to read "there is no question (Lena& Macmillan, 2010) that all Gage's injuries, including to his eye, were on the left." when it is already handled perfectly without that additional statement? It seems as if it was just a way to prominently insert your name into the article and goes against the purpose of even having references. Now I can continue by picking apart each and every reversion, but they were all peer checked. Like Macmillan's claim of the birth date, it is just a claim, there is no hard evidence or clear consensus by other researchers that definitively prove a date of birth. So attributing it as such is a matter of verifiability and accuracy - the statement that no birth (birthing) records could be obtained or found and the details upon which it is concluded represents the result of some guess-work. If you are not absolutely confident, its uncertain. If its uncertain, the source it comes from is claiming it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, you did indeed remove all the notes -- there had been 36 notes, and when you were done there was one.
• Could you please break up your post and distribute your points beneath each edit (listed above) that you want to discuss? If you'll do that I'll be able to respond.
• Re "injuries left vs. right", as mentioned above you must read www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Letters-201003.html or you won't know what you're talking about. If you haven't read it yet please do so.

EEng (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to make walls of text at this time. I am still waiting on my publications, but a third person has clearly stated that notes are not to be used in this fashion. Considering you reinserted material that has been questioned in other sources and stated above shows that there is a reasonable consideration to remove them again and properly cite it. Because this claim is simply not the case, " Macmillan& Lena: "Only Harlow[7]:342 writes of the exhumation and he does not say the tamping iron was recovered then. Although what he says may be slightly ambiguous, it does not warrant the contrary and undocumented account[s]... that Gage's tamping iron was recovered from the grave."[22]:7" If you are going to revert and do this without carrying on the reason or even pointing to the actual citation I provided - why should I continue on? I expected a rational debate about this, and its been rather ignored. And just so we are clear: "remove all the notes" means all the notes; I left the one note that was really necessary. A third or more of the article should not be notes. It will never hit GA so long as these problems are unresolved and frankly, I've been waiting for the matter on Fleischman still. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again: Please put each point related to a particular edit beneath the appropriate bullet in the list above, so that each edit can have its own discussion thread. It's impossible to carry on a conversation when you keep making these giant, vague posts. EEng (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why? WP:QUOTEFARM is applicable for sheer over-reliance and dominance of quotes in this article. You are editorializing with the medical background section, making it a note is not going to really help the reader and no one is going to want to read paragraphs on a note. And then using the note as a citation to cover is a major issue. You keep characterizing statments as " adding misinformation that Macmillan "Macmillan concludes" birthdate is July 9 & omitting cite to more info & explanation re age at accident requested on talk". This is not helpful, because I quote from the source: "Neither he nor his birth is noted as such in the Plummer-Wills records for Lebanon, and there is no entry for him in Roberts's compilation of the vital records of Enfield... The only definite date given by anyone for his birth is the 9 July 1823, and that appears without a source in C. V. Gage's genealogy." - Now that I have the source in my hands, the accuracy of the wording and conclusion as demonstrated by your notes is clarified because it comes from "a comprehensive Gage genealogy, via Macmillan (2000)" and is used by Macmillan as a source despite the fact it should not be taken as such. For page 108 shows that (contrary to your detailing) that Macmillan's comments show that the record found show 36 years 0 months and 0 days, and ponders that "Did no one, including his mother, know the correct date? Or was it being hidden?" I just got the book and I am already seeing many issues with the text here. The Boston Post paper, is straight from page 12 of the book, the map of Cavendish is from page 13. I must also add the details from the image you provided are listed as your own conclusion, which is original research. I'm reading through it, and I think some matters which I tried to fix are going to be indicative of some more complex issues - but either way, this article has many issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to respond to your rambling posts on multiple topics. For the last time: Please redistribute each of your points to the appropriate bulleted discussion thread above. (If something doesn't fit any of the bulleted items, then start a new ===-level section for it here at the bottom, I guess.) If you don't do that soon, then I guess I'll have to do it myself as best I can. EEng (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

TLDR version:No. You've dodged my inquiries and you are reverting something reviewed by a third party who was really skeptical of my claims (at first) to be making the article worse. You've gone and re-instituted your extremely long quotes and notes and you've not actually responded to my inquiries. I've been waiting so long that I've had to return my book to the library because of it. I think you've done quite enough and I'm not apt to be treated like garbage. I'm disappointed in what you've done and that you are a Type 2 who clearly needs to feel that you are "winning" or somehow superior to other editors and reject actual good-faith attempts to improve and resolve issues. Your ownership and actions on this page represent a serious problem and you will not be mollified or placated by even someone who has spent several weeks getting the sources and trying to assist. This is the shy-template matter all over again. This article has a lot of issues and while you try to clean them up, it meets almost none of the GA criteria and it will be a long long time before it will at the rate. You've asked and poked and prodded your way into the situation, but if you are going to keep doing this, you can do it yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

References

WP:BRD (2)

Reversion of 593603640 ("birth_name" note)

I've reverted [46] this edit because it contained the following errors/issues:

• Removal of the note triggered Cite error: The named reference birth_name was invoked but never defined because it supports material at multiple points in the text, which the note's removal left without citation (as recognized by another editor who attempted to fix the problem here).
• Source for J.E. Gage's birth is Roberts, not C.V. Gage. (Macmillan 2000 p.15)
• Dexter was the middle name of Gage's brother, not uncle. (M 2000 p.490)
• Gage's second name is unknown, but it is most commonly listed as P, but has also been written as B. -- makes it sound as if there's uncertainty as to what Gage's middle initial, when in fact there isn't -- middle initial is P, though there are sources which give it as B. (M 2000 p.490)
• Macmillan doesn't say that there are no records of Gage's birth, only that certain records he consulted don't record it. (M 2000 p.16)
• Mother was not Hannah Swetland, but Hannah Trussell (Swetland) Gage.
• Mother was born in East Lebanon, not Lebanon. (M 2000 p.16)
• "gained skill with explosives on the farms" -- what farms? -- "or from iginglass mines." -- what isinglass mines?
• The edit removes mention that C.V. Gage gives no source for July 9 1823, which is needed (along with explicit statement at M 2000 p.16) to support article's statement that Gage's birthdate is uncertain. Edit also omits that BD per C.V. Gage is nonetheless consistent with contemporary statements that Gage was 25 when he was injured; this information is necessary to support article's statement re his age at that time.
• The details and records of Gage's early life are few in number... No record gives the location of Gage's birth... There are no surviving records for Gage's early life This doesn't need to be said three times.
• Macmillan did not "assume" Gage was literate; it's inferred from evidence (M 2000 p.17)
• Uncertainty about Gage's precise birthplace aside, what is known about his birthplace (Grafton Co.) has been omitted. (M 2000 p.16)

Many of these points were previously discussed t Talk:Phineas_Gage#Removing_note_B (which I'll augment in a moment).

In addition I've made certain adjustments to the text based on earlier discussions:

• Changed characterization of Lebanon/East Lebanon, Enfield, and Grafton to "possible homes in childhood and youth", instead of possible birthplaces.
• Added Macmillan 2000 p.31n5 to the general citation at the beginning of the note, clarifying that Lebanon proper is a possbile childhood homes (along with the others).

EEng (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

References

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 [47]:

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 [48], 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 [49] of similar glosses, such as wikt:exsecting, led quickly to a reader, who didn't know what that word meant, changing it [50] 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[51] 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 [52] 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.[53] 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.[54] 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 [55] (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 [56] whether the "skillful" is justified, so I added back the note [57] (and another nearby note at the same time). Your response was to again remove the note, and now also remove the skillful as well [58], 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! [59] 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" [60] (even though other sources are cited in exactly the same way).

It's like a Marx Brothers movie. Once again, everything you say is wrong. Everything.

EEng (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Will the personal attacks never cease? Please read WP:PEA. You attribute, directly, in the text. It should be written, "(attribution) describes Harlow's treatment as skillful because (reason).{fake ref|21}}" So much clearer, so much more authoritative. It is better than simply throwing out "Despite Harlow's skillful care" and tacking on fifty words, a separate quote and still lacking a reason why it was skillful. You do not understand the why it matters and you do not even understand what I am trying to indicate. Just like the "shy templates", you attack and attack and make these very hurtful accusations despite the fact that you do not understand the problem. Are you confused? Are you still confused about that? I've found dozens of sources and I haven't even fully gone through Macmillan's work, quite a few not even mentioned. If you calmed down and took this in stride it'd make more sense. Please rewrite the sentence with proper attribution. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Showing, as usual, that each of your points makes no sense:

• Please read WP:PEA.

Just a few posts ago your claim was

"Skillful" is a WP:PEA matter because despite all the evidence, Harlow's care was neither exceptional and quite on the contrary because he ended up making Phineas very ill with part of the treatment.

Now that it's obvious that's nonsense (you seem to agree that Harlow should be characterized as "skilful" after all) you're still saying PEACOCK applies because... well, you just keep saying it applies -- you seem to think PEACOCK applies anytime anything positive is said about anyone, no matter how securely and uncontrovertibly it's established. But for the sake of argument let's say PEACOCK does apply. So what does peacock require? Well, you say it requires that...

• You attribute, directly, in the text

But PEACOCK doesn't say that. What it says is,

Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance

There's no requirement that attribution be "directly, in the text", as you claim -- you just made that up. In-the-text is certainly allowable, but in-a-note would be OK too. So which choice best serves the reader? At this point Gage has survived the accident, and his wounds have been dressed. Yes, yes??? So what happened? Readers don't want, at this point, a digression about medical training, with the names of two researchers (Macmillan, Barker) intruded for attribution of their unanimous and uncontroverted evaluation of Harlow's care. What they want to hear is ...

Well, Harlow was a pretty good doctor [click here if you want to know more about that], but even so it was rough going for ol' Phineas.

... in other words, exactly what the article has said for years:

Despite Harlow's skillful care, Gage's recovery was long and difficult.

... with the footnote giving details and attribution. I agree that this note should be expanded with more detail about the basis for Macmillan's and Barker's evaluation, but material so expanded would be even more intrusive if moved from the note to main text.

If there were any dissent or debate about Harlow's skill, in any source, that would be different; but there's not. Macmillan / Barker's evaluation is formally a subjective one, but on the spectrum of subjectivity this point is about as close to "objective" as can be without actually being objective.

We all agree that this opinion needs attribution; whether that is best done in the text, or in a note, is certain something that can be discussed. The problem is that you insist, as you always do, that it can only be done one way -- it has to be in the text, based on your misinterpretation and misquoting of policy. So you don't see two alternatives to be compared -- you see only one imperative requirement, period. As a result, discussion of which approach would be better never gets started, because you're absolutely positive there are no choices.

EEng (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You are arguing over a single word and three people have noted that it should be attributed in the text, the 50 word note that doesn't explicitly state that is nearly worthless. Now, I don't care that much about it, the gaping content and description holes are worth more time. I think this is a complete waste of time and that you are entrenching over whether or not you attribute a statement directly in the text. I got better things to do then pick over word choices, but if you want I am sure Eric Corbett can school the both of us on this matter. I'm trying to push this to GA and all this drama is wasted effort, you are so invested in this page that it has blinded you from numerous aspects. And hate to be a broken record, but this why the "Shy template" matter was the first issue and to this day you skill do not understand the why behind it even after describing it multiple times. You may know your material well, but the format and flow fixes to the content is like pulling teeth. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you were arguing over a single word (skilful) -- claiming there was no citation, even though you were the one who removed the cite that had been there! [61] Then suddenly you stopped objecting to skilfull, switching to insisting that it must be attributed in the main text instead of in a footnote (see #oh_now_PEACOCK_is_the_issue).

As seen in this thread, it's not true (as you claim) that anyone else agreed with you on that -- only at another point when you said "it needs to be attributed" (without saying where) which of course no one ever disputed. So as usual you just make stuff up.

EEng (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

In-text vs. in-note attribution

I agreed with Chris that "skilful" needs intext attribution. I stated so at some point which is probably by now lost in miles of incessant verbiage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have half a mind to wipe all that "verbiage" and bad faith by EEng right off this page. EEng readily dismisses the previous conversation and says I am making it up despite clear evidence to the contrary. Seems to be a running issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As seen below in the (edit conflict) post, no one agreed with you in this discussion, though it turns out Maunus supported in-text attribution in an edit summary. So, since you seem to be keeping score, we have, um... (you + an edit summary) vs. (me + another editor discussing at length here on Talk) – hardly the "three editors" you say agreed with you. So yeah, you're still making stuff up. EEng (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, Maunus, I was going on what I saw here in this discussion, which you didn't participate in. Looking now through the article's revision history I see you did say, in an edit summary [62], "I think it is better then to describe which sources describe [harlow's] care as skillful and what was skillful about it. It is an evaluation that needs attribution in the text." I apologize for overlooking that.

Now that you're here, can you explain, in light of the discussion in this thread, why in-text attribution is required e.g. something like

According to Barker and Macmillan, Harlow's care was skillful...

instead of just something like

Despite Harlow's skillful care, Gage's recovery was long and difficult.

or an explanatory footnote (as the article had for a long time):

Despite Harlow's skillful care, Gage's recovery was long and difficult.

-----

Notes

A. Barker described Harlow's care as "this and that, and very creative", saying "Gage was lucky to encounter Harlow, who probably saved his life." Macmillan said "blah blah blah". Harlow himself was modest about his role in Gage's survival, writing "All I did was etc etc."

Opinions may differ on which of these approaches best serves the reader, but the difficulty I have with CG is that he keeps saying that there's only one particular way that's allowable (in this case, he says, because WP:PEACOCK requires in-text attribution). Because he takes that position, the question of what best serves the reader is never engaged. EEng (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• No matter how one approaches it saying that someone is "skillful" is a subjective evaluation, and generally it is good to attribute evaluations to those who make them. It is not absolutely necessary according to policy, but I think that stylistically it is a very good idea to at least write something along the lines of "Historians have considered Harlow's care to be skillful/described Harlow's care as skillful". In this way I think this small word is a symptom f the larger problems you are facing here at this article. I think that most of the problems with this article comes from your insistence on writing in a very specific and very personal style, that tends to use different literary techniques to make the events come alive to the reader. I personally (and I think other editors as well) find much of your style to be not fully compatible with the encyclopedic medium, nor with our implicit guidelines for how to write an article, and I think that in your insistence on enforcing your own preferred style you have made the process very much more difficult than it had to be. Your willingness to spend pages and pages of text on defending something so relatively irrelevant as a single wordchoice, to me demonstrates how intent you are on micromanaging this article. That is a problem for an encyclopedia that is in its definition collaborative.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course subjective opinions must be attributed, though the explicitness and prominence of attribution (e.g. main article vs. note, naming source of opinions in text vs. reader has to find it in citation, etc.) depends on "how subjective" the opinion is, how surprising the opinion might be to the reader, and the extent to which affection or hostility on the part of editors might be in play. Saying an obscure 18th-c doctor was skillful in handling one case is way different from saying a living person, or a well-known historical figure, "is/was" (or, "is considered to be/have been") accomplished in some way, or that Book X is (or has been called, or is considered) one of the greatest/most influential of the year/the century/ever.

Another factor is whether there is any disagreement about the evaluation. In this case, two appropriate evaluators -- an historian of the neurosciences (consulting with experts on 19th-c medical practices) and, independently, a prominent neurosurgeon -- came to identical conclusions. As I said at #oh_now_PEACOCK_is_the_issue (a few posts down from the linked point) on the spectrum of subjectivity there comes a point where you're about as close to "objective" as you can get without it actually being a mathematical evaluation like batting averages.

Taking all those factors into account (obscure doctor, unanimous opinions, not surprising) I believe that most readers will be happy to accept a passing statement of skillful (Despite Harlow's skillful care,...) with an explanatory note, for readers who really want to know, attributing and quoting the skillfulness evaluation. This also allows us to bring in e.g. Harlow's own self-evaluation -- all this way too much for the main text.

You're right, Maunus, that there's been a lot of ink spilled over the "one word" skilful. But it's a word that clearly belongs, and most of the ink spilled was to beat back CG's removal of it (saying "skillful" is not an appropriate word to use here); then dealing with his complaint that it wasn't attributed -- which was true, but only because he had removed the attribution; and then he switched to insisting attribution had to be in the main text, not a note... and so on. So while, yes, editors often dispute style, that's not what was going on here. It was one editor removing appropriate content, then complaining about a problem he'd created, then insisting that guidelines require something they don't.

Sometime later I'll restore the old note (removed by CG) which attributed the skillfulness evaluation, and beef it up with quotes. At the same time, if you look back in this thread you'll see Ward20 and I talked about adding detail, in the main text, on the abscess draining, and using that as a vehicle to bring in (to the main text) the quote from Barker that "Gage was lucky to have met Harlow... most doctors wouldn't have had the experience" etc etc. Then I'd like to know how well that fits what you have in mind. I'm glad you're back. EEng (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It is about style. I don't think a note is necessary to explain this word. The article already has way too many extensive notes. It is not the case that all subjective evaluations become more objective because they are shared by many, no matter how many people think I am a nice guy, we don't write in my wikipedia article that I am a nice guy in wikipedias voice - just like we would never write that Book X is the most influential. We attribute it. So yes, it is about style. Your writing style is quite idiosyncratic both as wikipedia articles go and in general, and your editing style is confrontational and uncompromising, insisting on having the final word on every minor detail. I don't understand what enjoyment you derive from that kind of editing, and certainly it does not do much to improve the encyclopedia. I am now unwatching this page again.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Maunus, I'm sorry to see you unwatch, because I think that you have made a lot of good points. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing note B

The text reads with sources removed: Macmillan (2000) discusses Gage's ancestry and what is and isn't known about his birth and early life. Possible birthplaces are Lebanon, Enfield, and Grafton (all in Grafton County, New Hampshire) though Harlow refers to Lebanon in particular as Gage's "native place" and as "his home" (probably that of his parents) to which he returned ten weeks after the accident. The vital records of neither Lebanon nor Enfield list Gage's birth. The birthdate July 9, 1823 (the only definite date given in any source) is from a comprehensive Gage genealogy, via Macmillan (2000), and is consistent with agreement (among contemporary sources addressing the point) that Gage was 25 years old at the time of the accident, as well as with Gage's age—36 years—as shown in undertaker's records after his death on May 21, 1860. There is no doubt Gage's middle initial was P but there is nothing to indicate what the P stood for (though his paternal grandfather was also named Phineas and brother Dexter's middle name was Pritchard). Gage's mother's first and middle names are variously given as Hannah or Hanna and Trussell, Trusel, or Trussel; her maiden name is variously spelled Swetland, Sweatland, or Sweetland.

This is several notes worth of details at minimum.

First, Macmillan does not make any conclusion about the birthplace, raised being different, other than no records are known to exist. The assumption Harlow is referring to Lebanon is conjecture, but I believe it is the most likely place given the marriage and records provided. I used the source on page 491, from the C.V. Gage genealogy, that states the date of birth and location. Furthermore, Macmillan previously stated it was 9 September 1823 in the 1986 paper, but this matter has been rectified in the book.

The matter of the second name, the P., is not absolute. Numerous sources including the undertakers records for the internment state Phineas B. Gage. Since this record is used to correct his date of death from Harlow's assessment, isn't this an issue? While corrected, I think it is important to note nothing absolute. Though I'd like to point out EEng has not given the correct date of death according to Macmillan which is May 20, 1860 by citing Internment Records of the Laurel Hill Cemetery record. Though I'm not 100% sure as to why but the N. Gray & Co's Funeral record for "Lone Mountain Cemetery" (why a different cemetery?) says he was buried on May 23, 1860. Now... the note clearly says May 21st, the infobox says May 21st. The source is May 20. Even by itself being fixed, why is this needed in a note for "birth_name"?

That's why I split it out with the matter of the Gage's mother's name and the middle name. Which I've cross-checked and completely agree with being suitable for notes. They just should not be in the same note. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

CG, responding to your comments:

• This is several notes worth of details at minimum.

I don't understand your idea that notes are supposed to be some certain length. These topics are discussed in a single note becuase they are naturally related, they all rely on the same pages in Macmillan 2000, and they jointly support four or five points in the article. EEng (talk)

Because it reads better then a whole page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, like it or not all this material is related and as a unit supports the various points in the article at which it's cited. You might prefer it be shorter but you'd have to propose how without destroying its function, which so far you haven't done. EEng (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Macmillan does not make any conclusion about the birthplace, raised being different, other than no records are known to exist. The assumption Harlow is referring to Lebanon is conjecture

(CG, you must start making an effort to write intelligible, complete sentences -- I am not kidding. It's almost impossible to tell what you're talking about much of the time.) Lebanon and Enfield are explicitly mentioned as possible birthplaces at Macmillan 2000, p.16 -- Grafton is mentioned only as a possible place of "growing up" so I'll have to dig into my notes to see how I turned it into a potential birthplace as well. Macmillan and I discussed this at length years ago and it may be we intended to update the "Errors to An Odd Kind of Fame" webpage but didn't get around to it. EEng (talk)

This is your omission and all the more reason why that COI matter was front and center. I do not see them "explicitly mentioned" in the text as possible places of birth, I see that Lebanon and Enfield's records were searched and were not listed. The records for the school have not survived and the text cites Harlow's mention in 1868 that he was "untrained in the schools". This really presents an interesting interpretation given the next portion, but where he was born and where he was raised are entirely different matter to some. You can be born in one place and return "home" for another, the degree of accuracy may not matter much for the the 19th century. Let's call it Grafton County. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's what the infobox has always said: "Birthplace: Grafton Co." And what in the world can a minor point about Gage's hometown have to do with your COI obsession? EEng (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• The matter of the second name, the P. is not absolute.

You misunderstand Macmillan's discussion under variant names at p.490 -- saying that some sources "give the middle initial as B" is not to say not that he (or anyone else) doubts that the true initial is P. Macmillan unequivocably gives Gage's name as Phineas P. Gage (p.491), and there is no question about this whatsoever.

Consensus is clearly P. Two stray records don't change anything, even if they were likely provided by Gage's own mother. I'm just saying, it is not absolutely P, and I think that's why you went to sourcing extremes because you know "there is no doubt", but you are aware of those two contradictions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's absolutely P, and you have no idea what you're talking about when you say stuff like "likely provided by Gage's own mother". It's not our place to say what the facts absolutely or probably are -- we follow the secondary sources and they absolutely say P. Period. End of story. EEng (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• the undertakers records for the internment ... Since this record is used to correct his date of death from Harlow's assessment, isn't this an issue?

You don't understand how to use primary vs. secondary sources. The precise reason that primary sources aren't used on WP (or, actually, have very restricted use) is to avoid this kind of debate; as already explained Macmillan, the authoratative secondary source gives the middle initial as P, nobody disagrees with that, and that's the end of the matter. (In case you're wondering, Macmillan and I do know why the middle initial is wrong in the burial record, but at this point that's unpublished so it's neither here nor there.) EEng (talk)

Oh, I know how to use primary sources - see my point above because I responded to it in full there. Also, I found a color copy of that record.[63] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't still be trying to use a primary source to argue with the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. EEng (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Numerous sources ... state Phineas B. Gage.

If you'll name these "numerous other sources" (other than the interment record) that give B as the middle initial I'll be happy to address them. I can't think of any other than the interment record. EEng (talk)

I already stated this above, the two statements of the "B." were listed in page 108. One written in the text and the other in the image. Loose leaf or not, the error makes you wonder if his grave was marked as "Phineas B. Gage." Since apparently, while the record exists, it is omitting his exact age and carries the wrong initial. 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not "numerous sources" -- it's not even two sources -- it's just one source (the interment record) shown in a photo and then mentioned in the text. And it's not loose-leaf but bound -- you're mixing it up with another book -- see Macmillan 2000 p.122n17. EEng (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• EEng has not given the correct date of death according to Macmillan which is May 20, 1860

No, Macmillan gives the death date as May 21, 1860. You're referring to Macmillan 2000, p. 108, which gives: "The Interment Records of the Laurel Mountain Cemetery give the date of death of 'Phineas B. Gage' as 20 May 1860"; however, Macmillan corrects himself in Corrections to An Odd Kind of Fame: "p. 108, para 2: The year of Gage's death is 1860, but the only other date on the records is 23rd. May for the funeral/interment" i.e. there is no statement anywhere that May 20 is the death date. Macmillan gives Gage's date of death as May 21, 1860 on p.490, and he repeats that in numerous other papers. (I'll add "Corrections to OKF" to the cites at this point in the note.) EEng (talk)

[Later: Text put in BIG for ease of reference from later post. -- EEng (talk)]

• why is this [the death date] needed in a note for "birth_name"?

This note is primarily about birth, not death, but nonetheless the death date comes in, as follows -- the need is self-explanatory:

The birthdate July 9, 1823 (the only definite date given in any source) is from a comprehensive Gage genealogy, via Macmillan (2000), and is consistent with agreement, among the numerous contemporary sources addressing the point, that Gage was 25 years old at the time of the accident, as well as with Gage's age—​36 years—​as given in undertaker's records after his death on May 21, 1860.

EEng (talk)

• Laurel Hill Cemetery .. Lone Mountain Cemetery ... why a different cemetery?

Since you asked, what was commonly called Lone Mountain Cemetery was actually a complex of four adjacent cemeteries: Laurel Hill, Odd Fellows, Calvary, Masonic. EEng (talk)

In summary, except for a possible problem with listing Grafton as a potential birthplace, every single factual claim you make above is wrong. EEng (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Now this is just petty. Harlow states 10 pm May 21st, 1861, and the funeral record states May 20, 1860, which also lists his entry as "Phineas B. Gage". Harlow is claimed to be wrong. And by some combination a new date of May 21st, 1860 is given. Which is listed in the appendix in page 491. No such specificity is given even in the corrections on the site. "The year of Gage's death is 1860, but the only other date on the records is 23rd. May for the funeral/interment, and only Gray's Funeral Record gives 'epilepsy' as the cause of death." Now, as for why the specific claim of May 20, 1860 is not given more notice, I don't know. Maybe you can explain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

May 23 (not 20)

Yes, I can explain, and the explanation is that you are all mixed up again. The interment book entry is dated May 23, 1860 (not, as you say, May 20); and it's the date of burial (not, as you apparently think, date of death). So Harlow isn't "claimed to be wrong" in reporting Gage died in 1861 -- he's undeniably wrong. (Again, this is a bound ledger recording thousands of burials, entered by hand day after day over many years. Unless it's a magnificent forgery there's not a shadow of doubt about this.)

But it's not our role to debate this. This is what I can't understand about you. You go on and on about how this and that is original research (when they're not) and then you indulge in OR yourself without apparently realizing it.

As for the "specificity" (whatever you mean by that) at "Corrections to An Odd Kind of Fame", what you just quoted is what I quoted earlier, and it's perfectly specific: the burial date in the interment record is May 23, 1860. I don't know what else you'd want.

Anyway, Macmillan explains (too briefly) about the correction of dates at p. 122nn15,17. Because this is surmise on his part, the article takes pains (or used to take pains, anyway) to footnote each corrected date with an explanation of Macmillan's logic. This is a good example of the damage you're done by removing all the notes -- now the reader has no way of knowing which dates are firm vs. which are corrected.

EEng (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You still aren't reading my posts correctly. Macmillan 2000 on page 108 says the date of death was May 20. Read it yourself. Also, stop making walls of text and stop grossly misinterpreting my statements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What constitutes a "wall" (of text or anything else) depends on the observer. Something a person of normal capabilities might consider a minor obstacle, an impaired person might see as a wall.

Here once more‍—‌this time in very simple, simple steps‍—‌is why your statement that "Macmillan 2000 on page 108 says the date of death was May 20" is (as always) nonsense:

• Macmillan's An Odd Kind of Fame: Stories of Phineas Gage (2000, p.108) does indeed say:

First, the Interment Records of the Laurel Hill Cemetery give the date of death of "Phineas B. Gage" as 20 May 1860 and the burial date as 23 May 1860. Second, N. Gray & Co.'s Funeral Record 1850 to 1862 for Lone Mountain Cemetery, reproduced here as figure 6.4, also gives 23 May 1860 as the date of the funeral.

I've put it in a red box to help you focus.

• But Macmillan subsequently corrected himself. Repeat: He later said made a mistake. In other words: Macmillan said that some of what he wrote‍—‌quoted in the box above‍—‌was wrong. Macmillan's "Corrections to An Odd Kind of Fame" [64] says:

p. 108, para 2: The year of Gage's death is 1860, but the only other date on the records is 23rd May for the funeral/interment

I've put this in a green box to help you focus.

• Adding Macmillan's own correction (green) to his original passage (red), what he's saying is:

First, the Interment Records of the Laurel Hill Cemetery give the date of death of "Phineas B. Gage" as 20 May 1860 and burial date as 23 May 1860. Second, N. Gray & Co.'s Funeral Record 1850 to 1862 for Lone Mountain Cemetery, reproduced here as figure 6.4, also gives 23 May 1860 as the date of the funeral.

It's in a yellow box to help you focus. (Mnemonic aid: red + green = yellow.) Notice that the words date of death of "Phineas B. Gage" as 20 May 1860 and have been crossed out, symbolizing that they are defunct – obsolete – inoperative – surplussage – no longer in force – impotent – dead as a doornail – gone to heaven – ceased to be – expired – gone to meet their maker – "late" – stiff – bereft of life – they rest in peace – pushing up the daisies – rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. They are ex-words.

DO YOU GET IT NOW? MACMILLAN SAYS THAT THE DATE MAY 20, 1860  DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY RECORD. NOT ANYWHERE. NOWHERE. NADA, NIX, NICHTS, NYET, IXNAY. IT WAS A MOMENTARY LAPSE ON MACMILLAN'S PART THAT HE GAVE THAT DATE. MACMILLAN TELLS US HE WAS MISTAKEN IN GIVING THE DATE MAY 20, 1860.

MACMILLAN GIVES GAGE'S DATE OF DEATH (p.491) AS MAY 21, 1860. NOT MAY 20. MAY 21. OF 1860. IN THE YEAR 1860. THE TWENTY-FIRST DAY OF THE FIFTH MONTH OF THE YEAR 1860. NOT MAY 20.

SO YOU NEED TO STOP SAYING THAT MACMILLAN (OR ANYONE) GIVES THE DATE OF DEATH AS MAY 20, 1860. PLEASE... HAVE MERCY ON US, PLEASE... IF YOU HAVE ANY SHRED OF DECENCY, PLEASE... IN THE NAME OF GOD, STOP THIS CLUELESSNESS ACT, PLEASE... IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY, PLEASE... IN THE NAME OF ALL CREATURES GREAT AND SMALL, PLEASE... IN THE NAME OF ALL THE LITTLE CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN UNBORN, AND THE INNOCENT, TRUSTING CHILD THAT LIVES IN ALL OF US, PLEASE... PLEASE. PLEASE. PLEASE.

This is the third (at least) time this has been explained to you, the most recent being just a few posts back:

#just_the_most_recent_time_correction_has_been_explained_to_CG

You even quoted Macmillan's correction yourself –

#CG_quotes_the_correction_himself_but_still_fails_to_get_it

 – yet somehow you still don't get it. What does it take to get something this simple to sink it? Every single thing you've written about this article over the last three months is like this: stunning misreading, unbelievable misunderstanding, and a jaw-dropping inability to absorb even simple concepts.

I'm could go on but I'm running out of large type, boldface, and italics. EEng (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not think you understand. I am saying that Macmillan wrote and sourced a date of death for May 20. You agree the text says that. The date should be noted as such. Simple. Now, please stop the theatrics with made-up garbage about "May 24" and the like. This is not a private conversation and other colleagues are likely to watch and read these exchanges. This disruption is not productive and you are showing you cannot carry on any form of debate without being dramatic and hostile. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been explained repeatedly that Macmillan later corrected that passage, withdrawing his statement that May 20, 1860 appears anywhere in the records. Yet you are either unable to comprehend that, or are pretending that you don't comprehend. There can no longer be any doubt that you, "ChrisGualtieri", are either a hopeless incompetent or a troll‍—‌doesn't matter which. This thread is the proof. I've put the foregoing in big-bold to put other editors on notice. EEng (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The May 20 date needs to be noted, preferably either directly in the text or in some other fashion. This is a major issue and it needs to be presented properly, anyone picking up the source should know that the dates are questionable. Sources make errors, Macmillan made one, let's not omit such details when they are showing up in various sources citing Macmillan. I think it would be best to note the questionable sources in Macmillan's work as well. Several other parts of this article are out of date and touch - these also need to be fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, as seen above you are either a hopeless incompetent or a troll. I won't respond to your posts in the future, except as necessary to prevent their misleading editors who may not understand the nature of you activities here. EEng (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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 [65] and instead of doing you you've simply re-added the tag.
• Original research: Ditto. [66]

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 [67] 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 [68], 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 [69]:

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 [70]. This is typical behavior from you: childish and reactive. It's incredible how much time must be wasted dealing with your ignorance and stupidity. You've posted these tags out of spite. Now cut this shit out. EEng (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand this rambling wall of text, so filled with bad faith accusations and muddled thoughts which obfuscate the reality. The matter is really simple: you are biased and work for and with the principal source. That is a COI. Throughout your edits you have demonstrated that you are not capable of a NPOV. While the COIN matter never closed; it is clear that you are invested emotionally, academically and possibly financially in this page. You even used it as a soap box to launch a personal appeal for Professor Macmillan! As a result, you should not be editing this article directly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question, why do you hate me? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you understand perfectly. And no, I don't hate you, but your combination of ignorance, foolishness and certainty has wasted a tremendous amount of editor time. EEng (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what you remove. You are removing sourced details and that is a major concern. I'll take this to DRN because a clear COI was and is noted. You dominate this page because you stand to benefit from it in several ways. Your unpublished conjecture does not belong on this page nor does removing tags on your unsourced creations. Macmillan pages 25-27 do not give that information - so it is false. Over 40 false references were in existence when I first came to this page. You made the page nearly unreadable with your arcane formatting and shy templates - you pound the table and yell because you do not understand the problems. You have a COI, you shouldn't be editing this page. Simple as that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've brought it to DRN and I've replaced the tags again. The article is not NPOV for reasons that have already been well-stated. The COI was noted by a total of four editors at COIN, one of which who noted EEng should not be editing the article directly except to revert vandalism. Given the circumstances, it is not unreasonable that EEng should not continue to edit war and refrain from editing the article at this time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record: CG says,

Your unpublished conjecture does not belong on this page... Macmillan pages 25-27 do not give that information - so it is false.

Yeah, except the citation I quoted earlier was

See Macmillan (2000) (pp.25-7) and Macmillan (PGIP) (page A)

The information is there. This kind of sloppy, fly-off-the-handle statement is characteristic of everything CG's done to this article. If he'll list 10 of his "40 false sources" I'll be happy to quote them one by one and match them to the article content. What an outrageous statement.

EEng (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Congratulations, the two of you have now gotten my full attention, and I believe that you are both acting rather badly. My very strong advice is this: EEng, please post your response to Chris at WP:DRN, and we can then see where that is going to go. Both of you: stop edit warring on the page – you are both guilty of it! – and stop commenting on one another here on the article talk page. I'm seriously thinking of requesting that the page be full protected. And the wall-of-text on this talk page is not helping either one of you. I'm going to go, slowly and carefully, through the various content and sourcing issues that have been raised, and I'm going to comment, some here on the article talk page, and some at my user talk page. In the mean time, I suggest that you both take a step back, and just wait. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Please see: User talk:Tryptofish#Gage again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To-do list

I've added a {{to do}} list of mostly minor items -- see head of this talk. There's a teensy link there for editing the list to add, or comment on, items, etc. EEng (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Phineas Gage site

What's wrong with the phineas gage site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legoboy11 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand -- what's the problem? EEng (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's some actual OR

Well, it looks like I returned from my trip up the Amazon at just the right moment. Tryptofish, I see you've put a lot of work in while I was gone, and I appreciate that. My connectivity will remain intermittant for a while but when I'm back to civilization first thing I'll do is look that over. Assuming I'm still not topic-banned.

While people catch their breath some might enjoy a discussion of what little can be made of this request. This is strictly OR and has no place in the article, but it's fun anyway.

There are far too many imponderables to get much handle on the velocity of the tamping iron as it left the blast hole (which is what the edit summary linked above seems to want -- let's call this the "dry" exit velocity). But a pretty good lower limit can be placed on the tamping iron's, er, um... how shall I put it... um, "wet" exit velocity -- the velocity as it exited Mr. Gage's noggin -- as follows.

A fun digression for those interested

We're told the iron returned to earth about 80 ft away. Naturally we all enjoyed high school physics, and so readily recall that a 45-degree inclination at exit from the, um, muzzle gives the most conservative estimate of muzzle velocity. So -- let's see -- 32 ft/sec/sec, add 7, carry 6, ... um, wait, no, that's impossible, wait, ... OK, right... Yeah... Got it. A projectile starting from h=0 at 45 degrees, and returning to h=0 at distance 80 ft away, has a flight time of about 2 1/4 seconds, reaches a max height of about 20 feet, and would have had a muzzle velocity (i.e. the velocity leaving the exit wound) of about 30 ft/sec = 50 mi/hr. That's on earth of course -- if Gage had been on Jupiter, or under water, we'd have to rework all this. More significantly, this neglects the elevation of Gage's head above h=0, and since the max elevation was only h=20 it's clear this introduces significant error (correction of which would lower the velocity estimate). If someone wants to work this out for initial h=5 -- assuming Gage was stooping or squatting, and not atop of some large body of rock, and' that the terrain isn't very steep -- that would be great. (Terrain likely does come in here, since Bigelow quotes a witness as saying that the iron was found "in the road below", which suggests some change in elevation. On the other hand, here in the OR-play zone we might also indulge the inference that Gage wasn't way up top the big rock seen in the article's beautiful photo: there's nothing to indicate Phineas was removed from a height by his men, and had he fallen from there his catalog of injuries should have included something orthopedic.) But even more significant is the 45-degree inclination assumption. From Harlow's and Bigelow's (slightly conflicting) descriptions of Gage's posture the iron likely emerged at 60 degrees at least, and probably more. Assuming even a 70-degree inclination we get... well, 70 deg in radians is 2 pie r squared, except pie are not squared -- cake are squared, pie are round -- so cotangerine of ... Well, this is too hard on a four-function calculator. Doesn't even have √ -- geesh! Anyway, anyone who's seen a pop-fly at the ballfield will appreciate that a projectile can be launched at very high speed yet return to earth not too far away, if its path is sufficiently near vertical. Had the exit been truly vertical, in fact, for all we know the iron reached the Van Allen belts and then came straight back down. Adopting an inclination above 45 degrees increases the exit velocity tremendously, completely swamping any error due to Gage's initial elevation above h=0. In sum, it's almost certain the iron's velocity leaving the exit wound at the top of Gage's head was at least 50 mph, and likely much more. Thus endeth the OR. References

EEng (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I admit to being greatly jealous of travel to the Amazon, and I look forward to hearing what your responses are to my advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Another to-do list (sort of)

T-fish, I'll be in contact at most intermittently for another week so here's something I think will help in the meantime. Can you work with CG to pin down specifically what he's talking about in the following? There's no way to address his concerns if I can't figure out what he's talking about.

1. "40 false references in existence when I first came to this page" [71]... "30% false references" [72]... "More than 40 false references that do not exist." [73]. Since he refers to "when I came to this page" I guess this version must be the one with all these incorrect references. Could you get CG to list, say, 10 of these? I'd like to start correcting them as soon as possible.

2. The "not enough opinions" banner. [74] Do you think you could get CG to give sample text (rough, but including citations to sources) for two or three of the opinions he feels should be inserted?

3. And finally, John_Vandenberg directed a question to CG [75] (which CG never answered) when the COIN discussion began to turn from the idea of establishing balance by adding missing material, to establishing balance by removing existing, cited material. The question was: "Which academic peer-reviewed literature published since has refuted or contested anything in the article?" Could you perhaps encourage CG to make a list of such literature he's come across while working on the article?

Thanks. EEng (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of saving time, I'm going to answer number 2 myself, because I can easily see what the answer is. Chris' concern, and I want to say that I consider it a legitimate one, is that the page devotes too much emphasis to the interpretations of primary source material by secondary sources written by Macmillan et al. If you examine what I've written in the BRD section, above, I've explained in greater detail how I view this issue. And that, in turn, leads to number 3: I don't interpret what Chris said as having found new sources, so much as referring to sources (the Damasios, for example) that appear to be WP:RS, but which have been questioned by Macmillan et al., and which may be underrepresented on this page.

So let's please focus on number 1. ChrisGualtieri, I would appreciate it if you would list here some examples of what you consider to be false references. I'm not concerned with exactly how many of these there are, just with what sources Chris regards as being "false". Ideally, I'd just like to see a couple of sources listed as a bullet list, without a lot of accompanying discussion, and I would prefer that EEng not respond to it when Chris provides it here, until after I have been able to respond myself. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was self explanatory the last time I mentioned it. The "hack of hacks" resulted in each source having fake references that do not work. When trying to verify the information, clicking on these false references did nothing. When looking at the references by themselves, it appeared as if there were more citations then were used. Each source had a false reference tied to this "hack of hacks" - so when I said "over 40 false references" - I was just giving an example because 30% of the references in the reference list were non-operational and trying to verify the information was ridiculous. It really irks me when I click on sources and they go to the wrong spot, or don't work at all. That "hack of hacks" should never have been done because the false references were generated to attain a preferred appearance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks Chris very much for your prompt reply. I understand, then, that you did not mean that the source material (particularly Macmillan et al.) were bogus sources, which may have been what EEng was concerned about. Instead, your concern is one of formatting: that clicking on certain source links failed to bring you to where it should have brought you, due to the complexity of note formatting on the page. I agree with you that we should simplify the notes, a lot, and I want to now direct EEng to what I said about the notes in the BRD section, above. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It was even more basic then the notes. It was the simple fact that in the "hack of hacks" version of the page that all the references, regardless of being in the main text or in the notes, had at least one "non-working" reference. This is the "a" ref on I think every reference. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If that is what you are worrying about, why not just say "the hack of hacks resulted in one spurious backlink for each reference", which we already know anyway. You are wasting everybody's time by implying that the references themselves are incorrect. Have you found any of the references themselves which are actually incorrect? --Mirokado (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)