Template:Did you know nominations/Catharine van Tussenbroek


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Catharine van Tussenbroek

 * ... that Catharine van Tussenbroek′s histological evidence of ovarian pregnancy was still doubted by physicians 20 years after she published her study?


 * ALT1: ... that Catharine van Tussenbroek (pictured) proved the existence of ovarian pregnancy clinically and histologically in 1899?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong collaborations
 * Comment: Created for WikiProject Women in Red's Art+Feminism editathon

Created by SusunW (talk). Self-nominated at 23:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol voting keep.svg Substantial life on excellent sources, Dutch source accepted AGF. Prefer the simpler ALT, with a focus on her achievements. The image is licensed, but not too expressive that size, - would a crop be possible? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg From my own reading of the article, it sounds like she provided the first evidence in 1899, but it wasn't proven until the 1920s. I think a slight rewording of the hook would be appropriate here. The fact that she was the first person to present this evidence is notable.  Jolly   Ω   Janner  06:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * huh? I do not think there is any ambiguity whatsoever. There are two sources in English, which are extremely clear and multiple sources in Dutch. "In 1899, however, Catherine Van Tussenbroek published a careful histologial description of an early case in which she demonstrated beyond question that the ovum could be embedded in the ovary." What part of beyond question is ambiguous? It goes on to say "Three years later Thompson demonstrated a perfectly conclusive specimen." Ray, page 437. She proved it, Thompson confirmed it 3 years later, 1899+3=1902, not 1920s. Also "…it was not until 1899 that Catherine Van Tussenbroek of Amsterdam convinced a skeptical medical establishment of the occurrence of this condition by presenting the first accurate clinical and histological description of the abnormality. ...ovarian pregnancy were suggested by Spiegelberg in 1878..." Rizk, p 267. I repeat, what part of first accurate description is ambiguous? SusunW (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the Wikipedia article. I've yet to check the sources. " In 1899, she presented the first clinical and histological evidence of the existence of the rare condition of ovarian pregnancy". There is a difference between presented and proved surely?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  06:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the wording in the article change it, I have no ownership issues. But I think you are misreading what it says. The article states "In 1899, she presented the first clinical and histological evidence of the existence of the rare condition of ovarian pregnancy to a skeptical medical establishment. Three years after her report, her results were confirmed, but skepticism prevailed into the 1920s." It does not say that her results weren't confirmed until the 1920s, as you stated above. I don't know how it would be possible, as you suggest, for someone else to prove what she already had confirmed. Hers was not a theoretical supposition. She examined actual cells under a microscope and presented evidence, i.e. proved, that ovarian pregnancy was a real medical condition "beyond question". As the sources show, others confirmed her results, but she is the one that provided documentation to prove the condition existed. SusunW (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll give it a go!  Jolly  Ω   Janner  08:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT2 ... that in 1899 Catharine van Tussenbroek (pictured) presented the first accurate description of ovarian pregnancy clinically and histologically?
 * added an "in"
 * Symbol question.svg --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would rather pull the hook entirely than use that. As I have said on numerous occasions, interesting is completely subjective and that makes her accomplishment sound completely unimportant. There is no context for anyone to gather the import.SusunW (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 199 characters with context: SusunW (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "ALT3" ... that in 1899 Catharine van Tussenbroek (pictured) presented the first accurate, clinical and histological description of ovarian pregnancy, showing "beyond question" that Otto Spiegelberg's suggestion was true?
 * May I gently disagree. The hook should not supply context, it should make curious to read the article. The reader of ALT3 may think after reading that they know it all.
 * Symbol voting keep.svg ALT2 and ALT3, I prefer ALT2, the author prefers ALT3, the prep builder has a choice, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg correct me if I'm wrong, but the Rizk source seems to say that van Tussenbroek confirmed Mercier's theory, not Spiegelberg's. Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My reading of it is that Mercier first proposed that ovarian pregnancy could exist. Spiegelberg lined out criteria for diagnosing if it did. Since he proposed an "anatomic and histologic" method of confirmation, it says to me, that she proved Spiegelberg's method worked and in so doing verified Mercier as well. SusunW (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't see that. The source seems to be writing 3 disparate facts, and by ordering them as 1) Mercier's theory, 2) van Tussenbroek's findings, 3) Spiegelberg's criteria, doesn't suggest the link that you are making between the latter two. Do you have another source that connects van Tussenbroek and Spiegelberg? Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * this shows Spiegelberg laid out four criteria that would need to be in evidence to prove that ovarian pregnancy existed. If van Tussenbroek "demonstrated beyond question that the ovum could be embedded in the ovary", she had to meet Spiegelberg's criteria, or it would have remained in doubt at the time she was researching. This article talks about varying criterion and states when it was written in 1919, that Spiegelberg's criteria were not "necessarily crucial", but it is still clear that his criterion was believed to be necessary, otherwise why would the writer claim that it could be overlooked? This source starting on page 92 says that van Tussenbroek made the first complete demonstration of ovarian pregnancy in 1899 and that "the requirements for an undoubted ovarian pregnancy are..." Though it doesn't say that they are Spiegelberg's criteria, they appear to be one and the same. If you don't agree with my analysis of the source, I don't have a problem with that. Correct whatever you want, include whatever you want, take out whatever you want. Isn't the point that everyone is able to improve articles? SusunW (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * if all the connections you've tried to draw between van Tussenbroek and Spiegelberg aren't stated by a source, they are considered original research. I suggest removing Spiegelberg from this sentence in the article:
 * In 1899, she produced the first accurate clinical and histological description of the existence of the rare condition of ovarian pregnancy. Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Every single one of those articles mention Van Tussenbroek and Spiegelberg. Rizk is the only source that mentions Mercier. (I suspect he means Josias Mercier or as some sources show him Josias Mercerus, but I do not know.) I am not a doctor. I am not the one who writes in these articles that Spiegelberg's four criteria to prove ovarian pregnancy must be in evidence. This says on p 106 "The question (of ovarian pregnancy) was definitely settled by the pathological studies of Catherine Van Tussenbroeck, who in 1899 published an important histological study of a case" It goes on to say on p 108 “Spiegelberg in 1878 defined the criteria which must be fulfilled in any case of true ovarian pregnancy.” here p 262 is a description by van Tussenbroek of her work. Whether it is a translation, or she wrote it in English, I have no idea. But it states: "[The specimen] consists of the right tube and ovary. The tube is perfectly normal." (Spiegelberg criteria 1: the tube must be on the same side and normal) ... "Upon the ovary a small, round prominence is noticeable." (Spiegelberg criteria 2: The fetal sac must occupy the usual space of the ovary) ..." The section disclosed the fact that the tumor was entirely composed of a cavity which was attached by a broad base to the ovary. This cavity contained an embryo, about 12 mm. long, which was attached to the gestation-sac by a short, thick cord." (Spiegelberg criteria 3: The sac must be connected to the uterus by the utero-ovarian ligament) ... "From the theca externa loops of vessels crowd forward between the folds of lutein tissue." (I had no idea what lutein tissue is but this says lutein cells are a cell of the corpus luteum of the ovary) (Spiegelberg criteria 4: There must be positive evidence of true ovarian tissue in the wall of the sac). Note that the order she addresses each item is exactly the same order of the criteria. I do not believe that I am mistaken in what was proven nor am I conducting original research. The sources show she proved ovarian pregnancy existed and she did it by verifying Spiegelberg's criteria. SusunW (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Proof is not a word to ever be used lightly, especially in the field of science. If the sources do not use this word, then it is not appropriate for us to either. It doesn't look like we're going to come up with a source that she says she proved it, so I stand by using ALT2.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  02:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm also in agreement for using ALT2, and it's ready to go. I was just commenting on a sentence in the article which is not specifically stated by the sources. Yoninah (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added the additional sourcing to the article and removed what Yoninah alleged to be a conclusion. Each statement is separately made with a citation. I still do not like ALT2 and am willing to strike ALT3 to replace it with:
 * ALT4:... that Catharine van Tussenbroek (pictured) settled the question of the existence of ovarian pregnancy clinically and histologically in 1899? SusunW (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you, for your patience with us plebians. Your rewrite solves the problem raised above and also mentions Spiegelberg very nicely. ALT4 is hookier, too. ALT4 verified and cited inline. ALT4 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Funny, I would have said it was y'all who were being patient with me. I come from the world of academia and WP is definitely not that, so I have a lot to "unlearn" to participate here. I will fight for articles that I believe in, but I will never edit war and don't change a contentious article until its been discussed. I don't think that discussion necessarily leads to consensus (how unWP of me), but rather it challenges you to view things in a different way. I learn something on here every single day. It's hard to get across in text passion for the subject without sometimes seeming angry, but I am rarely that. Thank you both for helping to improve the article. (now to figure out how to add van Tussenbroek to the articles on ovarian pregnancy, and the criteria...) SusunW (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)