Wikipedia

Talk:Jérôme Lejeune

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Mgs2804 in topic Neutrality issues
Learn more about this page

Neutrality issues

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The emotive language in this article, especially in the "pro-life work" section, raises questions about its neutrality. For example, loaded words like "distressed", "fight" and the (unsourced) statement "Today, I lost my Nobel prize in Medicine" make the section fit the "lone oppressed scientist fighting the establishment" trope a little too well.Mgs2804 (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Alleged Trisomy 21 Nondiscovery

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

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)Reply

  • 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 Wikipedia 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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
Firstly, There is no "political agenda" in trying to ensure that Wikipedia 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)Reply

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)Reply

What's the status on the translation of the French Sources? Ging287 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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 Wikipedia. Rather than finding more sources, could you start the process of having them translated? Thanks. Ging287 (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
http://i.imgur.com/hxZAM45.png <- I find this mildly infuriating. Ging287 (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

Untitled

edit

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?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 Wikipedia:Verifibility and the other site you linked is behind a pay wall. Per Wikipedia: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)Reply
"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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Article linked to from an outside site

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Dispute with Marthe Gautier

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"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)Reply

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)Reply

Tags

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

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 [source : Lejeune, Jérôme; Gauthier, Marthe; Turpin, Raymond (1959). "Les chromosomes humains en culture de tissus". Compte rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des Sciences 248 (1): 602–603.]--基 (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
"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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply


" but to try to claim that she was the sole founder " I never made such a claim. For the rest - anything I have to say is on the talk page already.基 (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

What on earth is the 'original research' tag doing on this article? Every claim in it is well sourced to credible sources, both in the primary literature and from respectable newspapers. I will remove it shortly unless anyone can justify its inclusion JackAidley (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Controversy in the lead section

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

Controversy section

edit
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)Reply
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)Reply
you can find the sources here : Jérôme_Lejeune 基 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've requested a third opinion on the matter. Hopefully they'll respond soon. Tutelary (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
  Response to third opinion request:
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Jérôme Lejeune and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

@ChristophThomas: and @Tutelary: After reading this lengthy discussion, I conclude the such a separate controversy section provides UNDUE weight to Gautier's dispute. Also for example, Britannica makes no mention of it on their page on Jerome Jean Louis Marie Lejeune. The numerous sources provided do indicate this is a notable dispute but no doubt, FRINGE theories and viewpoints tend to be sensationalised by the press. In the current version of the article, I would recommend just the first para of the controversy section be kept and merged with the main discovery section. For it to be treated as an accepted viewpoint or given more coverage, we need proper academic sources to verify it (WP:HISTRS). Since this is probably a relatively recent development, academic coverage on this will take some time. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

this seems very sensible to me. --nonsense ferret 11:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
very interesting - in particular since the entire "Origins of the discovery" does not offer a single source for anything written in the entire section [apart from the source for "The international community did not grasp the full impact of his discovery until January 26, 1959, when the French Academy of Sciences published the team’s first paper presenting three case studies of children with Down syndrome."] What happened to WP:HISTRS, WP:SYNTH, WP:Verifiability No original research? Do they only apply do particular sections that describe recent events? 基 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
@ChristophThomas:, I'm more than willing to discuss that with you when I get home, but present it in a new section, and try not to go away from what was said about the controversy section.. Three editor consensus to not have the section, and merge it somewhere else. I will implement this when I get home. Tutelary (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I shall not touch my keyboard until then and wait for things to happen 基 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

New Problem

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

ChristophThomas, what was the problem relating to the factor of events that you see now? Tutelary (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Je ne pense pas qu il y a un problème ... 基 (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Comparison to Marthe Gautier article

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

I think there is a problem in the clash between the tone taken by this article, which seems to heavily favour the traditional view that Lejeune deserves credit for the discovery and the Marthe Gautier article which takes the version given by her in Human Genetics as gospel. These two articles should be brought more closely into line so they can be read together without conflicting JackAidley (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm willing to discuss it, but the reason why that is so is that there were more sources for that effect rather than for the opposite. We can't take one person's word as gospel tot hat effect. Tutelary (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
The only people with relevant testimony are Gautier and Lejeune. They're the only primary witnesses, and both versions of events are published in respected sources - including the primary literature. Gautier's version of events has been widely recognised as credible within the scientific community and so it makes no sense to favour Lejeune's claim simply because he made it first (and at a time when it would have been hard for Gautier to challenge it). In any case, regardless of which way the article is biased it should be the same between both articles JackAidley (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
We've already been in this dispute already, and there was consensus that the coverage and in the way that it's been represented is adequate. Gautier's version of events has been widely recognised as credible within the scientific community Citation is needed. and so it makes no sense to favour Lejeune's claim simply because he made it first (and at a time when it would have been hard for Gautier to challenge it). That's not why we're favoring it. If you look above, you can see the impeccable list of reliable sources that demonstrate that Jerome was the person who made the discovery--but not without help by Marthe. This is already in the article. What you are attempting to do is to portray the lead as there's a 'controversy' but there is no 'controversy' version of the reliable sources. We operate on sources, and the current sources do not demonstrate it as a controversy but a dispute. I'd like to see your versions of sources that demonstrate it as a 'controversy' by name. Tutelary (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, I didn't start this section to debate Gautier vs. Lejeune but rather to draw attention to the fact that the articles are in disagreement. One or both needs to be modified to bring them in line regardless of which way it falls.
Secondly, The word 'controversy' is not used in the lead. Are you seriously questioning that it is disputed?
Thirdly, no controversy in reliable sources? What do you think Human Genetics is? How much more reliable do you want? As for widely recognised as credible the simple fact that the French Federation for Human Genetics chose to recognise her through a presentation surely suffices?
It is absurd that the lead be whitewashed of the dispute when it is critical to understand who Lejeune is. JackAidley (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
This appears to be more of trying to add more weight to Marthe's position then is actually due. Just because this claim is important to Marthe, does not mean it is important to Jerome. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
The discovery of Trisomy 21 is Lejeune's principle claim to significance; the fact that his claim on that discovery is disputed is absolutely relevant to this article JackAidley (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
You're right, which is why it's already included in the article. However, the LEAD is not the place to be doing this, as it does not even elaborate on the discovery made by Jerome in the first place, and as a result, would not benefit from having the dispute added into it. Look, the Marthe Gautier dispute is already in the article and covered with adequate weight in reliable sources. Marthe Gautier, a colleague of Lejeune's, disputes his account regarding the discovery of trisomy 21. She has stated in interviews and in a 2009 article in the journal Médecine Sciences 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 trisomy. By her account of events, Lejeune took her slides away under the pretence of having them photographed for her, but instead presented them as his own work at a conference and in a subsequent publication.[6][7] In addition, It is absurd that the lead be whitewashed of the dispute when it is critical to understand who Lejeune is. Please stop attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and looking at your edit history, you seem to be a primarily single purpose account for this purpose. Tutelary (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
The lead is absolutely the correct place for it. No-one who wishes to gain a neutral view of Lejeune's role can do so without considering whether his version or Gautier's is correct. Therefore it deserves to be in the lead. Your accusation of single purpose account is wide of the mark; I simply edit Wikipedia rarely and attempt to keep the few articles I have edited on track. NonesenseFerret should not have removed this important, referenced, fact from the lead JackAidley (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Do you understand what I just stated? The reason why the LEAD is the wrong place for this is because the lead does not currently summarize the discovery by Jerome and the story happens later in the body. Without that particularness, it cannot be in the LEAD because it is dependent upon that for the context. In any case, this also cannot be remedied by you continually edit warring it back in when you are reverted by two different editors. Tutelary (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Then the solution would be for the lead to include a little more detail, not you repeatedly edit warring any improvement away, wouldn't it? JackAidley (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
That's a bit ironic, considering that you've been reverted by at least 3 different editors. You need to stop reverting and discuss and get changed for consensus. However, even in the case of more detail being added to LEAD, with the amount of WP:DUE weight for that current sourcing, we would have to expand the LEAD To summarize every single thing that's happened in Jerome's life, which would probably be few paragraphs long, just to be able to add it. Tutelary (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
It is disputed by Marthe, who would gain from the dispute. She is not a reliable source to make it true and focusing on her claim gives her undue weight. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nobel reward loss speculation

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The sentence "More likely, Lejeune's denial of the contribution of Marthe Gautier and Raymond Turpin to the discovery of trisomy 21 may have been more decisive for the Noble committee to avoid a contested laureate.[2]" should probably be deleted. The sources of the controversy are published article and interviews with Marthe Gautier 15 years after Jérôme Lejeune's death. However, connection to Nobel award and committee without the relevant source(s) is very likely pure speculation and/or almost certainly false. Please discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcontributor (talk • contribs) 09:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jérôme Lejeune. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jérôme Lejeune. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jérôme_Lejeune&oldid=1208961136"