Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

van Horn

[The following is continued from elsewhere

Hello. You may have noticed that I have made repeated edits to the Phineas Gage page that you appear to moderate. Each time, you reverse the edits and remind me that the source I am using has been added to the further reading. I do not agree that this is sufficient representation of the findings. The Van Horn article is the only significant research of the Gage case in nearly ten years. The Warren Anatomical Museum has stated that they are the last group who will have had access to the famous skull, as it is becoming too fragile. The article has been featured in the Huffington Post, the Guardian, Discover Magazine, NPR, CNN, and various other news sites. Your reasoning seems to be that the findings are too technical, but I do believe that the difference between grey matter and white matter is simple enough for your readers (it ought to be, since you have pages for both that go quite in depth into the difference). I earnestly believe that the only study to ever examine the damage to white matter, the massive part of the brain underlying the thin coating of grey matter, deserves it's own sentence. Even if the study does not deserve a mention, I think the damage to the white matter is relevant to readers and at least the simple fact that damage to white matter occurred must be mentioned in the article even if you choose not to point out that this damage was far more widespread than the grey matter damage that you mention in dozens of citations. If you can explain to me why this small, one-sentence fact does not belong on the page, I will happily stop re-editing the article. Additionally, after viewing the talk page for the Phineas Gage page, I noticed that I am not the first user to have asked for the inclusion of this finding.

UCLA Lab of NeuroImaging ^(chat) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, welcome -- sincerely -- to Wikipedia. The project can really use someone with your interests and expertise. I'm pinging another editor who is more broadly involved with medical topics (as far as medicine goes, my exclusive interest is Gage) to let him know you're here.

Some miscellaneous points:

• I'm not any kind of moderator or administrator. I'm just an editor like you.
• Wikipedia doesn't allow shared, institutional, or "role" accounts -- each account is to be used by exactly one person, so you'll need to stop signing as "UCLA Lab of Neuroimaging". See WP:ROLE, WP:NOSHARE.
• Please remember to sign your discussion posts with ~~~~.

Here's my response to your concerns. I hope it won't come across as a sledgehammer applied to a walnut, but I want you to understand that everything I did was for careful reasons:

• Our editing interactions:

• On March 6 you added this to the article:

Van Horn et al. (2012) created a 3D digital mask based on CT images of Gage's skull, and calculated 1.303×10³ viable rod trajectories. Their calculations uniquely take into account the reports that Mr. Gage was speaking at the time, and therefore would have had his jaw open. After morphing the T1 anatomical and diffusion images of 110 right-handed males, aged 25–36 into the digital mask, the researchers were able to calculate the likely cortical damage, as well as the white matter fiber networks likely to have been damaged or removed by the tamping iron. While the average percentage of total cortical grey matter volume affected was 3.97±0.29%, the amount of total white matter volume lost [etc etc]

Apart from being at far too technical, most of this text was taken word for word from the van Horn article, and that's a no-no. I therefore removed it [1].

• On March 7 you added to the lead a cite to van Horn for the statement that the accident had destroyed Gage's left frontal lobe. In general, statements in the lead aren't cited if they recapitulate material cited elsewhere in the article and (if truth be told) inserting this cite in the very first sentence gave me the impression of wanting to give special prominence to this particular source. This edit also inserted

Van Horn et al. (2012) demonstrated that the damage extended beyond the left frontal lobe into the left insular cortex and left temporal lobe, as well as into the underlying white matter

I believe this is mistaken, because what van Horn says is (underline added) "Regions whose connectvity [was] affected included: left frontal lobe ... left insular cortex and the left temporal lobe." That the connectivity of certain regions was affected does not mean that those regions were themselves damaged, and in fact van Horn specifically states that the "injury is specific to left frontal lobe." (This is certainly outside my expertise so please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I removed [2] that statement, but modified other text to reflect that van Horn confirms Ratiu and Harlow in believing that the right F.L. was undamaged.

• On March 8 you introduced a narrative of the accident offering certain details (sand omitted, speaking at moment of ignition) as if they are flat fact, when in fact they are merely the balance of probability. I realize that in doing so you were following van Horn, but where sources conflict we must make intelligent choices about what to say -- and here, without doubt, Macmillan 2000 is authoritative (as he is on just about everything). You also added that van Horn "discovered that these effects paled in comparison to the damage to the white matter fiber networks beneath the cortical areas" -- in a context in which it's impossible to tell what "these effects" refers to.

I removed these statements [3].

• On March 12 you added

Van Horn "et al." (2012) showed that the damage to white matter was far more extensive than the damage to the cerebral cortex, and probably had a greater influence on the reported behavioral changes.

which (partly because "showed" is way too strong given science's still-primitive knowledge of how damage X translates into behavior Y) I modified [4] to

Van Horn et al. makes detailed estimates of damage to Gage's white matter, concluding that its role in Gage's mental changes may have been more significant than that of cerebral cortex damage.

(The main-text statement, that van Horn confirms left-only damage, remains as well.)

In summary, I did not "reverse" your edits, but in three cases made straightforward removal of copied, inaccurate, or unintelligible material, and in the fourth case rephrased.

• I disagree with your contention that van Horn is "the only significant research of the Gage case in nearly ten years". (I'm assuming you consider Ratiu outside this 10-yr range.) Almost everything published on Gage is derivative bullshit and it's good to see thoughtful work like van Horn once in a while. However, IMHO the most significant research on Gage of the last ten years (Ratiu included) is Bev and Jack Wilgus' "Face to Face with Phineas Gage" which, combined with the evaluation (related in Macmillan and Lena 2010) of Gage by a physician who knew him a few years befoe his death, puts the final nail in the coffin of the idea that Gage was anything like a drunken, brawling vagrant. All the scanning and computing in the world, attempting to relate damage to behavioral changes, is in vain if the behavioral changes aren't grounded in reality.

• You asked me to explain why "this small, one-sentence fact" (re white vs grey matter) doesn't belong in the article -- but it is in the article. (Search horn in [5].) The question is the level of detail and prominence it should be given.
  • The publicity doesn't matter. Every development on Gage gets the full-court press.
  • Historically, the debate over the extent of damage has been at the grosser level of left-only vs. bilateral. The Damasio study (with its unpardonable slanders against Gage) being now thoroughly defunct, that question is provisionally settled, and this is something the typical reader can understand. Thus I've left it in the main text.
  • But I've put the white-grey point in a footnote, and here's why. To a reader with some notion of what WM is, and where it is, it is obvious given even the crudest idea of the iron's path that a great deal of WM must have been destroyed -- much more, it is further obvious to such a reader, than the amount of GM destroyed. Thus the significance of van Horn is not that lots of WM was destroyed, but the list of specific WM circuitry likely zapped. On the other hand, to a reader who has no real understanding of what white matter is anyway, the information comparing WM vs GM damage isn't going to mean anything anyway.

• You misunderstand about "Further reading", which acts as the article's bibliography (I've changed it now to "Sources and further reading" to make this clearer). So to add full bibliographic information to the "Citations" section, as you kept doing, was redundant.

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we just fundamentally disagree on the level of intelligence that wikipedia readers have. I find other parts of the article to be far more technical than the distinction between white and grey matter, which, again, is a distinction commonly referenced in other wikipedia articles and easy to link to for readers who have any questions. I tried to make the statement - that the white matter damage was more extensive - less "obvious," but you said that reporting any of the tracts affected were too technical. I guess my overall problem is that I don't see a lot of room in the middle of what you call too technical, and what is old news, and it seems as though the case is closed in your opinion (which is not the view of the case in the neuroscience research community). I also disagree that finding a picture of the man is more important research than the last group of researchers to ever have first-hand access to the skull and rod (as I pointed out, the museum no longer allows such access to the materials). That is the reason that I pointed you to the sources that have covered the article, not just to name-drop; the news sources point out that the damage to white matter has far more to do with the behavioral changes that your article cites than any of the cortical damage, and points out that Van Horn goes on to point out what modern day diseases and disorders are associated with deterioration of cells in the same areas (i.e. hypothesizes that because people with Alzheimer's have low function in the same areas of connection, Gage's memory-storing capabilities were likely affected). While you point out that this is speculative, it is no more speculative than any of the other studies you cite and far less speculative than the articles which are examine non-scientific observations from over 100 years ago. I disagree with your assertion that first-hand comments about his behavior are superior to scientific examination, as the page itself points out how ridiculously false some of the observations are (like the idea he beat his non-existent wife). I will cease to pointlessly edit the page and respect your authority to decide its content, but I will continue to look for avenues to get this information the more prominent place in the literature that other users have called for in the past. I am confident that, due to the large impact of the article at present, history will see it included in your page with or without my actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loniucla (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC) ~~~~

[Later-added comment] Everyone wants you to continue to participate. I, at least, know very little about brain anatomy and could use your help in, for example, understanding the Van Horn results. Having said that... The kind of strident advocacy above is highly inappropriate in light of [6]. While there's nothing wrong with an author citing his/her own publications in a Wikipedia article (I am myself cited here) our goal is to develop the article so as to best serve the reader's understanding of the subject, not to give your publication the "prominent place" it "deserves".

I had thought that "Loni" was your real-life name, but I see now that Loni = Laboratory Of Neuroimaging. As already explained, "institutional" names are not allowed. The best thing might be for you to start afresh under a new username (see WP:UNC). EEng (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've taken pains to point out, this isn't "my" page, I don't have any special "authority to decide its content", and I hope we can work together to make the article as fine as possible. Some points:

• First: My ideas about how the WM-GM material should be treated have nothing to do with any preconception of the reader's intelligence (high or low -- and by the way, I believe the article overall manifests a very high level of respect for the reader). Rather, I was said that, depending on the reader's level of knowledge, the gross result re WM-GM damage (i.e. that more WM than GM was affected) will be either not news, or news whose implication will be unclear to the reader; and the conclusion of that reasoning is not that WM-GM shouldn't be in the article at all, but rather that it is more appropriately treated in a note, where for the moment it is, rather than the main text.
• Second: I can't understand what you mean about van Horn being "no more speculative that any of the other studies [cited], and far less speculative than the articles which examine non-scientific observations from over 100 years ago". What are these speculative articles you're talking about? Your comments imply you've misunderstood something very fundamental, and that implies that the article has somehow misled you, so I'd like to understand that and improve the article's presentation of whatever it is.
• Third: The ridiculous things said about Gage (e.g. mistreating his non-existent family) do not, as you say, come from first-hand observations, but from distortions originating with people who never actually met Gage. And I didn't say that first-hand reports of Gage are "superior to scientific examination" (of his skull, I guess you mean), but rather that a clear understanding of his behavior is more fundamental that examination of his skull: if we had an accurate picture of his behavior but not his skull, Gage would still teach us a lot; on the other hand, if we knew nothing of his behavioral changes, then his scanning the skull and modeling the damage would be pointless, since there would be no behavior changes to explain.

Look, can you do two things for me? First, can you search the article for the string horn, to be sure you're seeing all the text related to van Horn currently in the article? (I made an adjustment just now, BTW.) And second, can you propose, here, for discussion, what you'd like to see added or changed? Then let's talk about it.

EEng (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment with specific proposal to move forward

I do not intend to engage in a disscussion, but I do think I can give some second-opinion.

First of all I would want to ask both of you to 1-Try to be a bit more concise... It is quite painful to try to read all the paragraphs above; and 2-Try to instead of disccussing why the other is incorrect work towards a consensus.

In this sense, while I greatly admire EEng for his work in this article, which I believe it is a really good description of a lot of what is out there on Gage, it is true that when anybody works almost alone in an article for years (as is the case) develops some feeling of ownership. EEng, try to step back a bit to evaluate yourself and see if you are really trying to integrate a newcomer views with a reasonable understanding of Gage's cage, or simply defending your case.

LoniUcla; similarly, EEng has done an impressive work in this article, and you should really try to listen when he says that a proposal is probably too technichal for a lay reader. It is common in those who work in research or university teaching (as is my, and probably your case) to forget what truly a lay reader is.

Regarding specific proposals: (bolded specific proposal)

(Previous note: I have to say that I have not read the specific article)

I fully agree with EEng that initial proposals were faaaaaar too technical. I find that his refractoring of your initial posting into: Van Horn et al. makes detailed estimates of the locus and extent of damage to Gage's white matter, concluding that the role of white-matter damage in Gage's mental changes may have been more significant than that of cerebral cortex damage. is very appropiate. It is a good, understandable summary.

However, I also feel this comment is far more interesting and understandable for a lay-reader than to leave it in a footnote. I would move it to the main article. In this sense I disagree with EEng in his following comment:

But I've put the white-grey point in a footnote, and here's why. To a reader with some notion of what WM is, and where it is, it is obvious given even the crudest idea of the iron's path that a great deal of WM must have been destroyed -- much more, it is further obvious to such a reader, than the amount of GM destroyed. Thus the significance of van Horn is not that lots of WM was destroyed, but the list of specific WM circuitry likely zapped. On the other hand, to a reader who has no real understanding of what white matter is anyway, the information comparing WM vs GM damage isn't going to mean anything anyway..

I specifically think that you (EEng) are committing a fallacy by dividing knowledge of WM into a dichotomy of "a lot" vs "no knowledge". For example a pre-university student may know more or less why WM is important and what is it, and may find useful the info (and it will be easier to find in the main article).

From your comments above van Horn also talks a lot regarding connectivity damage (which is probably more technical than the direct white matter damage, but probably even more important).. I would include in the footnote some info on connectivity damage as an explanation of why van Horn feels that WM damage may account better for neuropsychological problems.

--Garrondo (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Garrondo! Overnight I was thinking I would ask you and Looie to join the discussion, and here you are -- maybe you read my mind. I've made a start on implementing your ideas (though definitely needs more work). More to say later, must run now. Loni, I hope Garrondo's contribution helps you feel more comfortable about staying involved. Please do! EEng (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all sorry for spelling mistakes. As you know I am Spanish, and in talk pages I tend to writte a bit carelessly as a trade-off for speed; so EEng thanks for the corrections. Regarding the article I feel it has improved a lot. Lets see what LONIUCLA says. Nevertheless now I feel that the footnote on van Horn has gone from one side to the other and is filled with redundant details. It specifically says:

Um... what corrections are you talking about? EEng (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, Van Horn et al. estimated that "the cortical regions most affected by the rod included: the left orbital sulcus, the left middle frontal sulcus, the horizontal ramus of the anterior segment of the lateral sulcus, the anterior segment of the circular sulcus of the insula, the orbital gyrus, the lateral orbital sulcus, the superior frontal sulcus, and the orbital part of the inferior frontal gyrus. While extensive damage occurred to left frontal, left temporal polar, and insular cortex, 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). "Fiber pathway damage extended beyond the left frontal cortex to regions of the left temporal, partialparietal[see below], and occipital cortices as well as to basal ganglia, brain stem, and cerebellum. Inter-hemispheric connections of the frontal and limbic lobes as well as basal ganglia were also affected." (Quotations abridged to remove quantitative estimates of extent of damage to individual loci.)

I would change it to:

Specifically, Van Horn et al. estimated that although extensive damage occurred to left frontal, left temporal polar, and insular cortex, 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). "Fiber pathway damage extended beyond the left frontal cortex to regions of the left temporal, partialparietal[see below], and occipital cortices as well as to basal ganglia, brain stem, and cerebellum. Inter-hemispheric connections of the frontal and limbic lobes as well as basal ganglia were also affected." (Quotations abridged to remove quantitative estimates of extent of damage to individual loci.)

Reason is that left frontal, left temporal polar, and insular cortex is more or less a summary of the first sentence with the detailed locations.

--Garrondo (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll notice my edit summary [7] was a start on van Horn specifics, but not perhaps a very good one -- I just copied in the whole pile, figuring one of you guys would come along and adjust it. I made the change you suggest, Garrondo, but Loni, please go ahead and adjust as you see fit. I don't know what all that hypochondriacal hippocampus spiro-gyro stuff means, anyway. EEng (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean with hypochondriacal hippocampus spiro-gyro stuff.

On the other hand, after re-reading the paragraph it is not very clear if the sentence

"Fiber pathway damage extended beyond the left frontal cortex to regions of the left temporal, partialparietal[see below], and occipital cortices as well as to basal ganglia, brain stem, and cerebellum. Inter-hemispheric connections of the frontal and limbic lobes as well as basal ganglia were also affected." is from van horn or from Damasio, or from van Horn citing Damasio. Do you know which one is the correct one?

Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hypochondriacal hippocampus spiro-gyro stuff is my way of making fun of the complicated terminology of brain anatomy, about which I know almost nothing. The quotes are all from Van Horn et al., and represent their conclusions, not H. Damasio's. (Damasio's 1992 analysis of the damage, while an interesting exercise, is now completely defunct, being fatally flawed by being based not on images of Gage's skull but a "Gage-like" skull.) EEng (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought so, but I was not sure. To say that frontal, temporal, occipital cortices were damaged is more or less to say that there was some widespread damage to the whole brain, even if the wound was much more localized. On the other hand: I am quite sure that it should say parietal and not partial (no brain location called partial but there is a parietal lobe).

--Garrondo (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Fiber pathway damage

You're wrong. There certainly is such a thing as a partial lobe. For example, after his accident Phineas Gage had a partial lobe.

I copy-pasted straight out of VH and now that I look at it, it really does read left temporal, partial, and occipital cortices, so it looks like some proofreader is going to be in trouble. I've fixed it in the article.

VH doesn't say literally that frontal, temporal, and occipital were damaged -- he says Fiber pathway damage extended beyond the left frontal cortex to regions of the ... [etc]. I won't pretend I understand more than 20% of VH but I believe what's being said is that there was damage to pathways serving (though not necessarily within or part of) these areas outside the frontal -- though if I'm right, this doesn't seem like a very clear way of saying it.

Elsewhere VH says, We observe that with the jaw opened, the best-fit rod trajectory satisfying all constraints does not intersect or cross the superior sagittal sulcus and the injury is specific to the left frontal lobe, and if specific to means something like limited to (again, I'm out of my depth here) then that supports my interpretation of the fiber pathway passage discussed in the previous paragraph. I hope Loni can help us with this.

EEng (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Gage vomittng its brain

Maybe there is a better way to say that. As I'm probably having some kind of brain issue, I was highly impacted by the sudden way that this horrible scene appeared and I almost fainted here. Now the phrase doesn't affects me and I can re-read it without problems, but it's possible that more people interested in the case, coming to this article by hyperlinks from articles about other kinds of brain damage, be impacted in the same bad way.--MisterSanderson (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about this passage, from the account of Dr. Williams:

I first noticed the wound upon the head before I alighted from my carriage, the pulsations of the brain being very distinct. Mr. Gage, during the time I was examining this wound, was relating the manner in which he was injured to the bystanders. I did not believe Mr. Gage's statement at that time, but thought he was deceived. Mr. Gage persisted in saying that the bar went through his head .... Mr. G. got up and vomited; the effort of vomit­ing pressed out about half a teacupful of the brain, which fell upon the floor.

Bigelow gathered these testimonials, including their gory details, because given that Gage survived, people couldn't believe how serious his injury had been. Today we're used to people surviving amazing injuries, so to emphasize how precarious Gage's situation really was given the modest tools available to his 19th-century doctors, I juxtapose the doctor "alighting" from his carriage with the brain matter falling out of the very open wound. Also, this is a popular topic for kids about 10-14 (see e.g. John Fleischman's Phineas Gage: A Gruesome but True Story About Brain Science) and kids that age love this kind of stuff.

We all know WP:NOTCENSORED etc., but that doesn't make you feel any better about the reaction you experienced. So I'm not sure what to say. Other editors, please jump in. EEng (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me very unlikely that this happened as described. There are no muscles that can compress the brain and make it squirt out, even after an injury such as Gage's. I also doubt that even a doctor could distinguish between brain tissue and other types of gore, such as semi-clotted blood, of which there would undoubtedly have been some. Still, there is no question that it would have been a grotesque wound, and that seems to be the main point to convey here. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr. John Martyn Harlow created a clime in the report, saying first that "the picture presented was, to one unaccustomed to military surgery, truly ter­rif­ic", so anyone who was reading would not be surprised when saw that "the bed on which he was laid, were literally one gore of blood." (what is not so surprising as vomiting the brain). The reticences in the Dr. Edward H. Williams report means that a section was cut, right? This section doesn't help to create this clime of "I will say something really horrific ahead, don't be surprised"?--MisterSanderson (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The omitted portions of W's statement detail the size and appearance of the exit wound, and his discovery of the cheek (entry) wound. We needn't imagine W is saying brain was "vomited" out by any kind of pressure or constriction; rather one imagines that shaking of the head and bodily spasms of retching knocked loose pulpified brain matter, clotted blood, or whatever. Bear in mind, however, that the injury opened a 1-inch hole connecting the mouth to the cranium, and from this hole to the exit was a path of destroyed tissue left by the iron's passage; Harlow was actually able to touch, or almost touch, the end of his finger inserted into the cheek wound to that of another finger inserted into the skull wound. So I suppose it's not impossible that the force of matter being ejected, from the stomach into the mouth, might be hydraulically or pneumatically (if you will) transmitted via this path through the brain to the wound at the top of the skull, and something thereby expelled. Think of a whale, I guess, but without the harpoon tamping iron.

Anyway, are we questioning the reliability of the text, or the way it's presented, or what? EEng (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I questioned the way it was presented; Looie496 questioned the veracity of the information.--MisterSanderson (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

and I'm questioning what if anything is being proposed be done to improve the article. EEng (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you said that there is no way to improve the citation of the vomit episode by unfolding part of the omitted piece of the citation... So I can't figure another manner to do that.--MisterSanderson (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

While I am sorry for the discomfort caused you, I'm at a loss to know what might be done about it. The article begins by explaining that a large iron bar destroyed a substantial part of Mr. Gage's brain as it was driven through his head (the bar was driven through his head, that is -- his brain wasn't driven through his head), mentions that the iron returned to earth "smeared with blood and brain", has two graphic images of the iron passing through his head (prior to Williams' statement), plus Williams' statement begins by mentioning that he could distinctly see the pulsations of the brain within the head wound before he even got out of his carriage. If this hasn't prepared the reader for some further gory details, I don't what can. EEng (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking how to point what caused the discomfort to me, when I realized that it's too personal/unconscious/irrational to be described. But it's basicaly because the accident didn't left time to Phineas feel pain or to be scared (the impact made him immediately uncounscious), while the vomit episode suscits that he was suffering, feeling really bad. Pictures of crushed corpses are irrelevant or even comical, but suffering (even minor sufferings) can be very scaring. Related info: recent movies that use slow-motion to show people shouting when falling make them comical and unrealistic, because they doesn't pass suffering to the viewers; <spoiler>Vertigo (film), in contrast, makes the viewer thinks not about the falling person (that didn't suffered, because the impact killed immediatly), but about what the hanging person (that was to be pulled by who fallen) is thinking, how scared it may be about falling too.</spoiler> But, as I said, I see now that this is very personal, so I really think now that there's no reason to change anything in the text, because there's no evidence that someone besides me will be affected too. So, forget about it, it's unecessary to change something.--MisterSanderson (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Recategorization

I have recategorized the article from the "Category:People with severe brain damage" to "Category:People with brain injury". While the injury experienced by Gage was horrible, the former category seems populated with unfortunates who were in something like a vegetative state. Gage miraculously recovered consciousness, and was able to function (although badly). Reify-tech (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I always admire the editors who do that grunt work on categories -- it would drive me crazy. Just for the record though, it turns out Gage did not function "badly", but actually quite well. See Phineas Gage#Social recovery. EEng (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2013 (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)

Comments

I see this excellent article has been the subject of numerous comments already so I'll try and keep this relatively brief. I should also say at the start that I haven't consulted any of the secondary sources cited in the article so my comments should be read under the presumption of my own ignorance (I could probably get most of the articles cited but I'm less certain I could locate Macmillan's book-length treatment).

Coverage: As a reader, the one item I'm left dissatisfied about is the coverage of the manner in which the Gage case was used to advance or support theories relating to cerebral localisation or other aspects of psychology, behaviour and brain function. As it stands this is limited to a brief mention of a 19th century dispute in regard to localisation theories and Antonio Damasio's hypothesis linking the frontal lobes to emotions and decision making. Note D indicates that Harlow's (1868) account was, at least until 1974, the second most cited source in 20th century psychological texts. I would like a better sense of what theories or hypotheses Gage's case was used to illustrate or support, however erroneously.

Style: In regard to the writing style, I should preface my remarks by stating that it is excellent overall and I wouldn't favour changes that are likely to render it less engaging. However, I feel there is at times an overuse of both parentheses and dashes. I think, personally, these should be used somewhat more judiciously. Dashes are useful in lending a particularly emphasis to a section of text but retain that effect only when used sparingly. Parentheses, used to clarify a point or term, I'd really only include when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, if overused, both dashes and parentheses can lend something of juddering effect to the reading experience. In regard to the use of dashes, I think that this is most evident in the lead where in many instances I would advocate the use of commas instead. If say, you removed about half of the dashes, the text they are removed from may flow better whereas their effect where they are retained would be greatly enhanced. Similarly with the use of parentheses, some should probably be retained but many, I think, should not and the information would be more easily digested if commas were substituted for brackets or if new sentences were introduced. In fact, in some instances notes could be used.

Footnote 38 should follow the bracket, no?

Note C: I'd actually like to see some of this note integrated into the main text (esp. "The leading feature of this case is its improbability ... This is the sort of accident that happens in the pantomime at the theater, not elsewhere").

Note K: "Contrary to common reports" - assuming this observation is derived from Macmillan, why would it need a separate citation?

An excellent article overall. Will it be nominated for Good or Featured article status? FiachraByrne (talk)