Talk:The Double Helix

message: This edit introduced the idea of Franklin as the assistant of Maurice Wilkins. This is a bogus idea, and I regret not having noticed it sooner. Wilkins anticipated that Franklin would be a collaborator. This is discussed in great detail in Wilkins' autobiography. --JWSchmidt 17:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  assistant  

message: "with its author seemingly caring only about the glory of priority and willing to acquire data from other surrepticiously in order to get it." <-- I admit that it has been many years since I read the book, but I question if this is a fair statement of what the book is about. I This is more a statement of how some observers have interpreted the book, and as such it should be associated (by citations) with one or more specific critics. Is it  spelled “surreptitiously”? --JWSchmidt 17:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: seemingly

message: This was originally made for the BBC, and is called Life Story in the UK. As it was originally a British film, shouldn't we be using the British title here? 81.158.2.225 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Race for the Double Helix 

message: The article mentions that the publisher of The Double Helix had to be changed due to protests from Crick, Wilkins and others.  It might be useful to include a citation to this: A pdf copy of a letter from Crick to Watson complaining about the contents of the book.  The letter is in an online archive of Crick's papers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.200.118 (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over publication 

message: I reverted the recent category changes. The article does fit better in 
 than in  which doesn't even exist. Controversial books was deleted a long time ago as being too vague and broad a classification. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Controversial_books#Category:Controversial_books -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted category edits

message: "An annotated and illustrated version of the book was published by Simon & Schuster in November 2012, in association with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.  The edition was published to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the award of the 1962 Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine to Francis Crick, James D. Watson and Maurice Wilkins.  It contains over three hundred annotations on the events and characters portrayed, with facsimile letters and contemporary photographs, many previously unpublished. Their sources include newly discovered correspondence from Crick, the papers of Franklin, Pauling, and Wilkins, and they include a chapter dropped from the original edition that described Watson's holiday in the Italian Alps in 1952.  The edition was favorably reviewed in The New York Times by Nicholas Wade, who commented "Anyone seeking to understand modern biology and genomics could do much worse than start with the discovery of the structure of DNA, on which almost everything else is based. . This edition includes the unsympathetic review by the late Erwin Chargaff from the March 29, 1968 issue of Science, which he previously declined permission to reprint in the 1980 Norton Critical Edition of The Double Helix edited by Gunther Stent."
One wonders whether the person who re-wrote the above has actually read the new book? The NYT review contains a very specific criticism of the 'grey' illustrations, not mentioned above:
(quote) "Classic works of literature from Herodotus’s “Histories” to “Alice in Wonderland” and “The Waste Land” have received the honor of annotated editions. “The Double Helix” richly deserves admittance to this hall of fame. I have one cavil: The publisher, seemingly to economize on black ink, has printed the documents and photographs in such low-definition, smudgy gray that many are unreadable.  That aside, the edition produces much of the raw material out of which a masterpiece was created." [New York Times, November 12, 2012]
2.30.189.29 (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Annotated and Illustrated Edition 

message: So would someone like to add a brief summary of the contents of the book? Lots of detail on the controversy around the text, but almost nothing about what's actually in it, such as events, places or descriptions of people. That would help the reader of this article immensely. -- llywrch (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: The name of Francis Crick is put in wikilinks in the third paragraph, but Crick is already mentioned in the first paragraph. It might be an idea to put Crick's name in wikilinks in the first paragraph, where his name is first mentioned in the article. Vorbee (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Putting Crick in wikilinks