Talk:Rosalind Franklin/Archive 6

Aaron Klug essay
Alun, I assume you will be cross-checking the facts from Sir Aaron Klug's essay from the Oxford National Biography against your own REF article and will identify any changes made to it? (You cannot always assume that such pieces are totally correct, as - for example - Maurice Wilkins' biography of Sir John Randall for the RS ommits any reference to the year Randall spent teaching at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge - which in view of their subsequent 'rivalry' with KCL is interesting of course. You will find the human relationships in the DNA saga were not just confined to Crick-Franklin-Watson-Wilkins by the way; the one between Bragg Jnr. and Randall received very little coverage, but was probably just as important as the ones between the four main participants! I see Bragg and Randall as pulling all of their strings in the race for the Nobel Prize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)


 * I assume you will be cross-checking the facts from Sir Aaron Klug's essay from the Oxford National Biography against your own REF article and will identify any changes made to it.
 * Identify any changes made to what? I'm a bit confused by your post and don't know what you are refering to. If there is any new or interesting info worthy of inclusion in the Aaron Klug text then it can be included here. I don't know what you mean by facts, there are only points of view, we should always try to include all points of view in an article and support them with references. Alun 12:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alun, words (almost) fail me! Do you know who Klug is in relationship to Franklin? Just as John Schmidt should be checking his Francis Crick article against the new Ridley biography, you should do the same - ie check your REF article against Klug's ONB article for obvious reasons!!

This is not a debate over semantics, your article apparently uses some but not all sources on Franklin, but you cannot grasp why Klug's article is so important? Start by checking the index in the Maddox biography, in case you have forgotten who Klug is and what he did. At the end of the day, Klug is an original source on REF and deserves far more respect as a former colleague, close friend, and Nobel Prize Winner - and yes, he is still working at the University of Cambridge. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Klug for more information...

IF you really do want to know a lot more about the true history of DNA at KCL, please try: www.pantadeus.zoomshare.com or e-mail publicationsz@zoomshare.com to find out how much a copy of "DNhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosalind_Franklin&action=edit&section=18#A: Genesis of a Discovery" will cost you? My second copy arrived this morning by the way.

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


 * I think you are misunderstanding the methodology of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's sources are there to provide verifiable support to the points of view contained within any given article. The criteria for inclusion include verifiability, which means that facts, from a Wikipedia point of view are anything that can be verified (remember verifiability not truth). We do not support one point of view over another, we may state that one point of view is more generally accepted than another, if a verifiable source can support that contention, but all significant points of view should be included in an article. So from this perspective, while Klug's essay can be used to verify information already contained within the article, and can certainly be used to verify any new information that is worthy of inclusion, we certainly cannot remove or replace material in the article that is already verified from another source just because Klug's essay may contradict it (and why would we, why accept the authority of one source over another?). Rather we would include Klug's information as well as keep any information already contained in the article. This is how we achieve neutrality. I know perfectly well who Klug is. I haven't found any particularly contradictory information in his essay to what is already in the RF article. I'll have a more detailed read of the essay when I get time. But I stress it would be a poor editor, and a breach of wikipedia policy, to give only a single point of view. I think the article is quite neutral at the moment, indeed I have worked hard to try to include all points of view, it's far from perfect. You seem to change your position from one extreme to another depending on what the last piece of literature you read was. I don't think there is really that much of a disagreement amongst those who are au fait with Franklin's work as to what her contribution actually was, or how important it was. Alun 13:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Alun,

Fundamentally where we seriously have to disagree is that I sincerely believe in reading ORIGINAL sources of information; I do not need read biographical articles of Franklin, Crick or anyone else for that matter which have been culled from limited sources, eg: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.78.92.137 (talk • contribs) and possibly the same contributor as given the change to publicationsz@zoomshare.com [in the following edit]?
 * Both are User:Nitramrekcap I think. Alun 05:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't you just explain that primary sources are not trust worthy above? re: Wilkins lapse to mention the year Randall spent at Cavendish. How about the disagreements in details between Watson and Crick? Who is correct? I think a well researched biography m,ay actually be more reliable than primary soruces themselves.  it is clear there is a human tendancy to romanticise history. David D. (Talk) 18:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


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


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

Major sources section
Due to confusion over the purpose of the former Bibliography section, I have renamed the section to better reflect it's purpose. It exists in order to fully cite works that are given a brief but detailed page number citation in the references section. It's only purpose is to make it unecessary for a full cite of the source every time it is used in the article, as this would lead to an unecessarily long References section. Alun 07:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

James Watson's "The Double Helix" MUST by definition be treated as a MAJOR SOURCE by default, rather than mere "Further reading", as it is after all what Anne Sayre wrote her biography in direct response to? I do suggest that you cannot just have Anne Sayre as a major source, without including Watson's book - irrespective of your/anyone else's opinion of the content of the "The Double Helix". Watson's book comes in for a lot of unfair criticism (in my opinion) but it has been phenomenally successful; Alun, you really should read the Norton Critical edition for all the reviews of it (except for Chargaff's) but unfortunately it does not include Bernal's review either - which I will try to get the text of; in the meantime try reading the new Bernal biography! (If you cannot get it in Finland, I will try extracting its key facts for you, but would prefer that you interpolate them into the article rather than trying to myself!)

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194


 * Watson's book was not used as a source during fact checking, and is therefore not a major source of information. The reasons for using the Sayre and Maddox books is that they are the only comprehensive biographies of Franklin, the reason for using Wilkins's book is that he was actually at King's with Franklin and so had first hand experience of what actually happened there and of working with her. Watson was not at King's at the time, so his work is at best second hand. Watson's book is also a poor source (it seems not to be an accurate history of events) and I have treated it as unreliable for the purposes of this article. He did not work with Franklin at any institution as far as I am aware, and the information in his book is not relevant to an account of Franklin's life, he is not an authority on Franklin and this is not an account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. If you would like to go through the article checking the facts in the article against Watson's book and inserting the relevant references then please be my guest, I'm not sure there is any point. You seem to be incabable of understanding the simle fact that the books on this list are only those with multiple citations in the references list. This is not rocket science, it's a simple concept, try to understand it please. Alun 13:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alun,

"You seem to be incabable of understanding the simle fact that the books on this list are only those with multiple citations in the references list." Perhaps these spelling errors don't help my understanding of what you are trying to say to me! But don't let your obvious prejudices against Watson get in the way of seeing it as source material for the REF article? You really do need far more than those three books as major sources, for a start Crick's "What Mad Pursuit" contains numerous valuable references to 'Rosy' so please don't just split hairs over him not working alongside her at KCL as he was a fellow scientist and a close friend (as was Odile, his wife) and 'Rosy' thought a lot of Crick, to put it mildly! We are not discussing caricatures of these people, but their real-life personalities - see above - and it is the science that really matters at the end of the day at Caltech, Cavendish, and KCL level -which is why you really do need to read Seweryn Chomet's delightful little booklet on KCL/DNA as soon as possible. 62.25.109.194MP62.25.109.194


 * Planet Earth calling Martin Packer. These books have not been used for the purposes of verification, I am not about to claim that they have been when anyone can see that they have not. If this offends you then it is your problem not mine. If you want to use these works for additional verification of the article, then please do so. I see no merit in overly lengthening the list of references, the article is fully referenced and verified. The works you are refering to might well be important for an article regarding the discovery of the structure of DNA, but they provide only limited information about the life of RF, she worked in King's on DNA only for a couple of years, it is hardly a major part of her life or career. I fail to see how these works are of much use to this article. I am not going to let you turn this article into one about Crick, Watson and the mythical race for DNA, it's about RF, plain and simple. RF's life was not just about DNA and it is patently absurd to try to claim that it was, these books are not about Franklin, they provide no additional information about her. I have tried to keep the sections about DNA as neutral and as brief as possible as I see no purpose in trying to turn it into a finger pointing excersise, this sort of thing has been done enough in other places. We have had this discussion again and again. I really do not see what your problem is. As it is I shall not be replying to any more of your bullying and apparently irrational demands, I see no point in repeating myself ad infinitum, you obviously do not get it. I am exasperated and not a little pissed off with your seeming incomprehension of what is a very simpe concept. You do not even seem to know youself which alternative source is indispensible, first it's Chomet, then it's Watson and now it's Crick. You have made no case as to how these works are relevant to Franklin's life. Crick's book is about his own career, Watson's is not a good source and Chomet's is a general book about the discovery of the structure of DNA. Your sole motive seems to be because of a fantacy that you have that Sayre and Maddox are somehow feminist books (apparently you hold this view simply because they both happen to be women) and that there is only one book in the section written by a man, so we need to even the ballance (your comment above: Feminist lobby = 2 vs. Non-Feminist Lobby*: 1). I can only describe this reasoning as absurd.

Alun 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alun,

"1. Crick's book is about his own career, 2. Watson's is not a good source and 3. Chomet's is a general book about the discovery of the structure of DNA."

1. Not surprisingly as "What Mad Pursuit" is his own autobiography, but it contains valuable references to R.E. Franklin - in much the same way as Wilkins's autobiography does of course; I fail to see how you can justify including Wilkins, but exclude Crick - although I have no doubt that you can come up with an apparently sensible reason; see all my previous comments on Crick.

2. Yes it IS "a good source" of course, unless you are joking! So again, try justifying why you include Sayre's own response to "The Double Helix", but not "The Double Helix" itself? To have one without the other is illogical and had Watson - encouraged by Bragg Jnr. - not written "The Double Helix", then R.E. Franklin's well deserved scientific reputation would still be in total obscurity.

3. I don't think you actually have a copy my friend as there is no way it can best be described as 'a general book about the discovery of the structure of DNA', as it is a very useful booklet published in 1994 in an attempt to set the record straight for the Kings College London team, of which R.E. Franklin was briefly a leading member. You already know how to obtain a copy (above).

YOUR ARTICLE CAN ONLY GET BETTER IF YOU TRY TO USE A FAR LARGER NUMBER OF MAJOR SOURCES TO IMPROVE IT!!!

62.25.109.194MP62.25.109.194


 * As a relative outsider looking in on this debate, I can only come up with the familiar point- if you have problems with the article Martin, then edit it yourself. To refer to this or any other article as 'belonging' to anyone ('YOUR ARTICLE', above) betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and practice. It is completely unacceptable to order other editors around in this manner. I also find it inexplicable and irksome (and I may not be the only one) that you persistently refuse to log in under your own account and instead edit from multiple IPs. Your supercilious and arrogant manner would be objectionable under any circumstances, but were it to be proven that you had some professional credentials (beyond an interest in the subject, which we all have, to a greater or lesser degree) one might be able to put up with it in the interests of improving the encyclopaedia. From a quick look around the web it does not strike me that you in fact have any such credentials or expertise. Can you please then either provide some evidence here, or otherwise provide some other reason why you feel yourself to be in a position to order other good-faith editors around? I can't see any at the moment- in fact, I am struggling to think of any acceptable explanation. Your edits to the main DNA articles seem to be minimal to non-existent; your insulting manner here is counterproductive, and frankly your edits on talk pages in general (for example, cut-and-pastes of book reviews from websites) are close to useless and certainly not in keeping with the utility and etiquette of Wikipedia talk pages. You seem to think that you are above these rules. Please explain why this is so. If you can't, then either edit the articles appropriately YOURSELF (I don't doubt your enthusiasm for a second) WITHOUT abusing other editors, or go away. Please note that the above is a general commentary on Martin's behaviour, and not a contribution to the content dispute. Badgerpatrol 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been watching with the same views. All this energy into talk pages. And, as yet, I still have no idea what exactly you think is missing from this article. It seems adequetly sourced to me, or should we use every book that references Franklin? I'm sure there are many of them.  David D. (Talk) 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

'Badgerpatrol' and "David D.",

Far be it for me to argue the toss with someone seriously calling himself "Badgerpatrol", but here goes:

a. Alun is the self-appointed 'gatekeeper' to the Rosalind Franklin article and while I admire his tenacity and enthusiasm for the key subject (mine for Dr. Francis Crick pales into insignificance by comparison), the subject matter IS contensious - whether Alun likes it or not.

You cannot have a reasonable debate with someone unless you know ALL of the sources; it may have escaped your notice that I constantly bring other sources to his attention like the new Bernal biography and the 12 year old 'DNA' booklet edited by Seweryn Chomet of KCL.

I was intending to do something for Alun from the former, but he needs to buy his own copy of the latter to do real justice to the content. Just for the record pages 43 to 73 are an article called "X-ray diffraction studies of NaDNA with Rosalind Franklin" by R.E. Gosling. (There are other articles by Wilins, Stokes, and Wilson.)

b. There is almost an obsession with all the personalities involved which I find unacceptable from a purely scientific perspective; anyone fully familiar with the subject area thinks in terms of the structures rather than the people: i.e. Pauling and colleagues at Caltech, Bragg and colleagues at the Cavendish, Randall and colleagues at Kings College London. Yes, Rosalind Franklin was a 'difficult' person in a lot of respects but she worked with lots of other people in both Paris and London and related to them scientifically whether they commanded her full respect or not. There is almost a "Rosalind Franklin" personality cult developing of which this Wikipedia article is a leading exponent; at the end of the day what difference will it ever make to the life of James Watson or the immediate families of Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins whether they and/or Franklin 'deserved' their shares of the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine or not - as you simply cannot re-write 1950's/1960's scienitific history from a different perspective in 2006. Yes, everyone takes the points made by Sayre and Maddox (and repeated almost ad nauseum by Alun) BUT 53 years on from 1953 the whole scientific world of molecular biology has moved on from it!

c. The whole article reeks of political correctness by its content and tone and its author takes me to task for referring to Franklin as a "lady"; I am absolutely sure that with her rather gentile, old-fashionned Jewish upbringing she would have been only too pleased to be referred to as a 'lady', rather than just as a so-called "woman".

Everthing in Maddox's biographer of her confirms her as being a Lady!

d. Finally "Badgerpatrol", I don't have 'multiple IP's" as I do occassionally surf the net at work which does not allow me to log in; neither do I have any 'sock puppets' as I think you call them!

By writing such an article on a contensious subject area, Alun offers himself up for robust criticism deserved or otherwise; personally if I were in his odd position (God forbid) I would go away, acquire some other major sources and think long and hard about what he has written and is so protective of AND check out the MSN biographical article* as a benchmark for comparative purposes. I rest my case - for the moment.


 * http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564570/Franklin_Rosalind_Elsie.html

Nitramrekcap


 * "Martin"- as always, you have missed the point completely, or more likely you choose to deliberately ignore it. I can only presume that the above is intended to be some sort of parody. I repeat, this conversation is not a commentary on whatever content dispute you currently appear to be having. To me knowledge, no editor has appointed themselves 'gatekeeper' of this article, and nor should they. It is fundamental to the spirit of this project that no individual- with arguably one grudging exception- has any more right to edit a given article than any other. Once again, your attitude comes across as arrogant and supercilious. Again, once must assume that your experience and credentials are such that you feel that this approach of yours can be somehow be excused in the interests of the greater good. I must confess however, I see little obvious evidence of this. Perhaps you can enlighten us. I recommend that you take some time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies, practice and etiquette- and then come back when and if you have learnt to treat your fellow editors with civility. No one has any divine right to "own" articles or to order other good-faith editors around- least of all someone like yourself whose actual encyclopaedic edits are minimal. As for the other issue- it isn't clear why you can't log in with your username and password from multiple machines. Presumably your workplace has software that disables cookies? If so, this is unfortunate but one would assume unavoidable, and certainly no blame can be attached to you. I should stress that it is up to whether you log in and use an account or contribute anonymously, although you do run the risk of appearing disingenuous if you persistently edit from multiple accounts. I am not accusing you of sockpuppetry. You seem to edit in (sometimes misguided) good-faith and your enthusiasm can hardly be doubted (as attested by your voluminous correspondence on these talk pages). What I am suggesting is that you change your attitude, which currently several users seem to find disagreable and counter-productive. Please take some time to consider this seriously. Badgerpatrol 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out here that there is no content dispute about the article, as far as I am aware. Martin has done this sort of thing before, made general attacks on this article (when it existed in a very different form) without pointing to any specific comment or change he would like to see made. It is almost impossible to make any changes that would be acceptable to Martin when it is unclear what the specific problem is. He seems to be offended that I have not used some of the sources he would like to see used, indeed they may contain some interesting and relevant information, but I doubt that they would be used for a multiplicity of cites, and so would not constitute Major sources in that sense. I cannot use sources that I do not posess, so to a certain extent the debate is pointless. If Martin posesses the relevant literature there is no reason why he cannot include the relevant information and verify it as per wikipedia policies on verifiability, neutrality and no original research. Martin has, in the past, violated all of these policies, having contacted people by email to get opinions that he has included here (OR), having on numerous occasions included his personal opinion as fact (POV) and having having rarely verified his edits. I have pointed these policies out to him on the talk page on numerous occasions, I have pointed him to the relevant policy pages, when he has refused to read the pages I have even given him a basic grounding in the policies on the talk page. At first I assumed that because he was a new user he just wasn't aware of these policies, but I subsequently realised that he just won't follow them, or even read them. Unfortunately he seems to believe that his opinion is the same as fact and has consistently behaved in his edits as if he is above these rules. As to Martin's comments above:
 * (a) I have developed a very short fuse with him and have reached the stage where I monitor edits to this page closely and revert any POV or unverified material as soon as I encounter it. I have also made two major edits of this article over the last year or so, this may be why Martin has the impression that I own this article, but I am only keeping Martins unverified and POV edits out, as I do with any other POV and unverified edit, it's just that Martin makes so many. I do not doubt Martin's knowledge in this field, but I do not think he is at all concerned with neutrality or verification, indeed I think that Martin wants this article to represent his view of events in 1951-53 rather than it being an actual biographical article about Franklin.
 * (b) I have tried very hard to keep personalities out of the article and have attempted to make it as neutral as possible, concentrating on what is known rather than trying to guess what peoples motives or feelings may or may not have been. Whether I have been successful is a matter of opinion, I'm sure there is room for improvement.
 * (c) I am unsure of what Martin means by political correctness, to me it means fair and so I will take it as a compliment, what is the alternative? To be politically incorrect, something like Franklin made some contributions to science but they can't be important because she was just a woman. This accusation is just the usuall non-specific complaint I have come to expect from Martin.
 * (d) Martin refuses to log on to his user account, I would estimate that about 95% of his edits and posts have been from anonymous IP addresses, this is very frustrating for other editors, I have asked him to log on to his account on numerous occasions, he has never given a reason for not doing so before. Be that as it may there is no reason why he cannot identify himself with User:Nitramrekcap (which would be displayed as User:Nitramrekcap) when he signs posts, even if he isn't logged on to his account.

Here is a list of some of Martin's edits so you are in no doubt as to why I monitor him closely:

POV edits:

        

Repeated attempts to mention the Nobel Prize and other members of the King's team in the introduction to the article:

                

Pasting copyrighted material directly into the article and his response to it's removal (where he claims incorrectly that the material is an obituary in The Times by Aaron Klug, even though the material makes mention of the Nobel Prize of 1962 and gives the date of her mother's death as 1976):

 

Detailed and irrelevant discussion about Bragg's involvement with Nobel Prize nomination of Wilkins (under a section about recognition of Franklin):



Erroneous assertion that the Cavendish and Crick and Watson were being funded by the MRC to investigate the structure of DNA (their funding was for work on proteins):



Incorrect assertion that the Crick and Watson model for DNA is called the W-C-M-F model at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (referring to it as the with the M for "Maurice" and the F for "Franklin).



Including commercial advertising:



Unexplained removal of verified quote contributed by User:PM Poon and PM Poon's response on my talk page after I tried to make the tone more neutral:

 

Including comments to other editors on the article page rather than the talk page.



This list is far from complete as I do not know all of the IP addresses Martin uses, but I hope it gives a flavour of the quality of Martin's editing. I find it offensive that he has much to say about the quality of my work, when it is apparent that his work does not comply with even the basic standards of wikipedia editing. I am under no illusion that I am anything but an interested amateur, but I do try to comply with wikipedia rules regarding neutrality, verification and original research. Martin has also been personally abusive to me on the talk pages, on more than one occasion stating that he thinks I am mentally ill, and that I am Rosalind Franklin's stalker. I make no apology for removing poor work from this article, left to Martin this article would hardly mention Franklin at all, it would be about Crick, Watson, Wilkins, Randall, Bragg and Pauling and the race for the structure of DNA. Alun 09:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I would like to point out that a look a the above edits by Martin will show that most are not in fact about Franklin at all. They mainly concern Crick, Watson, Wilkins, Randall or others. Martin has said many times that he thinks that Franklin has had far more credit than she deserves for her contribution to the structure of DNA, and he has made a habit of constantly putting the names of other people from King's in prominent places in the article so as to give them greater exposure, he seems not to appreciate that this article is actually about Franklin and not about the King's team. More recently Martin has swung the other way and is continually refering to Franklin's major contribution or large contribution to the determination of the structure. I take exception to this also, it is not for editors to make this sort of value judgement, we should provide all points of view in a neutral and verified way and allow the readers of the article to draw their own conclusions. Alun 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Alun, I am amazed that you take me so 'obsessively' seriously; you should put more of your obvious enthusiasm and energy into further research for the article, e.g. Chomet on KCL/DNA, Brown on Bernal, Hunter on Bragg etc etc; you should review the MSN biographical article on Franklin against 'your' article; and above be far more dispassionate about me and much more interested in improving the article - using all available "major resources", and not just the Sayre/Maddox biographies - including James Watson's "The Double Helix", whatever its limitations - it is a first hand account! 217.134.252.114 —Preceding unsigned comment added by nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)


 * Martin, you seem incapable of understanding that you are being asked to do this yourself if you feel it needs doing. You do not seem capable of either articulating what changes you would like to see made to the article, nor indeed of making any changes yourself. As it stands you need to either do it youself or stop wasting space on the talk page. Be aware that I will revert any unverified, POV or OR you include. Alun 11:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As for and above be far more dispassionate about me, how can I be dispassionate about you when you are personally abusive, do you consider your offensive posts dispassionate? and much more interested in improving the article, I have put more time and effort into this article than any other editor, possibly more than all other editors combined, I have verified all of my edits and have been as neutral as possible. To imply that I of all people am not interested in improving the article displays a breathtaking contempt for my hard work and is deeply insulting and offensive. There is a big difference between the article before and after I did the last major edit, I hope this shows just how interested I have been in improving the article. Alun 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Randall's letter to Franklin
"3. More detail about whether she had the impression from Randall that she and Gosling alone would be working on the x-ray diffraction of DNA, this was certainly Wilkins's impression and that of Klug, and may have contributed to her perception of interference from Wilkins."

From the Maurice Wilkins article: "Late in 1950, Randall wrote to Franklin to inform her that rather than work on protein, she should take advantage of Wilkins's preliminary work and that she should do X-ray studies of DNA fibers made from Signer's DNA." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)


 * Do you have a point about the article? Alun 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

removed personal abuse. Alun 18:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Randall's letter dated

4 December 1950 is fully described on pages 144 to 150 of Maurice Wilkins' excellent autobiography, not so much an "impression" (whatever that is supposed to mean) but an actual letter...Incidentally Alun, I saw Maddox's biography in paperback the other day; both books are easily available on www.abebooks. co.uk! I got OUP to correct their description of the obsequies invitation in the paperback of Wilkins' book by changing "Bessel" to "Besselised" and adding both 'R.E. Franklin' and 'R.G. Gosling'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)


 * Do you have a point about the article? What are you talking about? What impression where? Your post seems to be irrelevant to any matter in hand. Alun 18:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend ignoring Martin's 'input' unless and until he responds appropriately to the points made above. Badgerpatrol 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alun, I assumed that YOU are the author of the 5 points at the top of this page, the third of which is: "3. More detail about whether she had the impression from Randall that she and Gosling alone would be working on the x-ray diffraction of DNA, this was certainly Wilkins's impression and that of Klug, and may have contributed to her perception of interference from Wilkins." Randall's letter dated 4 December 1950 would have given her more than an 'impression'! Gosh.

See:

List of improvements (please add to this list be specific)

Add more information about her personal life. more detail on her time working on coal and graphite. More detail about whether she had the impression from Randall that she and Gosling alone would be working on the x-ray diffraction of DNA, this was certainly Wilkins's impression and that of Klug, and may have contributed to her perception of interference from Wilkins. Need to add more information about what Crick and Watson knew of Franklin's work (and where they got it) in winter of '52/'53. Include more information from the letters to Science in 1968. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)


 * Do you have a point about the article? This makes no reference to the article, it seems little more than petty nitpicking about wording on the to do list, rather than any attempt to improve the article. There is an element of doubt as to what Randall wanted and he was not explicit in what he expected of either Wilkins or Franklin. Randall's letter does not state that Franklin and Gosling would be working alone on the x-rays of DNA, it states that they alone would be performing the experimental work. Wilkins states that he had assumed that he would be fully involved in collaborating on data interpretation and elucidation of the structure, some argue that Franklin thought that the letter implied that she and Gosling alone would be working on the x-rays alone. These are different interpretations of Randall's intentions. Randall seems not to have cleared this up, and it seems that much of the bad feeling between Franklin and Wilkins may have been due to this. So yes it is an implication in the letter. But it is more than just the letter, Wilkins states that at this time he had the impression that Randall was trying to move him away from DNA work and we don't know what Franklin knew or didn't know, there's a great deal of speculation. I have avoided this in the article for the reason that it brings in so many issues to do with personality and guess work. We don't know what Randall said to Franklin, we don't know what he intended and we don't know how Franklin interpreted the letter. Both Maddox and Wilkins state that Franklin may have had the impression that Wilkins was not going to do any x-ray DNA work, but we don't know this for sure.
 * This means that as far as the experimental x-ray effort is concerned there will be at the moment be only yourself and Gosling.
 * I am in two minds about this information. I'm not sure how relevant it is to the article, it might be better to include it in the King's College (London) DNA Controversy article, its inclusion would require quite a bit of detailed explanation of the POVs taken by Wilkins, Maddox and Sayre and possibly others. This is a Franklin encyclopedia article we can't include every detail or we'll end up with a book sized article. Alun 05:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Alun, just to keep the events of early 1953 in perspective: "..in the weeks of February 1953, when vast areas of East Anglia were under the worst floods the area had ever known. Sea defences from Lincolnshire to Kent had collapsed: 280 drowned, 13,000 were evacuated, people hung in trees and sat on roofs awaiting rescue." (Quotation from Joan Bakewell's autobiography.)

The usual cliches about 1953 involve the Coronation and Mount Everest, but the weather was having a disastrous effect on England, but some Cambridge undergraduates assisted in the rescue efforts! Crick, Watson and Wilkins cannot be blamed (retrospectively) for all of this bad weather!

81.78.65.243mp81.78.65.243

Article needs infobox?
Does this article need Template:Infobox Scientist ?

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194

Yes it does! See:

This succinct summary looks very good on the FRANCIS CRICK article, so why not follow suite?

ps I gave my daughter a paperback copy of Maddox on Franklin yesterday as required reading before she goes to Bristol University at the end of this month: a good role model!

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194


 * This infobox has been nominated for deletion, and at present it looks like there are more votes for deletion than for keeping. If it's deleted it can no longer be used on any article. See Templates for deletion. Cheers, Alun 09:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Alun, I trust you found the Klug piece from BBC Radio Four interesting? I re-read Maddox On Frankin at the weekend, having drawn my daughter's attention to the top of page 69! Maddox thinks Wilkins and Crick met at the Admiralty in WWII, but she is wrong and Hunter (on Bragg) apparently repeated her mistake for good measure. You never did tell me what you thought of Ridley on Crick ("now available at all good bookshops", sorry 'Badgerpatrol'!), any comments? Martin

ps You might find this letter from Professor Robert Olby from the LRB interesting, following his review of Maddox's biography of Franklin? I assume you have read Bob's review in the LRB.

'''Unfair to Rosalind Franklin From Robert Olby'''

"In her response to my review of Brenda Maddox's Life of Rosalind Franklin, Barbara Low (Letters, 17 April) focuses on the ethics of Watson and Crick's use of Franklin's DNA data, whereas I concentrated on Maddox's achievement - in what is, after all, not a scientific biography - in bringing Franklin's personality into view. I did, however, criticise Maddox for expressing too much confidence in Patterson analysis. Well-informed statements of the limitations of the method exist in the literature of X-ray crystallography, but one would not expect the general reader to have encountered them. I did not write that Franklin 'did not know how to interpret her own data', but I did try to point out the clues that were available in those data.

Robert Olby University of Pittsburgh"

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194

Proceedings of the Royal Society in 1954
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(byuu1iz24qxbuby4yu3etcbm)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,10;journal,726,1018;linkingpublicationresults,1:120148,1

or start at: www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/archive and go via their Crick link! The link to 'Franklin' is of course to Benjamin, not Rosalind!!

217.134.247.11mp217.134.247.11217.134.247.11

Brenda Maddox's review of Matt Ridley's biography of Crick
See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2353754,00.html

[and not a word about the 'cause celebre' in the whole review!)

217.134.242.94mp217.134.242.94

To do list
See:

List of improvements (please add to this list be specific)

"1. Add more information about her personal life. 2. more detail on her time working on coal and graphite. 3. More detail about whether she had the impression from Randall that she and Gosling alone would be working on the x-ray diffraction of DNA, this was certainly Wilkins's impression and that of Klug, and may have contributed to her perception of interference from Wilkins. 4. Need to add more information about what Crick and Watson knew of Franklin's work (and where they got it) in winter of '52/'53. 5. Include more information from the letters to Science in 1968."

Does the article really need the above reminder of its apparent shortcomings? Surely all it needs is more in-depth research from a variety of resources? Who (anonymously) is the author of this To Do List and why does he feel the urge to share it with the rest of the global Wikipedia readership? Someone (our old friend "Badgerpatrol"?) said no one 'owns' an article, but surely this is contradicted by the sense of ownership implicit in the To Do List? Over to its 'Welsh' author?

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194
 * As I have stated elsewhere, I humbly suggest that other editors ignore this individual in the hopes that it may encourage him to a) learn some manners; b) take the time to familiarise himself with even the most basic Wikipedia rules, guidelines, and etiquette, of which he is ignorant (and, I suspect, obtusely so). Badgerpatrol 20:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignorant is correct. I am the author, see the history.  To do lists are normal on article talk pages in wikipedia.  It has nothing to do with ownership and a lot to do with communication with other authors. David D. (Talk) 02:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prize
I believe that the "Nobel Prize" section goes to great lengths to defend Watson and Crick's Nobel Prize awards, perhaps at the expense of keeping the focus properly on Rosalind. Arguments for why their prizes were deserved (by implication moreso than Rosalind) do not belong in an article discussing her life and accomplishments. If the section were titled "Nobel Prize Controversy", this might be more appropriate. However, information about these other scientists larger body of work should be confined to their Wikipeida articles, not Rosalind's. To those who may feel Rosalind was denied recognition, it borders on offensive and sexist to take up space in her article to prop up the superiority of those who benefitted from her research! 207.67.145.182 00:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable point. I'd say this though. There has been much crap talked about Franklin and the Nobel Prize. The fundamental truth is that she could not have been awarded it because she was dead. The other point is that Crick, Watson and Wilkins had been working on nucleic acids for nigh on ten years when they got the prize. Whethet they deserved t was a question for the Nobel Prize committee, I think there has been much uninformed opinion that somehow Franklin should have qualified fot the prize. Even had she been alive it is unlikely that she would have been considered, she worked on nucleic acids for a very short time, and certainly had not ammassed the body of work in the field that Crick, Watson and Wilkins had. You will observe that the section on the Nobel Prize comes in a section about controversies after her death. There were no controversies about Franklin when she was alive. Indeed there weren't any during the Nobel Prize. The controversies surrounding Franklin seem to mainly stem from the distorted picture given of her in Watson's book, and Anne Sayres subsequent publication of her biography of Franklin in order to set the record straight. Indeed we might be thankful for Watson's harshness, because without it this remarkable woman may have remained one of the many unsung heroes of academic science, rather than an inspirational figure to many. The section about controversies that arose after her death is there because these are real issues relating to Franklin. But it needs to be told in a ballanced light, that means that we need to make reference to the fact that there was far more to the Nobel Prize than some excellent x-ray pictures and some model building in 1953. The prize is usually given for a substantial body of work, and not for a single discovery, the three recipients met that criterion whereas Franklin wouldn't have met it even had she been alive, she had not worked on nucleic acids for quite some time before her death and had ammassed an excellent body of work relating to virus structure. I think the article covers this rather neglected part of her career quite well. Alun 01:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, sadly. Franklin wasn't denied the prize because she was a woman- she was denied the prize because she was dead, although we may debate whether or not she would have recieved it anyway (whether she was discriminated against in general because she was female is another matter- in fact IMHO she probably was). Badgerpatrol 02:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly she was discriminated against because she was a woman. Probably no more so than any other woman in a British university at the time. I got the impression from Maddox that what she really hated was that she wasn't taken seriously. I also got the impression that this may have been due to her experiences in Paris. In Paris women were the intellectual and social equals to men, this seems not to have been the case in London (or the UK as a whole) at the time. So in certain respects she had become used to being treated as an equal, and the contrast was quite stark. It is also clear that her parents were very egalitarian, and encouraged their daughters to excell just as much as their son (a comendible and unusual attitude in 1920s bourgeois London). There is also the example of the public school she went to, which also fostered independence, another unusual environment for a young girl at the time (and another testament to the progressive attitude of her parents). This upbringing seems to have produced a young woman that would not be patronised or talked down to. Essentially a stong and independent minded person, who would not be bullied simply by dint of her gender. She was herself quite left wing, something she had in common with Maurice Wilkins, indeed it is quite strange that they did not get along well together, in many respects they were similar. It seems that Franklin may have also been something of a snob (according to Maddox), which seems strange given her political leanings (though we are all full of contradictions, it's the human condition). Personally I find her strenth of charachter one of the most appealing facets of her personality, and it is one of the main reasons why I think she is such an exceptional person, besides the fact that she was also highly intelligent and an exceptional scientist. I suspect that Maddox is quite right when she implies that, had she lived, she may well have received a Nobel Prize for some other work, rather than from DNA. The real tradgedy is that of the human tragedy of any young life cut short. Alun 22:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sainthood beckons?

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194


 * Nah, they'll never make Alun a saint- he's an anarchist for goodness' sake....nonetheless, for what he puts up with, I'd be inclined to nominate him myself. Badgerpatrol 13:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ho Ho Ho, that's really funny (not) "Badgerpatrol"; Alun is a candidate for martydom in my opinion as he seems determined to sacrifice his sanity on the altar of St. Rosalind of DNA [sic).

While I admire his tenacity on the subject, I suspect he has long since lost the objectivity necessary to produce a really first class article; just compare Franklin's article to Crick's to see what I mean. I strongly suggest that all this debate would not have taken place at all if she hadn't have died of cancer in 1958 and been subsequently 'wronged' in Watson's "The Double Helix". Yes, she really is the Sylvia Plath of Molecular Biology - thanks to people like Alun.

Surely it's about time this was either acted on or removed? It does little or nothing other than to proclaim the apparent shortcomings of the article, so why bother to include it?

"List of improvements (please add to this list be specific)

Add more information about her personal life. more detail on her time working on coal and graphite. More detail about whether she had the impression from Randall that she and Gosling alone would be working on the x-ray diffraction of DNA, this was certainly Wilkins's impression and that of Klug, and may have contributed to her perception of interference from Wilkins. Need to add more information about what Crick and Watson knew of Franklin's work (and where they got it) in winter of '52/'53. Include more information from the letters to Science in 1968." Yours, "A Badger Lover" (but usually only dead ones) 195.92.168.165


 * Well Martin, we may all have our little sexual peccadillos, but I think advertising the fact that you undertake in necrophilic acts with badgers is a little beyond the pale, personally. Nonetheless, whatever turns you on. "Proclaiming the shortcomings of an article" (in a sensible and constructive way) is very much what talk pages are for, although you seemingly prefer to use them for personal attacks and bizarre promotions of forthcoming books. These "to do" lists are common and are useful pointers to help aid the improvement of an article. If you had bothered your bum to learn anything at all about Wikipedia, you would know that by now. The suggested improvements are eminently sensible. Thanks as always for your tremendously insightful and rational comments, Badgerpatrol 18:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Martin, did you read what Alun wrote above? He specifically outlines why should would NOT have won the Nobel prize even if she had been alive. Hardly a Sylvia Plath since he does not seem to be heaping undue praise. Or maybe i am missing your point completely, what is your point? What exactly do you think is wrong with the article?  Despite much written on this talk page I am still in the dark with regard to the specifics of what you find wrong with the article. If you don't feel comfortable making the changes yourself then write out the specific changes/additions on this talk page. Then others can add them.  At present your comments are too vague to act on. David D. (Talk) 18:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Talking of "bizarre promotions of forthcoming books", surely the portrait of "St. Rosie" (as used in the article) is the cover of Brenda Maddox's book ie ADVERTISING? The actual photograph is probably someone's COPYRIGHT! As for 'forthcoming books' (sic), Matt Ridley's biography of Francis Crick has come and gone in both the US and UK but was slaughtered in Horace Freeland Judson's recent review in "Nature" (Vol. 443, 26 October 2006). The only other book I have ever referred to on 'Wackypedia' (geddit?) is the next, full length, scientific biography of Crick - with which I am proud to be remotely associated. Must get back to the dead badgers (mmm road kill = delicious!) 195.92.168.165mp195.92.168.165
 * Please see Fair Use. In American copyright law (and wiki servers are in the USA) there is the concept of fair use (we have a similar, though more restricted concept in the UK Fair Dealing, it's what allows us to use short quotes from copyright material). Fair use allows us to use low resolution images from music album or book covers to illustrate a point related to the article. That's why it's a book cover, otherwise it might well be a violation of copyright, this si why the original picture was removed, though it was taken from a journal cover (Tibs I think) it was just a detail and was not obviously from the cover of a journal. It was a toss up between this picture or the one on the cover of Anne Sayre's book, though they have the same picture anyway. So anyway there is a reason for it being a book cover, it's that or no pic at all. Ciao. PS, Martin can never fully express just what it is about the article that he thinks needs improving. I have had the same conversation with him over and again. I think fundamentally he just doesn't think Franklin should have an article. I also think there might be a touch of hurt pride there as well because he sees himself as an expert. Alun 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Martin is correct here. Fair use in this case would mean the picture can be used on the wikipedia article of the book itself, only. David D. (Talk) 19:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh well I though the lisence would cover it. Never mind, we are left with no picture. Alun 19:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we'll have to find another one, although the intricacies of fair use are a bit fiddly, I doubt if it can be employed here. Shouldn't be too hard however. Badgerpatrol 19:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Alun, no I have definately NOT an expert but an over-enthusiastic reader/researcher of the classic DNA period and one of my favourite books is Maddox on Franklin, a copy of which I gave - in paperback - to my daughter when she started at university, not only as a role model but also for page 69, first paragraph, first three sentences.


 * So there you have it, I am a closet fan of the late Rosalind Franklin! What I cannot and never will accept is the mythology built up around her making her the so-called "Sylvia Plath of Molecular Biology". As for your - yes 'your' - article where do I start? I would rather not try - to be honest with you - other than to recommend you using all the available resources, not just your favourite few! Make your own comparison with John Schmidt's article on Francis Crick and work it out for yourself.. you don't need me to help you!


 * IF I haven't sent you the Horace Freeland Judson review of Matt Ridley's biography of Crick, I will do - but just think how Matt must feel being 'pilloried' in front of the global scientific community? On the other hand, you may just have something in common...Keep up the good work in Finland "Taffy"! 195.92.168.163mp195.92.168.163
 * My Dad bought me a kettle when I started at university, although I had asked for a Nintendo. I got over it in the end; hopefully your daughter can put her bitterness aside one day, as I have had to. As always Martin, put up or shut up. Since you are "an over-enthusiastic reader/researcher of the classic DNA period" you should have a lot to contribute, beyond personal attacks. If you see problems with the article, change them and add to it. Alun doesn't claim to own this article, and nor does anyone else. You are the only one who thinks that way. Badgerpatrol 19:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Francis Crick article is excellent since JW started working on it. This isn't a competition, JW is an excellent editor and I greatly admire his work. Indeed he has praised my work on this article. We have even traded Barnstars. Look here's where I keep my DNA Barnstar, of which I am very proud. Alun 07:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The new portrait of Rosalind Franklin is terrible in my opinion as it does not resemble any of the photographs of her! Surely there must be a non-copyright image of her out on the internet somewhere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosalind_Franklin.jpg

Has someone literally taken my jibe about "St. Rosalind of DNA" so seriously and deliberately chosen this dreadful looking picture?

195.92.168.164mp195.92.168.164

Before I receive the usual chorus of self-righteous criticism from all concerned, let me share this very important image with you all:

http://www.olamgadol.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Willesden%20Cemetery%20Rosalind%20Franklin.jpg

195.92.168.164195.92.168.164mp195.92.168.164195.92.168.164

ps Search on google images to find a better non-copyright image?

pps See also: http://www.wyllieohagan.com/2005/1a_news_detail.php?id=35

God help us if we had to rely on artists to interpret the history and philosopy of science to us! As a friend of mine says 'Enough!'

...but if you haven't had enough of the ongoing debate, try this:

www.smh.com.au/.../2002/11/01/1036027034461.html

195.92.168.166mp195.92.168.166

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

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

Suggested alternative image for the article
http:www.packer34.freeserve.co.uk/FranklinSMILING.jpg

or see it on:

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

195.92.168.164mp195.92.168.164
 * But is it available? David D. (Talk) 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes! 195.92.168.163mp195.92.168.163
 * Then lets use it. Obviously a bit small but better than the artist impression. Martin, is there a higher resolution version available? David D. (Talk) 23:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't we need to check the copyright status? Who took the picture and when? Even snapshots are copyright aren't they? I thought copyright was automatic. We need to check who took it and if it is in the public domain. I hate all this copyright guff, generally I think copyright ownership is daft, or at least lasts far too long, on the other hand wikipedia only needs to be prosecuted successfully once to go belly-up so we do need to be careful. I rather like the added colour the painting gives, though one could argue it's not a great likeness. I'd still suggest keeping the painting and using this photograph as well, if we can. Alun 07:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that Alun. If the photo is copywrite free or permission granted for use here, consider moving the portrait to either the section: Posthumous recognition or Recognition of her contribution to the model of DNA. SionBrown
 * Yes, it would be useful if we had a few more details- who took it, where, when and most importantly, what is the copyright status of the image? I don't think we are going to get away with fair use here since it's a reasonable shout that a totally free image of Franklin may be available (and this may well be one, but it would be good to have details re licensing etc). However, I know v. little about copyright law (especially Florida copyright law, which I think is operational in this circumstance). Badgerpatrol 14:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Martin's pic looks like a detail from a snapshot, from a conference or something? The original might be in Maddox's book. She has quite an extensive list of sources for images at the end of her book. I'll check the book for the image when I get time and see if she sources it. Alun 08:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gosh Martin's website is a real mess. Anyway the picture is a detail from a picture that occurs in "Dark Lady" with the caption "Bare-legged Rosalind with collegues in Lyons, 1949. It is attributed to Rachel Glaeser. But this photograph is of extremely poor quality. Alun 13:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Contribution to DNA
Propose the following addition to clarify Franklin's data as a key contribution to the DNA model. I think it important to make brief mention here, with detail controversy below. The present text implies watson & crick did their work from "similar data".

"The upshot of all this was that when Francis Crick and James Watson started to build their model in February 1953 they were working with very similar data to those available at King's and had seen Franklin's key X-ray diffraction data. '''Watson (1968) later admitted that: "Rosy, of course, did not directly give us her data. For that matter, no one at King's realized they were in our hands.", Rosalind Franklin was probably never aware that her work had been used during construction of the model. ''' " DLH 22:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Watson's book is not a good source. Indeed at the very begining of his book he claims as much himself, I don't have it to hand as I'm not at home but he says something along the lines that the book should not be taken as an historically accurate account of events. In truth we do not know whether Franklin was aware that Watson and Crick had seen her data. We certainly do know that the group at King's definitely did know that Crick and Watson had access to Franklin's work. Indeed it was Wilkins himself who showed Watson the photograph. This is basically what happened: When Franklin was leaving she left a great deal of her work at King's, indeed there was probably little point in taking it with her, King's was carrying on with the X-ray work, why shouldn't she leave her results there? Gosling gave the photograph (51) to Wilkins, as Gosling said Maurice had every right to that photograph (I don't think Franklin would have disagreed with this comment, this is why the picture was left there). Wilkins showed the photograph to Watson sometime in December 1952 (I think he was attending a meeting at King's, where Franklin was presenting some of her work, so Watson had direct access to these talks anyway). Watson made a sketch of the photograph from memory on the train back to Cambridge and showed it to Crick who was able to draw several observations from it. The problem with any deconstruction of Watson's version of events is that; firstly he doesn't actually claim to be giving an historically accurate account, secondly if we include Watson's version then we have to give the other version of events, which is consistent in both Maddox's and Wilkins's books, that Wilkins showed the photograph to Watson. There is even a third version of events where Wilkins is shown entering Franklin's office and taking the photograph from a draw in her cabinet. This version appeared on a television programme and Wilkins specifically mentions it in his book because he was so upset by being portrayed in such a manner.


 * The other information that Crick and Watson had access to was a report for the MRC that Perutz (Crick's PhD supervisor) had in his capacity as a member of an MRC committee. Perutz allowed Crick access to the report that Franklin had contributed to. Crick had not seen much of this information, but it had all been made available at numerous seminars, meetings and conferences. Indeed Watson had attended a meeting at which Franklin had presented these results, but Watson was not au fait with much of the technical information and misunderstood much of the information presented. Nothing underhand was actually done, though Perutz said later that, with the benefit of experience he would not have allowed access to the report to a student. But in actuality there was no information in the report that Crick and Watson could not have had access to a year or so earlier, this was not the only source of this information.


 * This article is about Franklin, the section about controversies deals with events after her death, this version of events certainly belongs there, if it belongs in the article at all. My worry is that if we try to include too much of this sort of information, given WP:NPOV, which states that all points of view should be given, we will end up with an article largely about the controversy and not one about Franklin. I think it is accurate to claim that Crick and Watson were working with basically the same material as the people at King's (this is fair because it clearly shows that a model was achievable with this infromation, had King's had the foresight to build one). I think there has been much written about how they gained this information, but there are many sources that are not reliable.


 * It would be good to try to include some information regarding the MRC report, especially from the letters to Science that Perutz, Watson and Wilkins wrote in 1968, inclusion of this information could expand the section considerably, which is probably why it hasn't been done yet. These letters clearly show that Watson's version of events is unreliable. I can't help but stress that all of the controversies derive from 10 years after Franklin's death, and much of the controversy is because of inacuracies in Watson's book (even though he clearly states at the start that it is not an accurate account). There's a ballance to be struck here between concentrating on Franklin's life, and including information about the controversies, that did make her famous, but also started 10 years after she had died, there was no controversy while she was alive, and she never made any claims regarding authorship of the Crick and Watson paper. Equally there was no controversy regarding her when the Nobel Prize was awarded to Crick, Watson and Wilkins. I suggest we include this information in the King's College DNA controversy where we certainly can include all relevant points of view, including Wilkins's and Maddox's version of events. Alun 07:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wobble/Alun, can you please try reading:

Chomet, S. (Ed.), "D.N.A. Genesis of a Discovery", (1994): £10.50

Newman-Hemisphere Press 101 Swan Court, London SW3 5JJ

or www.pantadeusz.zoomshare.com or e-mail: publications@zoomshare.com or phone/fax: 07092 060530

as it might give you a much needed sense of perspective about KCL and DNA? But be quick as there are only a limited number of copies left!

195.92.168.170mp195.92.168.170


 * Having had to revert nearly all of the edits you have ever made Martin, I think it is you that lack perspective. I repeat for about the millionth time, this article is not about the discovery of DNA. Will you ever understand that? Your constant nitpicking and hounding of the good faith editors of this article is extremelly annoying. Alun 14:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Alun,

I have deliberately made very few so-called 'edits' to the Rosalind Franklin article, so as usual you seem to be exagerating your point!

"Chomet, S. (Ed.), "D.N.A. Genesis of a Discovery", (1994): £10.50" is a a little known but very useful publication originally recommended to me by Lynne Elkins [Franklin's would-be third biographer] so why not get a copy, read it, and use it to improve the REF article?

Anyone and everyone can use the easily available resources, it takes some initiative to read, interpret, and use the above booklet and others like the Norton Critical Edition of "The Double Helix", edited by Stent. As ever, you take my constructive criticisms (and helpful suggestions) of/on the article as 'attacks' on yourself personally. PLEASE replace the awful painting as soon as possible?

I regard as my single (and greatest) contribution to the REF article the image of the "Franklin and Gosling death notice for a helical structure for crystalline DNA (or A-DNA)"; I am not sure about the accuracy of the description by the way, but am pleased at its continued inclusion! 195.92.168.164mp195.92.168.164


 * What a selective memory you have Martin. It's only in August (see above) that I had to produce a long list of your poor edits on this talk page. Editing using an IP address only makes you semi-anonymous. Are you claiming you didn't make these edits? Your constant nitpicking and hounding of editors of this page, and especially me has made working on this article a nightmare. As I remember it you produced the "death notice" card on this talk page because you erroneously thought it proved that Franklin was against a helical structure for both forms of DNA (the caption on the upload file says it all), in actual fact the card is clearly marked "crystalline" and not "paracrystalline", (see here and here). It was some time later that I came across your upload again and thought to include it. I'm not sure of the copyright status of this card either. It may be a breach of copyright to include it on this article. The upload log claims it is fair use to use on Gosling's article because it illustrates the "object in question", but I'm not sure this is correct, and it's not even used in the Raymond Gosling article. The image may be in the public domain, Maddox uses it, but does not credit anyone in her list of illustrations. Alun 13:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Sexism
The tone of this section seems aimed at over turning any allegation that Franklin ever experienced any discrimination on account of being a woman while at the same time acknowledging it but diminishing the experience by saying that sexism was common and that all women were subject to discrimination at that time. This approach certainly raises POV issues. Maddox's book makes clear that sexism was widely practiced in the 50s and that many physicists were quite hostile to women, yet none of that material appears in this entry. Furthermore, I have been unable to confirm the facts cited in the following paragraph in the pages of Maddox's book that are cited. If Maddox says that 8 of 31 staff in Randall's lab were women scientists (I wouldn't count glassware washers), I have not found it on any of the pages -99,100, 132, 133, 134, 255, 256.... And I would also like to know who is alleged to have said that Randall's lab, in particular, was sexist. There's no reference for that. Doesn't it make more sense to focus on what did happen than what didn't? I recommend deleting this paragraph as having both significant NPOV and reference problems. Eperotao 18:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "The other accusation regarding gender is that women were under-represented in John Randall's group, the claim is that there was only one other woman in the group and that the women were excluded because of their gender. In fact women seem to have been (by the standards of the time) exceptionally well-represented in the group, representing eight out of thirty-one members of staff, or possibly closer to one in three. "

Wobble has reverted a lot of my changes to one paragraph without commenting here. I changed gender to sex because the word gender is more about how you view yourself and operate in the world (or else a linguistic distinction), whereas sex refers to whether you are biologically male or female. So a male transvestite is of the female gender but of the male sex. The rest of the statements about what has been "alleged" is not anywhere referenced. It appears to me to be a straw man intended to incite readers against those bad feminists who have embraced Franklin's cause. The simple facts are that the atmosphere of the time was quite different from what it is today. Women had only received the right to vote on an equal footing with men 23 years before, the college had a men's only dining room and Franklin apparently felt the slight, especially in combination with other problems. Her Jewishness was a problem. Her class. Her having been treated better in France made her more aware. And most importantly, Randall's failings as an administrator. He basically pitted Franklin and Wilkins against one another by handing over Wilkins' project AND Gosling to Franklin while Wilkins was away. He came back thinking she was working for him, whereas she didn't think so and wasn't. She couldn't understand why he was so patronizing. He couldn't understand why she didn't defer to him. It wasn't fair to either of them. Randall didn't make any effort, as far as I could tell from the Eighth Day of Creation, to clear up this misunderstanding. So the problem of her unhappiness at Kings was WAY more complicated than--"some people say Kings was sexist but it wasn't, so there." Eperotao 16:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The tone of this section seems aimed at over turning any allegation that Franklin ever experienced any discrimination on account of being a woman
 * I don't think it does, it's about specific allegations regarding King's. Anne Sayre makes several claims, particularly that only one other woman worked for Randall, and that women had to eat meals with students or off campus. Maddox and Wilkins both contend that these claims are incorrect. Specifically Wilkins claims that Randall's team comprised about one third women, and Maddox claims 8 out of 31 (it is on page 133 of my edition of Maddox, perhaps you have a different edition and the page numbers are different). The claim that women had to eat off campus is also incorrect, there was a comunal staff dining room, and many male scientists ate here, the male only dining room seems to have been favoured by theologians. Maddox and Wilkins both stress that, while sexism was rife in the 1950s, Randall's group was notable in the fact that it was considerably nonsexist by the standards of the time. I think this is worth noting, given the claims by Sayre, repeated by others that sexism was rife. Indeed if there was discrimination or a feeling of alienation, it may have been more to do with Franklin's Jewishness, King's having such a lot of theologians. Alun 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't count glassware washers
 * What does this mean? Alun 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also like to know who is alleged to have said that Randall's lab, in particular, was sexist. There's no reference for that.
 * No reference? It is reference no 67, page 99 of Anne Sayre's book, where she claims that there was only one other woman scientist besides Franklin. Alun 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend deleting this paragraph as having both significant NPOV and reference problems.
 * What is POV about it? Claims have been made that sexism occured at King's, but science was very sexist at this time, in fact both of the more reliable sources, Maddox and Wilkins (who after all did actually work at the institution for about 50 years) say clearly that Randall's group was unusual because it had a high degree of female representation. This is worthy of note, given the fact that much literature out there erroneously claims the opposite, this literature is also cited here, and so both points of view are presented. This section is perfectly well referenced, if you are using a book with different page numbering, that does not mean that it is not correctly referenced. You also seem to be looking for references that occur in "Rosalind Franklin and DNA", which is Anne Sayre's book, in "Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA", which is Brenda Maddox's book. For example you claim not to be able to find any reference to sexism on page 100 of Maddox's book, but no reference is made for page 100 in Maddox's book in this section, it is page 100 of Anne Sayre's book. As far as I can see all statements in this section are referenced. Alun 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed gender to sex because the word gender is more about how you view yourself and operate in the world
 * From the OED"Gender: In mod. (esp. feminist) use, a euphemism for the sex of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological, distinctions between the sexes." I think this is accurate regarding a discussion of sexism, sexism has got nothing to do with biology, it is a social construct. Alun 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The rest of the statements about what has been "alleged" is not anywhere referenced.
 * Both accusations are referenced, and only two are made, both are made by Anne Sayre, and both are referenced. Alun 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to me to be a straw man intended to incite readers against those bad feminists who have embraced Franklin's cause.
 * It is nothing of the sort, these accusations are well known and have been used by several sources, Sayre makes them, and they are repeated by Bill Bryson (who is also cited in the article as having repeated these accusations). Other sources, namely Maddox and Wilkins have disputed Sayre's main accusations against King's and Randall, i.e. that it is untrue that there was not a communal staff dining room, and that it is untrue that Randall only had two women working in his laboratories. These are the allegations, the sources of these allegations are cited (Bryson and Sayre) and the alternative POV is given (MAddox and Wilkins). So what is the problem here? Alun 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The simple facts are that the atmosphere of the time was quite different from what it is today.
 * What atmosphere? Alun 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * the college had a men's only dining room and Franklin apparently felt the slight,
 * Which most scientists avoided because of the clerics. This is noted in the article, but Sayre claims there was no communal dining room, this is incorrect. There is no evidence that Franklin gave a fig for the fact that there was a men only dining room, if you can find any please provide it. I'm sure it was a source of far greater anger that when she graduated she was not granted a full degree because of her gender, but was merely awarded a degree titular, this is also noted in the article. Alun 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He basically pitted Franklin and Wilkins against one another by handing over Wilkins' project AND Gosling to Franklin while Wilkins was away. He came back thinking she was working for him, whereas she didn't think so and wasn't.
 * Maybe he did, it's the impression I have and we could certainly try to cover this better in the article, but it's an encyclopaedia article remember, and not a book. It is difficuly to know what to leave out and what to include, space is limited. Many editors feel we should include more on her private life. Other editors want to avoid any finger pointing and too many accusations, they want to keep personalities out of it. So the article in it's current form tries to avoid what peope may or may not have thought. Wilkins blames Randall for his poor relationship with Franklin, while also accepting some of the blame himself, but we do not have Randall's point of view. Alun 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So the problem of her unhappiness at Kings was WAY more complicated than--"some people say Kings was sexist but it wasn't, so there."
 * Where exactly does the article make this claim? I can find no statement to this effect in the article. Indeed these allegations were made after her death by Anne Sayres, and so correctly belong in the controversies after death section. The article makes no comment about her unhappiness at King's. If you would like to include such information then we can discuss it here, I'd support such a move. Alun 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You should also be aware that this article has been the subject of much debate, some of it considerably heated, it's current form is relatively stable, though far from perfect. Much of what is included or omitted is the product of compromise and debate. This article could do with some fresh input for sure, Let's see how we can improve it. Alun 07:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin's trolling removed. Alun 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Alun's spelling errors corrected! Or are you translating from the Finnish? Keep up the good work "Eperotao" as this article suffers from using far too few good sources and some bad inherent biases!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)
 * trolling struck trough. Alun 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Quit the trolling Martin. If you cannot be civil then just go away. I really don't understand why you bother to post here at all, your only motivation seems to be petty criticism and vindictiveness, you don't appear to have anything constructive to contribute. If you think that pointing out a few typos and spelling mistakes are a way of point scoring then you are an even more sad and pathetic little man than I previously thought. What's all the crap about Finnish? Are you a racist as well? Might explain your apparent dislike of RF. Alun 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Alun, Finnish? I should have said Welsh of course! It's called humour Alun. Racist, no I am not!! "Apparent dislike of REF" : a. it is rather difficult to 'dislike' someone who died in 1958; b. I do in fact contribute to the third biography of REF on a regular basis; c. I have just finished reading Georgina Ferry's splendid biography of Dorothy Hodgkin and commend pages 274 - 275 to you, regarding Franklin, in much the same way as I have suggested other important sources to you, but without any success at all; and d. I do regularly talk to a leading figure at KCL about DNA/REF.

Alun, you are far too possessive about your article on Franklin and cannot see the wood for the trees; do lighten up a bit, take my apparent criticisms on the chin, and read more widely on the whole subject - then and only then will the article on Franklin improve.

One serious improvement would be to replace the awful painting of REF, which detracts from the article; all it needs is a halo over her head! Secondly let "Eperotao" have a go without changing her edits. Thirdly just take a break from the article and 'get a life' and come back to it when you have read more of the available literature, especially the Norton Critical Edition of The Double Helix? But start with Dorothy Hodgkin's astute comments on Franklin and the following exchanges of letters with Francis Crick in 1979:

Correspondence/1979/September (Chronological Listing)

Letter from Charlotte Friend to Francis Crick (September 11, 1979)

Letter from Margaret Markham to Francis Crick (September 12, 1979)

Letter from Francis Crick to Charlotte Friend (September 18, 1979)

Letter from Aaron Klug to Francis Crick (September 18, 1979) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)


 * Martin, it is disingeneous in the extreme to be so offensive and then tell someone to lighten up. The most serious improvement to this article would be if you went away for good. You still don't seem to have learned how to log in to your user account, how crap is that? Your only contribution is to clutter up the talk page with gibberish and junk. As for improvements to the article, we all remember your "improvements" with horror. Your maligning of my attempts are really offensive, given your edits to this article have been about the worst I have ever encountered on any wiki article, including cutting and pasting whole copyrighted sections from sources, never referencing sources, making claims that are totally unsupported, making comments about the article in the article itself, I could go on and on, but I don't need to because there is a long list of your "improvements" to this article it speaks for itself. Indeed the fact that you claim to be a professional researcher in this field I'm amazed your edits have been so totally useless. Basically Martin I'm pissed off with your constant complaints and nitpicking, it is quite absurd for you especially to be making these complaints about the quality of the article given you total incompetence, your inability or refusal to learn the most basic rules of Wikipedia and your apparent obsession with the discovery of DNA that seems to blind you to the fact that this article is not about the discovery of DNA at all. Left to you this article would mention Crick and Wilkins and Watson, with a bare minimum of any information at all about Rosalind Franklin. And what's all the crap about Welsh? I really do not understand where all this racist crap is comming from. What has Welsh or Finnish got do with it? I'd be very careful if I were you because this really does smack of racism to me. So I'm Welsh and I live in Finland, are you implying that this means that I can't spell, or that I am somehow illiterate, do you think that Welsh people or Finnish people are somehow your inferiors? Sounds like racism to me. You have also made several sexist comments on this talk page in the past as I recall. Alun 21:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

...and don't forget to read some of Andrew Brown's "J.D. Bernal: The Sage of Science" which has a lot of good references to REF; my own personal 'Francis Crick' web page features Franklin strongly http://www.packer34.freeserve.co.uk/rememberingfranciscrickacelebration.htm Good Luck with all the additional reading about someone would almost certainly otherwise have been this country's first woman Nobel Prize winner, ie before Dorothy Hodgkin - had she lived to, but not necessarily for the discovery of the structure of DNA of course. (I am not a 'sexist' either, but you are being politically correct.) Come back to the article when you have read more, in the meantime let "Eperotao" have a go as I suggested previously, she deserves it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)
 * Why don't you learn something about Wikipedia policies and guidelines before you start to order people arround. You are incredibly arrogant, the odd thing is you have nothing to be arrogant about. You claim to know a lot about this subject, but display a breathtaking ignorance. When you have read and understood the sources why don't you comer back and try to contribute constructively, personally I think you are incapable of doing this, because I do not think you have the slightest idea what you are talking about. You display no understanding of the subject of this article at all, and don't appeare to have actually read the material you harp on about so much. Or at least if you have read it you don't seem to have understood it. You clearly don't have the foggiest what this article is about. As you're so keen for people to read and understand stuff I suggest you take a dose of your own medicine and start by reading the following:


 * WP:V
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:NOR
 * WP:RS
 * When you have read and understood these policies (something I have asked you to do many, many times in the past) you might just be capable of contributing constructively. Considering your inability and/or refusal to read these, and also your apparent lack of ability to even log into your own user account, I don't see that you have any grounds for ordering people about. Who do you think you are? Certainly you are not the genius or expert you claim to be. As far as I can see you are a person with a limited understanding of these events who has some sort of superiority complex.
 * I should also point out that Eperotao has suggested that we include the information that Randall may have played Franklin and Wilkins off against each other. I would like to include this information as well, but it was in fact you that has constantly made complaints about this and who has demanded that we do not include "personalities" and that we do not "blame" anyone. So your attempt to imply that you have the same motivation as this user is ludicrous. But that's you all over isn't it Martin? You change your oppinions as frequently as I change my underwear. One day you are claiming that Franklin made no contribution to the structure of DNA that is worth mentioning, another you are claiming that her work was a significant contribution. One day you are claiming that she is only famous as a "feminist icon", the next you are claiming that she deserved more credit than she got. If it were left to you the article would be a complete mess and totally unverified. It is strange but true that you constantly harp on about how many sources you have read, but you never actually cited any source at all when you were editing the article itself. Not only that but nearly all of the information you introduced was not actually supported by any of the sources you claimed. I recall the nonsense about Cold Spring Harbour and the nonfact that they use the term WCMF for the structure, which you did not attempt to verify, but included in the article all the same. When I asked you to try to verify it you seemed to think that actually verifying information was unecessary. When you did attempt to verify it you tried to do so by contacting the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory yourself, so in fact you were introducing original research into Wikipedia. So you broke the verifiability policy and the no original research policies at the same time. Now your criticism of me has been constant and strident, but at least I have been bothered to go and read and understand Wikipedia policies, and I would never have done this. You have compromised the integrity of Wikipedia on numerous occasions, and you have the gall to try and take me to task. You are a hypocrite Martin. Alun 10:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Alun, enjoy your 'sabbatical' from the article; let "Eperotao" and anyone else have a go at improving it; do read around the subject as there is a lot more out there than just your "major sources", and for god's sake, please change that terrible comic book picture of her. Like REF, I enjoy Georgina Ferry describes as "vigorous and heated debate" [Dorothy Hodgkin: A Life, pp 294] but there is a limit! (Please concentrate on the article's subject and not on me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)


 * I an not going to respnd to you anymore, I had forgotten that you are merely a troll and that you have nothing to contribute but snide remarks, like the troll you are. Troll: An individual who chronically trolls....regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand — they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.”, this must be why you are not interested in finding out about wikipedia policies and rules. Alun 14:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Alun, you can be as judgemental about me as you like, BUT you have no God-given right to sit in judgement over Crick, Watson, and Wilkins relative to Franklin; the complex human situation in which these four relatively young people found themselves in 1953 was incredibly difficult for them, not withstanding the input from Bragg, Kendrew, Perutz, and Randall et al! Yes, we can all feel sympathetic to Franklin, but my personal sympathy (as with most right thinking people) is for her premature death of course, not the 1962 Nobel Prize. You recycle your two "major sources" [ie Maddox and Sayre] as though they are gospel when they are not; James Watson's "The Double Helix" (whatever you think of it personally) IS yet another 'major source', and should not be qualified by you in any shape, way, or form; I have tried to bring your attention to other good sources. I do think BOTH of us should now give it a rest, as our debate has degenerated into a mutual slanging match. So do please give it a rest! [The Troll sign makes YOU look completely ridiculous!!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)
 * Martie boy, I haven't got a clue what you are gibbering about. I have not judged Crick, Watson or Wilkins. I have judged you, but that is because you are one of the most obnoxious people I have ever had the misfortune to have had any dealings with. When you stop being so judgmental yourself and stop making snide remarks and nitpicking I may feel differently. Where and when did this supposed judging of Crick, Watson and Wilkins happen? In your imagination as far as I can see. If you want to make a constructive comment, then please do, but make it relevant. Your claim has no basis in this discussion or in reality. Indeed I have not mentioned anything about Crick, Watson or Wilkins in the above discussion, so where has this come from? Are you actually living on the same planet as the rest of humanity? And what about the Nobel Prize? I have no opinion about the Nobel Prize one way or another. It is you who keep mentioning the Nobel Prize and not me. This is the crux of the problem really. You seem to think that I have some sort of grudge against Crick, Watson and Wilkins, even though I have made no negative comment on these three, you also seem to think I have some sort of opinion regarding the Nobel Prize, but I don't. So here's a reality check for you boy, I have no opinion about the Nobel Prize. Crick, Wilkins and Watson go it for their many years of research into nucleic acids, good for them, I admire their work and think they all deserved their share of the prize, it seems to me that this is irrelevant to the Franklin article and to this conversation generally. I have nothing against Crick, Watson or Wilkins, it is all in your head mate. I suggest you re-read this section and point out to me any place where I have mentioned anything about the Nobel Prize or even mentioned Crick, Watson or Wilkins. Your really are barmy troll boy. Alun 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Alun,

Please leave this (below)in place in the article as REF was an integral part of the King's College London team, and I don't see why this should not be shown at the start of External Links, as for all of the above...let's revisit it as/when you have done some more research reading. You are more than welcome to have the 'last' word!

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


 * Is there a version of this template that is vertical rather than horizontal. The horizontal ones are usually for short articles, we use vertical ones for long articles. This template used to be at the end of the King's section of the article, but it just looks silly drawing a horizontal blue line through the middle of the article. I would likie to include it as well, it's good template. Alun 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this? Alun 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Kings College DNA portrait

ps Surely all this needs to be either acted on or deleted by the way?

"List of improvements (please add to this list be specific)

Add more information about her personal life. more detail on her time working on coal and graphite. More detail about whether she had the impression from Randall that she and Gosling alone would be working on the x-ray diffraction of DNA, this was certainly Wilkins's impression and that of Klug, and may have contributed to her perception of interference from Wilkins. Need to add more information about what Crick and Watson knew of Franklin's work (and where they got it) in winter of '52/'53. Include more information from the letters to Science in 1968." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)
 * You know what to do. Alun 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

!

Conspiracy theory?
While I will not be joining the above debate, I would like to contribute this:

http://www.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/PAL/pdf/crick.pdf

(an obituary of Francis Crick) with specific reference to the remarks about R.E. Franklin in the penultimate paragraph; yes - before Alun jumps, in the year of her death is wrong - but she was a close friend of the Cricks and spent time with them at Cambridge. Had she not died when she did, she would probably have eventually transferred back to Cambridge when Klug and co. did.

Has anyone checked out "Rosalind Franklin, 1920 - 1958" by J. Glynn in "Cambridge Women: Twelve Portraits" (CUP 1996) PP 267 - 282? I meant to yesterday at the CUP Bookshop, but just ran out of time. (Using it might otherwise improve the article - you never know!)

But in the meantime the following 'three in one' article from 2003 is worth re-reading, especially for Crick's references to Franklin:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2003/02/28/ecfdna128.xml#2

195.92.67.75mp195.92.67.75

CRICK'S LETTER TO FRANKLIN JUNE 1953
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/L/W/_/scbblw.pdf

and sadly Crick's 1956 letter to Watson referring to her illness:

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/J/G/_/scbbjg.pdf

195.92.67.74MP195.92.67.74

sources?
Hi - In the cleaning up of the article, mostly by Wobble (good job), Wobble removed several cites from "further reading" because "not used as references". Further reading does not need to have been used as references; notes and references subheadings are the ones that are supposed to include only material used as references. Should any of the "Further reading" cites be put back in? --lquilter 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, a simple error on my part. I think I have sorted it out. Crick's What mad pursuit was listed as a reference and in the further reading section. I think I have included all of the appropriate titles. I removed one about J.D.Bernal, I don't see how this is considered further reading regarding Franklin. I'd remove Watson's Book as well, it's not actually about Franklin, but I'll wait to see what other editors think. We could also do with the name of the lecture attributed to Klug, I don't see how we can properly include it without knowing what it is called. Alun 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For those of us who know something about molecular biology, the J.D. Bernal book contains a LOT about Rosalind Franklin, not surprisingly as she worked for him at Birbeck College, London? BB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.5 (talk • contribs)


 * For those of us who know something about molecular biology
 * How is this comment relevant to molecular biology? This is a biographical article. Knowing something about molecular biology (I wonder what that something is? some of us know a great deal about molecular biology rather than just something) has no relevance to this or to Bernal's biographical article. If you want to display your knowledge of molecular biology I suggest starting with the Molecular biology article. Alun 13:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * the J.D. Bernal book contains a LOT about Rosalind Franklin
 * I doubt this very much, it's not about Franklin, she was his colleague so it is bound to mention her. Maddox book mentions Bernal, I would not consider using it in the further reading section of Bernal's biographical article either. This book is not about Franklin, There are many sources that mention Franklin, it does not make them all relevant to the further reading section. Alun 13:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest you need to read the Bernal book before saying "I doubt this very much, it's not about Franklin, she was his colleague so it is bound to mention her." Do you jump down the throats of everyone you disagree with? What authority do you have to be so critical? BB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.5 (talk • contribs)
 * I suggest you get a wikipedia account and read some policies and guidelines. This book is about Bernal I think. If it is about Bernal then it is not about Franklin. Please do not replace it again. Also please observe the 3RR rule. Alun 13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also suggest that if it has a great deal to say about Franklin that is not covered in this article, then you should actually include some of this information in the article and cite this book in the appropriate section. Alun 13:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What authority do you have to be so critical
 * I have the same authority as everyone here. I really dislike it when people come to an article and start throwing their weight around. If you want to be treated in a civil manner then you could start by being civil yourself. I am fed up with antagonstic POV pushers. For example your first post starts with a sarcastic remark and was an attempted put down of another user (For those of us who know something about molecular biology). How can you expect to be treated with anything other than hostility when you start by being hostile yourself? I encourage all constructive edits and points of view, but if all you can do is malign other editors and if you have no constructive contribution to make to the article, then just why exactly are you here? There is already one troll here who has no interest in the article, but jusrt wants to harrase other editors and malign their work. If I am a little terse then there is very good reason for it. Alun 13:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

GOOGLE BOOK SEARCH ON ROSALIND FRANKLIN FOR OTHER SOURCES
Alun, on the above there are 771 books with references to R.E.F. believe it or not; you have to look at most of them to believe it!

Surely to God (my apologies for the apparent profanity) you will concede that the article badly needs more than just [from memory] Sayre, Maddox and Wilkins? Have a look at: http://books.google.co.uk/ and search on Rosalind Franklin! There is - in my opinion- very little original material outside what has already appeared in Olby, Freeland Judson, Maddox, Sayre, Crick, Watson, and Wilkins, - which is why Brown's references to R.E.F. are so important in his Bernal biography from OUP 2005. (Also Maurice Goldsmith's biography too.)

I have no intention of 'paraphrasing' references from Brown's Bernal biography into the article as quite honestly I have other personal priorities, but surely you could do the honours and read all of the following pages from "J.D. Bernal: The Sage of Science" :

Pages 355-6, 362, 373, 439-440, plus REF and: DNA 314, 359; and: protein research 353-360, and virus research: 357-360, 376, 379.

(If necessary, remind me what your address is [by e-mail] and I will photocopy and send them to you tomorrow - by air mail - to Finland.)

I have already supplied you with hard copies of the three letters in "Nature" so why is there a delay in incorporating them into the article? I am NOT being personally critical by the way, as I do really admire your enthusiasm for the subject (almost as bad as me and FHC Crick) but please reconsider your stance for the sake of improving the article OR let someone else (but not me) have a go!

RSVP Nitramrekcap 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Martin. If you have a problem with any of the article then I suggest you edit it yourself. I see no real problems with the sources used. All of the sources used support each other and are often used for multiple cites of the same statement. There is still more work that could be done double referencing some of Maddox and Sayre, especially later on. I think all of the double referencing between Wilkins and Maddox is there. That is these sources support each other very well. Personally I fail to see any purpose in simply supporting the same information ad infinitum with different cites. We will end up with great strings of numbers after each sentence in the article, one for each source that supports the statement. There seems to be little or no deviation in the way this history has been told, most of the relevant info is out there and has been used by Maddox and Wilkins. For Franklin's non-DNA related life (ie the vast bulk of it) there is less info of course, because less has been written about this part of her life, and this is why Maddox and Sayre are so heavily cited. I have been looking at Watson's book, frankly the claims he makes regarding Franklin are just plain wrong. For example he claims that she was Wilkins's assistant. I don't know where he got this idea from, but it's cleaŕly wrong. Then he makes several quite vicious comments about her for no apparent reason. I can see no real evidence that this book provides either reliable information or anything new for the article. I have also been looking at Robert Olby, there is some information here that we could use for a section about Franklin's relationship with Wilkins. I am increasingly of the opinion that this subject should actually be mentioned, posibly in it's own section. Especially I think we should make note of Randal's letter to Franklin, and that several sources (including Olby, Sayre, Maddox and Wilkins) think that this letter told Franklin that she alone would be working on X-ray difraction of DNA. We can then state that Wilkins was unaware of the existence of this letter and that he had assumed that he was also to be involved. We can then discuss how this misunderstanding led to the deterioration of their professional relationship. I want to keep it as neutral as possible, but I do think it should be mentionned. This is no where near the only article I am involved in on Wikipedia, I do not spend my time only researching this, and I have very limited time for doing wikipedia work anyway. Making major edits is something I rarely get any time to do, mainly because the reading and research is so time consuming, not to mention the actual writing. I do think that I have contributed a great deal to this article, and I do think I have helpped to improve it. Here are myfirst edits, then again I made a series of edits in April 2006 starting with this diff. I have also encouraged other editors to actively criticise my edits and have put the article up for peer review. It seem unfair to claim that I am somehow possessive of this article, if I were, why would I have contacted so many people and asked for a peer review? I acknowledge that my work has been in large part down to the fact that your efforts were so offensive to me that I felt the article needed someone to give it a major overhaul and do a thorough check of all facts (here's the diff for one of your early edits, it is not about Franklin at all). Currently I think that all of the material in the article is satisfactorily sourced. Given this I don't think that there is much wrong with the content, more could be added, and of cource there are always differences of opinion regarding what should be included and what should not. The article at present tries to give a ballanced account, and attempts to give all points of view, some people may feel that it fails, that is their prerogative, I urge them to be bold and include other points of view, assuming that they can be verified. I do not consider myself your secretary, and am not here to do your bidding. You seem to want to include a specific source, but do not indicate what new information it has. If it has important information that should be included in the article and cited then I suggest that you say what that information is. I see no real point in stating that a certain source must be used, if you cannot exactly say why it must be used. Anyway, happy editing. Alun 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

and don't forget Jennifer Glynn's essay on Franklin in the excellent book: "Cambridge Women: 12 Portraits", edited by Edward Shils, published by Carmen Blacker - 1996? Bottom of page 1 on the "google book search"; if and when ever I get up to speed on Franklin, I will accept your kind offer! In the meantime, keep an open mind and try looking on the internet/libraries for more relevant biographical material? It's all out there (as we found for Crick) it's just a question of sorting the wheat from the chaff... did you ever purchase "D.N.A.: Genesis of a Discovery", edited by my friend Seweryn Chomet (for King's College London) for R.E. Gosling's essay on "X-ray diffraction studies of NaDNA with Rosalind Franklin" (pages 43 to 73), yet again another excellent (original) source? Nitramrekcap 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for using your account Martin. I very much appreciate it when you do this. It makes life much easier. Cheers. Alun 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

and just remind me why the following appears on the rest of the KCL team, but on not REF? Is this symbolic of her apparent isolation?

Nitramrekcap 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm. It does. It's just in a different orientation, vertical and not horizontal. Did you not read the discussion above where I said that it is probably better to have it going up-down rather than left-right. Anyway look at the King's section in the article and you will see that it is there. Like this. All the best. Alun 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Kings College DNA portrait

Alun, I stand corrected! So REF's is 'portrait' and all the other's are 'landscape'!! Sorry to say I wasn't concentrating earlier this evening having had far too much excitement in the wild and wacky world of the history & philosophy of (molecular biology) science: you could say "from the sublime to the ridiculous". [All will be revealed in "Nature" magazine in due course.] With your undoubted enthusiasm for 'The Sylvia Plath of Molecular Biology", YOU should be writing another biography of her in book form, rather than merely editing an on-line article? TTFN, Martin Nitramrekcap 23:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Alun, I was re-reading one of my favourite books this afternoon at Bristol University: Brenda Maddox on Franklin, need I say any more? I will be a happier man when there is a similarly good biography of Francis Crick one of these days! In the meantime, "live long and prosper" - as Crick's final associate (Christof Koch) says; keep up the reading of anything in Brenda Maddox's bibiography [and more recent new books] and hopefully you will be reading Lynne Elkins on Franklin, in time for the 50th anniversary of her death in 2008. MP Nitramrekcap 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

THE ROSALIND FRANKLIN PAPERS NOW AT THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE
See: http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/KR/ for -

Biographical Information The Holes in Coal: Research at BCURA and in Paris, 1942-1951 The DNA Riddle: King's College, London, 1951-1953 Envisioning Viruses: Birkbeck College, London, 1953-1958

Nitramrekcap 21:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Will whoever apparently deleted the following External Link the other day, please leave it in? It only happens to be the most important development in the on-line publication of Dr. Franklin's papers!

"THE ROSALIND FRANKLIN PAPERS NOW AT THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE for Biographical Information, The Holes in Coal: Research at BCURA and in Paris, 1942-1951, The DNA Riddle: King's College, London, 1951-1953, Envisioning Viruses: Birkbeck College, London, 1953-1958"

Nitramrekcap 08:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

ISN'T THIS GETTING SLIGHTLY RIDICULOUS?
I have never been a great fan of this non too subtle attempt to re-write scientific history, but the recent addition of another three:

Cavendish Laboratory/King's College London/Photo 51 (ie a stub!)

to the "Discovery of the DNA Double Helix" is getting slightly ridiculous, so it now reads: Francis Crick/Rosalind Franklin/James Watson/Maurice Wilkins/Cavendish Laboratory/King's College London/Photo 51

Can whoever changed it, please justify this very strange amendment?

Nitramrekcap 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming whoever amended the article is still interested, surely you are exagerating the importance of "Photo 51", and in any case the link to the "Photo 51" is to a 'stub' article with very little information! As for "Cavendish Laboratory" and "King's College London", is it really necessary to have them listed under "Discovery of the DNA Double Helix"? I could make a case for adding Franklin's close colleague Ray Gosling to be added which would make more sense.

Sorry but unless you join the discussion, I will be deleting these three references as in my opinion they add nothing to the article?

18:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Nitramrekcap 12:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Are you saying that Photo 51's importance is debatable and a bit contensious, or Rosalind Franklin's role in elucidating the DNA structure(and thus contributions that she is famous for) is debatable and a bit contensious?

I am sure Franklin was a great scientist who did a lot of her work on other nucleic acids, as well as viruses, no doubt. But you have to understand, without her photo, Watson and Crick would not have suggested their model, they did not have any proof, even in their own publication that I have referenced in the introduction. Moreover, Franklin & Gosling, and Wilkins et al in Nature 171 form the evidence of double helical structure, not Watson and Crick's paper in the same issue. Amongst these, Franklin nad Gosling's Paper have the original photo which gave Crick the confirmation of the double helix.

The second reason why I insist it should be there in the introduction is that people know of the "Watson and Crick" model, they are unaware that it was an unproved hypothesis based on the knowledge of base pairing and on Rosalind Franklin's photo shown to Crick by Wilkins". I don't know whether you are at all related to Molecular Biology, but I am, and when we talk about the double helix, we talk about "the proof" taken by Franklin, and published in the same issue as the Watson and Crick's "Suggested Structure". Oddly enough, it's Franklin's contributions to DNA that, at least all the Molecular Biologists, I know deem more important. Also in that note, people outside this field would hardly know of Franklin and Wilkins. They know of Watson and Crick model. There is also a misconception that Watson and Crick "showed". It is also probably neccessary to foster a critical scientific outlook, that at least all the young people who look up wikipedia understand the weight of "evidence in Science". Lastly, it is only fair, and furthermore inspirational. Hope you can see what I am trying to say. If you do wish to debate this could you please discuss this in the talk page before we change anything. I think it would be helpful to clarify and build consensus. Cheerio. Dudewheresmywallet 13:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that lucid explanation; as I am in magnanimous mood this afternoon, I will let it all stand (for the moment); incidentally when were you at KCL, what was your subject, and why the interest in REF? Also what do you think of the new NLM archive of Franklin's papers, which I added last week to the External Links? Cheers!! Nitramrekcap 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Nitram and other suggestions for deletion of references

 * I have only just looked up this talk page to realise there has been a huge talk about my additions to the DNA discovery template, as well as suggestions to delete the references.

The reasons why I have added the last two is because it is a history related topic, and in my opinion both these institutions played a huge role in the publication of the double helix. The reason why I put photo 51 is because, as I have explained before, it was a. the critical evidence- You will notice that Wilkins also publishes a paper in the same issue of Nature with an X-ray diffraction image, but there is a qualitative difference between that and Franklins' image. These you will see if you look up the Nature archives I thought I had linked but had been deleted.

The purpose of this is not to promote or demote any conspiracy theories or sexist allegations etc etc. But it is really important to understand what "That Image" did, and how it was different from previous X-ray diffraction images taken. I honestly couldn't care less if it was taken by Ros Franklin or my cousin Joe.But the fact remains that Franklin did take it.Dudewheresmywallet 12:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: Nitram, glad to see you've been following me up (never mind the allegations of stalking that could be conjured here:)). I left King's about five years ago with a magnificient degree in Immunology. And as I have said before, it's not REF, but evidence for double helix that I am interested in. REF just happened to be a great scientist who also developed a very good technique to take it and no doubt also came very close to cracking it. But I will not go into conspiracies here.
 * PPS: Yes, I haven't actually gone through the NLM papers you mentioned, but in an outlook, and very briefly, they seem very helpful, and could be used to improve the article if anybody's doing it. Good luck. Cheers. Dudewheresmywallet 12:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSED INTRODUCTARY PARAGRAPH CHANGE: BEFORE (1) & AFTER (2)
1. "Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray Diffraction images of DNA which formed a basis of Watson and Crick's hypothesis of the double helical structure of DNA in their 1953 publication,[1] and when published constituted critical evidence of the hypothesis.[2"

TO READ:

2. "Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray Diffraction images of DNA which constituted critical evidence (used to formulate) [confirming] the hypothesis of double helical structure of DNA by Watson and Crick, (as presented) in their 1953 publication[1] [leading to the discovery of ] (outlining)the structure of DNA [in 1953]. However the wording and placement of the three 1953 Nature articles gave the false impression that Franklin and Gosling's work just confirmed Watson and Crick's brilliant theoretical structural proposal."

Nitramrekcap 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The suggested wording (2) is far too detailed for the lead section (introduction). The lead should be brief, therefore the first form is more appropriate. The detail contained in the second version is more appropriate for the main body of the article. Avoid using parentheses if at all possible, especially in the lead section. We must assume that people reading the article can understand Engish, therefore there is no need to say things like constituted critical evidence (used to formulate), besides which it is overly complicated and poor English. It is appropriate to claim, for example that her diffraction pictures provided the clearest evidence yet that the B form of DNA was a helix, this inspired James Watson, but as I say I don't think this sort of detail belongs in the lead. Why not "Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray Diffraction of DNA, her images of which constituted a vital clue for Crick and Watson's model for DNA, which was a double helix.[1] When published Franklin's work constituted critical evidence in support of the hypothesis.[2]" I suggest you have a look at Lead section. I also think an request for comment might be a good idea. All the best. Alun 07:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Franklin is the main reason we know the srtricture if DNA. Watson and Crick stole infomation from her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.72.64.173 (talk • contribs)
 * I suspect that this comment is not only factually incorrect, but also libellous, no wonder you choose to remain annonymous. Alun 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

RECOGNITION AT CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY, ENGLAND

 * The wording on the new DNA sculpture outside Clare College's Thirkill Court, Cambridge, England is

a) on the base:

i) "These strands unravel during cell reproduction. Genes are encoded in the sequence of bases."

ii) "The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins."

b) on the helices:

i) "The structure of DNA was discovered in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson while Watson lived here at Clare."

ii) "The molecule of DNA has two helical strands that are linked by base pairs Adenine - Thymine or Guanine - Cytosine."

Nitramrekcap

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

Reality check? 97 footnotes = an awful lot of footnotes, Alun? Only another 3 to go and you score a century! I agree with Hannes Röst, but then again I would - wouldn't I? Remember the whole point of a good article is to INFORM, not to bore to tears with infinite detail. But I still think you need sources other than Maddox, Sayre and Wilkins to make it a well-rounded article as Wikipedia readers can always buy these three books themselves. Still nice try mate! Nitramrekcap

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA ENTRY FOR ROSALIND FRANKLIN, 15th edition, 2003 (page 942)
I know books are a bit old fashionned these days, but has anyone ever bothered to check the above? It's a nice, straightforward piece of writing without any conspiracy theory, and refers to her as a (quote) " British scientist who contributed to the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA" and "she is credited with discoveries that established the denisity of DNA, its helical conformation, and other significant aspects." Perhaps that is how she should be best remembered? The nice thing about an encyclopedia entry is that it is unbiased of course!

Nitramrekcap