Talk:Phineas Gage - Wikipedia

4 people in discussion

Article Images

Phineas Gage was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 20, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
June 14, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
June 19, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 13, 2009, September 13, 2011, September 13, 2012, September 13, 2014, September 13, 2016, September 13, 2018, September 13, 2020, September 13, 2023, and September 13, 2024.
Current status: Delisted good article

To-do list for Phineas Gage: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2016-11-21

Pitch in

Labor relations, contractor/sucontractor, blasting skill: Macmillan 2000 discusses (a) Gage's status as a (sub?)contractor; (b) volatility of labor relations in contemporary RR construction; (c) the skill required in blasting -- relate to Gage's preaccident character, personality, and skill.

More on accident itself: A feedback item requested more on "how it happened":
- Done Not easy because Harlow and Bigelow (and people quoted by them) are slightly discrepant on this (was the sand omitted? was he speaking to his men? where was he sitting?) [Added re turned head etc, simply omitted the (minor) postural points on which Harlow/Bigelow disagree. EEng (talk)]
- Done In relation to this, more on the mechanics of blasting would help (there are plenty of out-of-copyright blasting manuals -- e.g. from DuPont -- that can be used). [diagram added, some EEng (talk)]
- Not done Other comments imply need to be more explicit that the iron passed through (i.e. wasn't lodged). [Text seems clear on this if they read to bit re iron found far away. EEng (talk)]

Done Re "Crowbar": Confusion re connotation of a crowbar as having a hook/claw, variation on meaning of this term according to time and place -- still needs clarification. This may require some work on the articles on crowbar, pry bar etc. [Linked article's treatment seems adequate. EEng (talk)]

Re phrase "American Crowbar Case": Barker suggests that the frequency with which this term appears in 19th c literature reflects the ascendency of Bigelow's interpretation of the case, since he (and not Harlow) described Gage's iron as a "crowbar".
- The specific origin of that specific phrase should be added to the article if possible.

"Bigelow describes the iron's taper as seven inches long, but the correct dimension is twelve": See whether modern catalog has this info

Done "the best fit rod trajectory did not result in the iron crossing the midline as has been suggested by some authors" (such as H.Damasio) Need cite here both to H Damasio and to Van Horn's cite to it

General review of Van Horn Table 3 for material usable in article

Find material on missing molar such as Harlow 1868 p.17, Van Horn (several points)

Done "Gage certainly displayed some kind of change in behavior after his injury" [r|macm_rehabilitating|page=12-15] Likely other papers + Macmillan 2000 can be cited here a well [[[User:EEng|EEng]] (talk)]

"Gage was hired by his employer in advance":
- Need to check that cites given here cover this: "report was discovered calling Gage mentally unimpaired during his last years in Chile ... and since then a description of what may have been his daily work routine there as a stagecoach driver, and advertisements for two previously unknown public appearances"
- More info/cites in Macmillan Gagepage, "Unanswered Questions", Wilgus, "Meet Phineas Gage"; and/or Wilgus/Macmillan "More about Gage"

In brain damage discussion, add Macmillan 2000, 2008; van horn p.14 re chain of brain damage uncertainties (blood loss, infection, bone fragments, path, position of brain, individual locations of regions)
- Greenblatt Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 2001, 75, 798-799 and (apparently a different paper) [1]
- Macmillan 2000 p.82, 84
- Bone fragments, infection etc. also mentioned at OKF p.469
Bring in discussion (Macmillan 2008) re the importance of the hinging effect in minimizing concussive effects -- this might be integrated with Harlow's quote re the shape of the iron and reasons for Gage's survival. Not done Your humble colleague (I) has made a thorough search and cannot find this passage, which he concludes he may have hallucinated. EEng (talk)
Ordia, JI (1989). "Neurologic function seven years after crowbar impalement of the brain". Surgical Neurology 32: 152–155 discusses significance of projectile speeds below 1000 ft/sec in reduced concussive damage.

combined with the lack of information about his behavioral changes In addition to Macmillan 2000 p.290 there are likely additional Macmillan references on lack of info on behavioral changes; maybe Barker too

"managed to enlist Gage in support of their theories": Material at Macmillan 2000 p.188 should be brought in as well

Ferrier cited Gage as proof that it is [i.e. the brain is localized]:
- In addition to Ferrier cite this section could use cites re conflicting claims on whether frontal lobes do or don't have any function
- Localization and frontal function are the main 19th C tugs-of-war; there may be parallels in the 20th C as well

Re lobotomy non-relationship to Gage, see Macmillan 2000 cites to Valenstein
- material from Valenstein may be useful here as well

Done (EEng (talk)) Harlow (1868)[r|harlow1868] gives the date of Gage's death as May 21, 1861: Need pg#

American Phrenological J: could use more material from Macmillan 2000 pp.349-50 re similarities to Harlow 1848 etc.

Items taken Sept 2015 [2] from hidden notes in source:

For description of tamping iron, see material from Warren Mus. catalog, "smoothly blunt" point, etc.

Re the report that Gage's jaw was broken, the cites given may be duplicative; also, a secondary source describing the path of the iron in laymen's terms would be useful; also see Bigelow re coronoid process

There are slight conflicts among sources re punctuation and formatting of the tamping iron inscription

For Gage's "lecture" appearances, other potential cites are Meet Phineas Gage (Wilgus), More About Gage (Macmillan on Wilgus site), Unanswered Qs in Macmillan 2008

Done The images File:Simulated Connectivity Damage of Phineas Gage 4 vanHorn PathwaysDamaged left.jpg and File:Simulated Connectivity Damage of Phineas Gage 4 vanHorn PathwaysDamaged right.jpg should be combined into a single image, with one caption. [[[User:EEng|EEng]] (talk)]

"The use of a single case [including Gage's] to prove opposing views on phrenology was not uncommon." Bring in fact that Harlow knew Gage before the accident, and possibly class-based expectations re social behavior.

Cerebral location section needs expansion

"both sides managed to enlist Gage in support of their theories" Bring in additional material from Macmillan 2000 p.188

Ferrier "absolutely dominating feature": Check page #s in {{ran|M5|p=198,253}; add material on basic question of whether frontal regions have any function at all; add more re Goulstonian Lecture's effect on opinion about Gage

"It is frequently said that what happened to Gage played a part in the later development of various forms of psychosurgery" Give specific examples of people saying this, plus mention Freeman's use of Gage story as a delay tactic with reporter

"Macmillan{ran|M|p=116-19,326,331} gives detailed criticism of Antonio Damasio's various presentations of Gage": See notes in Macmillan 2000 for pages cited, and other Macmillan papers may be useful on this as well; specify which of AD's works

Would be nice to have an img of the lifemask at the point it's mentioned.

"as could hardly have been done by any one in whose sagacity and surgical knowledge his 'confreres had any less confidence": further background on this should be available in Macmillan 2000 and Barker, possibly Macmillan, "John Martyn Harlow"

"A considerable number of medical gentlemen also visited the case at various times to satisfy their incredulity": {ran|M|p=42} page range may need expanding. Possibly this note could be integrated into the main text.

Some of the pdfs hosted at Countway/Warren Mus. site could be uploaded to Commons

Pagination problems:
- Add pg #s to Ordia, Mitchell sources
- Add pg #s to Wilgus (2009, J Hist Neurosci), Wilgus (2009, Daguerreian Soc.), Twomey cites
- Harlow 1868: Journal version (seen in Macmillan 2000) versus offprint (seen in Commons images) (also need issue # in citation)
- Macmillan 2008: version linked from the citation doesn't match the pagination from the version available as an offprint from publisher's website

Citations need checking (most can be found in Macmillan 2000):
- Done (EEng (talk)) rename=anonymous_C: Macmillan 2000 p.40n7 gives reprint information
- Ref name=ferrier1877_9: check format and citation data
- Done (EEng (talk)) Harlow 1848: Harlow 1868 cites this as #20 of volume 39, but this needs confirmation
- Jackson 1849: Give location in Macmillan 2000 where this is imaged or transcribed; get page # and check case # (and other details) of citation
- Done (EEng (talk)) Harlow 1849: Need specific date
- Done (EEng (talk)) Macmillan 2008: Check volume and issue #
Done (EEng (talk)) Re "public appearances in the larger New England towns": Add Gage's visit to Bigelow in Boston and his presentation to the Boston Society for Medical Improvement (described in Macmillan 2000)
Done (EEng (talk)) It was the first likeness of Gage identified since the life mask taken by Bigelow in late 1849.: Check the date of the life mask and that cites cover "by Bigelow"
Done(EEng (talk)) Re Ratiu discussion of hole at base of cranium and "skull hinged open": Possibly this should be discussed in main text (instead of note) -- notice there is (or was) an image illustrating the "hinging".
Done (EEng (talk)) The '1850 communication calling Gage "gross, profane, coarse, and vulgar"' should be added to the source list
Done (EEng (talk)) "Most commentators still rely on hearsay and accept what others have said about Gage, namely, that after the accident he became a psychopath..." [r|kotowicz] Need page #
Done (EEng (talk)) "Attributes typically ascribed to the post-accident Gage" [etc etc]: Each of these needs a cite (most are in Macmillan 2008 or 2000 -- or Kotowicz)
Done (EEng (talk)) Harlow's relocation to Woburn should be mentioned. Sources: Macmillan 2000, Macmillan "Simple Country Physician"
Done (EEng (talk)) The 1994 conclusion of H. Damasio et al., that both frontal lobes were damaged, was drawn by modeling not Gage's skull but rather a "Gage-like" one: Explain the "Gage-like" similarity issue
Done Identify issue of s:Recovery from the passage of an iron bar through the head; Someone added a note in the wikitext: "something somewhere says n3 of v2"
Would it make sense to add a geo coord for the accident site?

Some of the subpage titles for the Phineas Gage Information Page seem to be out of date.

Cites in lead for "perhaps the first case to suggest that damage to specific parts of the brain might induce specific personality change", and those later for 'Gage is considered the "index case for personality change due to frontal lobe damage", are presumably saying much the same thing, so see about integrating them.

In this version [3], cites in lead re brain vs. personality, and injury to specific parts of brain vs. specific personality changes, need to be sorted out as to which cites are for which of those two
Maybe add some specific popcult examples
More could be said about Harlow's ideas re vis vitae, vis conservatrix, vis medicatrix naturae etc. (OKF p.58)
Nye cite apparently has the wrong author -- he seems to be the volume editor. The page #s need checking as well.

Done JBS Jackson, "Medical Cases" is quoted as terming Gage "quite feeble and thin", but this is not reported in Macmillan 2000, p.93 -- check original. (Original MS checked.)

Is there a reasoning behind the strange citation style of this article? Why are some references demarcated by their "difficulty" while the others are listed as usual? Besides this, surely the letter system does not work as well as a normal style, as you cannot click the citation in the References section to see where a source appears in the main body? Medarduss (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

All I know is this is EEng's child. – The Grid (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I assume that defaults to "not going to be changed"? ~Styyx^Talk? 00:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

More accurately, it means "will be changed if the editors who actually care about the article reach a consensus that some other approach will better serve the reader's understanding, but won't be changed just because some drive-by editor thinks all articles should look the same." As to the original question:

The For general readers section, the For younger readers section, and the For researchers and specialists section identify sources which will be particularly useful to readers in those groups who want to learn more about the article topic. The Other sources cited section lists sources which, well, will not be particularly useful to those who want to learn more.
The {{ran}}/{{rma}} referencing system allows sources to be organized in logical, useful ways instead of the chaotic, random mish-mash seen in most articles.
Where a source appears in the main body is trivially found simply by text-searching for e.g. [M].

Quite substantial discussions (found primarily in Talk:Phineas_Gage/Archive_2) led to the decision to do things the way they're done. Any other questions? E Eng 09:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I first encountered {{ran}} on this page and see more discussion of it here than on the template page.

The template which creates the manual superscript has a bug on the Minerva theme used by the mobile site. You can see it if you use these links:

In each link try clicking the superscript callout links. In the first link, the desktop site has a tooltip and a functional link to References. The second and third links show the bug.

On the second link, the mobile site callouts for {{ran}} do nothing when clicked. The superscript callouts created by {{r}} and {{refn}} on this page will cause a popup with the reference. The popup is the expected behavior. The links from < ref >, {{efn}}, and {{sfn}} all create popups. The {{citeref}} template is slightly different and works on mobile the same way that it works on the desktop site (visible in the Notes section on: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_mouse ); the superscript works as an in-page anchor link with {{citeref}}.

In the third link, the mobile skin (Minerva) is used on the desktop site. The tooltip still works, but something in Minerva breaks the link regardless of the desktop or mobile version.

I hope that this helps and that it is not a strange place to post a bug report. Rjjiii (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is above my pay grade. I suggest you post this at WP:VPT. E Eng 04:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! Rjjiii (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just updating this thread. The rma/ran references now function on mobile. To implement a workaround, I needed to add "CITEREF" to the handwritten links on this article's references. As an unplanned bonus, those links now create the popup reference on desktop themes/browsers.Rjjiii (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

A belated thanks for taking care of this. E Eng 01:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A recent edit to resolve MOS:SANDWICH issues[4] causes confusing placement on widescreen monitors. For example, it pushes the "Distinguished Arrivals" newspaper clipping (about a living Gage) down into the section where his skull is exhumed. And so in fixing one MOS issue, it causes a new one (MOS:SECTIONLOC). Wikipedia:Image use policy says, "The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." Sandwich concerns probably have to be waved on image-heavy articles like this to ensure the relevance of the image is clear to the reader. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rjjiii, you took the words right out of my mouth. ActivelyDisinterested: re your edit summary here [5], I wrote SANDWICH so I don't need to "see" it, and the article's had this exact same layout for at least 5 years, and very much the same layout for 10 years, and you're the first person to claim there's an actual problem. If you'll specifify at what platform, resolution, and zoom level you're seeing the issue, and describe it more precisely, then maybe we can solve it. But the current layout it looks fine on laptops (with two different browsers), on WP's mobile simulator, on my own tiny-screen Iphone, and on a friend's Android just now. We're not going to mess that all up because you preceive the text column as narrow on one particular configuration you haven't specified. E Eng 19:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC) P.S. I appreciate your fixes to the cite formats!Reply

Not really, as I said spacing Eth images out would likely be the best option. But I'm not invested enough to stand in the way if you want to go another route. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Spacing the images out seems likely the best option until you actually read the article and see why the images are where they are, at which point you realize that blindly spacing everything out in obeisance to a cookie-cutter guideline meant to be applied with common sense solves a trivial problem seen by, apparently, one person in ten years, but introduces a serious problem for everyone else. Unfortunately there's no route to go in if you won't tell us what you're seeing, on what platform. E Eng 01:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

the article's had this exact same layout for at least 5 years, and very much the same layout for 10 years, and you're the first person to claim there's an actual problem

I think that the sandwich has become thinner recently despite no changes to the article, with the deployment of Vector 2022, and then the deployment of increased font size on it very recently. For example, here are two screenshots taken on a 1920x1080 screen, which is still the most common desktop resolution according to [6], as a logged-out user with all default settings (I tried to find the most sandwiched parts of the article):

I agree that just moving all images to the right side is not a good solution, for the reasons you said. Perhaps you might come up with a better one, though. I would consider moving some of the wider images to galleries, or making the images and pull quotes centered, instead of having them float around text. Matma Rex talk 22:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, MOS:SANDWICH should be understood as a guideline but not a policy, because that's what it is. For this particular page, there are a lot of images, but they all serve good encyclopedic purposes. And they don't really lend themselves to being grouped into galleries. (Perhaps, there might be a few places where Template:Multiple image could be used to good effect.) But I don't think this is an urgent problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry, I missed these later posts until now.) Matma Rex, I appreciate the screenshots; leave it to the geniuses at WMF to throw away 30% of the screen real estate on some stupid buttons. The density of images is greatest in the accident/treatment/injuries section, and the challenge there is it's tough for readers to understand the circumstances of the accident, and the mechanics of Gage's injury, without these images at hand -- if they're somewhere else I fear the reader is lost. Nonetheless I mocked up a gallery for the early sections, but it came out awful [7]. I just don't see how to do it without some images being too big or small, and far from the relevant text.Tryptofish, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about how {multiple images} could be used. E Eng 03:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I haven't gotten to the point of having specific place(s) on the page where I would recommend it, but the general idea is that sandwiching can often be eliminated by combining related images together, instead of having them stand-off opposite one another on the page. (You can see a sample of how I did that, at Sissinghurst Castle Garden#Roses.) If there are places on this page, where you feel that it makes sense, thematically to group any images together (and only if it makes sense), and if they are creating sandwiched text, then that would be where to look. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello eeng, I think the edit I did on this page was perfectly reasonable for readers who live outside the USA. The number I corrected was the diameter of the “tamping iron”not the hole. It’s normal to have a whole number which is the reason the Wikipedia MOS has centimetres for height instead of metres or millimetres, which is also the norm worldwide, so 32 mm instead of 3.2 cm would be normal outside the USA. The point of the tamping iron in the article is in millimetres. 6.0 kg suggests a very accurate conversion, You would not say I weight 200.0 lbs if it were converted the other way around, It’s a superfluous zero. Avi8tor (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your edit was indeed "reasonable", but I don't think it best serves the reader's understanding:

The number I corrected was the diameter of the “tamping iron, not the hole – No, you changed the units for both the diameter of the tamping iron and the diameter of the blast hole from cm to mm; and the distance to town from km to m. You also reduced the converted precision of the weight of the tamping iron from 6.0kg to 6kg.[8].
It’s normal to have a whole number which is the reason the Wikipedia MOS has centimetres for height – No, MOS uses centimeters for height because that appears to be the common practice in English-speaking countries where SI is used for heights. If those countries used meters for height, we'd use meters for height; whole numbers versus decimals has nothing to do with it.
6.0 kg suggests a very accurate conversion ... It’s a superfluous zero – No it's not. The original value is given to the nearest 1/4 lb, which is just slightly more than 0.1kg. Thus converting to 6.0kg is appropriate.
With regard to the diameters, the 1-3/4 inch figure for the blast hole is a rough generality, and reporting 44.5mm (as you have it) is ridiculous overprecision, and even 44mm implies an innapropriately high precision, which 4.5cm does not. As for the 1-1/4 inch figure, while 32mm and 3.2cm are technically identical, the mm version carries (again) a sense of innapropriately higher precision than does 3.2cm, and it's best that both diameters use the same units.As to the point being in mm, the precision of the reported value of 1/4 inch is uncertain, so on reflection, converting to 0.5cm (instead of 6mm) seems more appropriate, and consistent with the use of cm for all the other stuff.
Finally, converting the 3/4 mile journey to 1200m is absolutely false precision -- 1.2km is obviously what's appropriate.

I've edited the article to change the 6mm to 0.5cm. E Eng 18:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

People who live in a metric world (as 95% of the planet do) would not talk about 0,5 cm, they would talk about 5 mm, one is no more accurate than the other. The centimetre is pretty common in the US as the equivalent to the inch, but not with the rest of the planet deal with only metric units and not conversions. Your interpretation serves a US audience, mine serves the reader who uses only SI. From my house to my village is 1,1 km on my vehicle odometer, but if I talked to someone I would say 1100 metres. Height is given in centimetres because it's a whole number, stated as height in passports worldwide. If I published your weight as 200.0 lbs (I've got no idea of your weight, it's a random choice), you would wonder why the decimal? Avi8tor (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I cannot find the reference in the article to the blast hole, but do see it in the changes to the article. I did change it to millimetres, however in the convert template was round=0.5 which gave it the same (unneeded) accuracy in millimetres as centimetres. I should have removed the round=0.5, placed there by a previous editor. Avi8tor (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ctrl-F blast hole and you'll find it.

For the rest: I'm sorry, but these are just your claims about what's collquially done in your personal experience, and anyway articles aren't colloquial. Giving a distance as 1100m certainly suggests a precision not implied by 1.1km, and unjustified in the case under discussion. Your comments about personal height and weight are irrelevant because we're not talking about people's heights and weights. You're also confusing accuracy with precision. E Eng 20:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

True these are from personal experience from my life in countries that use SI, but your replies are your opinion. Avi8tor (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you don't understand that 1100m implies greater precision than does 1.1km, then I'm afraid there's no purpose in continuing this conversation. E Eng 20:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply