Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jérôme Lejeune: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:07, 12 May 2014 editTutelary (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,196 edits →Controversy in the lead section: refractor and r← Previous edit Revision as of 19:08, 12 May 2014 edit undoTutelary (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,196 editsm →= Controversy sectionNext edit →
Line 200: Line 200:


:I've removed the 'controversy' sentence from the lead, because the lead does not mention the specific discovery it refers to, and so seems to me a bit overemphasised. I also think it is incorrect to call the claim 'controversial' in a wikipedia voice because the situation is unclear - we can report that the co-author has said that her contribution was overlooked and that she claimed that she should have been listed as first author which is different. I also think the 'controversy' section would be more appropriately merged into the section about the discovery. --] ] 00:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC) :I've removed the 'controversy' sentence from the lead, because the lead does not mention the specific discovery it refers to, and so seems to me a bit overemphasised. I also think it is incorrect to call the claim 'controversial' in a wikipedia voice because the situation is unclear - we can report that the co-author has said that her contribution was overlooked and that she claimed that she should have been listed as first author which is different. I also think the 'controversy' section would be more appropriately merged into the section about the discovery. --] ] 00:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
=== Controversy section == === Controversy section ===
:: I agree - there is no reason to have this in the lead section. I do believe the controversy section should remain intact because: :: I agree - there is no reason to have this in the lead section. I do believe the controversy section should remain intact because:


Revision as of 19:08, 12 May 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFrance Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCatholicism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconJérôme Lejeune is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Catholicism task list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHistory of Science
WikiProject iconThis article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Alleged Trisomy 21 Nondiscovery

Two interviews from Marthe do not constitute "Substantial and very credible evidence". The article will be reverted to the 18th of november (again) until credible evidence can be brought forward. The evidence for his discovery is his publication, that is not in dispute other than by members of this "edit-a-thon" that your group is running. (Which is probably against wikipedia rules)

Unless REAL evidence can be brought forward, please refrain from vandalism of this page for your political agenda.

L32007 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Note that Gautier is named as second author on Lejeune's paper, which gives her notability and credit for a substantial role.
  • Editathons are part of Misplaced Pages culture, though I am not aware of one here.
  • Those listed so far are not the only sources. One more here

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. I am slightly irritated as well by the fact that the majority of the sources are in French and are being used as sources in this. They need to be translated into English first and understood to be able to be used as sources, I'd wager. Ging287 (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Another possible English-language source to consider: https://www.msu.edu/~riverae/The%20History%20of%20Cytogenetics.pdf
Also, one of Gautier's articles has been translated into English, and has a good/fairly neutral commentary by the translator, Peter Harper:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0690-1
I also think the main article on Down syndrome handles the controversy pretty well, in the History section. Keeponthesunnyside (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, There is no "political agenda" in trying to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles properly reflect the reality of important discoveries. Secondly, I don't know why you're ignoring the primary literature source for the dispute - http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/education/women_science_medicine/_pdfs/Trisomy%2021%20article.pdf. The various other sources are either re-reports of this original dispute or reports that Marthe's version is being widely accepted as credible within the community since she is being given formal recognition by credible scientific organisations. It is unfortunate that sources are in French but being in French doesn't make them any less legitimate as sources, particularly given that the subject of this article is, in fact, a Frenchman. JackAidley (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed L32007's changes to the article and I consider that they form little more than an attempt to shift this article back to a more hagiographic slant with the key criticisms removed from the text. In particular I consider it unacceptable and unreasonable to remove the controversy from the introduction. JackAidley (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What's the status on the translation of the French Sources? Ging287 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
@Ging287 I think I can find English source for most of it - I will spend some time tomorrow adding sources.
@JackAidly : I am not really worried about User:L32007 ... probably a sock-puppet. I think the idea to keep the introduction general and adding controversy in separate section is not such a bad idea after all. Christophe (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the introduction should mention the controversy. Even a simple referral to the dispute section would probably suffice. After all Lejeune's principle claim to significance is the discovery of Trisomy 21 and so the fact that this is now considered to be a disputed claim is rather important to properly understanding his significance as a scientist. JackAidley (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Christophe, I am not saying that the sources are not enough. I am saying that they are the primary sources in the articles and are not able to be understood by the main audience of the English Misplaced Pages. Rather than finding more sources, could you start the process of having them translated? Thanks. Ging287 (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Ging287@ Sadly, for copyright reasons, we can't publish translations of the French newspapers. I am sure if you ask for help to translate a key sentence, that can be done as 'fair use'. One of the main sources for the controversy is the English translation of the 2009 50th anniversary article (made with permission) at www.hopkinsmedicine.org. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
@Ging287 "could you start the process of having them translated" - I don't understand the request - as I said there are many sources that report the same facts in English media. The reason I even mentioned the French newspaper was to show that all major French newspaper did run the story (for the purpose of cutting short the reputable source discussion). I did not intend to actually use them as references in the article in the final version. Christophe (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Ging287 : here a translation to English of the original article in "Medicines Scienes" in 2009 : http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0690-1?LI=true#page-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristophThomas (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
http://i.imgur.com/hxZAM45.png <- I find this mildly infuriating. Ging287 (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
true - but if you sign up you get a 5 min preview for free ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristophThomas (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Bibliographical details of Concentration Can expanded to include publisher and ISBN. Also incorporated Tiniest Humans (1977) into bibliography, and linked to an online edition.

User Calibanu 13:08, 12 April 2006.

I added the fact that the initial discovery of the extra chromosome was a Marthe Gautier's discovery (see the La recherche article).

Role of Marthe Gautier in the discovery of trisomy 21?

There seems to be substantial and very credible evidence that trisomy 21 was actually discovered by Marthe Gautier, and that Jerome Lejeune inappropriately claimed credit for this. See this interview (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/130306) and this newspaper article (http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2014/02/03/trisomie-une-pionniere-intimidee_4359331_1650684.html).

If these allegations are correct than this very hagiographic article about Dr. Lejeune needs extensive revision.Rosieredfield (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs extensive revision, however it seems to me that the question of his and Marthe's exact role in the discovery remains controversial and, thus, we should aim to reflect the disputed nature of the discovery in the article rather than adopting one view or the other uncritically. JackAidley (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree - I haven't been able to find definitive evidence either way. (I would like to find out whether the French human geneticists (FFGH) did any investigation before deciding to give Gautier the award.) Rosieredfield (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've toned down some of the adulatory language and reorganized the material a bit. And here are links to two news-type articles in scientific journals about this controversy: one in Nature and one in Science Rosieredfield (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. There needs to be more reliable sources. Substantial claims require substantial evidence. From what I can see, RenewAmerica.com is not a reliable source per Misplaced Pages:Verifibility and the other site you linked is behind a pay wall. Per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Access_to_sources, could you provide access to that site so we may better attempt to verify this claim? Ging287 (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"Le Monde" is the most respected newspaper in France - it is hard to find a better more reliable source. Of course there are more newspaper sources - to name just a few (from the conservative La Croix to the left wing La Liberation)
There can be no doubt about the fact that Lejeune has a part in discovering the genetic cause of the Down Syndrom. The controversy is about how much of the research has been achieved by Marthe Gautier and whether or not she did get credit for it. --christophe (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The current wording, "Marthe Gautier criticized Jérôme Lejeune publicly for claiming full credit for the discovery without specifying that the laboratory work was essentially hers." appears to be taking a position on the issue, and has somewhat informal language. I suggest it be changed to "Marthe Gautier accused Jérôme Lejeune publicly for claiming full credit for the discovery, and has stated that the laboratory work was hers." or something to that degree (Words are failing me too at the moment, sadly). Unless we can prove that the lab work was definitely hers, we shouldn't take a position. Also 3 of the 4 listed sources appear to be just separate coverage of the same story which seems redundant to me. -- 2001:44B8:3187:E900:9161:5DFC:D9A0:64E (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree the wordings need to be reworked - I don't think we can find sources that confirm or deny whether or not Lejeune did consult with Gautier before publishing. It certainly does not look that way (Gautier's name being misspelled her first name altered in the original publications). Lejeune has no formal training in cell culture - which implies Gautier did indeed do all laboratory work - but again the chances of finding sources to actually prove this are fairly slim. However Gautier's narrative is sound and there not much to support Lejeune having a major part in the discovery neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristophThomas (talk • contribs) 11:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Whether the story seems believable or not, I don't think we can rightfully decide what happened and report it as fact - best thing in my opinion would be to go into the controversy in a subsection of the page, and just leave the leading sentences as saying something along the lines of "Lejeune has been credited with the discovery of X". This way we're not taking a side but we are reporting the controversy. -- 2001:44B8:3187:E900:E170:27D8:1C80:AB76 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Article linked to from an outside site

This article has been linked on reddit with requests made to edit it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1z077g/online_action_feminists_rewrite_scientific/ and http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1yuxiz/feminist_input_into_wikipedia_trying_to_rewrite/ --Zx80 (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dispute with Marthe Gautier

"that she worked without assistance from Lejeune to develop the necessary cytological and histological resources and techniques, and used these to prepare microscope slides showing the trisom ..." I do not see anyone disputing Gautier's account of the story. She was the only one in her team having a formal training on cell culture and nobody (including Lejuene) did ever dispute the fact that she carried out the laboratory work necessary for the research. Where are the sources % references ? christophe (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ask Christopher, he's the one who's added them and has pretty much ignored my inquiries about providing a translation for them. Ging287 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Tags

I've added the tag due to a few lines in the article. First, the WP:LEAD. his exact role in the discovery of Trisomy 21 is considered controversial; see the controversy section below. is not cited. I added a 'citation needed' tag before I renamed my account, but it's been removed, in spite of WP:LEADCITE and WP:MINREF, requiring an inline citation if it is challenged. This has not happened.

As well as As of today the Website of the Lejeune foundation describes the discovery as the sole work of Lejeune: "In July 1958, as he was studying chromosomes linked to Down syndrome, he discovered the existence of an additional chromosome on the 21st pair. which is taking a side, contrary to WP:NPOV, among other things contributed to me adding this tag.

this is what the Lejeune foundation publishes - it is a fact how can that be NPOV? Please elaborate before setting tags. --基 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The juxtaposition wording implies that he is not the legitimate person who discovered it. That's the problem. Tutelary (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As well, I've added the 'undue weight' tag to the 'controversy' section due to the source used RenewAmerica.com, per WP:QUESTIONABLE. Tutelary (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

there are many reputable sources (= inclusing "Le Monde" : (http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2014/02/03/trisomie-une-pionniere-intimidee_4359331_1650684.html but also "Le Figaro", "Liberation" ect.) --基 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Link me to the other sources that you're talking about. Per no original research, the notice that there's a 'controversy' must be explicitly stated by a reliable sources. If the source stated 'debate' (which is what it did), then any synthesization is original research per WP:SYNTH. There are quite innumerable sources stating that Jerome was the discovery of Trisnomy 21. They are reliable sources. Per WP:FRINGE, we should not be giving undue weight to a single interview.

One reporting in a news paper should not be given undue weight when the majority of the reliable sources say that Jerome discovered it. Tutelary (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem not to be familiar with French Media landscape - comparing the most read French with the blog of the Lejeune Foundation seems a little odd (in particular if using no original research)

Here some of the French sources (I am just adding daily national news paper with national reach being used frequently as sources for WP) that did report on the controversy :

http://www.larecherche.fr/savoirs/temoignage/decouvreuse-oubliee-trisomie-21-01-10-2009-79706 http://www.la-croix.com/Actualite/France/Trisomie-21-polemique-autour-de-la-decouverte-de-Jerome-Lejeune-2014-02-10-1104303 http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/2014/02/trisomie-21-les-huissiers-de-la-fondation-lejeune.html http://www.lesnouvellesnews.fr/index.php/revue-de-presse/54-lu-sur-la-toile/3411-la-fondation-jerome-lejeune-fait-taire-marthe-gautier http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2014/02/03/trisomie-une-pionniere-intimidee_4359331_1650684.html

That is pretty much all of the daily national newspaper in France List_of_newspapers_in_France


Surely you must be kidding whne citing lejeuneusa.org as a reliable source. Have you had a look at WP:sources? Under which category do those sources fall?

  • university-level textbooks?
  • books published by respected publishing houses?
  • magazines?
  • journals?
  • mainstream newspapers?

Also before actually claiming the discovery was made by XY - simply refer the the original publication. It clearly shows 3 researcher signing the paper - Jerome Lejeune, Marthe Gautier, Turpin, Raymond --基 (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What that source classifies as is WP:PRIMARY. To state that it is original research is ludicrous, as I did not extract any information that was not in the source. I suggest that you read the policy instead of making such statements. I've also stated multiple educational domains as reliable sources perpetrating Jerome as the sole founder of the discovery. What we must look at is the quality' of the sources. Newspapers versus academic journals. Blogs vs academic journals. One of the sources you stated was a blog and the other sources are merely newspapers. The sources that I stated were mostly academic ones, and therefore would be given more weight according to WP:NEWSORG. What you've also done is stated the information given by the newspapers to be entirely true and put all of the weight in that. You didn't state 'According to X' or 'According to Y', you just put what they said as gospel.


Don't be ridiculous - the original publication leaves no room for doubt about whom to attribute the discovery :

"Les chromosomes humains en culture de tissus". Compte rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des Sciences, 1958 248 (1): 602–603. This is where the discovery has been published in 1958- there are three names. What is there to discuss ?--基 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop edit warring the tags back out. Look at the tag text. We are supposed to discuss and achieve a consensus on this matter before removing them. They are to stay for now. Also, we are not going to engage in original research. Unless you have specific access to the source and can quote adequately what it says, in a NPOV of view, you are putting undue weight on the newspapers compared to scholarly sources. Tutelary (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
"Unless you have specific access to the source and can quote adequately" scientific publications are public records (they are in France anyways) - everybody can access them. If you did your homework you would know that.--基 (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Please read No personal attacks. Do not talk about me as an editor. I've focused exclusively on the article at this point. You should too. Let me rephrase what I was saying:

The sole number of the sources state Jerome to be the majority founder of Trisnomy 21. While the other scientists did play an important rule, to attempt to create a 'controversy' out of a few newspapers that conflicts with the majority of the sources is by definition undue weight. I'd also like to mention that we go by verifiability, not truth. Tutelary (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

There are public records that show that the discovery has been co-singed by 3 authors. It is indeed that simple (in this particular case). --基 (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
oh and public records are verifiable - I am not sure where you want to go with this ? 基 (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
If you're not going to respond to all of the sources that I list them, or try to find fault at them, then you basically admit that you're giving undue weight to the controversy section. I don't even believe a few newspapers articles engages in the 'controversy' at all. We don't give precedence to fringe theories. I'm going to opt to remove the entire section per WP:DUE. We are not going to give minority view points any credance, especially when the majority of the sources say he was the sole founder. Again, we are not going by truth, but by Verifability. Tutelary (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the 'controversy' sentence from the lead, because the lead does not mention the specific discovery it refers to, and so seems to me a bit overemphasised. I also think it is incorrect to call the claim 'controversial' in a wikipedia voice because the situation is unclear - we can report that the co-author has said that her contribution was overlooked and that she claimed that she should have been listed as first author which is different. I also think the 'controversy' section would be more appropriately merged into the section about the discovery. --nonsense ferret 00:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd be perfectly content, as long as the sources match up with the sources. Right now, there are a majority of the sources for saying Jerome is the founder. There are a few reliable sources for describing that Marthe was the disputed founder. We will treat both with appropriate weight and merge, and give the appropriate length for the sources given. Tutelary (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Here the sources stating the discovery is co_signed by 3 researcher:

If you're not going to respond to all of the sources that I list then you basically admit that you're giving undue weight to the controversy section. 基 (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@ChristophThomas: I'm not disputing that she was one of the contributors to the piece, but to try to claim that she was the sole founder without its presence in reliable sources is undue weight, which I have elaborated on before. You giving be 11 sources to claim something that I'm not even disputing is counterproductive to the nature of this dispute. See my third response above. What I was doing was depicting all of the sources that named Jerome as the sole or primary founder. Nothing else. You yourself are even demonstrating the lack of due weight by providing sources to something totally irrelevant at this point. A few reliable french newspapers are good enough to mention it, but not to deride a whole section on it, and to manufacture the controversy. As I said before, verifiability, not truth. Tutelary (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversy in the lead section

I am moving this to a different section - since it has nothing to do with the discussion about maintenance tags.--基 (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the 'controversy' sentence from the lead, because the lead does not mention the specific discovery it refers to, and so seems to me a bit overemphasised. I also think it is incorrect to call the claim 'controversial' in a wikipedia voice because the situation is unclear - we can report that the co-author has said that her contribution was overlooked and that she claimed that she should have been listed as first author which is different. I also think the 'controversy' section would be more appropriately merged into the section about the discovery. --nonsense ferret 00:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section

I agree - there is no reason to have this in the lead section. I do believe the controversy section should remain intact because:
  • The controversy has been sparked mostly by the very particular behavior of the Lejeune foundation trying to intimidate Marthe Gautier to come forward with her version of the events. This is nothing that has to do with the actual discovery. The actual discovery is well documented and part of the public records. The Lejeune foundation has since published a statement that acknowledges Mme Gautier and Mr Turpin as co authors.
  • The other reason this controversy has had so much feedback across all major French newspaper (and a lot of feedback in scientific community) was the assumption that this is another show case for re-appropriation of a discovery by male "lead scientists" similar to the Lise_Meitner, Rosalind Franklin ect. (generally referred to as Matilda effect). --基 (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
What we are not going to do is take the minority view point and present it as the majority view point. What I also suspect is that you provide a source for the 'intimidation' factor of it. Actually, I'd like to request a source for what you are saying right here. The scientific community and the 'intimidation' factor part of it. It sounds like it could be original research. Tutelary (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Categories: