Talk:Rosalind Franklin/Archive 4

message: Nothing you have written is relevant to the debate we are having. You have never answered a direct question about what the myths you refer to actually are, and yet you have repeatedly mentioned them. This seems to be little more than an attempt to discredit other people's posts by referring obliquely to myths that you seem incapable of specifying. You also continually try to discredit me by claiming you have read extensively about the lives of the people involved in the discovery of DNA, while disparaging my knowledge, and yet you display no evidence of this in your contributions to the article, nearly all of the changes you have made have been factually incorrect, or in direct contravention of wikipedia policies. You persist in insulting and being offensive to me without reason. You have made me very angry on numerous occasions and I have lost my temper with you at least twice. No one on wikipedia has ever insulted me like you have or made such personal attacks. I have had to take time out from this page in order to recover and calm down from your insulting and offensive behaviour. If you do not understand what wikipedia is for then why don't you find out? I have several times asked you to visit the policies and guidelines pages. If you did this you would be able to find out for yourself what WP is for, instead of expecting other people to spoon feed you. You generally ignore what people tell you about the rules on WP anyway. You have continued to treat this talk page like an open forum on any subject concerning the discovery of DNA. You complain that no one bothered to answer my previous question (see archive) about what a 'Wiki' biography is supposed to achieve, but you have never bothered to answer a direct question, not once. You evade all direct questions by changing the subject and impugning the integrity or ability of the questioner. This is a classic example. I have asked you directly to answer several questions, one about the Nobel Prize web site, another about these myths and a third about why you think the statement Franklin is most noted for her contributions to the discovery of the structure of the DNA double helix is incorrect (can you show a different reason for her fame, or have some evidence that she was not working on DNA?). You have once again ignored these questions and made a personal and unfounded attack on me.
:: I do not really understand what Wikipedia "is and what it is for". IT IS DEFINATELY NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR ALL OF THE EXISTING SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN!
You are quite right, you do not understand (something that has been apparent to me since you started to leave posts here), but more importantly, you have made no attempt to find out, so there's no point in complaining about it, the relevant information is abundantly available had you sought it out. And no WP is not a substitute for all the existing scientific literature, and neither does it try to be. Just so that you know, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Here's a list of some Wikipedia rules, all of which, by the way, you have managed to break.
#Verifyability: Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.
#Neutral point of view: Wikipedia policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable. The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct.
#No original research: Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what the sources say.
#From no original research: Wikipedia:No original research is one of three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The three policies are complementary, jointly determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from each other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.
What all this effectively means is that any point of view, which has a reputable source to support it can be included. If anything that is included is disputed, then the alternative point of view should be included (if it has a reputable source reference), in order to maintain neutrality.
: It seems to be a forum for people like you and John Schmidt to argue over semantics, without having read the available autobiographies and biographies.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is important to get things right. Sometimes this involves discussing the wording of statements as it is easy to write something that can be interpreted in a different way. I do not always agree with JWSchmidt, but he is always relevant and to the point, and he often makes very good points and argues his position while addressing my concerns. You on the other hand have never argued your position, you have simply adopt the attitude that everyone else is wrong, I have never known you to answer a single direct question regarding the content of the page or statements you have made. There is no requirement to have read all of the literature you claim to have read in order to contribute to this page (and yes I read Maurice Wilkins book, you may not think I understood it, but that is a matter of opinion not fact, I have the opinion that you have misinterpreted it). There is no requirement at all for contribution to this page, that's why it's called the encyclopedia anyone can edit. But there is a requirement to provide verifiability, something you have struggled to do, partly because your statements are generally vague to the point of being meaningless (like your myths assertion), and partly because you seem to have read a lot of literature while understanding virtually none of the content. Your position on Wilkins's Nobel Prize (and it was to Wilkins as the Nobel Prize website makes explicit http://nobelprize.org/) shows this beyond doubt. Wilkins was a very modest man, and obviously wanted to make it clear that contributions to the prize were made by numerous people that had worked in the department over a number of years. This is standard stuff for all prize winners, they want to include everyone. But it is evident form the most perfunctory piece of research that the prize was awarded to Wilkins. You want to include a POV, inaccurate and unverifiable statement on a wikipedia page, based on what you think is the truth. This is against virtually everything wikipedia stands for.
I am seriously thinking of taking this to the mediation cabal (The Mediation Cabal provides unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia, and is composed of volunteers who wish to assist people in resolving conflicts). If we do not get a mutually satisfactory outcome, then we may have to go to full arbitration ( Arbitration differs from Mediation in that the Arbitration Committee will consider the case and issue a decision, instead of merely assisting the parties in reaching an agreement. If the issue is decided by Arbitration, you will be expected to abide by the result. If the case involves serious user misconduct, Arbitration may result in a number of serious consequences, as laid out in the Arbitration policy). In the interests of fairness I think it only right to point out to you this comment on my user talk page Martin and Rosalind Franklin. Alun 19:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need evidence to remove it. It is in the wrong place. You have persistently inserted text into the wrong place in the article. In the introduction to Rosalind Franklin's autobiography we should try to be as concise as possible, and stick to what she did (and not what other people did). I would have thought this was blatantly obvious, but then you have consistently treated this article as if it were a general article about DNA (there is a separate article on DNA). You have even said that you do not understand what Wikipedia is for or what should be included in the article, given this it seems strange that you insist on making changes to a page you do not understand. It is more appropriate to make a simple statement acknowledging that she is best known for her contribution. The fact that Crick and Watson elucidated the structure is well known and will not come as revelatory to people reading the article. There is plenty of reference to the Crick and Watson model in the main body of the article, nowhere is this concealed.Alun 04:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes OK Martin, if you think it's that important. It is not patently ridiculous to leave these words out, because as you correctly point out the whole world recognises Watson and Crick's achievement in 1953, so we don't really need to put them in the introduction, and the main body of the text includes this fact. It really doesn't need to be in the introduction. To claim that something as petty as this is equivalent to Holocaust denial is rather disgusting. How can you compare the murder of over six million people to the omission of two names from an encyclopedia? You need to get some perspective, man. If you feel so strongly about this, then I will not remove it again if you want to re-insert it as, though I disagree, I am not strongly against, I just feel these words shouldn't be there. I did have a look at the Encarta article, I was not overly impressed with it, to be honest, but this is not a chatroom and is certainly not the place to discuss it. This page is for this article and none other. Alun 18:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For the attention of Martin Packer (and editors of this page)

message: I urge all editors to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is official wikipedia policy. I would like to point out this section in particuluar:
:Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources. Alun 13:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of material is fine as long as it's properly referenced, though I would not consider it per se of great importance. I am aware that she had some dealings with Watson obout viruses. There is no reason why they should not have been amicable. Rosalind Franklin, as far as we are aware never knew her work had been used by Crick and Watson in their model of 1953. Alun 06:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: I have removed Maurice Wilkins name from the introduction. I do not think he can be credited here as a discoverer of the structure as he is not a co-author of the original 1953 paper by Crick and Watson.  Is there a good reason for his inclusion? Wilkins makes it clear in his book that his part of the Nobel Prize was primarily for his work on DNA post 1953. Alun 06:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Maurice Wilkins not discoverer

message: I have copied to this page my contribution to a discussion elsewhere. In brief, I cannot see why two of the people are in this template.  They had minor roles in the discovery of the structure of DNA.
My principle objection is the inclusion of Max Delbrück.  I have re-read Judson's Eighth Day of Creation to check on Delbrück's role.  He gets credit for inspiring Schrödinger and for passing on information but to give him a big billing (one of six) seems to me to be unnecessary.  An unexplained sentence on p145 even says that Delbrück was "no friend of biochemistry".
In a transcript of a conversion between James Watson and David Baltimore, the President of Caltech , Baltimore mentioned the experiments by Oswald Avery: “One of the things I’ve always been curious about is why they didn’t have the impact that they might have. The genetics community, particularly around Luria and [Max] Delbrück, never seemed to appreciate that Avery —this is now 1944—and his colleagues had published a paper that quite clearly showed that as chemically pure DNA as you could get would transfer genetic characteristics. And yet the idea that DNA was the carrier of genetic information really didn’t take hold.”
I think it was just that everyone expected that proteins were going to be involved,” said Watson. “And also the covalent backbone—how the nucleotides were linked together—wasn’t established until ’51. It was the Avery result that was the stimulus for Erwin Chargaff to measure the relative concentrations of DNA’s four bases (adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine) and for Alex Todd to get his organic chemists to establish the covalent structure. But neither Luria nor Delbrück thought in terms of molecules."
Pauling did great work on the chemical bond and in deducing the structure of unrelated molecules, but does not rate a top six billing here either.  Pauling got the structure wrong, though in the DNA story, he was someone who unwittingly applied some pressure to Crick and Watson.  If you have to rank people in order of importance in the DNA story, a difficult thing to do, I would put the following people after Franklin, Watson, Crick and Wilkins:
* Oswald Avery, for showing that DNA carried genetic material and for proving that it was worth studying to begin with
* William Astbury, for showing them it was possible to take X-ray diffraction patterns of DNA
* Erwin Chargaff, for determining the ratio of the bases
* Jerry Donohue, (see acknowledgement in the Nature article)
* Phoebus Levene, for getting the components right
* Alexander Stokes, for working out the mathematics of helical diffraction
Obviously you could go back further and credit Pauling for his work on the chemical bond and the Braggs for inventing X-Ray diffraction, but I would draw the line before there.  Since Raymond Gosling's name appears on one of the three 1953 Nature papers he should also be in there somewhere.JMcC 15:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everyone should feel free to add to the navigation box a link to an article about anyone who has a Wikipedia article that describes their role in the discovery of the double helix structure. --JWSchmidt 17:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked the calendar and it is not 1st April.  Delbrück's involvement is highly indirect.  He inspired Schrödinger to write his book which was widely read.  They do not give Nobel prizes for that. Since Schrödinger actually wrote the book, you could more plausibly argue that he should also be listed among the pioneers who discovered the structure of DNA, and way ahead of Delbrück.  JMcC 14:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have previously given the reasons for why Delbrück was initially included in the navigation box that links Wikipedia pages that are related to the discovery of DNA: Template talk:Double helix. Short summary: Watson was the "prime mover" in the way that the dicovery took place in early 1953. It is an interesting historical question to ask: why did Watson become the "prime mover" in the way the dicovery unfolded? Delbrück played a major role in both how Watson (as well as Crick and Wilkins) became interested in the molecular basis of heredity and how Watson kept his focus on DNA during his post-doc time in Europe (via Delbrück's "phage group"). --JWSchmidt 15:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The DNA template

message: I have removed this sentence from the introduction as it has no relevance to introduction to Rosalind Franklin's biographical article. Can someone please explain why this is relevant in the introduction? The Nobel prize was awarded several years after Franklin had died and is not an important part of her life. The award of the prize is mentioned in the body of the article, which is its correct location. Text similar to this has repeatedly been removed from the introduction. If it re-appears can the editor please give a proper explanation for its inclusion? This seems little more than an attempt by an editor to include Wilkins's name in the introduction in any way possible, to what end I do not know.
 Her colleague at Kings College London Maurice Wilkins subsequently shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine with Watson and Crick
Alun 18:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good stuff. Find the reference and put it in, unfortunatelly we cannot use one wiki page as a verifiable source for another wiki page (wikipedia obviously can't verify itself!!), so we need another source for verifiability. A quick google search produced nothing to substantiate this, it doesn't seem to be properly verified in the Maurice Wilkins article either. Lets try to find something to support this and we can put it in. This sort of thing may well fit in the intro as it directly relates to Franklin and is of some note. Alun 06:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is great information, but for it to be verifiable it must be from a source anyone can get hold of, like a book or website (so anyone can verify it personally) the policy calls for a good source, but a published book will usually count as a good source. Any sort of personal comunication is not in the public domain and so is not verifiable (and probably constitutes original research). If you can try to remember where you saw it written, and give the citation then I think it would be an excellent addition to the article because it shows that Wilkins's and Franklin's contributions to the model are recognised as equal to those of Crick and Watson by a highly prestigious laboratory. Unfortunatelly I have drawn a blank trying to find reference to this using several google searches, but it might be the sort of thing that is not common knowledge outside the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory. We most certainly agree on this. Alun 17:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wilkin's Nobel Prize in introduction

message: Most textbooks describe the double helix as the "W-C" (for "Watson-Crick") model of DNA, but there is a longstanding tradition at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory of referring to it as the W-C-M-F model with the M for "Maurice" and the F for "Franklin." (see Maurice Wilkins.
195.92.168.169 20:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good stuff. Find the reference and put it in, unfortunatelly we cannot use one wiki page as a verifiable source for another wiki page (wikipedia obviously can't verify itself!!), so we need another source for verifiability. A quick google search produced nothing to substantiate this, it doesn't seem to be properly verified in the Maurice Wilkins article either. Lets try to find something to support this and we can put it in. This sort of thing may well fit in the intro as it directly relates to Franklin and is of some note. Alun 06:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is great information, but for it to be verifiable it must be from a source anyone can get hold of, like a book or website (so anyone can verify it personally) the policy calls for a good source, but a published book will usually count as a good source. Any sort of personal comunication is not in the public domain and so is not verifiable (and probably constitutes original research). If you can try to remember where you saw it written, and give the citation then I think it would be an excellent addition to the article because it shows that Wilkins's and Franklin's contributions to the model are recognised as equal to those of Crick and Watson by a highly prestigious laboratory. Unfortunatelly I have drawn a blank trying to find reference to this using several google searches, but it might be the sort of thing that is not common knowledge outside the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory. We most certainly agree on this. Alun 17:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''and for the last word on the subject a quote from Wilkins' (Wiki) biography''' 

message: A while back I queried the relevance of Max Delbrück and Linus Pauling to the discovery of the structure of DNA.  Somehow it got buried under the other discussions.  The only comment I got was by the perpetrator.  Someone else must also think that the only four people worth putting in the template are Wilkins, Watson Crick and Franklin, assuming that you have a template at all.  If you want to add more people, you have to add about ten before you to Pauling and about thirty before you get to Delbrück.  See discussion about one metre upwards. JMcC 19:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with your above list of contributors. I think we should stick to four. There has also been some debate about the aesthetic nature of the template. I removed it some time ago because I was asked to, but it has made a re-appearance recently. We can have a vote on this if you would like, it's a good way to solve wiki disputes, we just need to decide if the vote is for removal of the template or for removing Pauling and Delbrück. Alun 02:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing magic about the names I placed in the navigation box. They happened to be people who were important for the discovery of the structure of DNA and they had Wikipedia articles that described their roles. It was my hope and remains my hope that additional names will be added to the navigation box. There are many options for modifying the navigation box to try to make it less of a visual shock. It could be made smaller. It could be moved to the end of an article. The colors could be changed. The point of the navigation box is to be an aid for Wikipedia users. I ask you to try to imagine a student who might have been told one name (maybe Franklin) and starts to research DNA at Wikipedia. Might such a student benefit from a navigation box that leads to the rest of the DNA structure story? If you think the navigation box is ugly, modify it. If you think there are more important people to add to the box, add them. If you do not want the navigation box on a page, remove it. There is also a guideline at Wikipedia by which editors are asked to assume that other editors are acting in good faith for the benefit of Wikipedia. I have repeatedly explained the benefits of navigation boxes. There are thousands of them in use at Wikipedia. You are free to complain about the fact that I see benefit in the DNA structure navigation box, but I think you have to admit that I am not "forcing" something unusual on you. In September I added the navigation box to the Franklin article. The navigation box was removed. Someone else added it back. I think it (or a modified version) should be somewhere on the Franklin page, but the one time I added it was enough for me. If you take it off I will not add it back. When it was taken off the Franklin page before I did not complain. --JWSchmidt 03:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There is a See also section at the end of the article for related articles. Surelly this should suffice for the purpose you mention? And of course these names (with the sole exception of Delbrück) occur repeatedly in the text of the article, with links to the appropriate wiki entries. Anyone not capable of using the See also section or clicking on a link in the text is not going to be able to use the navigation box either. Alun 18:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have been playing arround with the template and have added the suggestions of JMcC. I have also put people in alphabetical order as any order of importance is always going to be disputed by someone. Any comments? Alun 13:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant names in template with photo

message: let's all take a breather from the above fruitless debate, and look at:
http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/coll/pauling/dna/people/index.html
195.92.168.168 21:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''key participants in the race for dna/the chemical bond''' 

message: While I admit to not being the biggest fan of the navigation box, and also admit that I have removed it once in the past (because of a request to do so), I now feel that it should stay, at least untill a consensus has been reached. Although I personally do not like the style of the box, this is just aesthetics, I would probably have preferred a simpler style. The real issue seems to be the relative importance of the names in the box. This is easily solved by adding the missing names that are considered more important. The fairest thing then would be to list the people in the box alphabetically. I have not done any work with templates and so need to swot up a bit on this sort of thing. One constructive thing that could be done would be to come to some sort of consensus for the, say ten most important people in the discovery, and stick to those in the box. I think this is a good starting point. What do others think? Alun 12:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been playing arround with the template and have added the suggestions of JMcC. I have also put people in alphabetical order as any order of importance is always going to be disputed by someone. Any comments? Alun 13:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of navigation box

message: User:195.92.168.165 has recently been removing the navigation box and lead images from many of the DNA related articles, and also added the following text;
:Some in the molecular biology community believe that since Franklin died early, and Maurice Wilkins was much less of a publicity-seeker, that Watson and Crick have in the popular mind overshadowed Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin to an undeserved degree.
Whilst I might agree, this shouldn't be copied to every related page, shouldn't be in the lead para and, most importantly, shouldn't be inserted as an unsourced opinion. If someone can find a good published version of this sort of sentiment, it would probably be appropriate to include that. -- Solipsist 10:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal communication does not count as a verifiable source. Verifiable information must come from a published source. Verification means that another user/editor of wikipedia can check the facts by looking in the appropriate source text, be it a website or a book. Any source that is not  generally available (like a personal email) in not verifiable, however eminent the person or organisation the source is from, I believe this statement comes from a personal email communication. Further sending enquiries to people in order to get access to their opinions, beliefs or any other information would constitute original research, which is also against wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's purpose is to include information already generally available. Remember verifiability is not truth, conversely a truth, whatever the source, cannot be included without it being verifiable, and as I say, for it to be verifiable it must be available to all people (which is why a published source is the best). I urge you once again to read this page Wikipedia:Verifiability. I would imagine that most people would agree with the above statement, but it is an opinion and it isn't as yet verified. Alun 12:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Biographies cannot always have pictures of the subject due to copyright restrictions. You should take a look at some of the other templates JWSchmidt has used, Jerry Donohue for example or Alec Stokes these are very good. I quite like the old one now it has more names on it, the base pairing thing works much better with more names on it. I added the extra names to the old template because JMcC suggested it above (see The DNA template discussion above). I would like to draw your attention once again to the fact that talk pages are not a chatroom. Please refrain from posting links to other websites here unless they are directly related to the article. I am warning you that I will start to remove any information you post that is not related to wikipedia and Rosalind Franklin's biographical article. I am refering to your A NEW SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON KING'S COLLEGE LONDON AND THE EPIC 'BATTLE' FOR DETERMINING THE STRUCTURE OF DNA post and the numerous other post you have made like this one (I remember one was something about Asperger syndrome). If websites have information for the purpose of verifiability then that is of course a different matter. Alun 18:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relative importance in the popular mind

message: Genesis of a Discovery: DNA Structure, ed S. Chomet, King's College London 1993; published by Newman Hemisphere Press, London
I have just ordered a copy on the recommendation of Franklin's next biographer (Lynne Elkins) and will let everyone know what it is like. 195.92.168.167 13:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A NEW SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON KING'S COLLEGE LONDON AND THE EPIC 'BATTLE' FOR DETERMINING THE STRUCTURE OF DNA

message: At this rate, it will surpass Alan Lightman's 22 "Discoveries" in sheer stupidity! Alan Lightman of MIT mistakenly credits DNA (17#) to Watson & Crick plus Franklin & Gosling; but on what logical basis to leave out Stokes, Wilkins, and Wilson? "17. THE STRUCTURE OF DNA
James D. Watson and Francis H. C. Crick (1953); and Rosalind E. Franklin and R. G. Gosling (1953)" is how it appears on: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/11/27/lightmans_list/ for all the world to see!195.92.168.167 13:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Biographies cannot always have pictures of the subject due to copyright restrictions. You should take a look at some of the other templates JWSchmidt has used, Jerry Donohue for example or Alec Stokes these are very good. I quite like the old one now it has more names on it, the base pairing thing works much better with more names on it. I added the extra names to the old template because JMcC suggested it above (see The DNA template discussion above). I would like to draw your attention once again to the fact that talk pages are not a chatroom. Please refrain from posting links to other websites here unless they are directly related to the article. I am warning you that I will start to remove any information you post that is not related to wikipedia and Rosalind Franklin's biographical article. I am refering to your A NEW SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON KING'S COLLEGE LONDON AND THE EPIC 'BATTLE' FOR DETERMINING THE STRUCTURE OF DNA post and the numerous other post you have made like this one (I remember one was something about Asperger syndrome). If websites have information for the purpose of verifiability then that is of course a different matter. Alun 18:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: that amazingly stupid 'DNA Discovery' template now contains ''12'' scientists names! (It has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous...) 

message: I have also been playing arround with JWSchmidt's Double helix template. I have not done this before and am not proficient in HTML so please be understanding. I have modified the template quite a lot and put it on the article page. I have made the template monochrome, my only concern is that it might look a bit like it's a bit too sombre now!!! Please give me some feedback. Alun 06:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also one if there's no picture at William Astbury. Alun 07:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am now relativelly ambivalent about which navigation template to use. They are a bit more hidden away at the bottom in long articles though. I don't understand why you say it is more standard to use a navigation template at the foot of the page. Most of the articles I have seen put the navigation/info boxes on the top left: English people, Wales, Anarchism, Athelstan of England. Alun 22:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: I am asking an expert in the field (a Visiting Fellow of King's College London) to assess whether the following is an accurate and fair assessment of Rosalind Franklin's career: "Rosalind Elsie Franklin (25 July 1920 - 16 April 1958) was a British physical chemist and crystallographer who made very important contributions to the understanding of the fine structures of coal and graphite, DNA and viruses. Franklin is best known for her contribution to the DNA double helix discovery by Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953, assisted by her colleagues Gosling, Stokes, Wilkins, and Wilson of King's College London, all lead by Professor John Randall."
All I ask is for it not to be amended or deleted until the person concerned has commented on it; in my own personal opinion, it 'under-estimates' the role played by Maurice Wilkins but there seems to be a consensus in favour of not ranking him alongside Watson and Crick (?). But if anyone knows why Alan Lightman (M.I.T.) credits the DNA discovery to Crick, Franklin, Gosling, and Watson but ignores Stokes, Wilkins, and Watson - then please let us all know asap? All for now..195.92.168.164 21:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct place for Maurice Wilkins's role in the discovery is Maurice Wilkins's biography. Please do not clutter up the introduction with unecessary detail. These people have their own biographical articles, appear in the text of this article (their correct place) and also appear in the navigation bar. I see absolutely no purpose in including their names in the introduction. Your attempt to put Wilkins's name in the introduction serves no purpose than to promote your opinion that Wilkins's contribution should be stressed at any and all times, even in inapropriate places. As it happens I agree that Wilkins's contribution is at least equal, and probably greater than Franklin's, and also agree that he is not given enough credit for his work. Irresepective of this I do not think that it is appropriate to try and include his name in the introduction for this reason. This is not the place to champion personal favourites. Had the assertion that the model was known as the W-C-M-F model in certain places been true, then it may have been worthy of inclusion. But it goes to highlight how important good sources are. The question is not whether this is accurate or fair (it is both), but if the introduction is the correct place for it. The introduction does not claim that her contribution was individual. Will you put a similar statement in the introduction of Maurice Wilkins's article?  Remember sources need to be verifiable. A personal communication is not verifiable, however eminent the source. Alun 06:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You do not seem to have any understanding whatsoever of what an introduction is for or about. This space is for the most basic of information concerned with the subject of the article. Please refrain from cluttering it up with unecessary detail. This information is available in the main body of the article. You are continuing with your practice of fundamentally misunderstanding the appropriate place for information. You continually do this sort of thing, I have had to repeatedly move information from the references section to the External links section due to this inability of yours. I would also remind you that is not the place for editors of articles to recomend certain texts. Wikipedia does not exist in order for you to review/recomend certain texts or books, I note that you have made the same recomendations at other articles associated with the discovery of DNA. You also seem to be completelly incapable of correctly formatting your edits. Please look at the relevant pages regarding style WP:MOS. Alun 12:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with you about scientific contributions being generally about team work. But it really is of no relevance, what is relevant is whether this information belongs in the introduction or not. There is ample information regarding the other members of the King's team in the article. If you can give a good reason why this information should be included in the introduction then you might have a point. I think no good reason exists, this is not an article about the King's team, it is about Rosalind Franklin, and the introduction should concern itself with her contributions, not those of others,  a brief description of their respective contributions should be included in the introductions of their pages. One of my concerns is that you are trying to use this information to imply that Franklin's work was provisional on the work of others, but you do not seem to be so keen to do this in the introduction of Wilkins's biography, for example. This displays a distinct bias against Franklin. I think you want to detract from Franklin's work in a prominent position in the article because you believe she has unfairly had more recognition than Wilkins. To put it simply you are implying that Franklin couldn't have contributed without her male colleagues help, but you make no mention of Franklin's contribution in the introduction of Wilkins's biography. Your insulting of other editors when they do not kowtow to your whims is becoming tedious, please try not to use insulting terms like sane in your posts, your insults reflect more on you than on others.  Alun 17:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''INTRODUCTION TO ROSALIND FRANKLIN'S BIOGRAPHY'''

message: Can we please have a source for this edit?
within minutes of her last paper being read at the Faraday Society
It's a nice edit, but because there is so much inacurate and unreferenced material continually creaping into the article it needs to be properly verified. I've had a brief look in Maddox and Sayre but can find no reference to this in either work, but I might have missed it. We might need to remove this bit from the intro if it doesn't get referenced. Alun 11:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Last paper at Faraday society

message: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9071-1961321,00.html
festive greetings to almost everyone! 195.92.168.165 14:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''especially for Alun/Wobble and John Schmidt'''

message: :Yes, it'll hopefully keep your poor edits out. Alun 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As your edits have been hugelly irrelevant and tremendously innacurate, I find it hypocrytical in the extreme for you to accuse others of not knowing the FULL facts. You have consistently included your opinion as fact and have rarely been able to verify any of your edits. It is you who seem to have, at best, a tenuous understanding of the history. Your work is, in my opinion, generally sloppy and inacurate, rarely does it include anything of note or substance. It is you who need to go back to your books. You have consistently cherry picked information that supports your opinion, while disparaging and maligning others who have a different opinion, even when they provide verification (something you seem to think you are above). You are not the expert you claim to be, your edits have proven this in abundance by being misleading and lacking in any factual content. You do not have any authority to demand anything from other editors, except that they provide verifiability, neutrality and no original research. Given that you disregard these policies when it comes to your own edits, your attitude is patronising and hypocritical. Your constant personal attacks really do show you for what you are, Martin. You are either effusivelly friendly, when I agree with you, or overly aggressive when I do not. You do not even have the nouce to address me by my proper name (my user name is Wobble and not Wobbler and my given name is Alun not Alan), another example of your blaze attitude to the facts. I have a life, by the way, and enjoy it tremendously, I enjoy editing wikipedia, but I am very frustrated by having continually to check this page for the irrelevant drivel continuously included by you.  Alun 06:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat childish isn't it MP? By the way I'm not your friend. We all have a responsibility to record the true facts (well we don't actually but I don't suppose you have read the neutral point of view policy). It is you who have repeatedly refused to verify your edits and who has deliberately removed the edits of others that have been verified. It is you who need to get your facts straight, MATE (sic), and it is you who include your opinions as fact. You are once again trying to use attack as the best form of defence by accusing me of doing what you are in fact doing. I repeat it is you who have the blaze attitude to the facts. It is you who have consistently refused to back up your edits with sources, and it is you who have tried to include original research in this article. The few times I have managed to get you to produce proper sources you have been forced to withdraw your edits because the sources do not concur with what you have written. You seem to want to ignore sources that don't conform to your POV (or opinion if you prefer). There should not be a debate over Franklin's contribution on this article, wikipedia has a strict no original research policy. You have asked in the past if wikipedia should repeat the mistakes (sic) of others, but wikipedia can only use published material as a source of information, so the purpose is to include all opinions, that is the nub of the neutral point of view policy. All published points of view should be included and referenced in order to produce neutrality. This is a policy, I do not make it up. I really do not understand what you are doing editing here when you not only refuse to conform to the policies, but actively oppose them. I have had to remove your edits in the past, not because they were point of view, but because you had no source to back them up. For example your contention that Wilkins's Nobel prize went to the whole team at King's, when in truth only Nobel Peace prizes that are ever awarded to organisations (this is just one example of many). Alun 15:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (MP) ps * and not before time of course!

message: "Rosalind Elsie Franklin (25 July 1920 - 16 April 1958) was a British physical chemist and crystallographer who made very important contributions to the understanding of the fine structures of coal and graphite, DNA and viruses. Franklin is best known for her contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, while working at King's College London under the direction of physicist John Randall. By the time the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine was awarded to Crick, Watson, and her colleague Wilkins, she had been dead for 4 years. (Subsequently she has become a 'feminist icon' in the literature.)"
Again, does any care to comment on the above, as well as on the "Time" article on Watson and Crick? 
See also: http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/13695/
mp195.92.67.75 19:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't make clear the relevance of her death and the Nobel Prize; the implication is that had she been alive she would have won, but if a reader does not know that the prize goes only to living people, that will pass them by.  And even though I think she clearly deserved it, that is something that has been debated are argued over... I don't think the Nobel line should be in the intro.  The parentheses around the last sentence are unneccessary.  I think something (with references, without which such a statement would quickly be removed) to the effect of "many consider Watson and Crick's unauthorized use of her DNA photographs to have been paramount to stealing the credit for the discovery the molecular structure of DNA" would be good.--ragesoss 16:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: or even better, something like "The status Franklin's contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA is the subject of considerable debate; some consider Watson & Crick's use of her data to have been simply the way science operates, while others claim Franklin was essentially robbed of credit for a discovery that would otherwise have gone to her."--ragesoss 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MP finds it impossible not to tinker with the into. I think his ultimate intention is to remove all mention of RF from the intro and imply that all the work was done by the male scientists at King's, and that somehow she accidentally got her name on some papers, or something. We agreed several months ago on the wording I have just changed back to. The intro should be short and sweet, mentioning little more than who she was and what she is best known for. All the other stuff mentioned in the intro is correctly located in the main body of the article. There is no purpose in mentioning the Nobel prize in the intro, this is a biographical article and she was long dead by the time it was awarded, so it comes at the end of the article. The intro is for the most important things she achieved in her life. When MP objected to the current wording of the intro several months ago he even tried to imply that RF is in fact not best known for her contribution to the structure of DNA, something that I still find baffling (maybe she was a world class skateboarder or something?). Alun 15:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Franklin could not have recieved a Nobel Prize as she was dead. The fact remains that dead people cannot be given the prize. All else is speculation. There is reference to the Nobel Prize in the article, I see no merit in mentioning it in the introduction as the introduction is about the important contrbutions of the person, so the prize is not relevant to the section. I fail to see how omiting reference to the prize in the introduction is considered inaccurate reporting. I would like to know why you seem to be claiming that the article makes no reference to her role in the discovery of DNA, have you read it? In actual fact this is the largest and most prominent section of the article. There has been some dispute about the importance of her role in the discovery of the structure of DNA on this talk page (there are verifiable sources from both sides of the debate), especially the fact that she had the same pieces of the jigsaw to hand as Crick and Watson, but failed to elucidate the structure, and that other DNA X-ray diffraction patterns produced earlier and by other people (notably Maurice Wilkins) may have been of sufficient quality for a correct interpretation. Franklin's contribution to the structure of DNA is well known, and I think it is generally accepted that the structure would have been discovered much later without her work. I am amazed by your accusation of inaccuracy, this has been a very hotly debated article and I think that most of the arguments have been made several times over (see archived talk pages above, and this one), and supporting references have been supplied by many contributors. If you can find inaccuracies in this article then please be more specific (a general accusation of inaccuracy cannot be addressed unless you specifically say which parts of the article are inaccurate. We all want a good neutral accurate article, even if we have differences of opinion as to how to attain it) and bring them up for discussion on the talk page, please also provide relevant sources to support of your assertion, we can then try to get a consensus as per wikipedia policy on maintaining a  neutral point of view. It is also a good idea to sign your posts on talk pages so people can identify you, the best thing to do is to set up an account, you can then sign your name by typing four tildas (~) at the end of your post.  Hope you continue to show an interest here and on other articles, and welcome. Alun 14:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''THE CURRENT INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH NOW READS AS FOLLOWS'''

message: The obituary purportedly by Aaron Klug was incorrect, it has been removed from here and from wikisource (by User:Apwoolrich), please see Rosalind Franklin on Wikisource. Franklin's obituary in the Times in 1958 was by J. D. Bernal. If we can get a correct source for this text then we can re-insert it. Please also see Royal Society Attribution?. Alun 05:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Obituary'' removed from [[wikisource]]

message: What is the point in apparently trying to rewrite 1950's scientific history? It is NEVER going to 'retrospectively' achieve anything at all! The world has moved on since 1953, i.e. 53 years ago, and this meaningless debate over Rosalind Franklin's contribution towards the discovery of the structure of D.N.A. based on hearsay and rumour (rather than the hard facts found in the literature) is futile. The only scientific opinions on the subject which really matter are those of her contempories and serious scientific writers such as Freeland Judson, Maddox, Olby, Ridley, Sayer and especially from the feminist perspective: Pnina G. Abir-Am of John Hopkins University. I still find it difficult to take Wikipedia seriously as I have yet to be convinced that any of the contributors to the Rosalind Franklin entry/debate have actually read any of all the relevant literature! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs) 
MP
:Um...what is your point? Do you have a specific gripe about the article, or are you generally venting your spleen at the general nature of debate on this talk page? This talk page is to discuss the article, so please keep your posts relevant to specific sections of  the article. I agree with you entirelly about your observations above, by the way, I just don't know what meaningless debate over Rosalind Franklin's contribution towards the discovery of the structure of D.N.A. you are refering to. I think this ground has been covered in so much detail by this talk page that all debate (meaningless or otherwise) has ceased in regard to Franklin's contribution. I think we are all agreed that her contribution was significant, but she did not discover the structure, and there lies the rub. I agree with you that some people  want to conclude that she should be considered a co-discoverer, but ultimatelly neither Franklin or Wilkins were involved in the actual elucidation of the structure. So Crick and Watson are rightly credited with the discovery. I do not think there is any disagreement on this by the main editors of the article. I have been thinking of a major rewrite of the article by the way.  I think I might remove some of the more detailed observations of what happened in 1952-53 and try to make the article more  neutral in tone.
:I'll set you straight on one thing Martin, I do not think that the general wikipedia community really cares whether you take it seriously  or not. Wikipedia will always have its critics (and that's a good thing), but I do not think it will change it's core philosophy just because you don't like it, you may find it hard to believe, but you are not that important. Alun 05:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal attacks. I wish you would also refrain from comparing these events to the holocaust, you have done this before, it is this which seems like hysteria to me. If you really do see parallels in the two events, then I can only conclude that you have lost all sense of perspective. I fail to see the relevance of anything you have said, there is nothing in the article that might cause offence to any of the families of those involved, and who do you think you are to make such a claim in the first place? There is no censorship on wikipedia and you have no right to set yourself up as some sort of moral arbiter. I do not understand what you mean by any ongoing debate, seems more like a monologe to me, you are talking to yourself, I for one have absolutely no idea what you are refering to most of the time as your complaints are so non-specific that it is impossible to identify what it actually is about the article that you are are getting so upset about. As for your having read all the available material (how can you possibly know? and much of the material you make reference to is irrelevant to the RF article), why is it that you have included more inaccracies and unverifiable material to the article than any other contributor? I seriously doubt your claim. Your constant claims of rewriting history seem odd. Isn't all history constantly being re-appraised and re-interpreted, this is the whole basis of the study of history. But your point is irrelevant to this article, as wikipedia does not allow original research (See WP:NOR). All of the material in the article has been published before from reliable sources (see WP:RS). As there is only material included that has been previously published it seems an odd claim. There is a references section in the article, you can see what the sources are for yourself. The main source texts I have used are Maddox's and Wilkins's books. You seem to have a very limited understanding of wikipedia policies and guidelines, and seem to have absolutelly no idea about the rules for inclusion of material into articles. If there are alternative points of view to those expressed in the article, then the correct procedure is to include all alternative points of view, with references. This will generate neutrality (see WP:NPOV), it is not acceptable to remove any POV that you might not like. If you have any specific comments about the article, please make them, but can you please stop making meaningless complaints? You have consistently failed to make any specific complaints about the article (and I have several times asked you to make some), and so I can only assume that your comments about rewrting history are groundless. I have several times suggested that you might like to try a major re-write of the article yourself, as you are so obviously unhappy with the article as it stands. Given your track record for including incorrect and unverifiable material in the article, and the fact that you seem to have a contempt for the policies of neutrality, no original research and verifiability it is probably just as well that you have not undertaken a major edit. Alun 07:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I can well believe that you are prepared to draw all your conclusions from a single, rather small joke card. I would point out to you that this card refers only to the crystaline form of DNA (or A-DNA if you prefer). Dr. Franklin was well aware that the paracrystaline (or B-DNA) was a helix. This is important as it somewhat dispells your assertion that Dr. Franklin was somehow anti-helical. You are quite right that ultimatelly crystaline DNA was found also to be a helix. It is in the nature of scientists to be sceptical, and she believed that the data she was getting did not necessarily indicate a helix. She may well have been playing Devil's advocate, we may never know. Both Wilkins's and Maddox's book indicate that while RF was unconvinced as to the nature of crystaline DNA at the end of 1952, she was well aware of the helical nature of the paracrystaline form. I believe she published a paper in the Summer of 1953 outlining evidence from her Patterson function analysis that did indeed indicate that crystaline DNA was a helix. Like all good scientists she was prepared to draw differing conclusions based on the available evidence of the time. If you can provide me with a good reasons for why you think the names of all researchers working in the King's group deserve to be in the introduction of the article then I would be gratefull, I can see no real reason for their inclusion in this section. Alun 10:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I look forward to it; your approach sounds spot-on.--ragesoss 03:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You treat it like a school playground, you fail to follow the simplest of rules for editing or for contributing to the talk page. I didn't say I was basing my rewrite exclusivelly on Maddox's book. Where do you get that idea from? You are in breach of wikipedia guidelines about talk pages, see below. Alun 12:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Trying to rewrite scientific history again, and again, and'''

message: I have begun a major rewrite of the article. I am trying to make the article more neutral in tone. I  am trying to address your concerns regarding an over-emphasis on personality in the article, and also JWSchmidt's concerns about finger pointing. I have primarily relied on Maddox and Wilkins as sources, my reasoning being that Maddox's book (as far as I am aware) is the only comprehensive biography of Franklin, and Wilkins was actually at King's at the time, and so is a first hand source. I am about half way through. I have decided to recount events at King's in a roughly chronological order and have kept to the known facts rather than any interpretations. I will add a seperate section at the end of the article where I will deal with RF and controversies in general. I believe this is probably a better way to organise the article as the controversies surrounding her came to light many years after her death.  I will give a balanced account of the various controversies and give all sides to the various accusations/assertions. Primarily I think they constitute accusations of sexism at King's (easily dealt with), of class consiousness (again easily dealt with) and of use of her data by others, this may be more tricky and I would value any comments you might have on my text when it is completed. Alun 10:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to it; your approach sounds spot-on.--ragesoss 03:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Alun,
You are really starting to worry me, as the following two pdf's must surely be very relevant to your more neutral biography of Franklin:
 
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/K/G/_/scbbkg.pdf  
 
"The Double Helix Revisited--Francis Crick and James Watson Talk to Paul Vaughan about Their Discovery of the Molecular Structure of DNA = The Listener, December 14, 1972.(for the very last paragraph!)
 
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/K/H/_/scbbkh.pdf 
"The Race for the Double Helix: Providence and Personalities" = The Listener, 11th July 1974.
This is NOT a school playground where you can just delete someone's comments as you did mine, this is a seriously significant period of U.K. scientific history, which Political Correctness cannot readily
rewrite! Why do you think you have the "Wikipedia" 'monopoly' on the memory of the late Rosalind Franklin AND why do you think you can base your rewritten (more neutral) version purely on the 2002 Maddox biography, however good it is? 81.76.185.195 MP81.76.185.195 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs) 
:You treat it like a school playground, you fail to follow the simplest of rules for editing or for contributing to the talk page. I didn't say I was basing my rewrite exclusivelly on Maddox's book. Where do you get that idea from? You are in breach of wikipedia guidelines about talk pages, see below. Alun 12:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  two relevant articles from backcopies of "the listener" 

message: Martin, this space is to discuss the article, it is not a repository for miscellaneous information or sources regarding the discovery of the structure of DNA. Neither is it a chatroom. Keep all posts relevant to the article, unless posts are about the article (what to include and how to include it), then they have no place here. If anyone finds a good source of information, then they should include it in a neutral way in the article and add it to the references section as per wikipedia policies on neutrality, verifiability and no original research. I direct you to What talk pages are for, and especially this Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.
Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. Alun 11:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep it relevant

message: I have completed my rewrite. The article is now fully referenced, all statements in the article should be easy to verify if one has the correct literature to hand. There may be some typos etc and it probably needs proofreading. Here's what I have done and why.
*I have given a rather broad overview of RF's career and have included her research in TMV, I thought it was important to show that she was in fact a very successful scientist.
*I have included a controversies section at the end of the article. I have concentrated on the three things I think are most well know and discussed, namely.
:#Sexism at King's
:#Use of her work
:#Recognition of her contribution during her lifetime
:#Nobel prize.
:For these three controversies I have stated the controversy, and have tried to give an account of why things transpired the way they did, I hope I have covered all POVs.
*Controversies I have not covered are.
:#Class consiousness. I think this is only speculation on Maddox part, and it doesn't seem to be important enough to include in an encyclopedia article.
:#Helical/antihelical ideas. This was a difficult one to leave out, but I felt that an explanation would have increased the size of the article considerably. I am not convinced it is of general interest, there also seem to be very differing interpretations of this in the four books I have looked at (Crick/Wilkins/Maddox and Sayre). I think covering this would just lead to too much confusion for someone unfamiliar with the main players.
:#Franklin/Wilkins relationship. Again I think this would lead to a dramatic increase in the size of the article. This would also lead to the introduction of personalities, something Martin has rightly pointed out that we should avoid.
Obviously there will be criticism about what I have included/excluded and that is only right and proper. I am assuming that anything I write will draw the ire of Martin Packer, and am totally unconcerned about that, I have no time for people who constantly complain, but who are unprepared to engage in editing the article in a constructive way. I think and hope the article is significantly more neutral than before, it is certainly better verified and I believe all the statements made have been properly referenced. I would like to include a picture of photograph 51 that I have aquired from the internet, but I am unsure of it's copyright status, it is now over 50 years old and the copyright may have expired. I still need to do some research on this. Alun 12:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin, I do not need to do anything. I have spent more time and more effort on this article than you have. I find it offensive in the extreme that someone who has introduced so many errors into the article, and who seems incapable of making a coherent edit should feel that have the right to take such a superior attitude. When you have shown that you are capable of improving the article, rather than just introducing errors that cannot be verified, then I might start to consider your opinion as slightly more than merely inconsequential. Your constant incorrect assertion that the funeral card proves that Franklin was anti-helical is a good case in point, you do not even appear to understand the difference between crystalline and paracrystalline DNA. Someone who uses information they do not understand to back up an erroneous proposition is really not worth taking seriously. By the way you suggested earlier that the funeral card told you all you needed to know, so it appears that I have at least used more sources than you. You will note that I have extensivelly used The Third Man of DNA, it is a very good book and all edits regarding the discovery of DNA have used both Maddox and Wilkins. I have not used Watson's book because he was not at King's and so it is unlikelly he knew what was going on there, did you even know that? I do not believe Watson's book is about Franklin at all, so why is it relevant? You still seem to be under the illusion that this is a DNA article, you are obsessive on this point. This is a Rosalind Franklin biographical article, I have told you this many times, but you seem to be pathologically incapable of understanding the simplest of concepts. Alun 18:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Do these letters contradict the proposition that Perutz showed Crick the MRC report (Perutz admits this)? Do they prove that Wilkins did not show Watson the photograph (even Watson says he did in his book, DNA: The Secret of life? That is all that is stated here, and it is verified. There are no claims in the article of incorrect behaviour. I can see nothing wrong with including verified and undisputed material. If you have anything fresh to add to the article, please be my guest, I am not here as your personal secretary. Bear in mind that I will remove any material that is not properly referenced or that is incorrect. I am sceptical of any information you add as you have shown a propensity to include information without proper sources that is demonstrably incorrect.Alun 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your posts on the talk page, you have an account, you are User:Nitramrekcap, if you have an account you should log on each time you edit and you should properly sign your posts, or people will suspect you have an underhand motive for not doing so. Alun 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite completed

message: Please do not vandalise this article, and please do not include unreferrenced information or personal opinion. The person doing this is well known to me and has vandalised this page and included incorrect and unverified information before, as well as personal opinion. It is the Martin Packer who sometimes uses the Sockpuppet account Nitramrekcap, he is also the author of numerous unsigned posts on this talk page. Alun 13:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed vandalism and personal opinion

message: :Constructive criticism is welcome at wikipedia, unfortunatelly you are routinelly confrontational and destructive in you posts. Alun 11:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may not like it, but the fact remains that RF was relativelly unknown untill Watson wrote The Double Helix. The reply to this was the critisism of Crick and Watson's use of her data and her lack of recognition, that is when Franklin started to become well known. This is the reason for the modification to the introduction, if Watson's portrayal of her had been more sensitive, then there would never have been a controversy and she would probably have remained obscure. In this light I think the introductory paragraph is accurate enough. If you feel that the highlighted text should be removed, then that is a fair enough opinion, it is certainly worthy of discussion on the talk page. It is your arrogant attitude that is so offensive. The correct approach would be to start a discussion about the text rather than making demands like You need to permanently remove the words highlighted. Would it not have been more constructive, for example to state something like I think the text is unfair and should be modified, rather than making aggressive demands? As it is I am happy for you to remove this text. You are once again trying to blame others for your lack of balance and objectivity, it has been your mission to recast this article in your own personal interpretation of events from the moment you started editing it, and I find it hypocritical in the extreme when you claim that I am blinkered when it is you who have consistently failed to provide sources for your edits and have so often included opinion as fact, as well as consistently breaking the three main policies on editing wikipedia (verifiability, neutrality and no original research). Untill you read the three policies (and apply them every time you make an edit) your edits will always be subject to removal, any unverified edit can be removed from wikipedia at any time as per the verification policy.Alun 11:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Your hypocracy known no bounds, not only have you tried to remove the sentence about her being best known for her contribution to the structure many times, but you have even tried to argue that her contribution was minimal (so you have actually denied it in the past) and that she is not best known for this, why the change of heart? Equally this is an encyclopedia, it is irrelevant how she deserves to be remembered, this is not an eulogy, it's contents should have been previously published and should be verified, it has nothing to do with what people deserve, you are yet again trying to make a case for including opinion in the article.Alun 11:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am perfectly happy to accept any POV that is properly verified (i.e. that has been published in a reliable source) and that is in compliance with the neutral point of view policy, it is you who has consistently behaved as if these policies do not apply to you. It is the height of arrogance in my opinion to demand that the article be changed without providing a shred of evidence for doing so. I cannot help but feel that all of your complaints are groundless, if you have real evidence, then modify the text and include references, you have made no mention as to the content of the letters, and I cannot but conclude that they have little to say on the subject of what Franklin knew of the use of her data. Remember the article only claim that she did not know that her data had been used, it does not claim that they had no right to the data, that is a different proposition. I suspect that all the letters do is state the circumstances surrounding C and W's aquisition of King's data. Unless they categorically claim that Franklin had been consulted and had released her data to C and W then they do not contradict anything in the article as it stands. If she had done this then they could have referenced her data as personal communication in their 1953 paper, but they do not do this. Neither Wilkins nor Maddox claim that Franklin was aware that Crick and Watson had her data, and your constant refering to the letters here is little more than inuendo, as is your want you have made no specific claims, and untill you do you have no case. Alun 11:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not understand what you are trying to say here, as usual your lack of specificity has rendered your complaint incomprehensible. The information in the article is all correctly referenced, none of it reflects my actual opinion or POV, which source are you claiming is blinkered, Maddox or Wilkins? What is your actual point about the Nobel Prize? You have made reference to the prize but bizarelly it seems to have absolutelly no relevance to the article. Alun 11:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please sign your posts.Nitramrekcap.Alun 11:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Your points are well taken Martin. I have started to try and use Sayre's book for double referencing some of the points in the article. Maybe you are right and I should pay attention to Watson's book. If you have access to a scanner you could email me the letters in PDF or JPEG format, I would like to include them if possible. I'll send you an email and you can reply to it. I agree with you that there is much information regarding the discovery of DNA that is not covered in this article, but there are two things to bear in mind. Firstly I am always aware that much of the information does not directly relate to the Franklin article, the competitivness between Bragg and Pauling is not directly relevant to Franklin's life, though it does have some bearing on why Crick and Watson were finally allowed to try a model building approach. Secondly there is a constraint on space in an encyclopedia article, in a book one can go into very much more detail, but an encyclopedia article is always a compromise regarding what to include or exclude, because of this constraint. I think much of what you have said about the discovery of DNA and the missing information is true, but I am unconvinced that this is the correct place for it, I think this article should concentrate on Franklin's life as much as possible. I still think there is scope for a seperate Discovery of DNA article, where much more detail can be included. The article would also be a nice link between the DNA article and all the seperate articles about the various protagonists. At the moment I am occupied with several unrelated articles on wikipedia and have little time to start a new article. Possibly the starting place is to look at what can be removed from the DNA article and used instead in a new Discovery of DNA article. What's your thinking?. By the way if you log on to you account (there should be a log in button in the top right of the screen), you can sign your posts with four tildes (~). You can also watch pages by clicking the watch tab at the top of the article. When you have logged on you can click on the my watchlist button in the top right of he screen and it will tell you the latest changes to the pages on your watch list. It's very handy. Alun 12:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You invited criticism

message: Alun, 
I am delighted to see that the opening paragraph now avoids reference to the 'controversy':
"Rosalind Elsie Franklin (25 July 1920 – 16 April 1958) was a British physical chemist and crystallographer who made very important contributions to the understanding of the fine structures of coal and graphite, DNA and viruses. Rosalind Franklin is best known for her contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953."
At least this is something we can apparently agree on: that she is well remembered for her work and not the so-called "controversy"; let me send you the three letters to "Science" and we can have a further discussion? It will save you buying the Norton Critical Edition of "The Double Helix". I have to say that "The Double Helix" should be automatically included in the bibliography (along with Maddox and Wilkins) as it is the source of the so-called 'controversy'!
If you haven't already read Crick's "What Mad Pursuit", you should do so as this text is also very relevant of course; I think "What Mad Pursuit" should also be in the bibliography by the way. (There has to be more than just Maddox/Wilkins to the REF story, what about Anne Sayre?)
My personal interest is still (believe it or not) in the science, not just the personalities as such; but aspects of how the structure of DNA was determined in 1953 do concern me of course. But I fail to see why it should have been turned into a "cause celebre" as the French would say!
Incidentally Rosalind Franklin is remembered in Cambridge (where I will be tomorrow) at Newnham College, and at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, where her former colleague Sir Aaron Klug STILL works, and I know she is definitely well remembered at King's College London. Overall I think some respect should be paid to ALL of the people involved in the D.N.A. sage, whether alive or dead, and their relations - since the situation they all found themselves in was totally unprecedented, and was made worse by the competition between the USA (Linus Pauling) and the UK (Sir Lawrence Bragg) where there were old scores to be settled from previous discoveries. At the same time there was the tension between the Cavendish and King's College London labs., with the relationships between Bragg and Randall, and Crick and Wilkins, and Franklin and Watson!! The working relationship between Crick and Watson is also interesting; all of these human relationships were complex and affected how the science worked in 1953.    
The currently unknown factor concerns the role of Sir John Randall, a biography of whom would fit some of the missing pieces into the whole jigsaw; the next book to be published (in 2007) will be Robert Olby's scientific biography of Crick, which I am currently researching for. As usual I have gone on for too long, I DO admire your determination, but still think you need to do some more reading - so please contact me for copies of the three 1969 letters to "Science"? (I also have a spare copy of Bob Olby's excellant DNA 50th anniversary article from "Endeavour")
ps Before responding to this message, you may like to check out the revised opening paragraphs of the articles for Crick, Watson, and Wilkins, which now recognise Franklin's contribution.
62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194/62.25.109.194nitram rekcap62.25.109.194—Preceding unsigned comment added by nitramrekcap (talk • contribs) 
:Your points are well taken Martin. I have started to try and use Sayre's book for double referencing some of the points in the article. Maybe you are right and I should pay attention to Watson's book. If you have access to a scanner you could email me the letters in PDF or JPEG format, I would like to include them if possible. I'll send you an email and you can reply to it. I agree with you that there is much information regarding the discovery of DNA that is not covered in this article, but there are two things to bear in mind. Firstly I am always aware that much of the information does not directly relate to the Franklin article, the competitivness between Bragg and Pauling is not directly relevant to Franklin's life, though it does have some bearing on why Crick and Watson were finally allowed to try a model building approach. Secondly there is a constraint on space in an encyclopedia article, in a book one can go into very much more detail, but an encyclopedia article is always a compromise regarding what to include or exclude, because of this constraint. I think much of what you have said about the discovery of DNA and the missing information is true, but I am unconvinced that this is the correct place for it, I think this article should concentrate on Franklin's life as much as possible. I still think there is scope for a seperate Discovery of DNA article, where much more detail can be included. The article would also be a nice link between the DNA article and all the seperate articles about the various protagonists. At the moment I am occupied with several unrelated articles on wikipedia and have little time to start a new article. Possibly the starting place is to look at what can be removed from the DNA article and used instead in a new Discovery of DNA article. What's your thinking?. By the way if you log on to you account (there should be a log in button in the top right of the screen), you can sign your posts with four tildes (~). You can also watch pages by clicking the watch tab at the top of the article. When you have logged on you can click on the my watchlist button in the top right of he screen and it will tell you the latest changes to the pages on your watch list. It's very handy. Alun 12:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  postscript

message: Just in case anyone is still interested in the discovery, rather than the petty politics of the period - I had the pleasure of meeting Sydney Brenner on Monday evening, heard his lecture, got his autograph etc. and here is his pertinent quotation from 1953:
From "My Life in Science by Sydney Brenner. Copyright © 2001. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
"Seeing DNA ...of course the most important thing that happened then is that Jack Dunitz told me about all the developments with DNA in Cambridge because he was following it all. He told me that Francis Crick and Jim Watson had solved the structure of DNA, so we decided to go across to Cambridge to see it. This was in April of 1953.Jack and I and Leslie [Orgel] and another crystallographer went to Cambridge by car. It was a small car. It was very cold I remember, and the car wasn't heated. No one had heaters in cars then. We must have arrived in Cambridge in the late morning, at about 11am or thereabouts. We went into the Austin wing of the Cavendish Laboratory. I went in with Jack and Leslie, into this room that was lined with brick, and there on the side I can remember very clearly was this small model with plates for the bases - the original model with everything screwed together. And I could see the double helix! Francis was sitting there. This was the first time I met him and of course he couldn't stop talking. He just went on and on and on, and it was very inspiring, you see. Of course at this stage neither of the two famous Nature papers had yet appeared. The first paper was expected in a few weeks. They talked mainly about what eventually was in the second paper. Jim was at his desk in that room which I came to occupy later when I came to the Cavendish, and he was interspersing comments with Francis. So that's when I saw the DNA model for the first time, in the Cavendish, and that's when I saw that this was it. And in a flash you just knew that this was very fundamental. The curtain had been lifted and everything was now clear [as to] what to do. I got tremendously excited by this."
There is not much doubt from other literature (the transcript of the 50th anniversary meeting at Cambridge in 1953 - with a lengthy article by Sir Aaron Klug) that R.E. Franklin is well remembered, e.g. the Duke of Edinburgh presented her sister with a special DNA coin, the same one as was presnted to James Watson; I do sometimes wonder what all of the fuss on these pages is really in aid of? See: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/3/2 for the last paragraph:
"The Rosalind Franklin question - and the applause it receives - is, I think, motivated less by the feeling that her contributions should be more widely recognized. Instead, it is more to do with the scientific community recalling and reasserting norms of fairness when they find these violated. Some day it may no longer be necessary to ask the Rosalind Franklin question. When this happens, it would also be worth applauding."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.194 (talk • contribs) , possibly Nitramrekcap
:How is this relevant to the article? The talk page is for discussiong what to include in the article, it is not a repository for any or all vaguely DNA related material you see fit to dump here, I have warned you about this before, why do you think that the rules of wikipedia do not apply to you? You are wasting space on wikipedia hard drives and unecessarily using up runtime on the servers. Please keep it relevant Alun 05:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''SYDNEY BRENNER/THE LABORATORY OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE'''

message: According to James Watson at the conference DNA: "50 years of the Double Helix" held in Cambridge (England) in 2003 : (quote) "Now perhaps it's a pretty well kept secret that one of the most uninspiring acts of Cambridge University over this past century was to turn down Francis Crick when he applied to be the Professor of Genetics, in 1958. Now there may have been a series of arguments, which lead them to reject Francis. But it really was stupid. It was really saying, don't push us to the frontier. That's what it was saying." 
19 years later Francis Crick left Cambridge for La Jolla, California.
NitramrekcapmpNitramrekcap
:How is this relevant to the article? Alun 05:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The other pivotal scientific moment in 1958?