Talk:Rosalind Franklin/Archive 6

message: Alun, I assume you will be cross-checking the facts from Sir Aaron Klug's essay from the Oxford National Biography against your own REF article and will identify any changes made to it? (You cannot always assume that such pieces are totally correct, as - for example - Maurice Wilkins' biography of Sir John Randall for the RS ommits any reference to the year Randall spent teaching at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge - which in view of their subsequent 'rivalry' with KCL is interesting of course. You will find the human relationships in the DNA saga were not just confined to Crick-Franklin-Watson-Wilkins by the way; the one between Bragg Jnr. and Randall received very little coverage, but was probably just as important as the ones between the four main participants! I see Bragg and Randall as pulling all of their strings in the race for the Nobel Prize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs) 
*I assume you will be cross-checking the facts from Sir Aaron Klug's essay from the Oxford National Biography against your own REF article and will identify any changes made to it.
::Identify any changes made to what? I'm a bit confused by your post and don't know what you are refering to. If there is any new or interesting info worthy of inclusion in the Aaron Klug text then it can be included here. I don't know what you mean by facts, there are only points of view, we should always try to include all points of view in an article and support them with references. Alun 12:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are misunderstanding the methodology of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's sources are there to provide verifiable support to the points of view contained within any given article. The criteria for inclusion include verifiability, which means that facts, from a Wikipedia point of view are anything that can be verified (remember verifiability not truth). We do not support one point of view over another, we may state that one point of view is more generally accepted than another, if a verifiable source can support that contention, but all significant points of view should be included in an article. So from this perspective, while Klug's essay can be used to verify information already contained within the article, and can certainly be used to verify any new information that is worthy of inclusion, we certainly cannot remove or replace material in the article that is already verified from another source just because Klug's essay may contradict it (and why would we, why accept the authority of one source over another?). Rather we would include Klug's information as well as keep any information already contained in the article. This is how we achieve neutrality. I know perfectly well who Klug is. I  haven't found any particularly contradictory information in his essay to what is already in the RF article. I'll have a more detailed read of the essay when I get time. But I stress it would be a poor editor, and a breach of wikipedia policy, to give only a single point of view. I think the article is quite neutral at the moment, indeed I have worked hard to try to include all points of view, it's far from perfect. You seem to change your position from one extreme to another depending on what the last piece of literature you read was. I don't think there is really that much of a disagreement amongst those who are au fait with Franklin's work as to what her contribution actually was, or how important it was. Alun 13:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are User:Nitramrekcap I think. Alun 05:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Didn't you just explain that primary sources are not trust worthy above? re: Wilkins lapse to mention the year Randall spent at Cavendish.  How about the disagreements in details between Watson and Crick? Who is correct? I think a well researched biography m,ay actually be more reliable than primary soruces themselves.  it is clear there is a human tendancy to romanticise history. David D. (Talk) 18:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a little confused here, if we are discussing the Klug essay, then it is not a primary source, he gives a list of sources he has used for his essay, J. D. Watson, The double helix (1968) + A. Klug, 'Rosalind Franklin and the discovery of the structure of DNA', Nature, 219 (1968), 808-10, 843-4 + A. Klug, 'Rosalind Franklin and the double helix', Nature, 248 (1974), 787-8 + J. Glynn, 'Rosalind Franklin, 1920-1958', Cambridge women: twelve portraits, ed. E. Shils and C. Blacker (1996), 267-82 + A. Sayre, Rosalind Franklin and DNA (1978) + H. F. Judson, The eighth day of creation: the makers of the revolution in biology (1979) + personal knowledge (2004) + private information (2004) + CGPLA Eng. & Wales (1958) + Randall to Franklin, 4 Dec 1950, CAC Cam., Franklin MSS Archives CAC Cam., scientific corresp. and papers + priv. coll. Klug worked with Franklin only after 1953 and so was not involved in any of her work on coal or DNA. You also contrdict yourself, you have constantly made references to biographical material on this page and on others, how do you get any knowledge of any of the participants without refering to biographies? David D. makes a good point, we know that Watson's book The Double Helix is not a particularly reliable account of the discovery of the structure of DNA, and yet he must be one of the most authoritative sources by your reasoning. To produce a good article Wikipedia should use all sorts of sources, and in fact should present all points of view as neutrally as possible. Many of the sources on Farnklin repeat information available elsewhere, there is only so much information available and most of it has been covered ad nauseum by a plethora of different sources. If we used every available source to verify everything in the article, we would have a reference list about ten times longer than it already is. Alun 05:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On a different note please do not remove text from the talk page (I've asked you not to do this before, as I have asked you to please sign on to your account and sign your posts properly, it's such a small thing, but not doing it appears to display contempt for other editors that you cannot be bothered to identify youself), it is considered bad form and is a breach of wikiquette. If you want to retract a statement you can strike it trough by adding text here which will be displayed thus text here. Alun 05:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aaron Klug essay

message: Does this article need Template:Infobox Scientist ?
62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194
Yes it does! See:

This succinct summary looks very good on the FRANCIS CRICK article, so why not follow suite?
ps
I gave my daughter a paperback copy of Maddox on Franklin yesterday as required reading before she goes to Bristol University at the end of this month: a good role model!     
62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194
:This infobox has been nominated for deletion, and at present it looks like there are more votes for deletion than for keeping. If it's deleted it can no longer be used on any article. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox_Scientist. Cheers, Alun 09:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs infobox?

message: See:
List of improvements (please add to this list be specific)
"1. Add more information about her personal life. 
2. more detail on her time working on coal and graphite. 
3. More detail about whether she had the impression from Randall that she and Gosling alone would be working on the x-ray diffraction of DNA, this was certainly Wilkins's impression and that of Klug, and may have contributed to her perception of interference from Wilkins. 
4. Need to add more information about what Crick and Watson knew of Franklin's work (and where they got it) in winter of '52/'53. 
5. Include more information from the letters to Science in 1968."
Does the article really need the above reminder of its apparent shortcomings? Surely all it needs is more in-depth research from a variety of resources? Who (anonymously) is the author of this To Do List and why does he feel the urge to share it with the rest of the global Wikipedia readership? Someone (our old friend "Badgerpatrol"?) said no one 'owns' an article, but surely this is contradicted by the sense of ownership implicit in the To Do List? Over to its 'Welsh' author?
62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194
:As I have stated elsewhere, I humbly suggest that other editors ignore this individual in the hopes that it may encourage him to a) learn some manners; b) take the time to familiarise himself with even the most basic Wikipedia rules, guidelines, and etiquette, of which he is ignorant (and, I suspect, obtusely so). Badgerpatrol 20:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignorant is correct.  I am the author, see the history.  To do lists are normal on article talk pages in wikipedia.  It has nothing to do with ownership and a lot to do with communication with other authors. David D. (Talk) 02:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do list

message: Anyone care to remove the "SO SO SAD" from the first paragraph of the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.106.111.10 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 October 2006.
:Well it has already been removed. But don't worry, this sort of minor vandalism (or experimental edit) is quite common, but tends to get reverted before long. You could actually edit the article page and fix it yourself as easily as editing this talk page - Be bold. -- Solipsist 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove abuse

message: I have reverted this edit , it claims that the rule forbidding postumous nominations for the Nobel was instituted in 1974, in which case Franklin was eligible. Many people. including Maddox have made this point about Franklin's ineligibility, no one has made this claim before as far as I know. It may or may not be true, I don't know, but it would be odd for the fact to have been omited from several biographies. Still it may be true, unfortunately the anonymous editor who made the edit did not provide a cite, and I think that is essential if such a big change is to be made. Anyone fancy going and checking this out? Alun 08:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: Alun, on the above there are 771 books with references to R.E.F. believe it or not; you have to look at most of them to believe it! 
Surely to God (my apologies for the apparent profanity) you will concede that the article badly needs more than just [from memory] Sayre, Maddox and Wilkins? Have a look at: http://books.google.co.uk/
and search on Rosalind Franklin! There is - in my opinion- very little original material outside what has already appeared in Olby, Freeland Judson, Maddox, Sayre, Crick, Watson, and Wilkins,  - which is why Brown's references to R.E.F. are so important in his Bernal biography from OUP 2005. (Also Maurice Goldsmith's biography too.)  
I have no intention of 'paraphrasing' references from Brown's Bernal biography into the article as quite honestly I have other personal priorities, but surely you could do the honours and read all of the following pages from "J.D. Bernal: The Sage of Science" :
Pages 355-6, 362, 373, 439-440, plus REF and: DNA 314, 359; and: protein research 353-360, and virus research: 357-360, 376, 379.
(If necessary, remind me what your address is [by e-mail] and I will photocopy and send them to you tomorrow - by air mail - to Finland.)
I have already supplied you with hard copies of the three letters in "Nature" so why is there a delay in incorporating them into the article? I am NOT being personally critical by the way, as I do really admire your enthusiasm for the subject (almost as bad as me and FHC Crick) but please reconsider your stance for the sake of improving the article OR let someone else (but not me) have a go!
RSVP Nitramrekcap 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Martin. If you have a problem with any of the article then I suggest you edit it yourself. I see no real problems with the sources used. All of the sources used support each other and are often used for multiple cites of the same statement. There is still more work that could be done double referencing some of Maddox and Sayre, especially later on. I think all of the double referencing between Wilkins and Maddox is there. That is these sources support each other very well. Personally I fail to see any purpose in simply supporting the same information ad infinitum with different cites. We will end up with great strings of numbers after each sentence in the article, one for each source that supports the statement. There seems to be little or no deviation in the way this history has been told, most of the relevant info is out there and has been used by Maddox and Wilkins. For Franklin's non-DNA related life (ie the vast bulk of it) there is less info of course, because less has been written about this part of her life, and this is why Maddox and Sayre are so heavily cited. I have been looking at Watson's book, frankly the claims he makes regarding Franklin are just plain wrong. For example he claims that she was Wilkins's assistant. I don't know where he got this idea from, but it's cleaŕly wrong. Then he makes several quite vicious comments about her for no apparent reason. I can see no real evidence that this book provides either reliable information or anything new for the article. I have also been looking at Robert Olby, there is some information here that we could use for a section about Franklin's relationship with Wilkins. I am increasingly of the opinion that this subject should actually be mentioned, posibly in it's own section. Especially I think we should make note of Randal's letter to Franklin, and that several sources (including Olby, Sayre, Maddox and Wilkins) think that this letter told Franklin that she alone would be working on X-ray difraction of DNA. We can then state that Wilkins was unaware of the existence of this letter and that he had assumed that he was also to be involved. We can then discuss how this misunderstanding led to the deterioration of their professional relationship. I want to keep it as neutral as possible, but I do think it should be mentionned. This is no where near the only article I am involved in on Wikipedia, I do not spend my time only researching this, and I have very limited time for doing wikipedia work anyway. Making major edits is something I rarely get any time to do, mainly because the reading and research is so time consuming, not to mention the actual writing. I do think that I have contributed a great deal to this article, and I do think I have helpped to improve it. Here are myfirst edits, then again I made a series of edits in April 2006 starting with this diff. I have also encouraged other editors to actively criticise my edits and have put the article up for peer review. It seem unfair to claim that I am somehow possessive of this article, if I were, why would I have contacted so many people and asked for a peer review? I acknowledge that my work has been in large part down to the fact that your efforts were so offensive to me that I felt the article needed someone to give it a major overhaul and do a thorough check of all facts (here's the diff for one of your early edits, it is not about Franklin at all). Currently I think that all of the material in the article is satisfactorily sourced. Given this I don't think that there is much wrong with the content, more could be added, and of cource there are always differences of opinion regarding what should be included and what should not. The article at present tries to give a ballanced account, and attempts to give all points of view, some people may feel that it fails, that is their prerogative, I urge them to be bold and include other points of view, assuming that they can be verified. I do not consider myself your secretary, and am not here to do your bidding. You seem to want to include a specific source, but do not indicate what new information it has. If it has important information that should be included in the article and cited then I suggest that you say what that information is. I see no real point in stating that a certain source must be used, if you cannot exactly say why it must be used. Anyway, happy editing. Alun 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for using your account Martin. I very much appreciate it when you do this. It makes life much easier. Cheers. Alun 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GOOGLE BOOK SEARCH ON ROSALIND FRANKLIN FOR OTHER SOURCES

message: I'm off because of this. I'm unhappy here anyway. You are excellent people. Have a good life. Martin, you are excellent, please contribute more. I've loved our clashes, every one of them. Love. Alun 02:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm off

message: * Tait, Sylvia & James "A Quartet of Unlikely Discoveries" (Athena Press 2004) 
This book has a 66 page article on the discovery of the structure of DNA and was endorsed by Professor John Randall as being an accurate account; watch this space for further details. BB
62.239.159.5 12:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FURTHER READING

message: See: http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/KR/ for -
Biographical Information 
The Holes in Coal: Research at BCURA and in Paris, 1942-1951 
The DNA Riddle: King's College, London, 1951-1953 
Envisioning Viruses: Birkbeck College, London, 1953-1958
Nitramrekcap 21:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE ROSALIND FRANKLIN PAPERS NOW AT THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE

message: I have never been a great fan of this non too subtle attempt to re-write scientific history, but the recent addition of another three:
Cavendish Laboratory/King's College London/Photo 51 (ie a stub!) 
to the "Discovery of the DNA Double Helix" is getting slightly ridiculous, so it now reads:
 
Francis Crick/Rosalind Franklin/James Watson/Maurice Wilkins/Cavendish Laboratory/King's College London/Photo 51
Can whoever changed it, please justify this very strange amendment?
Nitramrekcap 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''ISN'T THIS GETTING SLIGHTLY RIDICULOUS?''' 

message: In the introductory paragraph this "Franklin is best known for having created Photo 51 which constituted critical evidence confirming the hypothesis of double helical structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in their 1953 publication[1] leading to the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953." is both debatable and a bit contensious - hence following the role previously played by Alun/Wobble, I am removing it! It is not necessarily true; her memory is NOT best served by mentionning "Photo 51" (sic) in my humble opinion, as referring to it is this rather silly way is not that scientific! By all means add it into the article's main body?  
Nitramrekcap 12:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''''dudewheresmywallet''''

message: When you said :"In the introductory paragraph this "Franklin is best known for having created Photo 51 which constituted critical evidence confirming the hypothesis of double helical structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in their 1953 publication[1] leading to the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953." is both debatable and a bit contensious - hence following the role previously played by Alun/Wobble, I am removing it! It is not necessarily true; her memory is NOT best served by mentionning "Photo 51" (sic) in my humble opinion, as referring to it is this rather silly way is not that scientific! By all means add it into the article's main body?"  
Are you saying that Photo 51's importance is debatable and a bit contensious, or Rosalind Franklin's role in elucidating the DNA structure(and thus contributions that she is famous for) is debatable and a bit contensious?
I am sure Franklin was a great scientist who did a lot of her work on other nucleic acids, as well as viruses, no doubt. But you have to understand, without her photo, Watson and Crick would not have suggested their model, they did not have any proof, even in their own publication that I have referenced in the introduction. Moreover, Franklin & Gosling, and Wilkins et al in Nature 171 form the evidence of double helical structure, not Watson and Crick's paper in the same issue. Amongst these, Franklin nad Gosling's Paper have the original photo which gave Crick the confirmation of the double helix.
The second reason why I insist it should be there in the introduction is that people know of the "Watson and Crick" model, they are unaware that it was an unproved hypothesis based on the knowledge of base pairing and on Rosalind Franklin's photo shown to Crick by Wilkins". I don't know whether you are at all related to Molecular Biology, but I am, and when we talk about the double helix, we talk about "the proof" taken by Franklin, and published in the same issue as the Watson and Crick's "Suggested Structure". Oddly enough, it's Franklin's contributions to DNA that, at least all the Molecular Biologists, I know deem more important. Also in that note, people outside this field would hardly know of Franklin and Wilkins. They know of Watson and Crick model. There is also a misconception that Watson and Crick "showed". It is also probably neccessary to foster a critical scientific outlook, that at least all the young people who look up wikipedia understand the weight of "evidence in Science". Lastly, it is only fair, and furthermore inspirational.
Hope you can see what I am trying to say. 
If you do wish to debate this could you please discuss this in the talk page before we change anything. I think it would be helpful to clarify and build consensus.
Cheerio.
Dudewheresmywallet 13:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that lucid explanation; as I am in magnanimous mood this afternoon, I will let it all stand (for the moment); incidentally when were you at KCL, what was your subject, and why the interest in REF? Also what do you think of the new NLM archive of Franklin's papers, which I added last week to the External Links? Cheers!! Nitramrekcap 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Dudewheresmywallet

message: ::I have only just looked up this talk page to realise there has been a huge talk about my additions to the DNA discovery template, as well as suggestions to delete the references.
The reasons why I have added the last two is because it is a history related topic, and in my opinion both these institutions played a huge role in the publication of the double helix. The reason why I put photo 51 is because, as I have explained before, it was a. the critical evidence- You will notice that Wilkins also publishes a paper in the same issue of Nature with an X-ray diffraction image , but there is a qualitative difference between that and Franklins' image. These you will see if you look up the Nature archives I thought I had linked but had been deleted.
The purpose of this is not to promote or demote any conspiracy theories or sexist allegations etc etc. But it is really important to understand what "That Image" did, and how it was different from previous X-ray diffraction images taken. I honestly couldn't care less if it was taken by Ros Franklin or my cousin Joe.But the fact remains that Franklin did take it.Dudewheresmywallet 12:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that this comment is not only factually incorrect, but also libellous, no wonder you choose to remain annonymous. Alun 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re:Nitram and other suggestions for deletion of references

message: 1. "Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray Diffraction images of DNA which formed a basis of Watson and Crick's hypothesis of the double helical structure of DNA in their 1953 publication,[1] and when published constituted critical evidence of the hypothesis.[2"
TO READ:
2. "Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray Diffraction images of DNA which constituted critical evidence (used to formulate) [confirming] the hypothesis of double helical structure of DNA by Watson and Crick, (as presented) in their 1953 publication[1] [leading to the discovery of ] (outlining)the structure of DNA [in 1953]. However the wording and placement of the three 1953 Nature articles gave the false impression that Franklin and Gosling's work just  confirmed Watson and Crick's brilliant theoretical structural proposal."
Nitramrekcap 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that this comment is not only factually incorrect, but also libellous, no wonder you choose to remain annonymous. Alun 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROPOSED INTRODUCTARY PARAGRAPH CHANGE: BEFORE (1) & AFTER (2)

message: Franklin was not liked at work because she was very stricted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.72.64.173 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the outcast 

message: Hello, I am not an expert but don't you think there is a little overkill with the footnotes? I mean you don't need two sources to prove that she was in a Girl's school, do you? I think it makes it rather hard to read, what do you think? Greetings --hroest 11:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going through a bit of a "verifiability" kick at the time. Still if the info is verified at least no one can complain of it's inclusion. There have been many disputes on this article over the last two years. Now that much of the article is verified it has remained more or less stable for about ten months. I don't think it makes it difficult to read, but then again it's a question of personal preference. I'm quite used to reading literature that contains footnoting, maybe it's also about what we are used to. There are alternative ways to reference information if footnoting is a problem. See WP:CITE#How_to_cite_sources. I am not so much involved with this article any more, please feel free to change the citation style if you wish, though it will be a big undertaking I can assure you, it took me a long time do a proper fact and reference check on this article, though the hard work people put in is rarely appreciated, it only seems to lead to criticism, with very little appreciation. Cheers, Alun 12:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overkill with Footnotes