Talk:Marthe Gautier - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChristophThomas (talk | contribs) at 13:59, 12 August 2014 (→Neutral POV at this point). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:59, 12 August 2014 by ChristophThomas (talk | contribs) (→Neutral POV at this point)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This 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
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women scientists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.

History of Science

	History of science portal This 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.

This article contains a translation of Marthe Gautier from fr.wikipedia.

This article is not in proper Misplaced Pages format because it's just an empty page waiting for translation of the French entry on its subject. Rosieredfield (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made a start by adding a translation of one section from the French entry. --Zeborah (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. For anybody interested, the Nature article is here: http://www.nature.com/news/down-s-syndrome-discovery-dispute-resurfaces-in-france-1.14690 and a very interesting interview with Dr Gautier here: http://www.newengelpublishing.com/randy-engel-interview-with-marthe-gautier/ Cloning jedi (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Could the translator add a translation of the rest of the French page?

Hi Zeborah. Will you be able to translate the rest of the French entry? We're still missing all the biographical information about Dr. Gautier before she worked on the Down syndrome chromosomes, and all the information about what happened to her after this discovery. Rosieredfield (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I am going to translate some parts - however an English native speaker will need to proof read the translated text. christophe (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rosieredfield sorry I've been sidetracked from this! Have just added another section and thanks to the great work christophe and everyone else in the meantime I think that covers the bulk of the French entry now. --Zeborah (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutral POV at this point

@ 92.26.125.228 - we are still expanding this article so quite a few expressions and statements are not yet fine tuned. Once the translation part has been completed we will try to review the English version to make sure the final text is POV neutral - which might currently not be the case. --christophe (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Credit for her discovery has frequently been given to Jerome Lejeune, but it is now recognized that this groundbreaking discovery was actually made by her" is certainly not neutral given the fact that the accusations have not been proven, also the supporting links are interviews with Gautier herself, which I wouldn't take as gospel as a matter of principle. -- 2001:44B8:3187:E900:9161:5DFC:D9A0:64E (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree - far from perfect - what do you suggest ?--christophe (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Similarly to the recommendation for Legeune, in the leading sentences have something like "Marthe Gautier (born September 10, 1925) is a French medical doctor and researcher who was partially credited for the discovery of X", and then report the controversy under a heading further down the page, or something like that. -- 2001:44B8:3187:E900:E170:27D8:1C80:AB76 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Compared to the Lejeune article, this article seems to be strongly favouring Gautier's version of events. I think the dispute over who discovered it should be considered controversial and this article should strive to give a more nuanced version of these events. JackAidley (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no "Gautier's version of events" - this is the tale of a powerful foundation having monetized "Lejeune's discovery" for years successfully and when this old lady shows up claims her part in the discovery, they send in the layers, drafting legal threats ... Unfortunately for the foundation the story gets picked up by the French media (BIG print media "Le Monde" "Liberation" "La Croix" ect.). Now the media always liked a good David vs Goliath story - so the foundation has to paddle back (which actually they do ... acknowledging Gautier's participation and jadajada "is was never our intention" jadajada on the Homepage {in the French version only ... lol}). The discovery has been made by 3 people (and has been published by those 3 people) - everything else is just the story of how media and books simplify (anyways having 3 French names for one discovery to recall is so inconvenient - is it not?). It is really that simple ... of course we can fight about if Lejeune did 50% of the work - or only 10% (which is pretty much what Gautier seems to be saying ...) - but is it really the point? Most clinical work has been carried out by Gautier (she was the only having had training) Lejeune and Turpin had the idea to look at genetic root causes - the discovery in the end is combination between ideas & clinical research - in this case clearly teamwork.基 (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There is very much a "Gautier's version of events", have you not read the Human Genetics article? In any case, it is problematic that this article is heavily skewed towards that version whilst the Lejeune article has been repeatedly edited to reduce the impact of it JackAidley (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jack it is a pity you are stuck with the Gautier vs Lejeune thing - it is a quite interesting story once you give up looking at it in terms of winners and loosers. 基 (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

#3 Not a reliable source - Academia links?

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

The website in question, renewamerica.com is an extremist site that calls for Obama's impeachment, claims that he is encouraging drug trafficking, uses sensationalizing headlines and provides almost zero sources for these claims. I propose that this source be removed as it is not a reliable source per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ging287 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

understood - I will have a very close look at sources once the translation work has been completed. --christophe (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at the interview and the questions - briefly - I don't see a lot of potential bias - not in the questions and not in Gautier's answers. What she says matches rather exactly her narrative in French newspapers. If I can find a more reliable source in English I will add it - but do not see grounds to dismiss the source as being biased when it comes to this particular interview. --christophe (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If you don't find more reliable English source, please add the French newspapers. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:52, 25 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) 08:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it's been linked from royal society too which links to 101.160.142.108 (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories: