Talk:Jérôme Lejeune

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality issues

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article linked to from an outside site 

message: "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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Dispute with Marthe Gautier 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  you can find the sources here : Jérôme_Lejeune  基 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've requested a third opinion on the matter. Hopefully they'll respond soon. Tutelary (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

text: this seems very sensible to me. --nonsense ferret 11:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  , 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)
replies: text:  I shall not touch my keyboard until then and wait for things to happen 基 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy in the lead section  

message: :: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  you can find the sources here : Jérôme_Lejeune  基 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've requested a third opinion on the matter. Hopefully they'll respond soon. Tutelary (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

text: this seems very sensible to me. --nonsense ferret 11:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  , 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)
replies: text:  I shall not touch my keyboard until then and wait for things to happen 基 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: ChristophThomas, what was the problem relating to the factor of events that you see now? Tutelary (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Je ne pense pas qu il y a un problème ... 基 (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Problem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nobel reward loss speculation 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222041020/http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_161__article_1222.htm to http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_161__article_1222.htm
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) 16:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130101040037/http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Tiniest-Humans-Based-Interviews-Professor-Sassone-Lejeune-Liley/9781890712174-item.html?cookieCheck=1 to http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Tiniest-Humans-Based-Interviews-Professor-Sassone-Lejeune-Liley/9781890712174-item.html?cookieCheck=1
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) 08:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified