This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lobotomy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Lobotomy.
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Changed wording to "mainstream procedure in some Western countries." Previously it had suggested that it was only so in the United States, even though the article mentions later that it was performed more often in the UK and Scandinavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeemont ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lobotomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lobotomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The following are not rules for acceptability of a reference:
1) A source must be "scholarly".
2) No undergrad textbooks.
3) No tertiary sources.
In fact, reliability is the only criterion (apart from applicability of course). Reliability is determined de facto by consensus of relatively knowledgeable editors, not by any of those non-existent black-and-white rules. Secondary sources are required for establishing notability. Both primary and secondary sources may be used for establishing factuality. "Tertiaryness" is moot because almost all well-accepted secondary sources are actually tertiary or more. There are no rules regarding "scholarly = good" or "undergrad text = bad".
The subject source is:
<ref name=biopsych07>{{cite book|last1=Kalat|first1=James W.|title=Biological psychology|date=2007|publisher=Wadsworth/Thomson Learning|location=Belmont, California|isbn=9780495090793|page=101|edition=9th |url=https://books.google.de/books?id=vM7zwhSwwPsC&pg=PT127|accessdate=21 December 2015}}</ref>
I removed a tag maligning that source as not being good enough because is was not "scholarly".
I also removed some associated hidden text which incorrectly declared a preference for "scholarly sources".
The original tag and hidden text had been placed by EEng. Confronted with removal of his tag and his hidden text, EEng has been replacing it by making up a new fake-rule each time. First it was "no undergrad text books", and when that didn't work, it was "no tertiary sources".
EEng, you've obviously decided the source is unreliable, but the reasons you've given are weak, nill, null, and faked. If the ref is crap, then give a good reason and I won't have a problem with killing it. But, you need give better reasons than you have so far.
73.119.161.105 ( talk) 19:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
In
WP:MEDRS, it says "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." That's no different than the requirements for any statement in WP except to suggest a need to be more careful about it. The issue here is not the reliability of the source, but rather the fake rules implied by the hidden text and the tag. Is the ref not good enough to support the statement in a medical article? Then fine, delete the ref and the statement.
73.119.161.105 (
talk) 20:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The statement is not medical in nature. It's just an ordinary piece of info about something that happened in history (rise and fall of the frequency of use). WP:MEDRS does not apply to it. Apart from that, the whole article really is also historical in nature. People these days just aren't weighing lobotomy as a choice for treatment of mental illness. Would an article about bloodletting as a treatment for "bad humors" require "scholarly" papers from the times? Of course not. Even if it did, a statement regarding rise and fall of the use of bloodletting is also historical and not medical in nature, and also wouldn't require such fancy-schmancy requirements for refs. 73.119.161.105 ( talk) 02:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Repeating the same comment 8 times is excessive / not approporiate. [1]
Just request page protection if there are ongoing issue. Writing in all bold repeatedly is simple not appropriate. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Reminding others of Wikipedia policies where they have been frequently broken. For example, in many articles, hidden text is necessary to remind editors not to add inappropriate links.I'm sure glad editor time is being spent litigating this critical issue. E Eng 09:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
As above this reflects editor frustration with ongoing problems. While I don't particularly care for the repeated hidden text clearly something effective is needed to address the issue. I'd like to see a broader discussion hopefully leading to something useful in a number of articles. MrBill3 ( talk) 06:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's one example of what this might look like:
Attention editors:
The majority of edits to this article's "Significant literary and cinematic portrayals" section which add new content about
the portrayal of lobotomy in popular culture are unencyclopedic and therefore promptly reverted. If you intend to add new content to this section, it is
requested that you seek feedback about your proposed addition on
this article's talk page before adding it to the article. |
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 06:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lobotomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The wording of this sentence at the end of the introduction sounds very opinionated: "Today, lobotomy has become a disparaged procedure, a byword for medical barbarism and an exemplary instance of the medical trampling of patients' rights." I recommend the wording be changed, but think others' opinions on the sentence need to be heard as well. ThatGuyWelbert ( talk) 18:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I know the editors of this article have a lot of issues with inappropriate additions to the literature and film section. I added the film The Mountain, but if you decide it doesn't meet your standards after reviewing my edit, you can remove, and I apologize for adding to your frustration. However, I do think the film is significant and belongs here because lobotomization is the focus of the entire movie, and the movie makes a thematic statement about the practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C4A:57F:FF6A:B856:106B:A0D:E4E7 ( talk) 05:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@ User:Sundayclose: You explained your revert as follows "Not an improvement". But there is the word "improvement" in both versions. Could you, please, be more specific? Do you mean the word "improvement" or that my edit did not improve the article? 85.193.228.103 ( talk) 01:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@ User:Sundayclose: OMG... We ended up with an even more redundant text:
"While some people experienced symptomatic improvement with the operation, the improvements were usually achieved at the cost of creating other complications and impairments. Some patients improved in some ways after the operation, but complications and impairments – sometimes severe – were frequent."
I do understand how Wikipedia works, though your explanations were helpful. I really appreciate your engagement, and my rejected edit is less important compared the time you sacrificed for me. Thanks :-) 85.193.228.103 ( talk) 23:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
EEng reverted my change splitting the introductory paragraph into two separate pieces.
This is how it read before:
This is how it reads now:
The question is... which is better?
-- Rockstone Send me a message! 02:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Under Development -> Frontal Lobes, there is a sentence which starts with "That Moniz". I am not sure if this is intended. Shoesoft93 ( talk) 16:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe I may have found a source for the challenged quote in the article that calls lobotomies "an astounding error of judgement". According to the book Coercion as Cure, the quote can be attributed to Swedish Neuroscientist and Nobel laureate Torsten Wiesel. [1] Apologies if I used the wrong format for citations. 50.234.207.26 ( talk) 10:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
References
The article says that: "Frontal lobe surgery, including lobotomy, is the second most common surgery for epilepsy to this day, and usually done on one side of the brain, unlike lobotomies for psychiatric disorder which were done on both sides of the brain," while the source given for the claim says that "Although extensive frontal lobectomy (eFL) is a common surgical procedure for intractable frontal lobe epilepsy (FLE),"
The top of the article says that a "Lobotomy" should not be confused with a "Lobectomy", and looking at the articles about epilepsy, I can find no mention of lobotomies being done today. So, did I get something wrong or was there a mix up between lobectomies and lobotomies? Nordtman ( talk) 18:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
That >60% of US lobotomy patients were women is well documented. Hugh Kaye's article ( https://www.attitude.co.uk/culture/sexuality/the-dark-gay-history-of-lobotomies-and-walter-jackson-freeman-ii-419069/) citing here claims 40% of US patients were gay men. This implies that 100% of US lobotomized men were gay. Roughly 18,000 US lobotomies were performed in the years 1949-1951, mostly in state mental hospitals. Men were not in those hospitals because they were gay. Kaye is a disreputable source. Bstorage ( talk) 18:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lobotomy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Lobotomy.
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Changed wording to "mainstream procedure in some Western countries." Previously it had suggested that it was only so in the United States, even though the article mentions later that it was performed more often in the UK and Scandinavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeemont ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lobotomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lobotomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The following are not rules for acceptability of a reference:
1) A source must be "scholarly".
2) No undergrad textbooks.
3) No tertiary sources.
In fact, reliability is the only criterion (apart from applicability of course). Reliability is determined de facto by consensus of relatively knowledgeable editors, not by any of those non-existent black-and-white rules. Secondary sources are required for establishing notability. Both primary and secondary sources may be used for establishing factuality. "Tertiaryness" is moot because almost all well-accepted secondary sources are actually tertiary or more. There are no rules regarding "scholarly = good" or "undergrad text = bad".
The subject source is:
<ref name=biopsych07>{{cite book|last1=Kalat|first1=James W.|title=Biological psychology|date=2007|publisher=Wadsworth/Thomson Learning|location=Belmont, California|isbn=9780495090793|page=101|edition=9th |url=https://books.google.de/books?id=vM7zwhSwwPsC&pg=PT127|accessdate=21 December 2015}}</ref>
I removed a tag maligning that source as not being good enough because is was not "scholarly".
I also removed some associated hidden text which incorrectly declared a preference for "scholarly sources".
The original tag and hidden text had been placed by EEng. Confronted with removal of his tag and his hidden text, EEng has been replacing it by making up a new fake-rule each time. First it was "no undergrad text books", and when that didn't work, it was "no tertiary sources".
EEng, you've obviously decided the source is unreliable, but the reasons you've given are weak, nill, null, and faked. If the ref is crap, then give a good reason and I won't have a problem with killing it. But, you need give better reasons than you have so far.
73.119.161.105 ( talk) 19:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
In
WP:MEDRS, it says "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." That's no different than the requirements for any statement in WP except to suggest a need to be more careful about it. The issue here is not the reliability of the source, but rather the fake rules implied by the hidden text and the tag. Is the ref not good enough to support the statement in a medical article? Then fine, delete the ref and the statement.
73.119.161.105 (
talk) 20:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The statement is not medical in nature. It's just an ordinary piece of info about something that happened in history (rise and fall of the frequency of use). WP:MEDRS does not apply to it. Apart from that, the whole article really is also historical in nature. People these days just aren't weighing lobotomy as a choice for treatment of mental illness. Would an article about bloodletting as a treatment for "bad humors" require "scholarly" papers from the times? Of course not. Even if it did, a statement regarding rise and fall of the use of bloodletting is also historical and not medical in nature, and also wouldn't require such fancy-schmancy requirements for refs. 73.119.161.105 ( talk) 02:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Repeating the same comment 8 times is excessive / not approporiate. [1]
Just request page protection if there are ongoing issue. Writing in all bold repeatedly is simple not appropriate. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Reminding others of Wikipedia policies where they have been frequently broken. For example, in many articles, hidden text is necessary to remind editors not to add inappropriate links.I'm sure glad editor time is being spent litigating this critical issue. E Eng 09:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
As above this reflects editor frustration with ongoing problems. While I don't particularly care for the repeated hidden text clearly something effective is needed to address the issue. I'd like to see a broader discussion hopefully leading to something useful in a number of articles. MrBill3 ( talk) 06:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's one example of what this might look like:
Attention editors:
The majority of edits to this article's "Significant literary and cinematic portrayals" section which add new content about
the portrayal of lobotomy in popular culture are unencyclopedic and therefore promptly reverted. If you intend to add new content to this section, it is
requested that you seek feedback about your proposed addition on
this article's talk page before adding it to the article. |
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 06:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lobotomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The wording of this sentence at the end of the introduction sounds very opinionated: "Today, lobotomy has become a disparaged procedure, a byword for medical barbarism and an exemplary instance of the medical trampling of patients' rights." I recommend the wording be changed, but think others' opinions on the sentence need to be heard as well. ThatGuyWelbert ( talk) 18:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I know the editors of this article have a lot of issues with inappropriate additions to the literature and film section. I added the film The Mountain, but if you decide it doesn't meet your standards after reviewing my edit, you can remove, and I apologize for adding to your frustration. However, I do think the film is significant and belongs here because lobotomization is the focus of the entire movie, and the movie makes a thematic statement about the practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C4A:57F:FF6A:B856:106B:A0D:E4E7 ( talk) 05:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@ User:Sundayclose: You explained your revert as follows "Not an improvement". But there is the word "improvement" in both versions. Could you, please, be more specific? Do you mean the word "improvement" or that my edit did not improve the article? 85.193.228.103 ( talk) 01:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@ User:Sundayclose: OMG... We ended up with an even more redundant text:
"While some people experienced symptomatic improvement with the operation, the improvements were usually achieved at the cost of creating other complications and impairments. Some patients improved in some ways after the operation, but complications and impairments – sometimes severe – were frequent."
I do understand how Wikipedia works, though your explanations were helpful. I really appreciate your engagement, and my rejected edit is less important compared the time you sacrificed for me. Thanks :-) 85.193.228.103 ( talk) 23:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
EEng reverted my change splitting the introductory paragraph into two separate pieces.
This is how it read before:
This is how it reads now:
The question is... which is better?
-- Rockstone Send me a message! 02:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Under Development -> Frontal Lobes, there is a sentence which starts with "That Moniz". I am not sure if this is intended. Shoesoft93 ( talk) 16:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe I may have found a source for the challenged quote in the article that calls lobotomies "an astounding error of judgement". According to the book Coercion as Cure, the quote can be attributed to Swedish Neuroscientist and Nobel laureate Torsten Wiesel. [1] Apologies if I used the wrong format for citations. 50.234.207.26 ( talk) 10:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
References
The article says that: "Frontal lobe surgery, including lobotomy, is the second most common surgery for epilepsy to this day, and usually done on one side of the brain, unlike lobotomies for psychiatric disorder which were done on both sides of the brain," while the source given for the claim says that "Although extensive frontal lobectomy (eFL) is a common surgical procedure for intractable frontal lobe epilepsy (FLE),"
The top of the article says that a "Lobotomy" should not be confused with a "Lobectomy", and looking at the articles about epilepsy, I can find no mention of lobotomies being done today. So, did I get something wrong or was there a mix up between lobectomies and lobotomies? Nordtman ( talk) 18:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
That >60% of US lobotomy patients were women is well documented. Hugh Kaye's article ( https://www.attitude.co.uk/culture/sexuality/the-dark-gay-history-of-lobotomies-and-walter-jackson-freeman-ii-419069/) citing here claims 40% of US patients were gay men. This implies that 100% of US lobotomized men were gay. Roughly 18,000 US lobotomies were performed in the years 1949-1951, mostly in state mental hospitals. Men were not in those hospitals because they were gay. Kaye is a disreputable source. Bstorage ( talk) 18:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)