Talk:Rosalind Franklin/Archive 5

Biographies
Hi Martin, I found a style guideline for biographical articles. Hope this is of some interest to you as you have asked in the past about what information is relevant to biographiical articles. Alun 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alun, the only two biographies I am interested in at the moment are Robert Olby's 'Francis Crick' (to which I have contributed) and Lynne Elkins' 'Rosalind Franklin'; I have no doubt that you are looking forward to Peter Bogdanovitch's film on Rosalind Franklin? I have recently particularly enjoyed Erwin Chargaff's fragments of autobiography, and suggest that he might have had a case for greater recognition of course. As usual, "standing on shoulders of giants" applies - but I would be the first to admit that "Rosy" is a very special case! Thanks, Martin

ps I have added http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-3/p42.html to external links by the way.

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194


 * This link already existed in the references section and in the external links section as well, I have removed your second insertion of the article. Alun 14:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Alun,

Might you like to expression an opinion of Lynne's article? I do particularly like the last paragraph, but on the other hand I query the strict necessity for the 'Bogdanovitch' film! The life story of Erwin Chargaff would be a lot more interesting in my opinion (and a lot longer.)

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194

Let's all have a good laugh at these three old song parodies!
http://www.amiright.com/parody/authors/sweetindigo.shtml

OR

http://www.packer34.freeserve.co.uk/selectedTATAwebsites.htm

"Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts' Club Band" Based on the performance by The Beatles

"An Ode to Watson, Crick and DNA" Parody by Sweet Indigo

I wrote this the day after the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick's discovery. So it's not strictly accurate. The first couple of lines I actually got from a news article headline.

It was fifty years ago today Crick and Watson unlocked DNA They were working on it quite a while 'Cause that molecule had such style So may I introduce to you The fact you've known for all these years DNA is double-helical

Yes, DNA is double-helical With purines and pyramidines DNA is double-helical The stuff that maps out our genes DNA is double- DNA is double- DNA is double-helical

A sugar and phosphate backbone And those four bases too It was such a discovery They got the Nobel Prize for it They got the Nobel Prize!

With X-ray crystallography (By Franklin) It was plain to see With Maurice Wilkins too They got the prize in '62 So let me introduce to you The secret of life on Earth DNA is double-helical

Yes, DNA is double-helical The strands run opposite ways DNA is double helical And has strict rules that it obeys DNA is double- DNA is double- DNA is double-helical

"Come Together" Based on the performance by The Beatles

"Francis Crick" Parody by Sweet Indigo

Francis Crick is dead... *sniffles*. My boyfriend couldn't empathise with me, so I told him to imagine that Timothy Leary had just died. He got it :) With any luck, ol' Tim won't mind me borrowing his song. Incidentally, Francis Crick said he couldn't remember ever boasting "We've discovered the secret of life" in the pub after discovering the structure of DNA.

Here come that Francis, he work moving up slowly He see haemoglobin, he got X-ray crystals He learn fast biology But took seventeen years to gain a Ph.D.

He go to Strangeways, he dump the physics He meet Jimmy Watson, he find double helix He say, "It make you, it make me" Boasting in the Eagle, Francis Crick you do see It's the secret of life, so says he

He Nobel prized it, he work on different structures He got work with Brenner, he look into proteins, He propose a code that's comma-free Read the books he's written all those hypotheses It's the secret of life, so says he

He ask why conscious, he madly pursuing He define a problem, he sometimes sound crazy He say brains go cleaning out with dreams But never found the secret of neuroanatomy What's the secret of us, so ask he

"Geno" Based on the performance by Dexy's Midnight Runners

"Genome" Parody by Sweet Indigo

Venter is a biologist who worked (with others) to finish the first complete bacterial genome, Haemophilus influenzae, kicking the butts of the people working on Escherichia coli.

Back in '53 in a Cambridge lab (Oh Genome) Dr. Jimmy Watson and Francis Crick were fab (Oh Genome) Found one day the helix of our DNA After a while of peeking at Franklin's X-ray The brightest minds in science that year Just picking the code and seeing how it appears

Academic inspiration, you gave us some After Mendel the abbot, the answer had come And now we've read the words and we're looking into you DNA telling genes, that's what it's built to do

Venter took the stage, his work was going fast (Oh Genome) This man used no mapping, but shot-gun at last (Oh Genome)

He came before E. coli, TIGR behind his name Finished H. influenzae, new techniques were the game Then went onto humans, microbes are so tame The Human Genome Project, remember the name

Academic inspiration, you gave us some You were Venter the winner, the boffin that won And now we've got the genes that all work to make 'you' DNA telling genes, that's what it's built to do

Oh Genome

I wrote this song whilst procrastinating work for my degree.

!!!

Sorry about the layout, but if you know the songs you can sing these words! Now what about Don Partridge's 1968 hit song "Rosie" being parodied? I am sure it can be done sympathetically and in good taste.

Nitramrekcap mpNitramrekcap


 * The text in these songs might be copyright. Please check it's OK to put stuff with the composer first. You are also wasting space on wikipedia, this stuff is not relevant to the article. This place is not for general chit-chat. See Talk page guidelines  What talk pages may be used for 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 17:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Alun, the original songs are copyright, but the parodies are NOT; I know the author (from the University of York) and she will approve.

Sometimes we all take the events of 1953 far too seriously, it was a human melodrama of four relatively youngish people (and others) in an unprecedentedly unique situation; yes, we all recognise the alleged "backbiting and elbowing" as someone said, but that's life -including 'scientific'life. If only someone would research and write a biography of Sir John Randall to complete the picture! The alleged role of Sir William Lawrence Bragg in both nominating and lobbying for the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine deserves greater visibity. Read/sing and enjoy these three parodies, Alun my friend.

NitramrekcapmpNitramrekcap

Photo 51
Does anybody know about Franklin's diffraction photograph (aka Photo 51)? Please tell if you do.PSv255 19:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I aquired a copy from the internet a few weeks ago, but I'm not sure of it's copyright status and don't want to include it if it is in breach of copyright. I think it was in the posession of Jeremy Norman, Maddox thanks him for allowing it's reproduction in her book. I think he has subsequently sold his archive, but I have not found a more recent reference to this event on the internet. It would be nice to include an image of the photograph in the article, but we need to get permission. I looked up it's copyright status, and the copyright will expire 70 years after Franklin's death if I understood the flow chart properly. It's worth having a look at Copyright law of the United Kingdom, Copyright FAQ and Copyrights. I am also unsure of the status of Raymond Gosling regarding the image, some sources claim that Franklin and Gosling produced the image together, but Watson in his book DNA: The Secret of Life claims the image was produced by Raymond Gosling alone (I think this may be wrong), so I am not sure if the copyright might expire 70 years after his death. Copyright law is a bit of a minefield. The other possibility would be to claim fair use, but I'm not sure if the image qualifies, I doubt it has any commercial value, so it may be possible to claim this. Any help you can provide would be very welcome. Alun 05:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a BIG clue as to who now owns the former Jeremy Norman Collection (containing Rosy's papers which were sold by Sir Aaron Klug to Jeremy Norman) which was sold onto C***g V****r!)

"Geno" Based on the performance by Dexy's Midnight Runners "Genome" Parody by Sweet Indigo

Sweet Indigo said: Venter is a biologist who worked (with others) to finish the first complete bacterial genome, Haemophilus influenzae, kicking the butts of the people working on Escherichia coli.

Back in '53 in a Cambridge lab (Oh Genome) Dr. Jimmy Watson and Francis Crick were fab (Oh Genome) Found one day the helix of our DNA After a while of peeking at Franklin's X-ray The brightest minds in science that year Just picking the code and seeing how it appears

Academic inspiration, you gave us some After Mendel the abbot, the answer had come And now we've read the words and we're looking into you DNA telling genes, that's what it's built to do

Venter took the stage, his work was going fast (Oh Genome) This man used no mapping, but shot-gun at last (Oh Genome)

He came before E. coli, TIGR behind his name Finished H. influenzae, new techniques were the game Then went onto humans, microbes are so tame The Human Genome Project, remember the name

Academic inspiration, you gave us some You were Venter the winner, the boffin that won And now we've got the genes that all work to make 'you' DNA telling genes, that's what it's built to do

Oh Genome"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks very much Martin, I have requested permission from the Venter Institute to use the photograph, you have been a great help. Let's hope we get the permission. Alun 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Alun,

Did you know that most of Rosalind's papers are in the Churchill Archive Centre at Cambridge? As well as those of Sir John Randall of course! You know my home e-mail address so do keep in touch, in fact send me another message - and I may have a pleasant surprise for you?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert Olby's quotes from the Oregon State University web site on Linus Pauling & The Race for DNA
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Olby for the full text from the above!

Any comments?

62.25.109.194 mp 62.25.109.194

a succinct summary of the early 1950's DNA period
Alun, apart from correcting some rather poor grammar in the opening paragraph (stitching together two detached sentences), here is what I think is a realy remarkable summary of the early 1950's DNA period:

"In the foreword to The Eighth Day of Creation, the expanded edition of his 1979 masterpiece, Horace Freeland Judson says, "I feared I might seem the official historian of the movement"--molecular biology, that is. If by official he means "authoritative; definitive; the standard against which all others are measured" then his fears are warranted.

Detailed without being overly technical, humane without being fulsome, The Eighth Day of Creation tells of molecular biology's search for the secret of life. "The drama has everything--exploration of the unknown; low comedy and urgent seriousness; savage competition, vaulting intelligence, abrupt changes of fortune, sudden understandings; eccentric and brilliant people, men of honour and of less than honour; a heroine, perhaps wronged; and a treasure to be achieved that was unique and transcendent." And in Judson, this drama found its very own Shakespeare. --Christine Buckley.

I don't know who Christine Buckley is, but she hits the nail right on the head! Incidentally the book is a very good read, and all the references to it have disapeared off the bibliographies of the Wikipedia articles for the key combatants! (I know because I put them there in the first place.)

Perhaps someone on the american 'fundamentalist' christian right takes exception to the title?

All for now, 81.78.75.155mp81.78.75.155


 * Thanks for the tip, I'll get around to reading it at some point. Been strapped for time recently, and been editing elsewhere, I tend to buzz around all sorts of pages. Take care. Alun 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Consistency
The article often rotates from the full name "Rosalind Franklin" to "Franklin." Everything but where necessary, should be changed to simply "Franklin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:WongFeiHung (talk • contribs)

You may not be aware of the English public school tradition of referring to other (male) people by their surnames, and putting greater emphasis on initials of christian names (such as "F.H.C." for Francis Crick or "M.H.F." for Maurice Wilkins), but it shouldn't really be applied to English ladies! 62.25.109.194


 * Ummmm. Ladies? Do you mean women? Lets not have any sexism here please. It was my fault that it's usually Rosalind Franklin in the article rather than the more correct Franklin. When I extensively modified the article some time ago I used several sources that exclusively refered to Franklin as Rosalind, and I confess I got muddled as to the correct form of words to use. Subsequently I have realised that on wikipedia it is correct to refer to someone by their family name after giving their full name in the introduction. Sorry about that. After so much work on the article I found it rather hard to get motivated to go through the whole thing making the necessary changes, and so it has remained mostly Rosalind Franklin. Please feel free to make the necessary changes yourself User:WongFeiHung if you feel so strongly about it. You could have done it anyway and left a message here stating that you had made such a change if you feel so strongly about it. Alun 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Alun, no I meant 'Ladies'; the Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines ' "lady" as (quote) "a woman regarded of being of superior social status or as having refined manners". I am sure that both of these applied perfectly to the late Miss Franklin.

Unfortunately a recent BBC TV programme ("Little Britain") has debased the word in the mouths of two less than 'ladylike' tranvestites for comedic purposes..Nitramrekcap


 * There you go again, I think that when someone completes a PhD they have earned the right to be addressed by their proper title, which would of course be Dr. Franklin and not Miss Franklin (which should anyway be Ms. Franklin). What is superior social status? And who decides when someone is regarded as such? I note that the Oxford Dictionary actually defines a lady firstly as a woman. The wikipedia article states Some advocates of non-sexist language recommend not using the word [lady] at all, I fall into that group and find it's use offensive. Alun 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Controversy Correction
I do not have access to Wilkin's novel which apparently claims that the prize was awarded for other work in addition to the structure of DNA, but according to the presentation speech, found at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/press.html: "It is for the discovery of how these building blocks are coupled together in three dimensions that this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to James Dewey Watson, Maurice Hugh Frederick Wilkins, and Francis Harry Compton Crick." This seems pretty explicit; in fact, nowhere in the speech is any reference made to anything other than the importance of the molecule's structure. Perhaps this line should be reconsidered: "The award was given for work on nucleic acids and not exclusively for the discovery of the structure of DNA"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.2.71 (talk • contribs)


 * The Nobel Prize was awarded for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material. This is the actual Nobel citation, it may be that the most important part of their work was the discovery of the structure, which is why the speach concentrated on it, but it is not the reason given in the Nobel citation. Anyway Nobel Prizes are usually given for a body of work and not for individual discoveries. You can sign your posts using four tildes like this ~ . Alun 09:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * PS please see the Nobel prize reference, No 93 on the list in the article. Alun 09:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright
The following message was posted on the article page:''THIS IMAGE IS BEING USED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. This image is copyright material and must not be reproduced in any way without permission of the copyright holder. The copyright belongs to the National Portrait Gallery, London. For copies, and permission to reproduce the image, please contact the Gallery at picturelibrary@npg.org.uk or via our website at www.npg.org.uk'' by 217.207.85.50. Alun 11:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This Poster's IP does indeed appear to be from the UK National Portrait Gallery - their point appears valid, but can someone please clarify the copyright law on US servers? There are other pictures, already posted on US sites, which do not have NPG bylines - why don't we swap for one of these?

Bob aka Linuxlad 09:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

NY Times article
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/science/14askscience.html

Nitramrekcap

DNA controversy....
This DNA attribution controversy is very instrusive on all of the biographies of those involved. The problem is that the biography should focus on the individual person and why they alone are notable. This DNA controversy drags everyone into each other's biographies. The DNA controversy should have its own article to avoid the mess and then each of these biographies can focus on the individaul more sharply. -- 67.121.114.170 17:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No objections? Good. I will wait another while and move the DNA controversy over to its new article where the balanced picture can be developed. -- 67.121.114.170 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The information here is about Rosalind Franklin. Now why do you think she is notable? Is she notable because of her work on coal/graphite? Is she notable for her work on viruses? Is she even notable for her work on DNA? There may be a body of opinion in the academic world that thinks that her contributions to these areas are noteworthy in their respective fields, but they would not necessarily constitute noteworthyness for a wiki article. Essentially RF is noteworthy because of the controversy. In fact one could argue that her contribution to the Crick-Watson model would never have gained wide recognition unless Watson had written his book The Double Helix, the tone of which led Anne Sayer to write her book Rosalind Franklin and DNA in order to set the record straight. Watson also made some errors in his book that lead many to believe that RFs data had been used improperly (which they weren't), these errors are what ultimately led to Franklin's fame. So if you remove the controversy section, you effectively remove the reason for her noteworthiness itself. I have spent a lot of time and effort on this page, mainly checking sources and working hard at producing a neutral article, and while I have no problem with your article I am rather pissed off that you now want to remove a great deal of the work I have put in and effectively gut this article of much of its detail. You simply cannot have a fair and ballanced RF article without mentioning the controversy. I am really unhappy about this. This DNA controversy drags everyone into each other's biographies so what is the problem with this, these people did in fact interact with each other and so it would be rather daft if they were not included in each others articles, scientists do not work in splendid isolation from each other. The problem is that the biography should focus on the individual person and why they alone are notable. Often people are notable because of their interactions with others, as in this case. Alun 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way if you are going to make major changes to articles you really should get youself a user account so other wikipedians can send you messages and identify you when you make changes or leave messages. Alun 17:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Franklin is notable because of her contribution to the determination of the structure of DNA. The "controversy" is a dispute among historians about attribution involving several people. Watson deals with the controversy to a limited degree in his book. Franklin was not "a controversy", she was a person. I want to know about her. I want her biography to be personal, while restritcting itself to what made her notable: her work. The "controversy" should get its own article. The sexism thing is only about her so it can stay in her bio. Think about her: the results of her work is what is of lasting value. While the dispute rages on among factions (with possibly other political motives), it may or may not be so notable in 100 years. -- 67.121.114.170 18:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Franklin is notable because of her contribution to the determination of the structure of DNA.
 * So why was she relatively unknown before the publication of The Double Helix?.Alun 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, because...who knew? Oy! They, uh, did not have the Internet back then. Now we know. Let us write the truth. How many poets and arists die in obscurity but are now notable because we finally figured it out, only too late to make the person feel good? -- 67.121.114.170 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense at all. She was unknown before Watson's book (1968), Anne Sayre's Book bought her to greater prominence in 1974. Just when do you think the internet was invented? They didn't have it in 1968, When Watson published his book and Franklin became famous. What makes you think this has anything to do with the article? Alun 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Watson deals with the controversy to a limited degree in his book.
 * Watson states in his book that Franklin and Wilkins were not aware that their data were in Crick and Watson's hands, but in actual fact much of the data came from Wilkins, and Franklin gave much of her data to Wilkins when she was preparing to leave for Birkbeck. In one sense Watson fabricated the controversy, and it came back to bite him in the bum.Alun 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So? Watson tripped himself up. That poop goes into Watson's bio. And he gets to eat his words while he is still alive. -- 67.121.114.170 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's the reason she's famous. Alun 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Franklin was not "a controversy"
 * Did anyone claim she was? I certainly didn't, I claimed that she was noteworthy because of the controversy.Alun 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Spending a significant percentage of her bio on the controversy certainly makes her look controversial. -- 67.121.114.170 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the info in the bio needs to address the controversy, it was a relatively small section, the article used to be entirely about this controversy and nothing else. The article makes it perfectly clear that all controversies arose after her death. Alun 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to know about her.
 * There is plenty of material about her in the article, this is not a reason for removing the controversy material as well.Alun 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. -- 67.121.114.170 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I want her biography to be personal, while restritcting itself to what made her notable: her work.
 * There may be room to include more personal information about RF, this is an encyclopedia not a book, space is limited, I have tried to include personal stuff, but there is so much information about her professional life (including work in Paris and at Birkbeck) that I admit the personal stuff has taken a back seat, it could certainly be expanded upon. I did add quite a lot of info about her background, especially her rather colourful and egalitarian family. The controversy is related to her work, so it is relevant to include it when discussing her work, much of which is included here. If I had not included it, no other editor would have made any reference to her excellent virus work or coal/graphite work. When I started working on this article it concentrated almost exclusively on the DNA work and the controversy, with very little other material about her at all (it was a mess and largely unverified). This gives a big hint as to why she is famous, and also why people know about her. Rosalind Franklin, to the vast majority of people is still (rightly or wrongly) the woman who Crick and Watson stole (sic) their information from, and it is why they will come here to look at her article.Alun 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. -- 67.121.114.170 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The "controversy" should get its own article.
 * Fair enough, I have no problem with that, as long as you follow the no original research, neytral point of view and verifiability policies. This does not give you the authority to come to this article and remove vast swathes of it without checking with other editors first.Alun 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But we should not have a lot of duplication either. In her bio, we should just have a reference to the controversy and, briefly, the major impacts it directly had on her. -- 67.121.114.170 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree, I think it is a very bad idea to have a seperate article for the controversy section. If you want to write a decent article about this I would suggest an article about the discovery of DNA, starting at the begining and including all the major characters, like William Astbury, Oswald Avery, Erwin Chargaff, Linus Pauling, etc, building up to the discovery in 1953 with a section about the controversy  at the end of the article. If this sort of article existed, which would be ballanced, then it would be fair to include the information about the controversy there rather than here. That article would cover all controversies, those surrounding the lack of credit given to people like Erwin Chargaff and Oswald Avery, after all untill Avery everyone thought protein was the molecule of heredity, so his contribution was rather important. There is also some info here. It is certainly not ballanced to have an article only about Crick, Franklin, Watson and Wilkins. The controversy had no major impact on RF directly, she had been long dead by the time it surfaced. Alun 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The sexism thing is only about her so it can stay in her bio.
 * You do not have the authority to dictate to other wikipedians what can or cannot stay in this article, wikipedia is collaborative and consensual, there are no dictators here.Alun 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is about balance. If the sexism thing should get its own article also, or go into the King's College article, then so be it. But we should make such a decision based on balance. The sexism thing is not overwhelmingly large compared to the King's College article. Should we move "the evidence" to the King's College page? Was King's College a hotbed of sexism back then? There is not one word of sexism about it in the College article.  It is a matter of perception: If the sexism is real and notable, then the College should take the rap.  Franklin was merely the victim.  Any suggestions that it held her back in her career are speculative w/o documents or statistics of such.  See, it is easy to make it seem like the a big deal to the "victim", but the perpetrator of the injustice is where the "sexism" lable belongs?  Now tell me: when we do that: is King's going to feel rather signled out? Were they the only ones doing it back then? Should we merely refer the reader to info that lots of women were held back during that time? See? You have to make this sexism thing real.  Do the other DNA scientists cite her gender as the reason why they bypassed her in accessing her research results? Or was it her personality &mdash; either independently or in some amalgam with her gender? -- 67.121.114.170 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ballance is a question of opinion, I think that the article is already well balanced, I think what you are proposing leaves the reader with very little idea as to why Franklin's noteriety goes beyond the scientific community. You seem to have missed my point, which is that you do not hve the authority to decide unilaterally what stays or goes. So far you have failed to convince me that any of the material here should be removed. As for sexism, one of the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability. We don't have to show that she was discriminated against, and we don't have to show that sexism held her back, remember verifiability not truth, so if the claim has been made by a reputable source, then we can put it in and cite it, even if the claim is wrong. Conversely if there is something we know is true, but we cannot get a citation to support it then it can't go in.Alun 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Think about her: the results of her work is what is of lasting value.
 * True, doesn't really mean that we should remove other important information regarding her.Alun 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, balance. -- 67.121.114.170 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Balance is a question of opinion, you are distorting the article IMHO. Alun 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While the dispute rages on among factions (with possibly other political motives), it may or may not be so notable in 100 years.
 * I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and so cannot respond to this comment.Alun 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right. We are are still trying to sort out what information belongs where. Take a look at the Watson page: See how the Franklin references are mostly consolidated? That is as it should be.  There are still over a dozen refs to Franklin in the Crick article. Very messy. Granted, she lived under his roof near the end, but unless somebody wants to argue that she has some profound effect on this life unrelated to the DNA science, then it still seems out-of-balanace for the Crick biography. -- 67.121.114.170 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by consolidated? There are just two sections dealing with the DNA work in this article, one is about the time RF was at King's, the other is specifically about the controversy. It's not as if C & W's names keep cropping up in inapropriate places, like in the Paris section or something.Alun 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to include a citation please use the function, it is easy to learn how to use it see here, one should always use the same citation style that the article already uses. If you are going to use direct links to web pages then you need to include the citation in the references section (with another link) as well as the link in the text see here.

If you are a newbie then I'm sorry if I appear overly aggressive, I don't mean to be, but you should try to remember that wiki is a collaborative venture and you should always get a consensus before making any sort of major change to an article. Some of the material here may well fit better in another article about the DNA attribution controversy, but it is important to discuss what should be removed and what should remain here first and negotiate. It would also have been wise to include a link to the new article here, otherwise readers would be left with the impression that there is no controversy. I was angry because there seemed to be no reason to remove the material (it was after all verified and neutral) and it looked like POV pushing to me, I mean it looked like someone had removed it because it did not comply with their personal opinion, which in a way is true, though you did remove it to another place rather than simply removing it all together, which is what I originally thought. A link to the new article would have shown me why the information had been removed, and where to. There have been a number of quite heated discussions on this talk page in the past, but it has calmed down a lot over the last six months or so as the article has matured. After so much difficulty in getting a consensual form of words, it is rather impolite to charge in here and just re-order everything without checking first. Alun 18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also - if you are reporting factual information about her science contribution to the DNA model in the "controversy" section then you have got it wrong: The science contributions stands on its own. The controversy section should briefly explain what the controversy is about and then refer the reader to the main "controvery" article where the one, unified version of that story exists. If you thing about it, much of this "controversy" is a discussion asking the question: was Franklin given enough credit? Not fact in the hardest sense of the word, but notable because of all the ink that has been spilled about the issue. -- 67.121.114.170 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) As you might guess, this technique also helps the biography to settle down to just the facts and lets the controversy continue in an isolated arena. -- 67.121.114.170 20:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) On the sexism thing: we all know that King's College advocates are not going to accept a long paragraph in their main article about their sexist past because they will argue that they are being singled out on something that was a general problem. But here we are on the Franklin page analyzing King's in particular. Think about it: where does this info really belong? -- 67.121.114.170 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The controversy section covers several different controversies. I don't think there is any science stuff mentioned here. Alun 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What like, RF went to school, RF went to Uni, RF went to Paris, RF went to King's, RF went to Birkbeck, RF died. For the reason she is famous see another article. Nice article, you have removed the reason the article exists. Alun 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If information is verified then no editor has the right to remove it. If you include this information on a King's page and it is verified and neutral, (ie that it gives both POVs) then no one has the right to remove it. They do have the right to include material that states that sexism was commonplace at the time and that King's was not a special case.

I strongly suggest you read the three policies on neutrality, verifiability and no original research before you make any more changes. It really is a good idea to have a thorough understanding of these policies when you contribute to wikipedia, they exist for a reason and are most helpful to editors. I also suggest you get a user account, this helps greatly with communication as other editors can leave messages on your user page. Alun 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The long "see also" list
I think it would be nice of the long "see also" list were only things are are not otherwise refernced in the prose. -- 67.121.114.170 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is too long and needs to be trimmed down, you are quite right. Alun 07:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Footnoting on "Dark Lady"
I think that the footnoting on "Dark Lady" is too fine-grained. Just a footnote at the end of each paragraph would accomplish the same thing. A much more general comment: people who cannot read 10-40 pages of a book in order to verify facts should, maybe not be involved with editing this article. That is not a swipe at whomever added all the footnotes: it is a matter of style and the kind of personality that we are encouraging to become involved in editing this article. We should encourage collagboration where people are willing to do some work and improve overall quality, not just be lead one-sentence-at-a-time (or even, ugh! more fine grained) through the article. -- 67.121.114.170 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I consolidated the footnotes on just the "Background" paragraph. The other footnotes are excessively fine grained on just those two other books, but I am not going to do the rest of the article. Also: I took out the explaination of Herbert Samuel because he has his own article. Again, my advice is: focus on the one person, her work, her results, and her life experiences that effected her notable outcomes. -- 67.121.114.170 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said before, there has been some heated debate on this talk page in the past, so it was important to check every fact on the page, it is also wikipedia policy (see WP:V). I spent weeks doing this and it is somewhat annoying when you come here and slag off my hard work. I also refer you to the wikipedia fact and reference check. Alun 06:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as we are on sexism...
Was there ever any suggestion that anti-semitism touched Franklin's life? I am not looking for a big scandal, just a one-liner about society in general, to remind the read of what life was like back then. We already info the read that she was a British Jew, but it is always something to keep in mind. -- 67.121.114.170 21:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Also: your subsection is "Allegations of sexism at King's College" in her biography. Did she make such allegations in a manner that was ever recorded or is somebody else introducing these ideas after the fact and by "filling in the blanks"? Really, when I see such a title, I expect to read a paragraph where she makes the allegations. -- 67.121.114.170 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * King's is a C of E establishment. Don't know about discrimination, but Maddox says something like science at at King's had always breathed an ecclesiastical air.Alun 06:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The controversies section includes all controversies about Franklin. It is perfectly clear in the article that all of these controversies came to light after her death, this is why they are at the end of the article in their own section and not in any other section of the article. Anne Sayre makes certain references to sexism at King's in her book that are incorrect (such as there was only one other woman working in the group), these have been repeated elsewhere (Bill Bryson repeats these), these sort of incorrect assertions need to be addressed as they have a direct impact on the way Franklin is percieved and promote false information about the way she was treated and how work was done at King's. We do need to address the way Franklin's life and career have been distorted by the several incorrect assertions made about her over the years. If you want to create an article that makes no mention of what other people have written about Franklin then it will be a very short article indeed. Remember that we can only use verifiable material, and as such what other people have written represent our sources. Indeed it would be a breach of wikipedia policies to omit the opinions of Franklin's biographers and contemporaries, please see the neutral point of view policy. The published opinions of people who worked with Franklin, people who have written biographies about Franklin etc need to be included here, or else you are not producing a neutral or balanced work. I am starting to think that you have some sort of POV agenda here. Why is it that you want to remove all reference to everything but the mundane? Alun 06:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Most sane people just want the Truth in chronological order as best we understand it. Trying to present the facts strictly by when things were learned is much more time-consuming for the reader. It is perfectly fine in the chronological narrative to say "this factual thing happened but nobody knew until a long time later". Trying to go back an fill in the blanks well after the fact is, at best, pendantic. It is also much more open to manipulation. Well, I tried and you reverted. I am not going to fight about it. The rest of the researchers will have fairly focused biographies of what happened in their lives and Rosalind, well, I guess we are just going to learn more and more about how the world done her wrong as time goes by. -- 75.24.104.203 06:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And I noticed that the peer review slams the writing style. Again: Too much controversy gives the appearance to the reader that the biography is talk, talk, talk rather than fact. Rosalind deserves better, but I am not going to fight about it. -- 75.24.104.203 06:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Most sane people just want the Truth.
 * This is close to a personal attack. Please avoid this. Someone is not classified as insane just because they do not agree with you. You are entitled to disagree, but comment on the article not on the editor. Everything here is verified, remember verifiability not truth. Alun 06:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The facts are in chronological order, the controversy seems to have been largely manufactured by Watson himself, but it was done some ten years after her death, so it is chronological. Remember Franklin gave her data to Wilkins for him to do with as he pleased, she was leaving for Birkbeck anyway. Wilkins had every right to show the data to C & W. Franklin may have been aware of all this, she may not have been, but it is incorrect to claim that you know of some fundamental truth obscure to the rest of us. Maybe we should mention in the article that Franklin gave her crystalographic data to Wilkins before she moved to Birkbeck, and that he showed them to Crick and Watson, this is chronological and accurate and I don't think it is mentioned at this point in the article. We should also possibly mention at this point that Crick got hold of some of Franklin's data from Max Perutz, but that these data were in the public domain anyway as she had delivered tham in a lecture that Watson had attended and were in an MRC report that was not confidential (as the data were delivered in an open lecture anyway). The reason Franklin is percieved as wronged is because Watson claimed that her and Wilkins were decieved by him and Crick, but this is incorrect. The other thing is that Watson portrayed her in a rather negative if not downright insulting way in his book, leading to Anne Sayre's book being published to redress the balance as it were. Franklin is acknowledged on the original C & W paper. This controversy did not exist when she was alive, so it would be chronologically inappropriate to include it as if it did. The controversy is also not historical fact, it didn't happen in 1953, it happened in 1968, it is based on either a device by Watson in his book to make it more exciting (they were spies and it was all very covert), or it was a simple case of Watson's memory failing him. Alun 06:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The peer review does not slam the writing style (what does slam mean in this sense? does it mean criticise?), one person did not like it. It's fair enough to disagree on the style and I am happy for anyone to improve on the writing style, but you want to gut the article. Alun 06:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources
And you put back the grueling sentance-by-sentance footnotes. Ugh! I will come back in maybe a year and see if maybe editors more seroius about Peer review, GA and FA have prevailed. -- 75.24.104.203 06:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK I see what you mean about the footnotes, yes your idea was very good, I like it. I did not revert the footnotes but the whole article and of course everything then gets reverted. I'll have a go at consolidating the footnotes as you suggest over the next few days and see how they come out. Alun 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking again at the cite sources guideline I think that the citation style here is probably in accordance with the correct wikipedia guideline. It may not be pretty, but citing like this shows specifically which comments are being cited, and also where to find the correct verification for the contention. The Cite sources guideline even states The more precise one's use of a source, the more precise the citation should be. When citing books and articles, provide page numbers when possible. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. People who are au fait with academic texts are usually used to seeing this sort of referencing, and don't really notice the numbers in the text. It does mean that articles like this should be quite good sources for people wanting to use them as a reference in their own right. Alun 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is carried over from the Francis Crick discussion page as it is relevant to R.E.Franklin
King's College (London) DNA Controversy

In the best interests of free speech, can anyone say what the above deleted article was all about please? Is this so called 'controversy' related to the spurious "Rosy Franklin was robbed" 'controversy'? Seweryn Chommet's little book is the best available text on the whole subject, but unfortunately it has not been widely circulated in the global scientific academic community! Surely the best place for a debate over the KCL role in DNA was the deleted article? I would be the first to say that KCL's role in the DNA discovery has been historically underestimated, not least because of over focus on Rosalind Franklin personally, and not enough focus on the hard work of Maurice Wilkins, both of whom together with Gosling, Stokes, and Wilson were under the direction of Sir John Randall. (Both the Cavendish Lab. and KCL operated as fellow research units under the Medical Research Council.)

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Francis_Crick" 62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194


 * I was actually leaving a message on the King's College DNA controversy talk page when the article was deleted, it came as something of a shock to me. But there was a message that said that CanadianCaesar had deleted the article. When I sent him a message to ask what had happened this was his reply (copied from my talk page): Yes, I deleted both the article and the talk page. There was no AfD.  It was deleted per WP:CSD- created by an extremely dangerous banned user.  If you wish to recreate the article (using your words, not his), you are certainly welcome.  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC). Personally I don't have a problem with the article being deleted, much information was removed from this article without any discussion whatsoever, and wikipedia just doesn't work by dictat, so I was extremely angry by the attitude of the annonymous user who kept removing the material from here. Alun 13:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely the best place for a debate over the KCL role in DNA was the deleted article?


 * Well no, wikipedia is not a chat room it is an encyclopedia, debate should not centre on what happened, it should concentrate on what to include and how to include it in the article. Alun 13:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alun,

Please note the following amendment to the introduction to the Francis Crick article: "most noted for being one of the four co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953." It goes without saying who the fourth person was, she died in 1958 of course.

Nitramrekcap

DNA Pioneers dropdown menu: addition of King's College London
Is the addition of KCL to the list a joke or is someone seriously unbalanced? I claim equal rights for the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge of course; so why just add KCL to the list? Nitramrekcap


 * I think the banned user that originally created the controversy article made the change. I have reverted it today. Alun 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

When did the 'controversy' start?
QUOTE: "The controversy is also not historical fact, it didn't happen in 1953, it happened in 1968, it is based on either a device by Watson in his book to make it more exciting (they were spies and it was all very covert), or it was a simple case of Watson's memory failing him.(Alun)"

Surely it started in 1962 - and not in 1968 - with the award of the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Chemistry to Crick, Watson, and Wilkins? They were nominated by Bragg and Bragg lobbied for them to get it - in my opinion, the Nobel Prize could not have been awarded to just Watson and Crick only as there HAD to be some recognition of the big contribution made by the King's College London team; Franklin by 1962 had already died of course, so that just left Wilkins! Nitramrekcap


 * The way I see it the controversy is primarily about Franklin. Wilkins was offered co-authorship of the 1953 paper and rightly turned it down. Wilkins was awarded the Nobel Prize as much for his 10 years of work on DNA (both prior to and following the discovery of the structure of the B form of DNA) that did much to support the Crick-Watson model (and incidentally to elucidate the A-form structure) as for his contributions to the model. Wilkins states this in his book quite clearly. There was no real controversy untill Watson wrote his book, and people started to wonder who this Franklin woman was, her contribution had remained obscure untill Watson painted a very unflattering portrait of her in his 1968 book. It all kicked off then when certain people got into a righteous fury over her treatment in the book. Watson also claimed in the book that the data were used without the knowledge of Wilkins or Franklin, and it is this claim of unethical behaviour that really started fingers being pointed, as it turned out this was a distortion of the truth. So it seems to me that a reading of the Watson book leaves one with the impression that Franklin was patronised and ignored, and that her data were stolen by unscrupulous men so they could get the credit, I don't think this is the truth, but it certainly gave the impression of unfairness. Personally I don't think Franklin's contribution was enough to make her eligible for a share of the Nobel Prize even if she had been alive, Crick, Watson and Wilkins had all worked on neucleic acids for years after the discovery and Nobel Prizes are usually awarded for a body of work, rather than a single discovery, hence the citation "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material". I think we cannot know what Franklin knew or didn't know about the use of her data. Other people involved, like Crick, Wilkins and Perutz were able to state their side of the story after 1968, and it became apparent that Wilkins was perfectly aware that Crick and Watson had used some of his data (indeed he gave it to them), but Franklin was not alive to say one way or the other what her opinion on the matter was. One has to wonder whether Franklin was just as aware as Wilkins that Crick and Watson were using her data, she seemed unimpressed with their model in 1953 and was not at all interested in theoretical models, she wanted lots of data to support any structure, so that it was essentially scientifically prooved (although as you know there is no such thing as real proof in science) before publication. Maybe one could argue that this was her strength as an experimental scientist, and her weakness as a thoeretician, one might also argue that as a woman she needed a greater degree of proof than a man may have needed in order to be taken seriously (and therefore she was overly cautious), but these are aspects of society rather than science, and are still evident even today. I do wonder how Watson would have portrayed Franklin in his book had she still been alive. If you can find evidence that there was a controversy prior to 1968 then we should include it in the article certainly, I am aware that my interpretation of the events as I have outlined them above may be viewed in a different light by other sources. Alun

Alun,

An impressive reply, if only for its sheer length - but let leave the final words to King's College London and refer to this URL:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/dna/role.html

When I receive a copy of KCL's booklet ("DNA: The Genesis of a Discovery") and have re-read it, I will return to the debate. (I hope to quote the cost of a copy to Finland by surface/air by the way!)


 * Alun, please remind me what your e-mail address is - assuming you still have mine, as I have something useful on REF for you? MP Nitramrekcap

Nitramrekcap 08:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)