Talk:Marthe Gautier

This article is not in proper Wikipedia 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)

The French Institute of Health and Medical Research's ethic committee published a notice on the discovery that can be found here. I believe this puts most of the dispute to bed as it clearly names Gautier as the person noticing the Chromosome difference first ...les techniques apprises aux Etats Unis, sont méthodiquement adaptées au contexte de travail et mises au point en vue de permettre le dénombrement des chromosomes. Et bientôt Marthe Gautier constatera que les cellules de « mongoliens » ont 47 chromosomes, alors que les témoins en ont 46. And regarding Lejeune's role Vu le contexte à l’époque de la découverte du chromosome surnuméraire, la part de Jérôme Lejeune dans celle-ci, a peu de chance d’avoir été prépondérante, sauf à ne pas porter crédit à la formation des personnes, (ici Marthe Gautier), dans l’acquisition d’une expertise (ici la culture cellulaire), a fortiori quand associée à un séjour hors de France (ici aux USA). 基 (talk) 03:21, 6 September 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.[8] 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 Wikipedia: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 [1] which links to [2] 101.160.142.108 (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marthe Gautier. 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/20140202151255/http://www.larecherche.fr/savoirs/temoignage/decouvreuse-oubliee-trisomie-21-01-10-2009-79706 to http://www.larecherche.fr/savoirs/temoignage/decouvreuse-oubliee-trisomie-21-01-10-2009-79706

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) 06:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Study of Trisomy in 1958?

It's anachronistic to say that Raymond Turpin's team was studying children with "trisomy" in 1958, since until Marthe Gautier's work no one knew that any patients had a third chromosome of any kind. Presumably the writer does not want to say Down's Syndrome, or Mongolism, or whatever French paediatricians called their condition at that time. NRPanikker (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)