Talk:António Egas Moniz

message: The article treats Moniz positively, even though his methods are still controversial.  The idea that the U.S. version of the procedure is somehow more crude than Moniz's is without citation and probably incorrect.  Whoever contributed this text likely thinks positively of Moniz--what we need is a NPOV discussion of the controversy of his procedures.  65.96.175.245 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The

message: he developed cerebral angiography, the technique of using x-rays to visualize arteries and veins that are transiently opacified with the injection of a high density agent. This procedure would allow physicians to map blood vessels in and around the brain, permitting the diagnosis of several kinds of neurological disorders, such as tumors and arteriovenous malformations. The method is widely used today for the diagnosis and treatment of vascular diseases in the brain. Egas-Moniz was awarded the Oslo Prize for this discovery.
This is false as can be verified from the [nobel foundation site]:
"for his discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses".
Therefore I removed the last false sentence.
He was twice nominated for the Nobel Prize for his work on cerebral angiography in 1927. But both times he failed to achieve the award. I haven't checked recently, but I believe the 1949 award, whilst primarily given for his development of the leucotomy procedure, does reference this earlier work? Freekra (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  False reason for Nobel Prize 

message: For the record Berrios provides the following information: "Antonio Caetano de Abreu Freire (the real name of Egas Moniz) ... It is unclear who gave him the name Egas Moniz, which belonged to an eleventh-century Portuguese hero of the resistance against the Moors. Some have claimed that it was his godfather at the christening, others that it was Moniz himself who adopted it as a pen name during his political struggle against the monarchy. ... was later to serve as Foreign Minister, Ambassador to Spain, and was the Portuguese signatory of the Treaty of Versailles. His political fortunes changed after 1920, and this led him back to his early interest in the neurosciences." Berrios, German E. (1997). The Origins of Psychosurgery: Shaw, Buckhardt and Moniz. 8 (1): p. 72, n. 17.
It's hardly definitive, but might be of some use if you wish to include it. Freekra (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moniz's Name 

message: Good work by MacDaid expanding the article, which has sorely needed it for a long time!  However, I'm concerned there's now too much detail about lobotomy itself, which should mostly be at Lobotomy, for many reasons such as (1) it's a complicated subject which should is hard to present in a patchwork fasion; (2) it's a controversial subject, and discussion of how to present it should be centralized to the extent possible (i.e. in Lobotomy).  I suggest that this article limit itself to a very brief description of lobotomy, referring the reader to Lobotomy for the full treatment (so to speak).  There need be no technical description of the procedure at all here, and very limited mention of previous attempts at psychosurgery etc -- again, complicated topics which cannot be adequately treated in an article which is not, after all, about lobotomy and certainly not about psychosurgery or the history of treatment of mental illness.  
The one area which, in my opinion, should be treated substantially here is Moniz ambition as a (possible) inspiration for his, um, daring innovation of lobotomy, his later thinking about what he had invented, perhaps late-life reminiscenses, and how he's been seen after his death, of course.  These are just my suggestions, of course, and roughly stated to be sure.
Beyond that, there are certain details the article has taken on which seem just plain mistaken.  Two examples: the elimination of mention of Moniz' writings outside of medicine (he wrote a book on card games, as I recall, and presumably about politics, for example); the substitution of Freeman for Moniz at the opening of the "Legacy" section; the elimination of mention of his name change. Since MacDaid is still actively working I'll sit back and wait.    Let's all have a fun discussion here, shall we?
A final warning: there has been a continuing problem over the years with Moniz' relatives trying to block certain material and force in certain material.  I suspect this recent activity will reawaken that, so be prepared.
EEng (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent article expansion 

message: I aknowledge all the scientific controversy regarding Egas Moniz Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine but we need strong RS, preferebly from scientists, about the question. The source provided was simply a news from an english newspaper with an unacceptable language, showing a total bias and unconvincing claims about Egas Moniz. First of all it would be impossible de-Nobelize Egas Moniz. Johannes Fibiger Nobel in 1926 was a clear mistake and it was never removed. Second, there are still those who claim that Egas Moniz Nobel was deserved. That source isn't reliable and it uses a language like this: "What happens when a Nobel prize winner is subsequently exposed as a fraud? Nothing, apparently" and "In one egregious case, the committee did err. And, if the campaign to de-Nobel Egas Moniz succeeds, Portugal - having a lousy year, what with Euro 2004 and its forest fires - will lose one of its two laureates (the other, novelist Jose Saramago, seems safe enough)." I don't think the journalist has the necessary scientific background to make such claims and the second quote totally eliminates his credibility as a acceptable source with his assumptions.Mistico (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Guardian piece's language is strident, but all that matters is that it's reliable for the facts cited (i.e. that there have been calls for removal, and that the Foundation has declined), and it is. However, as I look at this passage again I think it's not appropriate. If anything stuff like this belongs in the Lobotomy article, because unless it can say more about why Moniz didn't deserve the Prize (not just why lobotomy turned out to be a mistake). I've removed it. EEng (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the quote because I have found a source (Echoes of the Soul: A Rhetorical History of Lobotomy) that explains why they claim that Moniz didn't deserve the Prize. EternalFlare (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but it's an unpublished dissertation.  EEng (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Show Reliable Sources

message: Was he Jewish?  Does anybody know his religion?  Catholic?  Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.56.115 (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Catholic.FiachraByrne (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would you even give a fuck about his religion? --217.245.203.15 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Like nationality, education, and birth/death dates, it establishes useful context for any biography. EEng (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

text: You can be Jewish and Catholic... Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Was he Jewish?

message: The year 1949 must be wrong, 1)he died in 1955, aged 81; source says he was shot when he was 65 years old - i.e. in 1939
2) see German wikipedia (shot by a patient on March 14th, 1939)91.56.255.80 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Finger (apparently the source you're referring to) says "he stayed fairly active in the field until 1949 when a paranoid patient (who did not have a leucotomy) shot him four times."  EEng (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of injury 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on António Egas Moniz. 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/20080404032552/http://museuegasmoniz.cm-estarreja.pt:80/ to http://museuegasmoniz.cm-estarreja.pt/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on António Egas Moniz. 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
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://museuegasmoniz.cm-estarreja.pt/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified