Talk:Phineas Gage
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phineas Gage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | Phineas Gage was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WPCD-People
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 13, 2009, September 13, 2011, September 13, 2012, and September 13, 2014. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Review of content issues
Since the formatting has been largely dealt with, let's hammer out some content issues. Do not split into this list and blow them up into a mess, for this is part of my review of what should be done before the article should become a GA.
Issues list recapitulated below in List "A"
|
---|
Analysis and actual examination of the claims and details surrounding Gage and his role in science has been well- mostly avoided by the article. Instead of proper detailing of the injury and Gage's role in history. Only a few hundred words on Gage's mental impairments were written yet lengthy quotes are used. Using "passim" and other issues in citing Macmillan is also a cop-out and would merit a verifiability failure. Not even that, it doesn't even credit Macmillan when it should.
A substantial part of the text is hidden away in these notes. These complex, rambling, and citation filled messes that only make verification more tedious. A note like "V" which reads " See Macmillan & Lena;[34]:9 Harlow;[12]:332,345 Bigelow;[11]:16–17 Harlow;[9]:390 Macmillan.[1]:86" is just improper.
There is a lot of issues that remain - but the next biggest is the Notes issue. It comprises a substantial amount of the non-quote text and should be easiest to rectify. Though I figure the content issues might be easier under the current situation... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, no reordering. But can we give them designations, like this? I'm calling it "List A" so we can start a new list later without confusion. If you don't like it we'll work something else out, but we really need some way to refer to issues without saying, "Hey, getting back to that thing we were talking about, the bit where it says that Gage was traveling, not the bit about the time when he blah blah blah." One point: we absolutely cannot refer to "Note X" and "Ref 22" and so on. These designations shift around as the article is edited and we will go completely crazy. In the below, I've substituted permalinks instead. |
Issues list "A"
Extended content
|
---|
|
- A4b Also, the exhumation details - which was in Fleischman's book - is entirely absent. This little episode in the Gage story is something which is important.
- For the 100th time, this is a children's book, according to the publisher's own data [6]: "Grade Level: 4,5,6 Age Range: 9,10,11,12". Another editor's recurring claims that it's "peer-reviewed" (because the author thanks Dr. X and Dr. Y for checking the anatomical statements, and Macmillan for general assistance) are absurd. There's no debating this.
- And no, "this little episode in the Gage story" is not "something which is important". Here's what it says:
- With her son-in-law and the mayor of San Francisco, who happens to be a physician, standing by as witnesses, Phineas's coffin is uncovered and carried to a shed. There, Dr. J.D.B. Stillman, a local surgeon, removes the skull. The huge fracture on the forehead is unmistakable. Dr. Stillman removes something else from the coffin -- the tamping iron that Phineas carried everywhere, even to his grave.
- These details are cited to nothing, complete fiction, and utterly trivial.
- Tfish, I'd like your explicit concurrence, based on the link above, so we can quit wasting time on this. EEng (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I repeat that, as a science book for kids, Fleischman does a wonderful job, and I thoroughly recommend it if you have any kids, nieces, or nephews in the right age range.
- <bump> EEng (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Monthly bump. EEng (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- A5 Other matters
- A5a Analysis and actual examination of the claims and details surrounding Gage and his role in science has been well- mostly avoided by the article. Instead of proper detailing of the injury and Gage's role in history.
- To the extent I can tell what this is talking about, it's covered in the Theoretical use section [7]. (Within that, the Cerebral localization subsection should certainly be expanded, and if instead of waiting for me to do it someone wants to research that and help with it, please pitch in.) Other than the cerebral localization debate Gage didn't have a role in science, and I don't know what "proper detailing of the injury" means. EEng (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Tfish, is this OK with you? EEng (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Monthly bump. EEng (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- A5b
Done A5b, A5d Other matters
- Only a few hundred words on Gage's mental impairments were written yet lengthy quotes are used.
- A5c
Done A5c Passim etc
Done Using "passim" and other issues in citing Macmillan is also a cop-out and would merit a verifiability failure.
- A5d
Done A5b, A5d Other matters
- Not even that, it doesn't even credit Macmillan when it should.
- A6 Notes
- A6a Discussion underway belowA6a Too much text hidden in notes
- A substantial part of the text is hidden away in these notes. These complex, rambling, and citation filled messes that only make verification more tedious.
- A6a Discussion underway belowA6a Too much text hidden in notes
Extended content
|
---|
|
A1a Attribute so-called speculation
Extended content
|
---|
EEng (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Somehow [12] seems just right. Without worrying about exactly when he became skilled (in the sense of better-than-common skill) the employers' praise later is enough to cover that. EEng (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC) |
A3a Paraphrase archaic language
Extended content
|
---|
Why? A paraphrase would be longer, no more informative, dull, and forego the opportunity to educate the reader at multiple levels. Others' comments? EEng (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
|
A3b Mental impairment goes here?
Extended content
|
---|
As explained elsewhere, the biographical sections only outline where Gage went and things he did. Mental changes are discussed later, don't help the reader understand the bio material any better, and would interrupt its presentation to no advantage. EEng (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
|
A3c For Gage's time in New Hampshire, didn't he spent 18 months in a horse stable?
Extended content
|
---|
The article says
Harlow says this began sometime in 1851 and, "He remained there, without any interruption from ill health, for nearly or quite a year and a half." This fits with JMH's (JHM = John Martyn Harlow) information that PG went to Chile in August 1852. How about if we change it to
Thoughts? EEng (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
|
A3d, A3e Subsequent life and travels
Extended content
|
---|
Anyone have any ideas?
|
A4a missing details surrounding return home, illness and death
Extended content
|
---|
"but he was in Chile for about 7 years, correct? Then he returned and rested for awhile before becoming a farm laborer - I'm not sure if this is on one or several farms, but wasn't the convulsions following a day's labor on the farm? The seizures became worse and he was treated prior to his death, but these details are absent." -- Points raised by ChrisGualtieri What the article currently says about this is...
Harlow says Gage "had been ploughing the day before he had the first attack; got better in a few days, and continued to work in various places;' could not do much, changing often, 'and always finding something which did not suit him in every place he tried.' On May 18, 1860, three days before his death, he left Santa Clara and went home to his mother. At 5 A.M. on May 20, he had a severe convulsion. The family physician was called in, and bled him. The convulsions were repeated frequently during the succeeding day and night, and he expired at 10, P.M., May 21" This is quoted in one of the footnotes you hate so much [13] so how about if we change the last bit to say...
Then we can dispense with the footnote. Yipee! What do you think? EEng (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
|
A5b, A5d Other matters
Extended content
|
---|
Anyone have any ideas what this is suggesting in terms of changes to the article? EEng (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
|
A5c Passim etc
Extended content
|
---|
I've changed the two passims to a specific page and chapter #s. Can you explain about the "other issues in citing Macmillan"? EEng (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
|
A6a Too much text hidden in notes
I think that this point is worth addressing explicitly. I agree with the subjective parts of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't need to tell you when material goes in a note: when its potential value to some readers is outweighed by the distraction to most readers of including it in the main text. So all we have to do is decide which pan of the scales is heavier, for each note. (A third option, of course is -- as with all content -- to just drop it completely. However, IMO, a very convincing case would have to be made for the removal of all but the most obviously valueless content that's in a note -- in addition to NOTPAPER, there's the added point that, again, notes material comes at the very end of the article, and doesn't interrupt or clutter the main text.)
- As usual, I've got some old thoughts on shelf which your comment prompts me to bring out from the shadows. There are at least a few notes which I think might be candidates for integration into the main text (with various adjustments, some bits scattered elsewhere, and so on). Note I use permalinks, without which reference to "Note A", "Note B" etc. will eventually make us crazy as the article evolves.
Done [16] (Note C) I think this could be a new section at the very end of the article, "Contemporary receptions" or something.
Done [17] (Note W) Move into main text?
Done [18] (Note H) This is an example of something which, in principle, could be moved into the main text as a parenthetical. However, the point at which the note is invoked is very near the beginning of the article and therefore, I think, a bad place to add weight like this. However, it might fit really well as a parenthetical at the very end of the "Early observations" section, I just noticed.
Done [19] (Note J) The first sentence is an excellent example of material that (a) needs to be in the article somewhere, since it explains a correction to a direct quote; yet (b) really only acts as a matter of record, and serves all but the most esoterically-minded reader not at all. However, the rest of Note J, together with Note N
Done [20], might make a new section on something like "Factors favoring Gage's survival/Harlow's treatment" or something. But offhand I don't see any really good way of organizing that, or where to put it.
- Thoughts? EEng (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Here are my thoughts. I'm quite receptive to analyzing these issues according to your very useful metaphor of a scale, which strikes me as a good way to think about it. It seems to me, and please understand that I am saying this in good faith, that part of what is going on here is that you are putting a thumb on the scale, not because of any bad faith on your part, but because you are so close to the writing of the page that it pains you to consider shortening anything that you have labored over. I do think that just dropping some things completely is appropriate here. But I'm willing to simply say that, for now, while acceding to your preferences, for now, not to delete any of it. That way, you know what I think, but I'm not pushing you where you are uncomfortable going. Is that fair?
- I've looked at each of those notes, and in every case, I'm in favor of moving them into the main text, and then assessing where we stand. I'd welcome you going ahead with that, for every note that you listed here. For some of them, it sounds like you know where you'd like to put them. For the others, I agree with you that it's best not to put the material too early in the text. For the J–N material where you are unsure, I would suggest putting it around where the page discusses Harlow's treatment, not necessarily in a new sub-section, and without worrying about whether it makes the existing section long. Then, let's step back, take a deep breath, and contemplate how that looks. I'm probably going to argue that most of the relocated material is just fine, maybe after a little tweaking for paragraph flow. I'm also probably going to argue that some of the material is just too much – but there are multiple options available to us if/when that happens: (1) you tell me you adamantly disagree, in which case I'll probably just say OK, (2) we agree to prune it, or (3) we move those smaller bits back into notes, but the notes will end up being simpler than they are now.
- In a more general sense, where you refer to the side of the scale that reflects not distracting most readers, my experience as a reader myself is that such distraction can also be avoided by just skipping over passages that don't interest me. The material doesn't necessarily need to have been moved out of the way, into notes. But if it has been moved into notes, I'm likely to ignore it, so that means that it is not essential. Keeping in mind that this is the English Wikipedia and not a scholarly treatise, it seems to me that references and notes are, first, about verifiability, and not about giving the reader every source that exists. So we don't have to give readers every existing source, just enough sources to make the text pass WP:V. Of course, I would never argue that we cannot offer more than the minimum sourcing, because additional sourcing can be helpful to our readers. But I think that we can consider WP:CITEKILL without doing our readers any disservice.
- And something else: it is also distracting to a reader to, first, be directed to a lettered note, and, then, be redirected to a numbered source. For the reader, that's a multi-step process. When we can, instead, make it a single step going to the numbered source, we need to really have some added value if we make the reader go through an extra step.
- I want to add some more notes to the list that we are scrutinizing. Using this [21] version of the page, these are notes K
Done, U
Not done [see below], V
Done, Y
Done, and AC
Done. I picked these notes because the text within the notes is pretty much expendable, and they could each be converted into numbered inline cites, without needing the notes. I also think that notes F
Done, L
Not done [see below], Q
Done, R
Done, T
Done, and W
Done are short notes where it would be easy to move a bit of material into the main text and no longer need the notes.
- I want to add some more notes to the list that we are scrutinizing. Using this [21] version of the page, these are notes K
Every author, however modest, keeps a most outrageous vanity chained like a madman in the padded cell of his breast.
Logan Pearsall Smith (1931). Afterthoughts.
- I fully understand re author's blindness and (let's face it) vanity. I'm pretty sure I've trotted out one of my favorite aphorisms (see right) in at least one discussion we've shared in the past.
- Beyond that... quickly... I predict you will find I agree with much more of what you say than you probably imagine I do, though it's all in the definitions and subjectives that the rubber meets the road, of course.
- But let me jump right in and take care of some of the first group. I'm going to get interruptions, so it will be sporadic. EEng (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! That is excellent! Although it may perhaps be "the padded cell of the beast". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Are you joking about beast/breast? (A "beast/breast jest", as it were)? EEng (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! That is excellent! Although it may perhaps be "the padded cell of the beast". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
As you see, I've done a few, and though some rough bits need smoothing I think it's all for the best. Continuing to add ideas I've been thinking for awhile about how to expand "Theoretical use, misuse, and nonuse". This is complicated (a) because of the complexity of the underlying theoretical frameworks (localization in its various flavors, inhibitory theories, etc. -- and I am far from an expert on this stuff); and (b) because while most of these theoretical uses of Gage were for now-defunct theories, Ferrier was right about locatization; but (c) Ferrier was mistaken in using Gage to illustrate his (correct) thesis. (Warning: oversimplified summary!) So there are a lot needles to thread there.
- Anyway, assuming we can figure out how to handle that, I thought that the paragraph beginning "Thus in the nineteenth-century" could become two or more subsections: Phrenology (which could absorb Note Z
Done -- working from your same permalink!) and Localization (which could absorb Q
Done -- not mentioned there yet is that the woodcuts were sent to England years later, so Ferrier could use them in his lectures on location), and maybe more.
- I have a heave week coming up so progress will be sporadic. EEng (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Heave week: 1. (medical, rare) A week during which the patient vomits continually. 2. (commerce) A week during which much cargo must be loaded quickly, as in "Heave - HO!". 3. (civil engineering) The worst part of the winter, during which the greatest number of potholes appear on paved roads, due to heaving caused by the freeze-thaw cycle. 4. (higher education) Rush week. 20:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- It looks good to me, and there's no hurry. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Close?
Can we close this?
- Note U (this version [22]: I see no sensible way of working into the text (it's just too boring) but this info really should remain somewhere in the article.
- Note L: There's a serious problem with the content here (19C medical meaning of fungus) which will need some quiet research to finish resolving. At that point we can take this us again. Trust me, I won't forget.
- Anything else can be taken up in new threads of their own.
OK? EEng (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- <bump> EEng (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Monthly bump. EEng (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
A6b Complex callouts
Extended content
| ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
As explained at WP:CITEBUNDLE, "Sometimes the article is more readable if multiple citations are bundled into a single footnote." In fact, inspired by a review of CITEBUNDLE's examples, I've now given the very ugly citations in the passage on behaviors attributed to Gage the same treatment [24]. I hope you agree it looks a lot better this way. EEng (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, bullets are too valuable to waste on minor annoyances, though some arrows will be coming in soon and I guess I could deliver the coup de grace with one of those. In the meantime... I agree that [1][2][3][4] is best left as is. But what about --
(current version) --? (The two versions are diffed at [25].) Please note that I was inspired to investigate guidelines' suggestions for such situations after another editor first complained that refs were missing, then after I added them [26] (in a classic damned-if-I-do) complained that I'd "started ref bombing the text into an unreadable state" [27]. I'd like to hear how other editors think this might be handled better. EEng (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
What, like this?
Surely you jest -- WP:INTEGRITY. Remember, we're discussing here conflicts of sources, and I think it's necessary to be specific about which sources relate to which point. EEng (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
In part, it can be made a little bit better by not repeating the same page numbers for reference 1. Fix that, and we get.[1]: 39, 99, 107, 116, 118, 119, 316, 319, 321, 323, 327–8, 331 [2][8][41]: 1102 [42]: 9, 11, 51 : 830 [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82]
But, looking at the page, I see that a very large number of these references are cited only at this one place on the page. That buys us a lot of simplification. Create one inline citation (not formatted as a lettered note, but as a numbered citation) at number 60 (the first of those that are cited only once), and place within it what are now the other such cites, numbers 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82. (For what that looks like, see for example Animal rights#Notes, where there are several examples, with note 89 being a good one.) The remaining citations above number 60 would then be renumbered (so 62 becomes 61, 64 becomes 62, 75 becomes 63, and 83 becomes 64). And that gives us this.[1]: 39, 99, 107, 116, 118, 119, 316, 319, 321, 323, 327–8, 331 [2][8][41]: 1102 [42]: 9, 11, 51 : 830 [60][61][62][63] Taking it one step further, create one more new inline citation, at number 64 (it could be number 60, actually, but I don't feel like renumbering what I just wrote). In 64, link back to citation number one, but give the page numbers in the inline citation. And that gives us this.[2][8][41]: 1102 [42]: 9, 11, 51 : 830 [60][61][62][63][64] All of this is done without any lettered notes, without overly cluttering the page, and without eliminating any of the source or page information (even though I suspect that you protest too much in regard to WP:CITEKILL). Problem solved. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC) What is our goal here?
I wasn't being sarcastic. You seem to be operating from the premise that footnotes are to be avoided, though no explanation has ever been given for that idea. Your proposal
And the WP:INTEGRITY problem is real, which is why that guideline says The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed. It also warns that (where large strings of callouts are appended to a single passage) Identifying which inline citation supports which fact may be more difficult unless additional information is added to the inline citations to explicitly identify which portion of the sentence they support, which is what Note X does and your proposed [60] pointedly declines to do—and which WP:BUNDLING explicitly gives an example of:
As for the apparent idea that a lot of footnotes are a bad thing, it's quite easy to find FAs with extensive notes [28][29][30][31]. I'm sorry, but I really, honestly, don't get what the advantage of the "[60]" approach is, and it has definite problems, which contradict guidelines. EEng (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Since Martinevans123 was, as I recall, the first to wonder whether the notes were too much, I'm pinging him for a 3O.
You might start by going back a few posts to the section header What is our goal here? and reading forward from there. The question is whether to stick with --
Tfish, do you think that's a fair summary? Somehow [64] became [60] -- whatever. Your proposal had said that [60] would " link back to citation number one, but give the page numbers in the inline citation" but I don't know what you mean by that -- the only interpretation I can give to it isn't technically possible, because of limits on cites citing other cites. But fix the above to put it at best advantage, if you wish (or install it live in the article so we can really see what it looks like in context -- except, sorry, since the above was only a mockup, some of the sources and stuff might be mixed up -- I wasn't as careful as I usually would be). EEng (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
After that we can talk about pros and cons to both approaches, not to mention goals. EEng (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Comparison of proposalsHere are the two versions that we are considering. I've reproduced both of them, in order to be able to fully display the references. As a result, the reference numbering is altered from what it is on the page, but I think that does not make it difficult to compare and contrast the two options. (I was actually able to condense the inline citations in my suggested change more than I had previously said in talk, once I got into the weeds of doing it. Unless I made a mistake, I have preserved all sources and page numbers.)
In my opinion, the major advantage of the status quo is that the reader can locate sources according to the specific behavior. And the major advantages of my suggested change are that it saves the reader the extra step of looking first at a very hard-to-read note that repeats the main text, before getting to the sources, and also makes this page more like the FAs that were cited in the talk section directly above. In addition, I believe that it may be possible simply to delete some of the sources, per WP:CITEKILL. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Alternative, with behaviors
EEng, I've tried as best I could, and I think I succeeded, at pairing every behavior with every corresponding source and page. It's only cites 5–9 at the end of the main text, with no intervening note, and all information verifiable in the references. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Now, there is clear attribution of when behaviors are attributed, or disputed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Rewritten with a different emphasisAs my attention has been drawn to the assert-refute nature of the source material, I find myself thinking that a different approach to the main text may be needed:
This doesn't really change the content of the main text, but it provides a better allocation of weight between Macmillan and all the other sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Arbor-treeish breakRe V4: It's inappropriate to "allocate weight between Macmillan and all the other sources" because the other sources aren't sources for facts about on Gage -- they're just sources for their own statements about Gage. And the "based on very little evidence" isn't supported by [5][6][7] -- none of those sources say, "I'm going to say Gage was a drunkard, although I'm saying that with very little evidence" -- so there's a WP:V problem with the way you're trying to split "attribution" and falsification. (And, BTW, there's not "very little evidence" for these statements -- there's no evidence whatsoever.) So I'd like to go back to your V3 and work from there. [Hours later] Abort! Tfish, I've really tried to find a way to fix the technical problems with your V3, but I just can't do it. I see this way and that way to modify it to fit it into the article somehow, but I can't tell what you would want, because rereading this whole thread, I honestly don't see what the motivation for the "Proposed change" version in the first place -- it's just another way of presenting the sources for this one very source-dense passage. Mirokado, thanks for "volunteering", and I (we, I'm sure) look forward to your bringing some fresh perspective to this. You might start at #Comparison of proposals (comparing "As the page is now" to Version 3 further down). EEng (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Psychotic breakThanks, Mirokado, you have amazing fortitude. I know we both look forward to your shining some light on this. In the meantime, in response to Tfish's concerns about the cite syntax and so on: The article uses
instead of
and uses
(efn apparently stands for "explanatory foot note") instead of
because they're cleaner and more compact. These are merely alternative syntaxes, and anything you can do with the usual The problem seems to be that what you're trying to do violates the hierarchy ARTICLE TEXT - NOTES - SOURCES. In general
You're also trying to use {{sfn}} in ways it's not designed for -- it's meant for use in article text, or notes, The actual technical limitations are slightly less rigid than just stated, but the exceptions are baroquely technical (e.g. some things are possible if you do things in exactly one particular order). And, again, I've expressed the above in terms of the r/efn syntax, but Mirokado, can you confirm the above, please?
Because of these limitations your mockups can't actually be realized in the article, or in any article, and no RfC is going to change that. I've been discussing them here in the hopes that, once I understand what it is you're after, I could install something like it in the article for you. Really, I've really been wanting to do that so we could bring this accursed thread to an end! But after all this conversation, I still can't understand what it is you're after, because the only goal I can see stated in your last post is, "I've demonstrated that it is possible to eliminate the note entirely". Ironically, because of the hierarchy limitations just explained, the only way to use sfn the way you want would be to somehow move the Macmillan (2000) p. 123 strings to notes, which would increase the number of notes! And even ignoring that, your approach removes a systematic enumeration of which sources assert/discuss which behaviors and, in its place, substitutes a confusing presentation broken into 5 pieces and full of parentheticals, so that the reader has to look all over (probably must use text search of the page) in order to find the sources related to e.g. employment inability. (Try searching employment inability on this Talk page to get the picture.) This is entirely against the whole purpose of citation, which is to show the reader the specific sources that support a given point. All this to reduce the note count by one? I just don't get it. Mirokado, save us! EEng (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Technical break(-through)
Does this help? I'm reminded of the old adage: "Be careful what you ask for, you may get it!".
Everything's so easy when you're around. I know whatever you do will be consistent, attractive, technically sound and so on, so I won't urge those goals on you. But please organize the cites so that those related to Behavior A are grouped together, then those for Behavior B, etc., so that the reader only has to look one place to find out about a given behavior. This is "almost" easy, as follows. In the current version [39], sources [37]-[60] are only used for this behavior stuff, so to a first approximation we can just organize them like this
where those items are what used to be in [37]-[60]. The flies-in-the-ointment are that
The trick, as I see it, is how to present those along with the simple, one-time {{cite book}} refs, in as consistent and understandable a way as possible. Good luck EEng (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion relating to these behavior citations in particular now continues in #Disposition of behavior citations. --Mirokado (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC) |
A7 Image link issue
Extended content
|
---|
I've removed the links that bypass normal image linking procedures. The effect of this link was to link to the image and then upon clicking, link directly to the image and bypass the options to access relevant licensing information. It now works properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC) ![]() ![]()
![]()
![]() Clicking on the image should go to the image, not another image. if you want to use the cropped version, then clicking on it should go to the cropped version. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Tfish, I wonder if you fully understand the "operation" of the image as it currently exists in the article, which is the same as in the first image in this section (the A7 section). The thumb presented is the crop, so he can read it. If he clicks the crop, he is taken to the full image, shown very large. Doesn't that serve both your competing considerations, but resolve the competition? (And if the reader clicks the
BumpWhen the user clicks he's saying "I want to get a better view". Usually that returns just a blown-up version of exactly what the thumbnail shows, but if the thumb was cropped it's hard to imagine the reader objecting to being shown the uncropped full context. What is the point of making the user click a special link to see the uncropped image when it's natural for him or her to just click the image?
Besides, in the grand tradition of commentary on this article, it's been decreed that "We don't do this" [42][43] -- and we certainly can't run against such And, as discussed, the formal requirements (licensing etc.) are satisfied by the little icon-thingee in the caption.
I'm <bump>ing this thread in the hope we can resolve it expeditiously with Mirokado's help. Mirokado, what do you think of the use of the BUMP! Mirokado, where art thou? EEng (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It's just that commons is very generic, so we can't really insist on details (particularly any trickery) relied on by one particular article being retained. --Mirokado (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Drum roll, please....![]() How about something like this? --Mirokado (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
EEng (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
This exact technique is used on the WP Main PageAs seen here [45] this precise technique is used even on WP's very own Main Page, so it seems what we have here is yet another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and/or WP:ONLYTHINGSIKNOWABOUTAREOK. Mirokado, I don't know if you noticed that Tfish has had a personal emergency. I don't want to take advantage of his absence, but I think now this is one subtopic we can close with confidence, and with regard to this one, at least, I'd like to take the opportunity to reduce the mass of stuff I'll need to pester him about when he's back. What do you think? EEng (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|
I have now transferred the inset image to commons so I will start the tidying up of the images (adding other versions, etc) when convenient. --Mirokado (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what tidying you're talking about but you always know what you're doing. BTW, have you any idea the cause of the weirdness in the rendering here [46]? EEng (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- No idea. Perhaps the software tries to parse all those pipe symbols in the ascii art by mistake? --Mirokado (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
A digression re some bug
Here's a reduced exemplar with the same failing:
Extended content
| |
---|---|
In the source, this text comes BEFORE the ascii art. +---------------------+ |
|
|
+---------+-----------+ not +---------------------+ |
|
| | |
My guess is that the ascii art with | as the first nonblank on a line is being somehow mistaken for a table. This only happens in the presence of the collapses, so God only knows what's going on. It's frightening to think that a parsing error like this can span such a long distance. EEng (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Here we go: search the Collapse top/bottom discussion page [47] for this: most browsers, on encountering non-table content inside an unclosed table, will move it above the table. I think it's pretty clear something like this is what's happening. I'm sure the technognomes have this in hand, one way or another. EEng (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
A8 Cavendish, Vermont 1869 Map
Extended content
|
---|
This map constitutes original research and I've made mention of this before. The map in question indicates the town 21 years after the incident in question. The map as published in Macmillan does not provide the information or mark up in question. As result this image is not appropriate for Wikipedia because it represents a synthesis to produce original research. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, that honeymoon didn't last long. I just made an edit, in which I tried to make the date of the map, and the subsequent addition of the red markings, more explicit, so as to make it clear to the reader. I also made the wording about the accident site more cautious, so as to decrease any unverifiable inferences. I don't see an OR problem with using the image, so long as we don't label it misleadingly. With the changes I made, I'm not seeing any remaining problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
but not
because there's no doubt this is the right region (only which of the two "cuttings" there is the right one). I've installed this with minor rewording. OK? EEng (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
|
A9 Proving a negative
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
This regards a recent edit [51] to the passage
which removed the word comprehensive. This is a delicate point and I want to come up with something everyone can live with. I think there are two questions here.
So what I suggest is that the article say Macmillan's comprehensive analysis[97][98][99] of accounts of Gage..., where [97][98][99] cite to a few of the sources supporting the comprehensiveness, but without quoting them. What do you think? EEng (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I previously discussed the issue of "comprehensive" at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#Edit 589408098, and per what I said there, I pretty much agree with Chris on this one. EEng replied to me in the earlier talk that "comprehensive" simply described the nature of the family history analysis, and although I do not question that intent, I believe that the effect of the word, as it would be understood by our readers, is to sound WP:PEACOCKy about the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
|
A10 Removed Note
Extended content
|
---|
I removed this note because it is poor form to footnote a quote's reference to another quote with the quote and that quote's citation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
For those who are wondering, this regards the following passage:
That the portraits help falsify the old depiction of Gage is frequently commented on in both scientific and popular publications. I've added cites to two more just now, for a total of five (more could be easily added); to let two particularly well-phrased quotes represent all of this material seems to me entirely appropriate. I don't see how these quotations can be paraphrased without completely losing the point of including them in the first place -- they'd just become "and X and Y also said thing like that". EEng (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
|
And another thing, dagnabbit!
Re [56]. Tfish, you seem to have these periodic AGF lapses, in which you imply that I'm just stringing you along, pretending to indulge your concerns, and so on. I think you know that's not true, so please think twice in future before saying such things.
In this particular case, I really did first think this information worked best as a note [57], then really did realize that it makes sense in the main-text passage on lateralization of damage [58]. The fact that I teased you a bit, in my edit summary, about your hostility to notes, shouldn't throw you off center.
As to the material itself, I periodically get inquiries about Gage's handedness, for reasons I don't need to explain to you, so yes, I do think it belongs in the article. It is specialized material which (as seen) I thought would do best as a note, but I realized later that since the damage lateralization question is somewhat technical, it might fit in there as well. But if you really don't think it should be in the article at all, I can live with that, though I'm still puzzled why an essentially limitless amount of specialty material can't be accommodated in notes, outside the main text. EEng (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about what you've said. As you know, I watch this talk page and your user talk page, so I know that those inquiries about his handedness that you get are not being posted by Wikipedia readers on-Wiki. I'm pretty sure that I can accurately infer that these are people asking you in real life, because you are a person who knows an unusually large amount of information about Gage. And that's the thing, as I see it. Wikipedia is for a general readership. If it is also useful for academic specialists, that's great, but it is not intended to be, primarily, a resource for that purpose. Myself, in real life, I'm a person who knows an unusually large amount of information about certain areas of neuroscience. And in real life, people have asked me about those things, because I'm known as an expert. But I emphatically do not write content here in order to reflect my own research, or even to be comprehensive about the research areas in which I have expertise. We have neuroscience-related pages where I could easily write a ton of content about the intricacies of research on the topic, complete with detailed notes about the fine points of issues that are not resolved to my satisfaction and with every applicable source cited, and there would be some fellow neuroscientists who would actually find it interesting to read. But it would be undue weight and contrary to WP:NOT. And I don't do it. The fact that there are some people with specialized interests who ask a specialist certain questions in real life does not mean that Wikipedia serves its readers best by answering those questions here. It's the wrong criterion for inclusion of content. Wikipedia has defined itself as a tertiary source. Personally, stuff like hyphens are not particularly interesting to me. But what bothers me about both content and format (including sourcing) is that this page is set up like it's supposed to be a definitive place for specialists to look up current scholarship, instead of an encyclopedia page for general readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
By "periodically" I mean maybe a half-dozen inquiries in four years, mostly from highschoolers and undergrads -- apparently there's a much-copied assignment that requires them to find this out, or something. Anyway...
I think your idea about WP's audience is too narrow -- see WP:TECHNICAL#Audience, which in particular refers to three kinds of readers.
- The general reader has no advanced education in the topic's field, is largely unfamiliar with the topic itself, and may even be unsure what the topic is before reading.
- The knowledgeable reader has an education in the topic's field but wants to learn about the topic itself.
- The expert reader knows the topic but wants to learn more or be reminded about some fact, or is curious about Wikipedia's coverage.
You gotta read the whole thing, of course. The general reader has priority, but to the extent we can also serve the other two types (without significantly compromising the article's appeal to the general reader) I see no reason not to do that as well. How exactly to do that needs discussion, but can we agree on this principle?
At least once before you've referred to WP:NOT, and specifically the following points:
- 6. Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. ...
- 7. Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.
- 8. Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. ...
But how do these apply here? Does the article read like a textbook, use advanced terms and concepts or academic language? Is it just the presence of the notes? If not, what? One or two examples, please!
EEng (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- One example would be your strong opinion that the page absolutely must provide sourcing individually for every single misattributed behavior. Another would be the way the page keeps presenting information in terms of how Macmillan et al. have analyzed information and come up with newer interpretations. Note "a" gives much detail to analysis of images. Note "b" gives much detail about how to figure out Gage's date of birth and middle initial. You asked for one or two, and this is already four, but I could potentially go on like this for almost every note.
- Since you are a self-professed acolyte of John Stuart Mill's endorsement of being open to the other side, let me say that I find it tedious that every suggestion that I make about improving the page leads to a wall of text. I have this unpleasant feeling that you are going, now, to argue with me about each of the four things I just pointed out, how I am partly wrong about them, how they differ in some way from your reading of WP:NOT, and on and on. I get the feeling that, when you said the other day that you are happy to be found wrong, you left out the part about you never actually being wrong. I suspect that you never will agree with me about the proper scope and audience, no matter what I say. Please understand, that I meant what I said about my view of the way the page is written too much for specialists, and if need be, I will open one or more RfCs to determine what other editors have to say about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to disappoint you, but no wall of text will be forthcoming. Putting aside the sourcing for misattributed behaviors, and putting aside the bit about new interpretations -- am I correct that the remainder of your concerns about academic language (etc.) are only (or pretty much only) with respect to the notes, not the main text of the article? EEng (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Putting my concerns aside, what are my concerns? Amongst other things, I would indeed be interested in de-froufrou-ing the notes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to disappoint you, but no wall of text will be forthcoming. Putting aside the sourcing for misattributed behaviors, and putting aside the bit about new interpretations -- am I correct that the remainder of your concerns about academic language (etc.) are only (or pretty much only) with respect to the notes, not the main text of the article? EEng (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since you are a self-professed acolyte of John Stuart Mill's endorsement of being open to the other side, let me say that I find it tedious that every suggestion that I make about improving the page leads to a wall of text. I have this unpleasant feeling that you are going, now, to argue with me about each of the four things I just pointed out, how I am partly wrong about them, how they differ in some way from your reading of WP:NOT, and on and on. I get the feeling that, when you said the other day that you are happy to be found wrong, you left out the part about you never actually being wrong. I suspect that you never will agree with me about the proper scope and audience, no matter what I say. Please understand, that I meant what I said about my view of the way the page is written too much for specialists, and if need be, I will open one or more RfCs to determine what other editors have to say about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
You're having one of those AGF failures again. You mentioned three concerns two posts back:
- 1. My "strong opinion that the page absolutely must provide sourcing individually for every single misattributed behavior"
- 2. "the way the page keeps presenting information in terms of how Macmillan et al. have analyzed information "
- 3. 'Note "a" gives [etc etc]. Note "b" gives [etc etc]'
I simply wanted to clarify whether, other than (1) and (2), your concerns about "proper scope and audience" etc. are limited to the notes, and not the article's main text. That's not (as you imply) dismissing your concerns, so stop implying that I am. Now can you answer the question? EEng (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- From where I sit, I've been extending a lot more AGF to you than have most of the other editors who have expressed concerns to you about this page. You are very good at expressing yourself, so if you don't want me to misunderstand your intentions, then please be careful about how you say things.
Putting aside theI think I understand your concerns about sourcing for misattributed behaviors,and putting asideand I think I also understand the bit about new interpretations -- am I correct that... Now to answer that question, I would say that my concerns are much more about the notes than about the main text (and you can see my discussion about Note b below, where I try to make it specific), but I don't see it as an absolute distinction, more like a quantitative one. In fact, when I attempted yesterday to edit the note on the page itself, and got totally messed up in spite of the fact that I am very much an experienced editor, it made me start to think very seriously about how the formatting and templates, in both the notes and the main text, make it incredibly difficult for me and for most editors to edit this page. As a step-by-step process however, I would be quite happy to, for now, put more effort into the notes than into the main text. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- From where I sit, I've been extending a lot more AGF to you than have most of the other editors who have expressed concerns to you about this page. You are very good at expressing yourself, so if you don't want me to misunderstand your intentions, then please be careful about how you say things.
Notes
Using Note b as an example, I'll try to illustrate what I have in mind. Here is the note as it is now:
Macmillan[M]:14-17,31n5,490-1 discusses Gage's ancestry and what is and isn't known about his birth and early life. His parents were married April 27, 1823.
The birthdate July 9, 1823 (the only definite date given in any source) is from a Gage family genealogy;[4] Macmillan[M]:16 notes that though the genealogy gives no source, this date is consistent with agreement among contemporary sources[H1]:389[5][B1]:13[H]:4 that Gage was 25 years old on the date of his accident, as well as with his age (36 years) as given in undertaker's records after his death in May 1860.[M]:108-9
Possible homes in childhood and youth are Lebanon or nearby East Lebanon, Enfield, and/or Grafton (all in Grafton County, New Hampshire), though Harlow refers to Lebanon in particular as Gage's "native place"[H]:10 and "his home"[H]:12 (probably that of his parents),[M]:30 to which he returned ten weeks[M3]:C after his accident.
There is no doubt Gage's middle initial was P[H1]:389[B1]:13[H]:4[M]:490[M1]:839fig but there is nothing to indicate what the P stood for (though his paternal grandfather was also a Phineas and his brother Dexter's middle name was Pritchard).[M]:490 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.[M]:490
Here is a modest step in what I would consider to be the right direction:
There are gaps in what is known about Gage's birth and early life. His parents were married April 27, 1823.[M]:14-17,31n5,490-1
The birthdate July 9, 1823 is from a Gage family genealogy.[4]
Possible homes in childhood and youth are Lebanon or nearby East Lebanon, Enfield, and/or Grafton (all in Grafton County, New Hampshire).
Gage's middle initial was P[H1]:389[B1]:13[H]:4[M]:490[M1]:839fig but there is nothing to indicate what the P stood for. 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.[M]:490
Here is a more extensive revision:
There are gaps in what is known about Gage's birth and early life.[M]:14-17,31n5,490-1
The birthdate July 9, 1823 is from a Gage family genealogy.[4]
Possible homes in childhood and youth are all in Grafton County, New Hampshire.
Gage's middle initial was P[H1]:389[B1]:13[H]:4[M]:490[M1]:839fig but there is nothing to indicate what the P stood for.
One could even delete the note in its entirety. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Disposition of behavior citations
- This was originally part of this subsection, but it looks as if this issue will be easier to follow in its own level-2 section.
- Relating to this article section and its references: Phineas Gage#Exaggeration and distortion of mental changes
- --Mirokado (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
... please organize the cites so that those related to Behavior A are grouped together, then those for Behavior B, etc., so that the reader only has to look one place to find out about a given behavior. This is "almost" easy, as follows. In the current version [59], sources [37]-[60] are only used for this behavior stuff, so to a first approximation we can just organize them like this
- Wife and children:
- {{cite book|author=Smith|year=1972}}
- {{cite book|author=Jones|year=1982}}
- Sexuality:
- {{cite book|author=Anders|year=1999}}
- {{cite book|author=Billson|year=1998}}
where those items are what used to be in [37]-[60]. The flies-in-the-ointment are that
- [42], [49] are used in multiple behaviors, and
- [42], [1], [M], [M1] are used outside the behaviors list as well in it.
The trick, as I see it, is how to present those along with the simple, one-time {{cite book}} refs, in as consistent and understandable a way as possible. Good luck EEng (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I've placed the references in five groups each with a headline. I think the next step is to decide which references are not needed in order to support the list in the article body. It will be easier to decide how to present the final set of references once we have pruned them. --Mirokado (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, and well done! My suggestion as to which references to delete would be to try to have one (or two) per asserted behavior, and to base it on two considerations: primacy and expediency. By primacy, I mean to keep whichever source said it first, while deleting sources that repeated what the first one said. By expediency, I mean that we can also be pragmatic about deleting the incomplete sources (like the book about Abnormal Behaviors, where we don't have all the citation information) or the ones using "sfn" (if EEng objects to using the sfn template in this way). There is room for some flexibility here; I don't mean that we have to be slavish about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Mirokado!
- Mirokado's result (mentioned just above) is here [60].
- Here [61] I've rearranged the cites to group them by behavior. What do you think?
- Here [62] Each behavior gets its own callout.
Thoughts? EEng (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is looking better than I had expected. It deals with one of the concerns I was planning to mention, which was the WP:UNDUE emphasis on these basically unsubstantiated attributions resulting from the subheadings in the reference list. Although there are a lot of callouts in the sentence, they are now each just a single number, which is a familiar idiom which someone can read through relatively comfortably. I'm quite happy to leave things more-or-less-as-they-are with that paragraph. We now have some patterns which can perhaps also help elsewhere in the article. --Mirokado (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, our work in recent weeks (the three of us) has been of immense benefit, I think. The cite/sourcing organization and presentation is really great! My aim is for the article to work on different levels for different readers -- casual, serious, and advanced -- without the content/features serving one level detracting from the experience of readers at the other levels. And I think we've now achieved that in the sourcing and citations. Thanks for fixing the cite letter thing! When you catch your breath can you take a look at #Bump? EEng (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Tfish -- you okay with this approach to the "ascribed behaviors" cites? EEng (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- <bumpity-bump-bump> EEng (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Monthly bump. EEng (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, our work in recent weeks (the three of us) has been of immense benefit, I think. The cite/sourcing organization and presentation is really great! My aim is for the article to work on different levels for different readers -- casual, serious, and advanced -- without the content/features serving one level detracting from the experience of readers at the other levels. And I think we've now achieved that in the sourcing and citations. Thanks for fixing the cite letter thing! When you catch your breath can you take a look at #Bump? EEng (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- B-Class society and medicine articles
- Mid-importance society and medicine articles
- Society and medicine task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class rail transport articles
- Low-importance rail transport articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class neuroscience articles
- Mid-importance neuroscience articles
- Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2011)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2012)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2014)
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists