View source for Talk:Lobotomy

{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|
{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low|neurology=yes|neurology-imp=Low|psychiatry=yes|psychiatry-imp=mid}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
{{findsources|Lobotomy|OR leucotomy}}

==Wording of lead section==
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.  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Treeemont|Treeemont]] ([[User talk:Treeemont|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Treeemont|contribs]]) 18:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Lobotomy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=713222314 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/documents/19770523.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 18:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Lobotomy]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=782121169 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323015412/http://facstaff.unca.edu/ddiefenb/lobotomy.html to http://facstaff.unca.edu/ddiefenb/lobotomy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 01:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

== Fake (made-up) rules for references. ==

The following are ''not'' rules for acceptability of a reference:<br>

1) A source must be "scholarly".<br>
2) No undergrad textbooks.<br>
3) No tertiary sources.<br>

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-thinking|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:<br><small><nowiki><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></nowiki></small><br>

I removed a tag maligning that source as not being good enough because is was not "scholarly".<br>

I also removed some associated hidden text which incorrectly declared a preference for "scholarly sources".<br>

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.

[[Special:Contributions/73.119.161.105|73.119.161.105]] ([[User talk:73.119.161.105|talk]]) 19:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
:Please see [[WP:MEDRS]]. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:46, 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.  [[Special:Contributions/73.119.161.105|73.119.161.105]] ([[User talk:73.119.161.105|talk]]) 20:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
:You need to do more than take a glance at [[WP:MEDRS]] and pick the statement out of context that you think supports your point of view. No, it's not true that WP:MEDRS is "no different than the requirements for ''any'' statement in WP". There is an emphasis on "literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations". The template that you have edit warred to take out does not ''remove'' the existing source; it simply asks for a better source that conforms better to WP:MEDRS. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 20:26, 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.  [[Special:Contributions/73.119.161.105|73.119.161.105]] ([[User talk:73.119.161.105|talk]]) 02:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

:Secondary sources are always preferred over tertiary, but for information that has been in textbooks for decades, locating good secondary sources can be more trouble than it is worth.  I don't agree with tagging sentences merely because the source is tertiary.  However an editor who wants to go to the trouble of locating secondary sources for this sort of information is certainly welcome to do so. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 14:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

==Excessive hidden comments==
Repeating the same comment 8 times is excessive / not approporiate.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lobotomy&type=revision&diff=818290676&oldid=818239604]

Just request page protection if there are ongoing issue. Writing in all bold repeatedly is simple not appropriate. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 04:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
:The repeated reinsertion of inappropriate popcult references was a real problem until hidden comments were added warning against them. What would be inappropriate would be protecting the entire article when this simple tactic neatly fixes this narrow problem. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
::Will request further opinions. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 05:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
:::very inappropriate[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lobotomy&type=revision&diff=818373652&oldid=818371731]...IMO--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 08:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
::::Great reasoning, except that [[WP:HIDDEN#Appropriate uses for hidden text]] (note the word ''appropriate'') lists {{tq|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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 09:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::Once sure 9 times? Excessive. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 11:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:Nobody reads the directions]], which is why we sometimes need to make it very, very difficult to avoid seeing them.
::::::I don't like this approach.  However, this kind of thing is a reliable sign of long-term editor frustration, which means that there's a real problem here.  If you can actually solve the problem in a different way, then please feel free to propose a solution.  Perhaps a big, red, blinking edit notice for the page would be equally effective.  Perhaps that content could be stuffed in a separate subpage, protected, and then the protected content could be transcluded.  Perhaps, even, there's something we could do to change the text of the article to acknowledge that there are thousands of passing mentions of lobotomies, or to acknowledge specific problematic works.  But I think we should accept the fact that the problem exists, and find ways to make this approach "unnecessary" rather than "disliked", before removing these hidden comments.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Exactly, thank you. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|Perhaps a big, red, blinking edit notice for the page would be equally effective.}} - LOL.  Anyway, doing this seems fine to me if it's done to resolve an issue that couldn't be resolved using less excessive measures. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 23:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
*{{Ping|EEng}} If you're open to using an edit notice instead of those notes, we could probably use one of these 3 gifs. {{Ping|WhatamIdoing}} I'm assuming you weren't joking about using one of these in an edit notice as an alternative to the censored notes. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 06:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
::Experience shows edit notices don't work -- witness the continual revdel requests at ANI despite the giant pink notice warning against them. If you want to try it, fine, but the second someone adds one of these films we should go back to the hidden comments. Why is all this effort being expended on fixing something that isn't broken? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 06:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
:::I don't particularly care which approach is used TBH.  The current notes are clearly necessary, so I'm not opposed to keeping those in the article. I'm just trying to gauge what others think about an edit notice as an alternative since WAID suggested it.  If you think the censored notes would work better, I'm fine with using those instead. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 06:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
:::FWIW, the [[Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|WP:ANI edit notice]] contains 3 notice boxes, 1 of which is fairly lengthy; so, the excessive amount of information included in the edit notice might be why editors don't read it all. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 06:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
::::I can't disagree with that, but I've had the same experience with edit notices elsewhere, including on my talk page -- people don't read them. And that includes me: I click ''edit'' and scroll down to the edit box without noticing. Look, I went through the same thing on [[John Harvard (statue)]]. After over and over undoing "fixes" to archaic direct quotes that continued even in the presence of fairly strong hidden notes [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=536673534][https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=660340831] I finally, in desperation, added a hidden note ''between every letter of the quotation'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=661953034]. And it worked! Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 06:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
{{od|3}}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.[[User:MrBill3|MrBill3]] ([[User talk:MrBill3|talk]]) 06:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
:I don't care for it either, but it works. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 06:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
:The method used in the article to prevent other editors from adding bad content should depend most of all on what is actually effective in resolving the ongoing issue in this article. If the current censored notes effectively prevent editors from adding the problematic content and there's consensus for using those, great; I support keeping them. But, if there's a consensus that those are less desirable than a suitable and effective alternative (e.g., ''possibly'' an edit notice, although consensus about its relative desirability and its efficacy for resolving this problem remains to be established), that should probably used instead. If neither the censored notes nor a somewhat-effective alternative completely address the problem individually, then IMO '''both should be used together'''.  Since I know how annoying it is to deal with recurring issues like this, I'm strongly opposed to any solution that would create a larger workload for editors, such as cutting down the existing censored notes without implementing or testing an alternative measure.
:In any event, {{U|Doc James}}, how do you feel about an edit notice like the one below? There's probably no point in continuing a discussion about an edit notice if you don't approve of using that either. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 07:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
*One question I have is how well do all these notices work? Here is someone adding a 2010 movie regardless in 2015.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lobotomy&type=revision&diff=647463552&oldid=646609011]

:Interestingly the hidden comments do not really show much in VE. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
::The diff you give is what prompted insertion of the current hidden notes, specifically calling out the two films which had been inserted over and over; there have been no problems since, so bottom line is that they work. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
:::Ah yes I see "DO ''not'' ADD NON NOTABLE EXAMPLES -- see note at head of this section" has now become "D O  N O T  A D D  P A S S I N G  M E N T I O N S ,  V I D E O  G A M E S  A N D  H O R R O R  F I L M S -- see note at head of this section"
:::A space was added between each letter to make the text take up more room.
:::Even with that it was added here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lobotomy&type=revision&diff=802407930&oldid=802139491]
:::After which you added the Video Game stipulation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lobotomy&diff=next&oldid=802407930]
:::Semi protection would have been less work. But I guess if you feel this replaces that. Meh. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 08:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
::::The spaces were added to make the warning more eye-catching, and it's worked. A single treatment failure does not warrant abandoning an otherwise wholly efficaceous treatment, Doc. Semiprotection would lock out a whole class of editors to solve a problem already solved, and is unlikely to be left in place indefinitely, as well it shouldn't. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 08:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::Okay if you are convinced it works... [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 09:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

===Example edit notice===
Here's one example of what this might look like:
{{editnotice
| expiry = indefinite
| header = Attention editors:
| headerstyle = font-size: 150%;
| image = File:Blinking stop sign.gif
| imagesize = 125px
| text = The majority of edits to this article's "'''Significant literary and cinematic portrayals'''" section which add new content about [[MOS:POPCULT|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 [[WP:OWN#Ownership and stewardship|requested]] that you seek feedback about your proposed addition on [[Talk:Lobotomy|this article's talk page]] <u>before adding it to the article</u>.
| textstyle = font-size: 120%;
}}
[[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 06:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
::Do these show in VE? Not a big fan of blinking. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|Doc James}} I'm only leaving this example in for at most 10 minutes; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine?veaction=edit. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 07:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
:::That blinking image file doesn't appear if it's included in the image parameters.  It has to be included in the text field as a frameless or thumbnail image in order to be displayed in VE. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 07:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
::::Amazing. Did not realize that it appears like that. 
::::Only shows the first time and not subsequent times though. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 08:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::Hmm. Do you mean the edit notice or just the blinking image? I reverted the image about a minute before you posted your last comment. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 08:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
::::::In VE it shows the the notice once and than it becomes hidden. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 08:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on [[Lobotomy]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/818660194|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117044606/http://dura.stanford.edu/Articles/Psychosurgery.pdf to http://dura.stanford.edu/Articles/Psychosurgery.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526000558/http://www.umaine.edu/jmb/archives/volume17/17_1_1996winter.html to http://www.umaine.edu/jmb/archives/volume17/17_1_1996winter.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 21:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Icepicks1.jpg|Icepicks1.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-06-07T18:07:36.145216 | Icepicks1.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icepicks1.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 18:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

==Wording of lead section (2)==
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. [[User:ThatGuyWelbert|ThatGuyWelbert]] ([[User talk:ThatGuyWelbert|talk]]) 18:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|GuyWelbert}} Two comments: First, if you've ever been around several people who have been lobotomized you might not feel very strongly that it's an overstatement. And there are a number of high-profile disastrous examples of the effects of lobotomy; see [[Rosemary Kennedy]] for just one example. Secondly, there is some sourced information later in the article that provides some support for the statement, although the lead might need to be changed to conform more closely to it. Do you have suggested rewording? And remember, it needs to be [[WP:RS|reliably sourced]], either in the lead or later in the article. By the way, if it's OK with you I'd like to move your comment and my comment to a new section at the bottom of the page because the current section was created five years ago; new sections always go at the bottom. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 21:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
::There's no doubt that the wording is appropriate. Lobotomy was a uniquely grotesque chapter in medical history, a mass delusion which held much of the profession in thrall for almost two decades. Certainly not at the level of the Nazi medical experiments, but not more than a few notches down either. If the current sources don't fully support the wording then no doubt better sourcing can be found. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

== The Mountain ==

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.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C4A:57F:FF6A:B856:106B:A0D:E4E7|2600:6C4A:57F:FF6A:B856:106B:A0D:E4E7]] ([[User talk:2600:6C4A:57F:FF6A:B856:106B:A0D:E4E7#top|talk]]) 05:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:See the criterion proposed and discussed at [[Talk:Lobotomy/Archive_2#In-pop-cult/literary_portrayals/etc._material]]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

== Not an improvement? ==

@[[User:Sundayclose]]: You explained your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lobotomy&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=1004062015&oldid=1004060627 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? [[Special:Contributions/85.193.228.103|85.193.228.103]] ([[User talk:85.193.228.103|talk]]) 01:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:I wasn't referring to the word "improvement" in the article. I meant that your rewording was not an improvement from the previous version. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 01:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::Perhaps your edit summary could stand some improvement. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Perhaps, although I've used that edit summary at other times without any confusion. If the word "improvement" wasn't in the text being edited there wouldn't have been any confusion. Forgive me for not being meticulously attentive. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 02:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::You might want to take your "I'm kidding" detector in for recalibration. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|EEng}} I was kidding about your kidding, of course. That's kidding squared to mathematicians. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 04:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::I'm kidding! (That's kidding factorial.) [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::@[[User:Sundayclose]]: Is not a more concise wording an improvement? [[Special:Contributions/85.193.228.103|85.193.228.103]] ([[User talk:85.193.228.103|talk]]) 02:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Not if the wording is less clear. Concise sometimes is better, but not always. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 02:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::: I agree, but is my version less clear? Could you, please, be more specific? [[Special:Contributions/85.193.228.103|85.193.228.103]] ([[User talk:85.193.228.103|talk]]) 02:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::Could you be more specific about how your version is more clear, less awkardly worded. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 03:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::The burden of proof is on you. But notice that my version is just much shorter. My edit summary reads: "''redundancy deleted; more concise''", not "better clarity". So I do not have to prove that the clarity is better. Is not a shorter wording a good enough reason? [[Special:Contributions/85.193.228.103|85.193.228.103]] ([[User talk:85.193.228.103|talk]]) 03:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::No, [[WP:CON|consensus]] is required if your edit is challenged. The current version has been in the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lobotomy&diff=next&oldid=617183670 more than six years], making it the [[WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS|implicit consensus]]. A new consensus is needed if a new version is challenged. If enough editors support your edit, I'll accept it. Right now, it's just you and me. You think that the conciseness of your edit is sufficient. I disagree, and I think that your edit is more awkwardly worded. I assume you disagree. This is a disagreement about content. The next step is consensus. I'll be happy to consider (but not necessarily accept) your explanation about how your edit is more clear and less awkward if you want to present it. Otherwise we wait for more opinions. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 03:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::I cut the baby in two. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|EEng}} I accept that. Far be it from me to disagree with the [[judgement of Solomon]]. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 04:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Sundayclose]]: I wrote only that my version was shorter. Isn't it? '''Where''' did I write that my version was "''more clear and less awkward''"? Nowhere. So why should I prove it? The mere fact that my version is shorter should be enough to accept it, '''unless''' you prove that my version is '''less clear''' or '''more awkward'''. [[Special:Contributions/85.193.228.103|85.193.228.103]] ([[User talk:85.193.228.103|talk]]) 17:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::The criterion for accepting an edit isn't that the edit match your edit summary, but rather that it improve the article (or at least not make it worse). Any way, the question is moot given that ''my'' version's even better (that's IMHO of course). [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 19:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:EEng#s]]: As for the criterion, it is obvious, and you are absolutely right, but your added sentence, combined with the existing one, makes the text even more redundant. Anyway, thanks for the discussion :-) [[Special:Contributions/85.193.228.103|85.193.228.103]] ([[User talk:85.193.228.103|talk]]) 23:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|85.193.228.103}} You seem to have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. If there is a [[WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS|long-established consensus]] and an editor challenges that consensus (as you did), there has to be a new consensus established to make the change. That's true regardless of whether your edit is shorter, longer, clearer, less clear, more awkward or less awkward. So the bottom line: if you want to change the wording, there needs to be a new consensus, and right now that is not the case. Please take a few minutes to read [[WP:CON]]. I have accepted {{u|EEng}} rewording. If you disagree with that rewording, please express your opinion here and all of us can then discuss. But your preferred version has no support except your own. Thanks. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 18:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@[[User:Sundayclose]]: OMG... We ended up with an even more '''redundant''' text:

{{brown|"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 :-) [[Special:Contributions/85.193.228.103|85.193.228.103]] ([[User talk:85.193.228.103|talk]]) 23:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

== Splitting the introductory paragraph ==

[[User:EEng|EEng]] reverted my change splitting the introductory paragraph into two separate pieces. 

This is how it read before:

:A lobotomy, or leucotomy, is a form of psychosurgery, a neurosurgical treatment of a mental disorder that involves severing connections in the brain's prefrontal cortex.[2] The surgery results in most of the connections to and from the prefrontal cortex, the anterior part of the frontal lobes of the brain, being severed. It was used for treating mental disorders and occasionally other conditions as a mainstream procedure in some Western countries for more than two decades, despite general recognition of frequent and serious side effects. Some patients improved in some ways after the operation, but complications and impairments – sometimes severe – were frequent. The procedure was controversial from its initial use, in part due to the balance between benefits and risks. It is mostly rejected as an inhumane form of treatment now, to preserve patients' rights.[3] 

This is how it reads now:

:A lobotomy, or leucotomy, is a form of psychosurgery, a neurosurgical treatment of a mental disorder that involves severing connections in the brain's prefrontal cortex.[2] The surgery results in most of the connections to and from the prefrontal cortex, the anterior part of the frontal lobes of the brain, being severed.

:In the past, the surgery was used for treating mental disorders and occasionally other conditions as a mainstream procedure in some Western countries for more than two decades, despite general recognition of frequent and serious side effects. Some patients improved in some ways after the operation, but complications and impairments – sometimes severe – were frequent. The procedure was controversial from its initial use, in part due to the balance between benefits and risks. It is mostly rejected as an inhumane form of treatment now, to preserve patients' rights.[3]

The question is... which is better? 

-- [[User:Rockstone35|<span style="color:#DF0101"><b>Rockstone</b></span>]][[User talk:Rockstone35|<span style="color:0000ff;font-size:15px"><sup><small><b>Send me a message!</b></small></sup></span>]] 02:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
:Changed my mind -- your version's better. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

== That Moniz ==

Under Development -> Frontal Lobes, there is a sentence which starts with "That Moniz". I am not sure if this is intended. [[User:Shoesoft93|Shoesoft93]] ([[User talk:Shoesoft93|talk]]) 16:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
:Fixed, thanks. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 16:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

== "An astounding error of judgement" quote ==

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.
<ref>{{cite web |last1=Szasz |first1=Jason |title=Coercion as Cure |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hYdLS6qyTwUC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=an+astounding+error+of+judgment+lobotomy&source=bl&ots=r-Y7nO3s7A&sig=ACfU3U2pVBUqXQWPoUEwOklE92y90o6GAw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5ruuNiJn6AhXmmmoFHUiVDmoQ6AF6BAg1EAM#v=onepage&q=an%20astounding%20error%20of%20judgment%20lobotomy&f=false |website=Google Books |access-date=16 September 2022}}</ref> Apologies if I used the wrong format for citations. [[Special:Contributions/50.234.207.26|50.234.207.26]] ([[User talk:50.234.207.26|talk]]) 10:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
:Good find! I've added it to the article. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 06:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

== Second most common surgery? ==

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? [[User:Nordtman|Nordtman]] ([[User talk:Nordtman|talk]]) 18:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
:You're right. I removed that sentence. [[Lobectomy]] briefly mentions the brain and links to [[Anterior temporal lobectomy]], which discusses epilepsy. Thanks for pointing this out. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 19:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

== Gay men lobotomy numbers ==

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. [[User:Bstorage|Bstorage]] ([[User talk:Bstorage|talk]]) 18:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
*Reliability of the source aside, the article does not include the "60% women" statistic. The article says "up to 40% of Freeman’s patients were gay men". So "US lobotomy patients" and "Freeman's patients" are not using the same denominator. Behold the dangers of allowing [[WP:OR|original research]] into Wikipedia.   <small><sub>''signed'', </sub></small>[[User:Willondon|Willondon]] ([[User Talk:Willondon|talk]])  18:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
*Bringing reliability of the source back in, this Kaye article is worthless junk. We might as well be using Access Hollywood as a source. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

== Outline disorganization ==

At some point, the outline section was rearranged. This moved the introduction of Dr. Freeman as an actor after a few references to him that are written as though he's already been introduced, creating a style issue. [[User:Desktopview|Desktopview]] ([[User talk:Desktopview|talk]]) 08:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

== Discredited? Need sources ==

1st: leucotomies are not exclusive to prefrontal cortex ablation, they can be done on any lobe and fiber tract (provided surgery can be performed) 
2nd: they are still in use, even lobectomies, for treatment of refractory cases of epilepsy and some other instances.
They might not be done as of 2024 to treat psychosis (which they never should have been, to be clear) but they are still performed, and for good, to put it bluntly, Life or death reasons [[User:Ayylmao422|Ayylmao422]] ([[User talk:Ayylmao422|talk]]) 13:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:I agree, "discredited" is a strong term, especially as lobotomy can be seen as having evolved into present-day psychosurgery.--[[User:Eldomtom2|Eldomtom2]] ([[User talk:Eldomtom2|talk]]) 18:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

== Unfairly justifying lobotomy ==

The second sentence in the second paragraph "The procedure was controversial from its initial use, in part due to a lack of recognition of the severity and chronicity of severe and enduring psychiatric illnesses, so it was said to be an inappropriate treatment." Suggests that the reason lobotomy was controversial was due to people not understanding how debilitating psychiatric illnesses can be, which is an illegitimate, disproven, and outdated argument. This is also not supported by their source. Perhaps it was written this way by accident, either way it needs to be edited or removed. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1000:B147:9C6F:E96D:21A6:53C0:6FA|2600:1000:B147:9C6F:E96D:21A6:53C0:6FA]] ([[User talk:2600:1000:B147:9C6F:E96D:21A6:53C0:6FA|talk]]) 22:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)