Talk:Phineas Gage

Burial of the rod

Discussion started at User_talk:EEng#Reversion_of_my_edit_on_Gage

user:Sbharris recently added that the rod was buried with body[1], and it was reverted by EEng[2]. Sbharris has pointed out that it is mentioned on p 59 of John Fleishman's book, which reads:

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 unrecovered 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.

EEng has mentioned on his talk page that he will respond in a few days. In the meantime, does anyone else know of another source for this?

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For those joining the discussion late, here are the original comments left by Sbharris at User_talk:EEng:

Reversion of my edit on Gage I've always been curious about people who revert things rather than simply adding a tag. Reversion is for cases where one fancies themselves an expert on the subject, and is pretty sure the addition is wrong or unsourcable. But this is not such a case. But the tamping iron burial is a very commonly known bit of data about Gage, and obviously your bookshelf lacks John Fleishman's book on Phineas Gage where the burial of the rod with Gage, and recovery of them both by Dr. J.D.B Stillman is mentioned on page 59 (Shattuck takes them both east that December, to Harlow). You can actually find the text if you google "Phineas Gage burial". No, I didn't add the ref. I'll leave it for you do to, as penance for doing things wrong on Wikipedia. Don't revert other people's stuff unless you're sure you know what you're doing.

SBHarris 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And here is my response:

That something is "commonly known" makes it neither true nor verifiable, and this is never so important as when the topic is Phineas Gage. "The factual record is small, and the most important element of it – Harlow’s 1868 report – not readily available, and most who have written about Phineas have been too lazy or slipshod to check it. Paradoxically, the very slightness of reliable fact which allows myths about Phineas to flourish also makes disentangling those myths a conceptually easy, if tedious, task." (Macmillan, "Phineas Gage – Unravelling the myth." The Psychologist 21,9 (2008): 828-831, at 831.) How truly good Fortune has favored us – public-spirited Wikipedians with egos in check – by puiptting before us this opportunity for us to disentangle one such myth (?) together!

The image of Gage at rest alongside what Harlow called "his constant companion for the remainder of his life" is a charming one, but one for which there is zero evidence to date. Taking down from my bookshelf John Fleischman's Phineas Gage: A Gruesome but True Story about Brain Science, I am reminded that it is a fine juvenile work which renders Gage's tale into an engaging transcontinental adventure for its young audience, working in some worthwhile science along the way. It does this by leavening established fact with measured bits of fancy – some drawn from the "popular, semifictional, and fictional works" Macmillan debunks, some from scientific writings which have uncritically borrowed from such works (Odd Kind of Fame, ch. 13-15), and some from the author's imagination.

For example, in the short passage from Fleischman quoted earlier we find the following "facts": Shattuck and Mrs. Gage were personally present at the exhumation; Stillman (and not, say, San Francisco mayor Henry Perrin Coon) was the one who actually detached poor Phineas' skull; the "shed." Among all the extant sources, there is only one brief mention of the actual event of the exhumation (Odd Kind of Fame, p.417) and nothing like these details appears there – they're all just made up.

I am in no way impugning Fleischman's book: as a popular-science work for children, it does a very good job. But the very features that make it (as John Vandenberg points out) a common entry on summer reading lists for middle-schoolers – the lively fictionalization coupled with the lack of stuffy scholarly apparatus – are gthe same things that disqualify it as a reference for grown-up purposes.

What I said in my Edit Summary – "If you do know of primary evidence, I'd very much like to know about it" – was sincere. Primary sources are generally not preferred for Wikipedia, but on Gage the primary record is so compact (Odd Kind of Fame reproduces essentially its entirety) that for questions of fact, there's no point in doing anything but just check that record directly.

Returning now to the question at hand: It is true, as you say, that "the tamping iron burial is a very commonly known bit of data about Gage." But you will find that every author offering that bit of data cites either to nothing, or else to something which (perhaps transitively) cites to nothing either. Certainly there may exist somewhere an undiscovered primary source, or neglected derivative work pointing to a such a source, which would establish the buried-iron factoid. And again I say that I would be delighted by such a discovery. But in the meantime, citing Fleischman in an article on Gage is akin to citing The Crucible in an article on witchcraft or (an example perhaps closer to your heart) using Copenhagen as a fact-source for the life of Bohr.

In summary, there is indeed no evidence that Gage's iron went to the grave with him. I can easily believe that 99.9% of your edits are superior, but this time you flew too close to the sun, particuluarly in the obnoxious stridency of your comments. Penance indeed!

EEng (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it might be more useful to ask Fleischman where he got his information, rather than to continue what has been essentially Macmillan's mission in life, which is to go around and label everybody who has Gage info that Macmillan can't verify from his own primary documents, as being "mythologizers." As I read between the lines, even in what Macmillan presents, it's pretty likely that the rod wasn't kicking around in Gage's family, owned by his mother or brother-in-law for six years, because if had been, they would likely have sent it immediately to Harlow when he first corresponded with Gage's mother in 1866. After all, the rod had been to Boston in the East without Gage before that-- why not again after his death? I can understand a family member wanting to accompany Gage's skull, but there's little reason to do that with a piece of metal. Why wait to send them both together? There's only one good and natural explanation, and you know it. They couldn't send them separately, because they had no access to the rod before the skull. Jackson, who Macmillan quotes, thanks three people for obtaining skull and rod: Coon the mayor (who certainly was not keeping the rod), Stillman the surgeon (ditto) and Shattuck the brother-in-law who transported both East with him after the exhumation. The mother is not mentioned, and would be if she'd kept it. If the rod was out all that time, was Shattuck keeping it in some corner? What on Earth FOR?

I'll see if I can find the original Harlow and Bigelow reports; they must have something to say on the matter. SBHarris 00:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(Snappy comeback thought of later: Well for that matter, why the delay from 1866 to 1867 for the exhumation?) The level of knowledge (and skill in marshalling that knowledge in support of a thesis) on display here means I would be far out of my league in even attempting rebuttal. I will say only:

• this discussion has, with amazing rapidity, become a vivid illustration of the wisdom of the no-original-research policy;
• nontheless I will be the first to congratulate you, should you manage turn up actual evidence for (or against) burial of the iron;
• I need not write to Fleischman because he and I have a mutual colleague, through whom I have known the answer to your question for a long time; and
• please end (I ask you once again) your use of personal slights ("Macmillan's mission in life"; "only one good and natural explanation, and you know it") in substitution for argument and evidence.

By the way, you shouldn't need to look far to "find the original Harlow and Bigelow papers": complete facsimiles appear in An Odd Kind of Fame – which of course is on your bookshelf. I wish you the best of luck in your researches, and hope that by the time we hear from you again you will have turned up something tangible. EEng (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cross edit. Yes, I know the reports are in Macmillan, but I can't find my copy of him either. You've known for years that Fleischman made this up? Why not just say that? Afraid I won't understand you? You're the one talking about NOR, but you're using the results of YOURS, here, in this. Irony.

Just change the article so say that nobody knows what happened to the rod between Gage's death and his exhumation, and one author has claimed (without citation) that it was buried with Gage. In any case, both became available to science at the same time, and were sent East to the requesting physician together. Let readers draw their own inferences. SBHarris 02:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Last edit. I don't know what you mean about being unable to find your copy of Macmillan "either"; mine's right here. I didn't mention what I know privately about Fleischman's sources exactly because that would be use of original, unpublished research, which in turn is what I was trying to point out to you – Wikipedia is not built by writing to authors to ask for their otherwise-unmentioned inspirations for obviously fictionalized works for children. And no, it never occurred to me that you wouldn't understand, although apparently in the event, you really did not: no matter what Fleischman might write back to you, if the answer isn't published somewhere openly, then it's not usable in Wikipedia. So what would be the point?

To reference Fleischman as an author who "has claimed (without citation)..." would be, I repeat, like citing Copenhagen for a life of Bohr. The article doesn't need to be, and should not be, a full catalog of the distortions and myths to which the Gage's story has been subjected over the years. Macmillan has done that admirably, and to excellent effect as a lesson in the history of science. Anyone interested in the minutiae of this particular controversy can find it all right here on Talk.

You've managed at last to post a reply that is not sneeringly disdainful, so pending arrival of new evidence – usable evidence – if we stop right now we can do so knowing that at least something rare was achieved, however ephemeral.

EEng (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, Fleischman's overactive imagination is NOT the source of the idea that the rod was buried with Gage. A Google of "Phineas Gage tamping iron buried" turns up three per-Fleischman references (Hockenbury 2002; Davidoff 2000; Phares&Chaplin, 1997) who all claim this same thing. I can't see their references on Google. But this factoid (repeated incidentally by H. Damasio herself in 2005 in a paper in which she discusses her CT of the skull for Social Neuroscience, as you also can read on Google) is not just from a children's tale. If it's myth, it's one that has been universally accepted. Perhaps I can get to the bottom of it. In the meantime, I suggest we mention THAT in the article, and that Macmillan has questioned it, because he can't find a source for it. Okay? SBHarris 03:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide full citations for the three per-Fleischman references? I cant find the 2005 paper by H. Damasio[3]; Social Neuroscience was established in 2006, and her only paper in that journal is as a contributor to "The neural substrates of cognitive empathy" doi:10.1080/17470910701376902. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

John, I CAN do that, but I have to type then in by hand, and then you still have to find the books. It's a lot easier if you'll do the Google string above in Google (not Google scholar). If this doesn't work for you, I'll see what I can do. http hits in google are often too long to work well as past-ups, but I'll try it for the Hanna Damasio, et al. paper. One copy of a similar or exactly the same paper by her (making the same clain of burial with the rod) is in Science 1994 May 20, 1994 v264 n5162 p1102(4). http://merlin.allegheny.edu/employee/l/lcoates/CoatesPage/INTDS_315/Phineas_Gage_Science_Article.pdf

Here's the Google Books Social Neuroscience cite (It's a book called: key readings: indeed 2005) of the same or similar paper by this group and I hope the link works for you: http://books.google.com/books?id=PqNs1L1SwPMC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=Phineas+Gage+tamping+iron+buried&source=web&ots=YRzOW3GKaI&sig=PfQhFwvcvaXx3q-Q5I7kKReeea0&hl=en&ei=BViYSczNPJLQsAPArsR4&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result The Book editors are John T. Cacioppo and Gary G. Berntson: books.google.com/books?isbn=1841690996. But again, this is basically the same 1994 CT paper by H. Damasio in Science. Apparently the Damiosos are a husband-and-wife team.

Here is Macmillan complaining in 2000 that Hockenbury and Hockenbury writing in 1997 have Gage buried with the rod. So this kind of thing has been going on for some times, long before poor Fleischman and his juvenile. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/jhin/2000/00000009/00000001/art00008

I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot, sbharris, but if you really want to pursue this let me save you time by supplying information that will guide your search and place it in context with what's already known. (Not that you should accept it uncritically -- would be great for you to double-check me -- but it will give you an overview and framework.) I can't do this for several days, but if you can wait... EEng (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no sweat. But again please do your Google and discover this is an old, old and widespread factoid, going back at least to 1997, and Macmillan has been railing about it since 2000 so it predates the two works WE started arguing with. I'm sure I read it in Oliver Sacks, or somewhere, long before THAT. If Macmillan hasn't tracked down the source of it, I think it's unlikely that we're going to be able to, since it appears to go back so far. SBHarris 18:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: User Sbharris, I drafted the below before your latest posting. Had I seen that post, I wouldn't have bothered. Nobody is attacking Fleischman. "Juvenile" is not a bad word -- it just means it's a book for children, and a good one at that. I know very well that the buried-rod idea goes way back, as you'll see below; nothing you're coming up with via Google is going to be news to me. We were never arguing (at least I wasn't) about "two articles"; I just said that there's no primary support for the buried rod, and tried to show you how you could discover that for yourself (by tracing citations back until they run out -- I know becuase I did it long ago).

But now all this nice work would go to waste if I don't post it. It tries to show you where you might check to determine the origin(s) of the "buired iron" idea since you seem to want to know. (I suspect multiple people came up with it independently, actually.) Now you seem to want to give up. Anyway, here it is. (All the cites below can be found in the bibliography of Odd Kind of Fame.)

For starters, I never said that Fleischman's imagination (and I will thank you to stop misrepresenting what I say by e.g. putting the word "overactive" in my mouth) was the source of the idea that the iron was buried. I said that the fictionalized parts of his book were drawn from popular stories, from scientific articles which have drawn from popular stories, and also from Fleischman's imagination. And I repeat that I consider his to be a fine book, for children.

Damasio et al 1994 refers to "...the skull and tamping iron, alongside which Gage had been buried...." This paper continues to receive a lot of attention, and I believe you could trace most or all bar-burial assertions in scientific/medical articles after 1994 to it (but do check me on this). Fleischman as well may have got the idea there, or from Blackington (see below).

So where did Damasio 1994 get the idea? There's no cite for that particular paragraph, though the paragraph immediately prior cites Ferrier 1878, and the paper's opening cites Harlow 1868. Ferrier 1878 merely refers to Harlow, "through whose interest in the man till death we owe the preservation of this unique specimen," citing, yes, Harlow 1868.

JBS Jackson's catalog of the Warren Museum (items 949 and 3106) says nothing about where the bar had been between death and exhumation of Phineas. Sbharris says that Jackson "thanks" Shattuck, Stillman, and Coon, and infers much from the idea that Gage's mother "is not mentioned." This is incorrect. Jackson was paraphrasing the thanks given to the family in Harlow 1868, which appears in two passages, but Jackson drew from only Harlow's second passage, quoted here:

I desire here, to express gratefully my obligations, and those of the Profession, to D.D. Shattuck, Esq., brother-in-law of the deceased; to Dr. Coon, Mayor of San Francisco, and to Dr. J.D.B. Stillman, for their kind cooperation in executing my plans for obtaining the head and tamping iron, and for their fidelity in personally superintending the opening of the grave and forwarding what we so much desired to see.

But earlier in the same paper, Harlow also said:

It is to be regretted that an autopsy could not have been had.... In consideration of this important omission, the mother and friends, waiving the claims of personal and private affection, with a magnaminity more than praiseworthy, at my request have cheerfully placed this skull (which I now show you) in my hands, for the benenfit of science.

Although "cheerfully" seems a strange adverb for the placing of a human skull into somebody's hands (whether for the benefit of science or any other purpose), in any event Gage's mother was indeed thanked. (It's really necessary to get all the context before jumping to conclusions.) Meanwhile, Harlow's "superintending" passage naturally leads one to conjecture that the iron was recovered from the grave along with the skull, but conjecture is all it is.

Finally, the numerous popular stories about Gage from 1869 on may very well have narrated an iron burial, inspired either by the conjecture which (as already described) one easily makes from Harlow 1868, or by borrowing from one another. Blackington 1956 is a particularly good candidate, but my xerox of him, like those of dozens of similar tales, is where I can't put my finger on it just now. Blackington 1956 is of special interest because Fleischman (in the 1990s at least) had been features editor of NH's Yankee magazine, the founder of which had acquired Blackington's papers in 1956. Unfortunately much of this material was lost, so we don't know what Blackington's sources were, but no doubt Fleischman drew inspiriation in part from Blackington 1956 (though I repeat I can't check Blackington just now to see if iron-burial is really in there).

So modern science articles may be borrowing iron-burial from Damasio 1994, or may be making the conjuecture directly from Harlow 1868. Damasio et al probably just misread Harlow. Fleischman (who contributed to Macmillan's researches, by the way) may have got it from Blackington, or Damasio, or...

One final note: there is another fictionalized account of Gage, Brooks 1869, which explicitly states that the bar was kicking around the house until the exhumation. Brooks was a San Francisco newspaper editor (and author on the side) and would have been acquainted with the family at least in passing. And there are indications he had access to family details not found elsewhere. So in fact, the one indicator we have about the iron's whereabouts, other than Harlow 1868, puts it above ground at all times.

But on the question of whether or not the burial should be asserted in the article as fact, none of this matters, because as I said way back there is only the one narrative extant of the exhumation – quoted above from Harlow 1868 – and it does not support an iron burial as fact, only suggestion. That leaves, as I also said way back, the possibility of "an undiscovered primary source, or neglected derivative work pointing to a such a source, which would establish the buried-iron factoid." I take it this is the quest you are on, and I have already wished you luck, though I warn you again I've been over this material pretty darn thoroughly. Without such new evidence it makes no sense to present this idea as fact.

It would also be inappropriate to present the buried-iron idea even as "disputed," assuming your inquiries confirm, as I've already said, that "every author offering that bit of data cites either to nothing, or else to something which (perhaps transitively) cites to nothing either." That's not something disputed, it's just commonly-heald myth without foundation. On the other hand, if do you find that "undiscovered primary source, or neglected derivative work pointing to a such a source, which would establish the buried-iron factoid"...well then, things would be different. But even if the undiscovered source doesn't turn up, this could still be the basis for an excellent addition to the article: an illustration of the persistence of unsupported statements about Gage, in the face of all evidence.

I leave you, finally, by repeating the quotation from Macmillan with which I opened my original post:

The factual record is small, and the most important element of it – Harlow’s 1868 report – not readily available, and most who have written about Phineas have been too lazy or slipshod to check it. Paradoxically, the very slightness of reliable fact which allows myths about Phineas to flourish also makes disentangling those myths a conceptually easy, if tedious, task.

Tedious! Oh god yes, tedious!

EEng (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

existentially pregnant

Who decided to link each of these words individually to Wiktionary? --70.143.50.113 (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I did, because pregnant (in the sense of "heavy with meaning or implication") and existentialism (in any sense) may be unfamiliar to some. You mentioned they're linked individually -- would there be some way to link them not-individually? EEng (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Portrait of Gage

This discussion has been split from the very old discussion #Images copyrighted which is about different images. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

...there;s no way a photo from the 19th century is still under copyright!!!!!! The article seems to imply that a 19th century image is under copyright. If you are referring to that, I suggest someone clean up the article by putting the images back. Unsigned comment by User:72.83.87.96 17 Jul 2009

You are probably correct that any particular 19th-century work, such as a daguerreotype, is no longer under copyright. However, TCP/IP doesn't support daguerreotype transport (I understand they're working on it) so there's no way to upload a daguerreotype to Wikipedia over the internet. You can only post, say, a jpg of the daguerreotype. And any such jpg (being a "derivative work") is under copyright, unless and until the maker of that jpg releases it; and until such time, that jpg can't be used here. To get around that you'll need to get your hands on the daguerreotype and use a camera or scanner to create your own jpg of it, if you can get the owner of the daguerreotype to agree to that. (By the way, there are no free images of the newly-discovered daguerreotype. So for now, to see Gage's face, you'll have to follow the link to the website where it's posted --- what's so bad about that?) EEng (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you tell me why a slavish reproduction of a 2D, public domain image, is considered a derivative and not just a copy? Shouldn't the precedent set in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. establish that such a digital reproduction which adds no creativity or originality to the process, deserves no further protection by copyright? I don't think it should. Indeed, this is almost exactly the same issue as the National Portrait Gallery vs. User:Dcoetzee. With this in mind, I've uploaded the Los Angeles Times version of the photo here and would hope that we could include it in this article. FBenenson (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy to answer your question (amateur lawyer to amateur lawyer, of course). As a 2nd-Circuit decision, Bridgeman applies in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont only. You're gonna have to wait for either the 11th Circuit, or S.C., to rule similarly. Or you can try to get Wikipedia policy changed based on Bridgeman, but I don't see that happening somehow. EEng (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the daguerrotype image to the article. The original is way out of copyright, and the Wikimedia Foundation (the people who run Wikipedia) have plainly indicated that they will defend the position in Bridgeman v. Corel's findings quite vigorously. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

EEng, Bridgeman applies throughout the US; this is how federal courts work. It is true there is a controversy over Bridgeman can apply to non-US images, but that is not relevant in this case. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally it's unwise to rely on Wikipedia (or Wikipedians) for legal guidance, but since this is a wikipedia matter it seems appropriate. Thus at [4] we find: "Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. has precedential value in U.S. courts. But as a decision of a federal district court, its precedential value is confined to courts of the same circuit, in this case the Second Circuit." So that is how the federal courts work, and in fact it is Bridgeman that is irrelevant here. Thanks for pointing out, by the way, that Bridgeman (even if it had value here in the first place) has uncertain application to non-US images: it's entirely possible the Gage daguerreotype was made in Chile, where Gage spent most of his post-accident life. Once again, I am removing the offending image. If you wish to continue to fuss about this, I rely on you to open a case with whatever Wiki-authority has jurisdiction. Or perhaps you will be kind enough to tell me how to do so. EEng (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that if you revert again on this article, you would be violating the three-revert rule. I mention it because I don't want you to be blocked over a legitimate dispute like this. I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but that doesn't entitle you to blindly revert against several editors' consensus that you are wrong about this. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we please have some calm here. I would desperately like to see a proper discussion here, and I am going to bring in a few of our copyright experts to take a look at this discussion. EEng believes it is a copyright violation, and given he has done so much work on this article it would be nice to convince him the image is OK rather than block him before we are all on the same page. He may be right after all, so we should err on the side of caution. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, John, it would be useful to have an opinion from someone who actually knows the rules. I may have facts that would help such a copyright-status evaluation, but likely not for another 24 hours; please wait for that. I cannot speak for the people who found the daguerreotype, but I believe that would be happy to contribute a version of the image of Gage for use on Wikipedia, but it will take some time to work this out. They only just realized what they had a few months ago, and this is all new to them. I believe they would want to do this in mid-August, when the print version of the journal article comes out. In the meantime, the daguerreotype is viewable on their website (along with a lot of other neat stuff) so no one's being denied access to the pleasure of gazing on Phineas' visage. And naturally I agree with your proposal to "err on the side of caution" so that (as you mentioned on my Talk) the image should stay out in the meantime, and further attempts to insert it should be reverted. As to you, Gavia immer, the PD-US template on the image files relies on assertions about prior publication, death of author, and so on, but you don't supply that information. Please take the time to call out the specific facts satisfying the requirements of the PD tag, and if you can't then the tag should be removed. EEng (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There are emails flying around about this. Please can we wait until the full facts are known! We need to know where it was photographed. etc. I will be offline for about six hours, and hopefully I will know more by then. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

With image again removed from article (not by me!) I put back the original link to the website where the image may be seen. Please note that this is not any kind of reversion. EEng (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The LA times has a god picture of Gage for the top of this article. I am not sure if copoyright would apply here, but perhaps someone with more knowledge of copyright could add it, if legal. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-gage16-2009jul16,0,6843461.story 66.245.192.242 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html for the law. Obviously the L.A. Times had no qualms about violating copyright on a photo from the 1850's. Even if the photo was not published or copyrighted at the time it was taken, the limit for public domain in the U.S. is photographer's lifetime plus 70 years. We have no idea what the provinance of the photo is (nor do the people who had it), but it's certainly P. Gage by the marks on the head and bar (I certainly have no doubt at all that it is-- his permanently closed blind left eye, which still appears swollen with regard to his ~1850 life mask, suggests this is photo is from even before that mask was done. On the other hand the inscription on the bar was apparently placed Jan 1850, and this appears on the iron in the photo, so it must have been taken after that. From Gage's youthful appearance and excellent suit, one would otherwise probably suppose it taken when he was touring with the bar in the early 1850's (he recovered it again after giving it to the museum). His health was bad by 1859, and he had spent some time in Chile before that, and died in 1860, so the photo date is 1850-1859 at the widest, and probably a lot closer to 1850. But let us say at latest 1859, 150 years ago. What is the youngest the maker of the daguerreotype could have been? This is professional job. Could he have been younger than 15? Seems unlikely. If he was 15 and took the photo in 1859, he would have been born 1844. 70 years ago is 1939, so he'd have had to live from 1844 to 1939, or to age 95, for this photo to be NOT in the public domain. That's with EVERY possible error on the high side. It's more likely the photographer was older than 18 and Gage was photographed no later than 1852, so the photographer needed to have made it to 100.

I would suggest that since protection would require a child-photographer who lived at least to age 95 in 1939, and more probably more than 100, we should presume he didn't live that long, and let those who have evidence otherwise take up the cause. By the way, every year the photographer has to have lived longer for this photo not to be in public domain now, adds a year to the lifetime of the photographer, to have died less than 70 years ago. In 2010, he must have lived to be at least 96 and more likely 101.

Oh, and if the image if from Chile, it's really in public domain, and copyright ends for unpublished images 70 years after end of the year in which it was created. Since it can't have been created later than 1860, that would be public domain as of 1931. [5] SBHarris 02:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times image has already been mentioned above; they appear to have permission to display this image, and their page looks like they have a records management ID for it: "(IS635, xx) July 15, 2009". I'm not sure what that is about.

Unpublished works, which I suspect this is, have very different copyright terms. Often the copyright starts from the time that it is first published, and the people in possession of the photo may know the provenance. We are seeking to clarify these things, and we may need to check with Chilean laws. My guess is that it is public domain in the U.S., but we need to be certain, especially when it has been disputed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Since the 1970's when these things were fixed and (mostly) codified all over the world, the copyright on old unpublished works has NEVER started the moment they are published, without limit on how old they are. All works fall into public domain at some time after creation, published or not, and the longest period I've ever seen for this in law is unpublished corporately created works, and it's only 120 years. That's all you can get by not publishing. The owners of the Gage daguerreotype, who have had it for 30 years in their Victorian photo collection but didn't know what they had until somebody saw it on their website and tentitively identified it, are not even claiming the original is copyrighted. What they've copyrighted is their photo of the daguerreotype which they have a better claim on. Since they own the daguerreotype and have not allowed anybody else to photograph it (and are certainly not about to now), that makes things hard. Some countries like the UK allow copyright newer photographs of works that are 2D anyway (like the Mona Lisa)-- see the National Protrait Gallery fiasco. I don't know what the US law is. I think this is going to come down to a one-of-a-kind irreplaceable historic iconic photographic image thing. This thing comes close to being a national treasure, as though somebody had discovered a photo of Lincoln being carried out of Ford's Theater. SBHarris 18:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Err, no. See for example Copyright law of the United_Kingdom#Posthumous_Works where unpublished works are copyright until 2039, and we enter very murky waters when rule of the shorter term comes into play. I have started Chilean copyright law to compile notes about what Chilean copyright in case that ends up being a factor. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The magic for me is that Wikipedia is the ultimate starting place. I rely on it for reliable basic information and valuable links to primary (or primarier) sources. So, if the photo is here or just a photo link is here, this is still a magical place. I'm the newbie who first added the report of the Daguerreotype (and forgot to give a summary of my changes). I'm the webkeeper of the guy who wrote the song about Phineas Gage that was used in the BBC segment about Phineas. Mac MacMillan sent him the the journal pre-print and he sent it to me and I added a paragraph to Wikipedia. I live near the beautiful accident site, so I'm as curious as anyone about discoveries. I hope Wikipedia continues to attract quirky people not unlike me (who are not unappreciative of litotes) for whom a Phineas link is as good as a Phineas wink. And I added photos of the site to Panoramio/Google Earth a while back (with share-alike rights, so I hope you all go nuts with those photos). Meanwhile, I'm scratching my head about this copyright controversy, because this ol' website is great either way. Danaxtell (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like it. May you never hit the politics of it. Right now you're in the newlywed phase before you meet the in-laws. SBHarris 02:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a Commons admin and as someone who does a lot of work with copyrights on WMF sites, the photo of the daguerreotype is easily public domain based on Bridgeman v. Corel. Under US law, some sort of creative aspect is required to engender a copyright. While the NPG is claiming copyright of its photos of public domain works (which is permissible under UK law), the precedent set by Feist v. Rural underlies Bridgeman. While EEng is correct in that the decision really applies to the jurisdiction covered by 2nd Circuit Court, nobody has appealed this to the Supreme Court because they know they would get shot down and then there would be a single national standard, which nobody who makes money from licensing PD works wants. For more proof, see the links at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-13/Copyright threat#Further reading.

As for the PD status of the daguerreotype itself, according to the Flickr page, it was originally posted there in December 2007. If we then consult http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, we see that works published anytime after 2002 are PD when one of the following cases applies:

• Author died more than 70 years ago.
• If corporate authorship, 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever expires first.

But Gage being the celebrity he was, it was also quite reasonable to assume that this was published some time in his lifetime, in which case the pre-1923 rule would also apply. howcheng {chat} 21:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, its been more than a week and this conversation seems to have stalled. I'd really like to have the Gage portrait included on this page and I do not believe there was any substantial evidence procured that the photo is not in the public domain. Can we work to getting it uploaded again and included? Thanks. Fred Benenson (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The people who have the daguerreotype long ago asked if they can contribute an image for use on Wikipedia so all this fussing isn't necessary -- that seems to have been lost in the shuffle of all this talk about teenage photographers and so on. I'll be helping them set up an account so they can do that in the next 24 hours, and then everyone should be happy. EEng (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point the debate should be moot (on Wikipedia/Wikimedia at least) since we are now blessed to see Mr. Gage in all his glory, right there in the article. But for the record a few points should be made. I do not speak for the daguerreotyupe's owners, but as someone close to the situation who finds the let's-just-make-up-facts drift of this discussion disturbing.

IUP: "Before you upload an image, make sure that...you can prove that the image is in the public domain." The operative word here is prove. The burden as always is on those who contribute material, to demonstrate that it is free for use; to say here, "I do not believe there was any substantial evidence procured that the photo is not in the public domain" is analogous to a juror saying, "The defendant's guilty because he didn't offer any substantial evidence that he's innocent." PD can sometimes be established by simple rules such as those scattered thoughout the discussion above, but such rules apply only where specific facts trigger them.

And those facts don't exist here. This is not like an image from a book or prominent collection, where such things as date/place of creation/publication would be known; no one participating in this discussion (including me) knows any of that here. The "factual" assertions above are mere conjecture. They contradict analogous BLP policy specifying assumption of a 120-year human lifespan. As for Gage's "celebrity" making it "reasonable to assume that this was published some time in his lifetime": Gage was nothing like a celebrity until long after he was dead, and anyway such logic demands that a negative be established -- how would someone prove the absence of past publication? And it was never stated that 2007 was the first publication anywhere, merely the first on Flickr (if even that). Since the daguerreotype has been in the same hands for 30 years, and its owners have made a practice of sharing their images, those whose legal knowledge extends past the 1970s will recognize the beginnings of a fact situation deferring PD until 2047.

Finally, the effect of Bridgeman has been misstated. Even granting for argument's sake that it both controls and actually applies to the facts here, it would not put this photo "in PD," but merely cause it to inherit the status of the underlying work, which as already seen is far from clear. In the meantime, the legal, moral, and courtesy obligations are to respect the claims of those who brought the daguerreotype to light, until someone offers facts to the contrary.

EEng (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Using Gage or his case

Could someone please provide me an example of a person being used as idiom for their set of circumstances. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm American and have never heard of a persons name being used as a placeholder for their life experience. I've always seen "Aristotle's reasoning..." or "According to Blackburn..." More to the point, I'm not familiar with people "...using Aristotle" as opposed to "using Aristotle's reasoning". Maybe this is a British turn of phrase? Any input would be appreciated. Padillah (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Abundant examples (British and American) will be found via submission of "look to Aristotle" to a Google search, quotation marks included; then try "use Aristotle to". If you prefer, substitute Marx or Smith or Freud according to doctrinal inclination -- good results in any case. Googlebooks yields higher-quality citations than does the regular Web search. EEng (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Not only did it give adequate examples of the usage above, it also lead to some rather nice logical reading. I must admit, I've not seen that particular usage outside of subject specific text but it's not incorrect so leave it. Padillah (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't turn out to be one of those tiresome persons insisting on some ridiculous rule learned from Miss Snodgrass in the 7th grade. EEng (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratiu and colleagues should be changed to Ratiu and Talos

The "Ratiu and colleages" article from 2004 should be called "Ratiu and Talos" because there are only two authors. Also, the researchers conducted both a CT scan and a MRI scan, not just a CT scan. Here is the free full-text I was able to find online, which should be included in the reference list as well (ref #24): http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/23/e21?ijkey=6bb3fd4fd67118b708ee1c3fc748cb19c6d7007f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha 68.54.107.114 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)RandomPsychologyResearcher

Well, no actually, you're confusing two different papers: the one you cite (authors: Ratiu & Talos only) is a short note in NEJM introducing the on-line images of the iron passing through Gage's skull, the skull hinging open, and so on. The one referenced in the article is Ratiu, Talos, Haker, Lieberman, Everett, detailing the method of generating those images, and what they imply re the areas of Gage's brain damaged; since it credits all five workers I chose to reference it over the NEJM paper. However, I immediately went on to confuse things by adjoining a link to the NEJM images, with a misleading description suggesting the two papers are the same. (If you look at the markup of the article at that point you'll see that I apparently worried about this confusion but never fixed it, sorry.) I'll patch that description now, and provide more formal cites later. The images taken by Ratiu and colleauges of Gage's skull were indeed CTs; the MRIs involved in their work were not of Gage's skull but of brains and so on of other subjects. EEng (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing {{neuropsychology}} template etc

I'd appreciate comment from anyone who thinks this is a bad idea... I think \{\{neuropsychology\}\} is too narrow so I substituted \{\{neuroscience\}\} instead. I also slipped Portal:neuroscience into the lead as a hyperlink to an existing text. And I removed See Also Traumatic Brain Injury which though relevant doesn't shine particular light on Gage; but maybe others think otherwise. EEng (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view I think that the elimination is a good thing (and I am a neuropsychologist). However I would not add a new template as the neuroscience one: I would say that as they are called navigation templates their aim is to help navigation and I really doubt that anybody that finally ends in this article would find the links in the neuroscience template, which are really general, of use in their navigation. On the other hand I would rather leave traumatic brain injury, or try to link it inside the article, since it is a highly relevant (Most people who end in this article will probably be interested specifically in traumatic brain injury). Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to omit neuroscience template as well, but it's also linked from the lead text "related disciplines"; for TBI, I made it a link under "injury to the brain" in the text. I think that's usually better than a separate "see also". So everyone should be happy now, I hope. P.S. I've been hoping for a long time that someone would start an article on cerebral localization. The closest thing I can find is lateralization of brain function so up to now the lead links only to the Wiktionary entry. In a daring and bold move, I'm adding a redlink cerebral localization ih nopes someone will be inspired to take up the challenge. I did it in an awkward way as you'll see but one that preserves the link to Wiktionary until the redlinked article gets going (if that day ever comes). And finally, Garrondo (and Delldot too, if you're out there) I'd appreciate your giving the article a careful read and telling me what you think, and changes you might suggest, etc. I believe it's time for the article to be reviewed for a raise out of B-class. EEng (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fast review by User:Garrondo

<-- Comments indented to this point are my responses to Garrondo's comments. (Garrondo, as I keep saying this is going to take some time, and I'll have to do it in pieces. Since your points and mine, new and old, cross-reference one another, it might be the best use of your time if you wait until I say I'm done before you go over it. Really your "points 1-5" posted Feb. 15 are the most important thing, but I want to address your earlier points first.) EEng (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Garrondo's comments and edits

First of all I want to congratulate EEng for his work. The article is very complete right now, with many citations and a well researched. However after a fast review I find several issues; specially with style: In general I found the tone most according to a novel, historic book or journal article, but not to an encyclopedia: style in an encyclopedia should be more "cold" with less adjetives and valuation expressions, even if they are in the original sources. Some examples are:

• Weighing 13–1/4 lb (6 kg), this "abrupt and intrusive visitor" (completely irrelevant)

I cannot agree that an article is supposed to be "cold," as you say. Factual, neutral, verifiable, etc. -- yes. But not cold. Quite the opposite: an article should be engaging and inviting, including details which, perhaps, don't have to be there, but which nonetheless increase the reader's understanding of the context, sometimes operating at different levels for different readers. So, for example, Boston Medical & Surgical Journal's reference to Gage's tamping iron as an "abrupt and intrusive visitor" to Gage's noggin is just a fun detail many, but to a sophisticated reader interested in the history of medicine, it conveys the sense of bemused wonderment found in writing about Gage at the time (foreshadowed in the lead -- "The case...calculated to excite our wonder...) and offers a window into the less stuffy and more stately, more literate style of medical wrioting of the time in contrast to today (one of delights of researching Gage, by the way). You won't find writing like that in New England Journal of Medicine -- which believe it or not is the modern title of Boston Med & Surg J!

• Despite Harlow's skillful care (Irrelevant and common sense: otherwise is clear to everybody he would have died)

See below.

• Harlow's 1868 presentation of the case is by far the most informative (An irrelevant valuation)
• A similar concern was expressed as far back as 1877 (better to say in 1877 since we can not know if there has been anybody saying it between him and McMillan)
• Aside from the question of why the very unpleasant changes usually attributed to Gage would inspire surgical imitation: that is quite irrelevant and highly journalistic. It could simply be eliminated.

Macmillan's paper on the (lack of any) relationship between Gage and lobotomy explains why this is relevant, and I've added a note on the subject to the article,

A second problem I find is the great overuse of verbatim citations. The importance of the longer ones is out of discussion. However sentences such as

By November 25 Gage was strong enough to return to his parents' home in Lebanon, N.H., where by late December he was "riding out, improving both mentally and physically." In April 1849 he returned to Cavendish and paid a visit to Harlow, who noted at that time loss of vision (and ptosis) of the left eye, a large scar on the forehead, and "upon the top of the head...a deep depression, two inches by one and one-half inches wide, beneath which the pulsations of the brain can be perceived. Partial paralysis of the left side of the face." Despite all this, "his physical health is good, and I am inclined to say he has recovered. Has no pain in head, but says it has a queer feeling which he is not able to describe."

are really tiring for the reader; when they could easily converted into prose My proposal in this case would be something similar to:

By November 25 Gage was strong enough to return to his parents' home in Lebanon, N.H., where by late December he was improving both mentally and physically. In April 1849 he returned to Cavendish and paid a visit to Harlow, who noted at that time loss of vision and ptosis of the left eye, a large scar on the forehead, and a skull depression of two inches by one and one-half inches wide. Despite all this Harlow considered that he was almost completely recovered.

Finally there is also an overuse of unneeded brackets and (I do not know the name in English), both quite tiring to reading: In addition to verbatim citations examples are:

• then compact ("tamp down") : Could simply be eliminated

People don't seem to know what a "tamping iron" so some explanation is needed. But I rewrote to eliminate the quotation.

• A "fungal" infection: Why not A fungal infection?

Because to Harlow a "fungus" was (OED) "spongy morbid growth or excrescence, such as exuberant granulation in a wound" i.e. the body's own reaction to the wound, not an infection (though this growth was itself clearly infected severely, probably by bacteria; see Macmillan 2000, p.61 for more). Putting "fungal" in quotes alerts the reader that the word is not being used in the usual sense. Even though I'll be reverting your change in this and many other cases, the exercise has been extremely helpful, because it shows where explanatory text (or a note) should be added (e.g for "fungus").

• consistent with a "social recovery" hypothesis: consistent with a social recovery hypothesis.

I'll try to propose further improvements (probably more important than the stylistic changes proposed) along this week. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing

I have the article according to some of the simplest of my above points. However other possible eliminations are more open to discussion. I am going to go ahead with some changes with the aim of simplifying language and structure of some sentences and eliminated not very relevant data. I will add here any sentences I eliminate and their rationale for elimination so if somebody does not agree it can be added back.--Garrondo (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Gage's accident

• (via a laborious process which today might best be thought of as chiseling): Not really relevant to topic and complicate too much structure. Topic is Gage and his accident, not the method of drilling rock
• this "abrupt and intrusive visitor"[6] was said to have landed some 80 feet (25 m) away.. Too much novelesque language but does not really add info (abrupt and intrusive). "Was said to have landed": As everything else in the article we base it in original and secondary sources. Unless there is a reason to doubt it it can be eliminated. Sentence changed to: it landed 80 feet (25 m) away.

It would be incorrect to say, "it landed X distance away" because reports of the distance varied, and since it's a quantitative statement it needs to be qualified as inexact. The only alternative to "...said to have landed..." would be to just say it landed "far" away and that's hardly helpful to the reader. (The distance does matter because it puts a limit on the speed as the bar left Gage's skullm yucky as that sounds).

• Despite Harlow's skillful care. Eliminated skillful: Do we have any indication that it was above what is expected for a physician of that time? Did he do anything unusual? It probably was an average care.

Harlow's management of the case was creative and well above the norm for the time. I've added cites to Macmillan's and Barker's discussion of this.

I will continue with other sections along the week.--Garrondo (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent life and travels

• in New York City (the curious paying to see, presumably, both Gage and the instrument that injured him) although there is no independent confirmation of this. Recently however, evidence has surfaced supporting Harlow's... There is no confirmation for this but neither there is for almost everything... We base our knowledge on Gage in Harlow's, and there is no reason to doubt on its veracity, specially with the later sentence. Changed to: both Gage and the instrument that injured him). Evidence has surfaced supporting that Gage made public appearances in the larger New England towns For the second sentence a reference is needed.

Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

EEng's thougts on above

Garrondo, your careful attention is very much appreciated! And I want to mention that you (along with User:Delldot and others) did the really hard work of building the article from scratch long before I got involved two years ago. Many of your recent changes point out weaknesses (some of which I knew about and hadn't got around to ). But many show misunderstandings -- you don't seem to have absorbed the sources cited for the material you're changing, and often the statements in your edit summaries are factually incorrect. To avoid the article carrying misinformation too long, I'm going to revert some of those changes immediately, making the best explanation I can in the edit summaries; later (maybe over the weekend) adding further explanation here.

Beyond straight-out factual issues are your concerns about whether certain material is relevant, or whether material can be paraphrased, rather than quoted, without loss of meaning. Again, you really need to read the context of a given quote, as found in the cites, before paraphrasing it in a way which you assume to be equivalent, or which changes the meaning in "minor" ways which you assume are safe. Similarly, you can't assume that omitting this or that material won't damage the reader's understanding of the case it its context, unless you carefully check the cited material from which it came and secondary sources discussing it. Interpreting Gage -- particularly, making sense of the conflicting things written about him in the 19th century -- requires careful attention to the shifting medical and popular meanings of terms we take for granted as settled today. An example of how much less settled ideas about the brain were in Gage's time: it wasn't even generally recognized that injury to one side of the brain tends to affect movement or sensation on the opposite side of the body, much less did many mid-19c physicians accept that brain injury might affect "higher functions" such as language and behavior. So in saying a patient "recovered," he might -- depending on his training and doctrinal inclination -- only mean that movement and sensation are unimpaired, any behavioral changes being ascribed to something other than the brian injury, or simply ignored as not even medical issues in the first place. That's why the article quotes Harlow's and Bigelow's statements about Gage's "recovery" -- to acknowledge them as the two men's individual wordings, each needing individual interpretation according its source. (For example, Bigelow was hostile to phrenology, while Harlow was almost certainly influenced by it to some extent.) To simply write, by paraphrase, that Harlow said Gage was almost fully recovered, leads the reader to interpret the word recovered in its modern sense, comprehending the far wider range of functions for which we now believe the brain is responsible, compared to some (but not all) physicians 150 years ago. And to change Harlow's words, "His health is good, and I am inclined to say he has recovered," into a narration that Harlow considered that [Gage] was almost completely recovered absolutely changes the meaning as a modern reader will interpret it, especially when one considers the question in light of everything else Harlow writes. These issues are extensively discussed in Barker, Macmillan 2000, Macmillan 2008, and other cited material.

You omitted Harlow's mention of Gage's hard-to-describe "queer feeling in the head." This is a phenomenon often associated with certain brain injuries -- see A.R. Luria's The Man with a Shattered World -- and tying Gage in to Luria's description 100 years later vividly ties Gage to the modern theory of brain-injury rehabilitation, for those with the background to recognize it. This is another example of text working at different levels for different readers, and should be retained.

Contrary to what you say, not every physician was a "doctor" at the time (and in fact for a long time in the UK, some classes of surgeons were styled Mr. not Dr.).

In other cases, you've made edits which, on simple grammar and punctuation alone, change the meaning into an incorrect or ambiguous one on its own face, having nothing to do with interpretation. Example: Harlow noted loss of vision (and ptosis) of the left eye makes it clear that the loss of vision, as well as the ptosis, affected the left eye only. Your text loss of vision and ptosis of the left eye is unclear as to whether of the left eye applies to loss of vision, or to ptosis only -- ambiguously suggesting that the loss of vision might have been in both eyes. The parentheses correct this. (Commas could be used instead, but in a sentence with many commas already, parentheses help subordinate this phrase to the larger structure. You seem to dislike parentheses for some reason, but they are completely acceptable in good writing, when used carefully. The same goes for dashes (—) as well, I might add.)

Another important point (I had meant my comments to be brief, but it's not working out that way...): Contrary to what you say, almost everything Harlow tells us about Gage's movements has been independently verified one way or another -- see Macmillan 2000, 2008 especially. That's why, for example, it's specially called out that the Barnum appearance is unverified (despite several ransackings of Barnum archives in locations throughout the US).

As I said, I'll make certain more urgent reversions now, others in time, and if the edit summaries don't satisfy you please start a list here, where we can continue discussion on individual points. In the meantime, please continue to make further changes you think are helpful. I'll either leave them alone (or build on them), revert with explanatory edit summaries, or (in many cases) revert while adding explanatory text so the text won't mislead future readers the way it has you. That seems the most efficient way to do this -- no need to discuss everything in advance (unless you feel the need) -- just be bold and we can revert-discuss as necessary. But please do more carefully review the cited sources before making further changes. Wikipedia Excelsior! EEng (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(Later) Well, Garrondo, I'm sorry to say I ended up reverting almost all your changes. There's an explanation on each individual edit summary, though in a few places I'll add more explanation here on Talk, but that can't be for a few days. But (and I really mean this) this has really helped, because it showed how many places extra explanation is needed. You'll see one added note already (which I fear you might think frivolous, but it's really not -- the tenor of the times was important to the fate of the case in medical history) and I'll be adding at least two others, one on "fungus" and one on "drilling" -- probably a few more as well. Please do keep making proposed changes, frustrating as that may seem, because they really are helping me see the article in a new light. And please feel free to "push back" here on any of my reversions. EEng (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with most of your explanations and I believe that at least in most cases they are related to a conscious or most probably unconscious sense of ownership over the article. From now on I won't edit any more the article since I do not feel that collaboration is really welcome. Having said this I still hope that we could make a better article together. I will point out some comments, if I feel they are heard and addressed I will continue pointing more, if not I will simply leave you at your own. --Garrondo (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! I was afraid something like this might happen. I really don't want you to feel that way -- remember, I contacted you especially asking for your thoughts, and that was sincere. But look, the only way to work together to make the article better (and there's lots to be done) is to discuss our different points of view. I said I would annotate your original comments in the next few days, and I'll do that, and then we can discuss from there. I don't know any other way. In the meantime if some of my edit summaries don't satisfy you, list them here for discussion. Similarly, please annotate my reasoning above where you disagree. But you really, really have to read the sources cited (the secondary ones, I mean) to understand why many things are the way they are. EEng (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

More than offended I had the feeling of work being useless. Nevertheless I still want to try to work in the article because it is an article I am really interested and in general I believe you have done good work. However I would change to an approach which leaves to you all decisions regarding the article. I will only do peer review, commenting in the talk page. It will be up to you to decide on using it or not and it is there and then were you would have to prove how much open to change you are. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

More comments from Garrondo

Some of my editions were intended to eliminate some quotation marks. I have counted more than 140 which makes 70 quotations. When I read the full article they make me really tired and they are far from improving prose. From my point of view the article will improve if many of the direct quotations are converted into prose. (More comments soon).--Garrondo (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick check and only two or three of your changes involved dropping quotes, and in those cases they set off unusual terms with which most readers would be unfamiliar, such as "social recovery." If there's a Wikipedia article to link to, that would be better than quote marks, but I can't find one. As I write I realize some of these cases could use italics instead, and maybe that would be better. But I have to get to work now. Let's talk later. EEng (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That is because I preferred to try what I thought that were going to be simpler editions to more complex ones. I would not use italics, since the problem is exactly the same and additionally the article will not be consistent. Solution should be to convert into prose. There are many places that using the exact same words as in the primary source is not at all a necessity. Some probable examples

• "a vainglorious tendency to show off his wound," an "utter lack of foresight: why not simply a tendency to vainglory from his wound and lack of foresight
• "up and down stairs, and about the house, into the piazza," and while Harlow was absent for a week, Gage was "in the street every day except Sunday," his desire to return to his family in New Hampshire being "uncontrollable by his friends...got wet feet and a chill." He soon developed a fever, but by mid-November he was "feeling better in every respect...walking about the house again; says he feels no pain in the head." Harlow's prognosis at this point: Gage "appears to be in a way of recovering, if he can be controlled." (There are 4 quatations in 3 sentences!!!) A possible alternative for the second part would be something similar to: He soon developed a fever, but by mid-November he had recovered from it, was walking again and had no pain in the head. At this point Harlow thought that he was going to get over his injury if he could be controlled. (I am really tired today; I have just given an speech in which curiosly I have talked about Phineas Gage; so I do not feel capable of thinking something for the first part of the sentence; and anyway these are only examples).
• "riding out, improving both mentally and physically.": is it really necessary to say the "riding out"? Does it add ANY information? Why not simply improving both mentally and physically and no quotes?
• "upon the top of the head...a deep depression, two inches by one and one-half inches wide, beneath which the pulsations of the brain can be perceived. Partial paralysis of the left side of the face." I think the part of the pulsations is probably much to gory and does not really add much. How about something like: and at the top of the skull a depression two inches by one and one-half inches wide which put in direct contact the scalp skin with the brain's surface. Gage also suffered from partial paralysis in the lef side of the face.

With rephrasings similar to the ones above we should be able to eliminate many of the messier quotations(I will point some more ones on Monday).--Garrondo (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On the other side I agree completely with delldot on the article having a non-neutral, essay-like tone with the bullets section being the most clamorous example.--Garrondo (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In a more general perspective the article from my point of view gives undue weight to the misuse of the case in comparison to the importance of the case: While in the lead it is commented that it has had great importance in the history of neuroscience nothing else is said but a line to Damasio's theory afterwards. I find the misuse section very interesting but it should come only after a whole section commenting at least some of the following points:

• 1-How has the case influenced the knowledge on the relationship between behavior and brain.
• 2-How has been used by different schools of thought (again only a line in the misuse of the case is said, while the fact that two different schools used it as an example on opposite theories is not really a misuse).
• 3-How it is in accordance with the knowledge on the functioning and damage consequences knowledge we have today on the frontal lobe
• 4-How it is still used as an example in many textbooks (lead should only be a summary of the text below, the line that it is said in it should be expanded in the text)
• 5-A more in-depth coverage of Damasio's theory.

Otherwise it is using a Non Neutral Point of View. The fact is that the consequences commented by Harlow are common in people with frontal lobe damage, so Harlow's description of Gage sequels is still today a valid one. The fact that there may be some factual incorrections in the description should not be given more importance. In this sense only one author (an important and fruitful one nevertheless) says that the description is not correct so the article would be greatly improved if this was shown.--Garrondo (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Garrondo, I've started work on adding my comments and explanations to your comments above, but it's a big job and not nearly done (it's not really something that can be done piece by piece). But I have made some changes to the article which I hope address some of your concerns. Your points 1-5 above are good ones, and I'd much rather talk about them (substance of the article) and worry about use of quotes and other stylistic stuff later.

One particular thing I'm realizing is that you seem to think the article questions the accuracy of Harlow's description of Gage's behavior. It absolutely does not do that, and I've tried to make that even more clear. The issues with Harlow's description are these:

• it's unclear when the different things he says about Gage apply -- some may apply soon after the accident, others years later. And once you realize the possibility of Gage having made a substantial recovery over the years, it becomes really important to figure that out.
• Some of what he says comes second or third hand, and so must be taken with caution (in particular, such stuff may be incomplete)
• As discussed already in my comments further up, words like recovered are very tricky to interpret, depending on the medical training and background of the writer

I think it's also very important that you read up on the key secondary sources -- pardon my saying, but from some of your comments it's clear you haven't done that. And I can understand that -- there's a lot to go through. But the fact is you're the only person taking a substantial interest in the article, your concerns are quite sensible, and there's no way we can have a productive discussion on e.g. your POV concerns unless you have access to the cited materials. Here's what I consider essential reading: Macmillan 2000 (the book), Macmillan 2000 ("Restoring" paper), Macmillan 2008 ([6]), Barker, Ratiu, plus [7] and [8], and finally a Macmillan paper not cited, "Phineas Gage: A case for all reasons" [9]. If you have trouble getting any of those I can help -- I'll even send you Macmillan 2000 if you really need it. It's that important to me that we be able to work together well. (I'd also like to know more about your talk on Gage.) EEng (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The truth is I do not have neither access nor time to read the secondary sources that I have not red (Mostly McMillian). It is true that I have not red them, but I do not doubt on the conclusions you draw from them. In that sense I believe that the distortion and misuse is a section that clearly should be maintaineed. The problem is that what I do not see anywhere in the article (but a line in the lead which should be a summary of the article which is not right now) why the case has had such an impact. This missing section is probably the most important point in the article, since with out it the article would be a non-notable anecdote of a survivor. Moreover the misuse section does not make sense without a previous section where it is said how the case has been used since its occurrence until today. We should center our efforts to decide wether this section is a neccesity and what should include.--Garrondo (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WOWWWWWWW (2nd image of Gage identified, 2010)

When has the image appeared??? It is a great one, specially since it is of much higher quality than the other one. I have done some digital restoration and I would love to work on this image. I could eliminate scratches, eliminate the white border, do a color balance and enhance the faded color...It could be hard work since it is quite deteriorated but it could be a great addition to the article. Additionally since the scanning of thi second image is of much higher quality than the other one I would change their places and move to the lead the second image.--Garrondo (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hee, hee. I thought you'd like that! I asked Ms. Tara Gage Miller to upload her image two days ago, because I knew the story would appear today (I think) on Smithsonian.com. But I propose we keep our energies focused on the article text for now -- your points 1-5 above are really the keys -- and we can fiddle with the images as a lower priority. Sorry I still haven't done any of the commenting I keep promising, but as you can see I've been a bit busy. EEng (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Garrondo, can you figure out how to get the text in the infobox (place of death etc) not to break so badly, without increasing the size of the photo? Is there a way to move the indent point to the left? Or can the box be expanded without the photo being expanded?  ??? EEng (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That breaking you talk about depends a lot on the screen used. I do not notice anything (or at least it does not seem to bother me :-)--Garrondo (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding images: I think we should leave them as they were taken: if they are dagerrotypes that implies that they have some specific characteristics regarding color, texture, noise, and that includes inversion of the image. If you simply reverse an image you are somewhat lying and performing an original research since you are creating something that is impossible to have existed (an inversed image with all the other characteristics of a daguerrotype, you create something that is nothing but a fake since it neither has the characteristics of a photo nor of a daguerrotype. I would rather leave the original image and say in the text the characteristic of inversion in dagerrotypes.--Garrondo (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised at your taking this position since you earlier proposed retouching the images etc., which really would be inappropriate. This is an article about Gage, not about the photographs as artifacts; it is entirely appropriate to make a straightforward transformation which causes Gage to be shown as he was in life. And this is arguably a less problematic manipulation than, say, cropping (which is done to plenty of images on Wikipedia) because a lateral reversal is information-preserving -- which cropping is not. To show the photos as if Gage's right eye had been damaged, when it was in fact the left, would cause tremendous confusion -- please see Comments posted online re January Smithsonian article (and see the caption of the photo) and even more attempts to clear up the confusion. In presenting the photos with a compensating lateral reversal applied (and, of course, so noting that fact) the article follows the editors of both Smithsonian Magazine and Journal of the History of the Neurosciences (see Wilgus 2009 cited in the article) in their decisions on this very matter, and I believe you will find it acceptable under formal standards of historical curatorship used by museums and archives. Is there some Wiki policy that contradicts this? And here's another thought: this scan is so good you can just about read the inscription on the tamping iron -- but only if the second reversal is applied. Why would we not want to allow the reader the pleasure of doing that? (P.S. A daguerreotype is a photo.) EEng (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not confound restoring with retouching: restoring is aimed to make look an image as closest as possible to how it looked when it was taken and it is done everyday in wikipedia (Moreover almost half of WP:FP nominations are restored images; and there is a group of experts in wikipedia on the matter, for example user:Durova; which whom I have previoulsy collaborated). I will talk to them about this picture and a possible restoration. I think that right now I agree with your position after presenting the references on the rotation, but we should at least upload to commons the original images and add a retouched template in the rotated ones and a link to the original ones. --Garrondo (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right I was confusing restoring with retouching, though I still think it's not a good idea for this article, but as always let's discuss. I'm also very, very concerned about confusion from having two versions, one reversed (not "rotated") and one not -- in a hurry just now so (again) let's think this over. The descriptions of the photos currently in Commons already stress that the compensating reversal has been applied. EEng (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that reference #39 (in the article's "Current Research" section) points to a newly discovered image (mentioning that it had long been mistaken for a picture of an injured whaler wielding a harpoon.) That quote's source is listed as 161.58.72.244/collection/collsite.html but needs to be changed by someone more knowlegeable of wikicode to brightbytes.com/collection/collsite.html because numeric addresses are often subject to change, rendering the URL unusable and the source hard to immediately find. I had to look around the lightly branded numeric site till I found and cross referenced it with "Bright Bytes Studio" and its non-numeric domain. Unable to fix the article without knowledge of how wikipedia's refpage sections work, as there was no real static code to fix quickly. Thanks. 108.27.113.44 (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

sexually molesting small children

An anon recently removed a claim that he was accused of "sexually molesting small children", which was using this as its source. It was added by EEng as an example of how "Gage" has been misused.

I'm wondering whether mentioning the course notes is a bit of original research, unless the source has been subject to criticism by other sources.

More importantly, was there ever an accusation of this kind? i.e. Are the course notes referring to real accusations made by others, or did the writer of the course notes invent this.

If it was not an invention of the course notes, it is unfair to point to the course notes as if they are the one who is misusing Gage; we should find the original accusations in order to put the course notes in perspective. OTOH, if it is an invention, can it not be excused as a form of pedagogy, especially as we are only seeing the printed course notes and we are not familiar with how it was presented to the students. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing relating to this should go in in any form whatsoever without a highly reputable source to back it up. Looie496 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added some specific cites on point, but I can see the OR concern -- give me a bit to address that. EEng (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Article is far too long and needs extensive cleanup, shortening and conciseness

Do not remove these tags until Wiki's standards for length and neutrality are met. This article reads like a story, is not neutral, is far too effusive in praise and conclusions. Current literature suggests that much of the information included in this article was "embellished" after the death of Gage, and "snopes" type urban myths multiplied after his death. There is good reason that this article was removed from the well written category by editors on Wiki. Phoenixthebird (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The tags ({{cleanup}} etc.) added to the article by Phoenixthebird in conjuntion with the above comment were subsequently removed by another editor who adjoined this edit summary: remove tags that appear to have been added because editor is upset about events occurring elsewhere. (See [10] and [11].) 'Nuff said. EEng (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Great article!

I read the whole thing, was drawn in and was fascinated, really fantastic. It's appropriate for subject. Should be featured. Shame so many people don't recognize talented and quality work, commercial encyclopedia's would pay good money for this. The comments above about "cold" writing being required at Wikipedia is just lol. In fact Wikipedia is 95% awful writing (myself included) so when we see actual rare good work, the crowd can't stand it because it sets off the rest to look so bad and amateur. Anyway, don't take my word, look at the user reviews at the bottom of the page, and article view statistics. People love this article. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. A lot of that "professional" quality comes from the work of EEng in 2008-2010. This article was once rated a "Good Article" (in 2007), but was delisted in 2008, before EEng started working on it. It might be worth renominating -- however EEng has not edited since March of this year, so would probably not be available to deal with issues that arise. I could probably take care of minor stuff, but I'm definitely far from an expert on Gage. Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I just got out after six months in prison (they block Wikipedia) so it's comforting to find such friendly voices here on the outside. (Just kidding about being in prison -- you didn't really believe that, did you?) I can't deny I'm tickled by the praise for the article above and below. I did put a lot of work into it, but it's no false modesty when I say that it was others (Garrondo especially) that did the essential work of putting it together in the first place. If I'd started it on my own from scratch it wouldn't be nearly as good. EEng (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Just stating for the record that it was me who missed the "just kidding" part. You are all, therefore, warned as to the competency of my editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'm amazed at how little (relatively) the article has changed while I've been gone, but of course I'm gonna look it all over now. Y'all please let me know if I you think I do something unwise. EEng (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I echo the praise. Far too many Wikipedia articles are cold and sterile (if sometimes littered by the leftovers of earlier POV wars). The passion in this one makes it much more informative and interesting. Where such passion would get in the way of objectivity and NPOV, it of course would need to be toned down. And it's unrealistic to assume that all of our articles will ever get such treatment. But let's not tone it down in a search for anodyne consistency of style. I respect that there are a range of criteria for this, but as far as I am concerned, this is more deserving of being a Featured Article than many others we have. Martinp (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Very interesting read about a very interesting man. The author(s) of this article certainly did him justice. By the way, does anyone else thing that Phineas Gage bears a striking resemblence to Christopher Reeve? Van Vidrine (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The resemblance to Reeve is frequently commented on. Search [12] for Reeve (see esp. the July 24 comment). EEng (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)