Talk:Lobotomy

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeemont (talk • contribs) 18:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• 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 {{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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 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 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:

• 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.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Fake (made-up) rules for references.

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)

Please see WP:MEDRS. —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. 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. 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. 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. Looie496 (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Excessive hidden comments

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)

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. EEng 04:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Will request further opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

very inappropriate[2]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Great reasoning, except that WP:HIDDEN#Appropriate uses for hidden text (note the word appropriate) lists 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. EEng 09:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Once sure 9 times? Excessive. Doc James (talk · contribs · 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you. EEng 17:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• @EEng: If you're open to using an edit notice instead of those notes, we could probably use one of these 3 gifs. @WhatamIdoing: I'm assuming you weren't joking about using one of these in an edit notice as an alternative to the censored notes. Seppi333 (Insert 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? EEng 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. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the 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. Seppi333 (Insert 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 [3][4] I finally, in desperation, added a hidden note between every letter of the quotation [5]. And it worked! Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. EEng 06:50, 6 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)

I don't care for it either, but it works. EEng 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, 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. Seppi333 (Insert 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.[6]

Interestingly the hidden comments do not really show much in VE. Doc James (talk · contribs · 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. EEng 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[7]

After which you added the Video Game stipulation.[8]

Semi protection would have been less work. But I guess if you feel this replaces that. Meh. Doc James (talk · contribs · 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. EEng 08:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay if you are convinced it works... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Example edit notice

Here's one example of what this might look like:

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Do these show in VE? Not a big fan of blinking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: I'm only leaving this example in for at most 10 minutes; see https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Amphetamine?veaction=edit. Seppi333 (Insert 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. Seppi333 (Insert 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · 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. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

In VE it shows the the notice once and than it becomes hidden. Doc James (talk · contribs · 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 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:

• 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 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:

• Icepicks1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —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. ThatGuyWelbert (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@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 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. 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. EEng 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C4A:57F:FF6A:B856:106B:A0D:E4E7 (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

See the criterion proposed and discussed at Talk:Lobotomy/Archive_2#In-pop-cult/literary_portrayals/etc._material. EEng 07:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Not an improvement?

@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)

I wasn't referring to the word "improvement" in the article. I meant that your rewording was not an improvement from the previous version. Sundayclose (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps your edit summary could stand some improvement. EEng 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. Sundayclose (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You might want to take your "I'm kidding" detector in for recalibration. EEng 04:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: I was kidding about your kidding, of course. That's kidding squared to mathematicians. Sundayclose (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm kidding! (That's kidding factorial.) EEng 04:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Sundayclose: Is not a more concise wording an improvement? 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. Sundayclose (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but is my version less clear? Could you, please, be more specific? 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. 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? 85.193.228.103 (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

No, consensus is required if your edit is challenged. The current version has been in the article more than six years, making it the 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. Sundayclose (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I cut the baby in two. EEng 04:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: I accept that. Far be it from me to disagree with the judgement of Solomon. 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. 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). EEng 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 :-) 85.193.228.103 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@85.193.228.103: You seem to have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. If there is a 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 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. Sundayclose (talk) 18:23, 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)

Splitting the introductory paragraph

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?

-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Changed my mind -- your version's better. EEng 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. Shoesoft93 (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. EEng 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. Apologies if I used the wrong format for citations. 50.234.207.26 (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Good find! I've added it to the article. EEng 06:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

References

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? 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. 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. 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 original research into Wikipedia. _signed, 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. EEng 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. Desktopview (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)