Talk:Rosalind Franklin/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Maddox

Looking through the references trying to find what all these cites for "Maddox" are... have I gone completely stir-crazy, or is the citation for whatever book Mr/Ms Maddox wrote missing? I'm rather curious to read more about Ms Franklin, and the mysterious Maddox seems like a good start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.98.32 (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Maddox" means Brenda Maddox and the book Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA. New York: HarperCollins, 2002. ISBN 0060184078. I'll try to figure out what is wrong with the reference list. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Brenda is the wife of John Maddox, former Editor of the journal 'Nature' - and used to ghost write 'bodice rippers' for Mills and Boon throughout the 1960-80s. 212.139.100.207 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)spycatcherinthewry212.139.100.207 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the damage was done back in September. I'll try to do some repairs to the reference list. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph improvements

The style of the opening paragraph is deteriorating as a result of being over-edited, in my opinion; valuable information has been 'lost' but has now been reinstated: "She died in 1958 of bronchopneumonia, secondary carcinomatosis, and cancer of the ovary; her death certificate read (quote) "A Research Scientist, Spinster, Daughter of Ellis Arthur Franklin, a Banker."

Crick and Watson's 1953 hypothesis was subsequently proved by the work of Maurice Wilkins and Franklin's other former colleagues at King's College London; Crick, Watson, and Wilkins received the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in respect of structure of DNA, which Franklin could not be awarded posthumously."

Bear in mind that the opening paragraph should be a meaningful summary of the subject's life!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The operative phrases being summary and subject's life, Martin. Please don't include pointless detail and irrelevancies. In the first instance it is obvious that what was written on her death certificate could not possibly be of equal relevance to her achievements in life. In the second instance the statement about the work of the team at Kings after she left and the Nobel prize, awarded to other people several years after her death cannot be relevant to the subject's life even if it is relevant to her story. Keep it real and keep it about Franklin. Please try to remember this article is not about DNA and is not about Crick, Watson or Wilkins, it is certainly not about the Nobel Prize. Alun (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Alun/Wobble: ironically the length of Franklin's opening paragraph is now almost the same as Maurice Wilkins's! Personally I prefer something just a little bit longer like Crick's and/or Watson's - having personally lengthened both of them by the way, especially Jim Watson's...

So Alun, I will leave you to interpolate :

"She died in 1958 of bronchopneumonia, secondary carcinomatosis, and cancer of the ovary; her death certificate read (quote) "A Research Scientist, Spinster, Daughter of Ellis Arthur Franklin, a Banker." and "Crick and Watson's 1953 hypothesis was subsequently proved by the work of Maurice Wilkins and Franklin's other former colleagues at King's College London; Crick, Watson, and Wilkins received the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in respect of structure of DNA, which Franklin could not be awarded posthumously." and something else about her former unit at Birbeck College moving to Cambridge (after her death) - under Aaron Klug.

back into the body of 'your' article as life is too short to mess around with reverting it or having to change all your references my old friend! But you are NOT doing her scientific memory any favours at all by (obsessively?) making the opening paragraph far too short and sweet!

Haven't you got something better to do in Finland on a warm summer's evening? regards, Nitramrekcap (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand how the length of the lead is relevant. I see no sense in lengthening it at the expense of quality. Furthermore both Crick and Watson died at a ripe old age having remained very visible throughout their lives, therefore there is clearly a great deal more of note to cover in their respective leads. Including irrelevant material for the sake of artificially bulking up the lead because you think it's "too short" is not improving the article Martin. Indeed I am amazed that you think that any of the section you quote above could possibly belong in the lead, a great deal of it is irrelevant to Franklin, and quite frankly none of it does her "scientific memory" (is that different to ordinary memory?) any "favours" whatsoever, I'm baffled as to why you are making the claim that the removal of irrelevant material from the lead could possibly not be "doing her a favour". Indeed it's removal improves the article, and therefore does Wikipedia a "favour", which is why we're her after all. I dislike tinkering for the sake of tinkering, let's

improving the article in an encyclopaedic way, rather than measuring quality by length. This article belongs to no one, but that does not mean that anyone can include anything in it, if information is included that is wrong, or that does not conform to Wikipedia policies or guidelines then it'll get removed. I happen to have this article on my watch list because I care about it, I only remove edits that are clearly not improving the article or that are obvious vandalism.  As for what I do with my evenings and why, that's clearly none of your business whatsoever, and neither is my location. I'm perfectly aware of where I'm editing from you do not need to mention it to either me or any other editors on the talk page. Alun (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ps Can you support these two statements with references please? (Highlighted words are in bold):

"Franklin is known for her work on the X-ray diffraction images of DNA which were an influence on Crick and Watson's 1953 hypothesis regarding the structure of DNA.[1] When her work was published it also presented evidence in support of their hypothesis.[2] Nitramrekcap (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

They are already cited. Crick and Watson acknowledge Franklin's work in their original 1953 paper. Franklin published a paper with Gosling in the same issue of Nature in support of the Crick - Watson model. Odd to ask for cites when they are already there. Alun (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Even odder to delete almost everyone else's contributions to her article, verging on having little or no apparent respect for any other users? Why are you so over-protective about the REF article, Alun? You should really give Lynne Elkin a hand with some original research please instead of 'messing up' what is effectively your own article! Why just not put "written by..." at the bottom of it? Recognise the literary shortcomings of this article and let some other people help it out? I stand by what I said earlier: the article is visibly deteriorating with all your changes! As for the panel including the Cavendish/KCL and 'Photo 51' (sic), it is beyond a joke!(The previous version without "2" is so much better so I am going to revert it.) [Special:Contributions/91.110.209.65|91.110.209.65]] (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't revert "almost everyone else's contributions",[1] only those that are vandalism or that make the article worse. I do care about this article, and why shouldn't I? Many people here care about many articles, it is no one's business why any particular editor should care about any particular article. After all Martin you have been obsessed with making this a bad article for several years, why do you hate it so much? With all my changes? What are you talking about? I haven't made any changes to this article for over three years, besides reverting vandalism and the occasional uninformed good faith edit. It is you who is making multiple small and damaging changes, none of which has added any value to the article, but all of which are causing a degeneration of the article. I've asked you nicely three times now to stop vandalising this article, I'm ready to go to WP:AN/I to complain about disruptive editing. Alun (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nitramrekcap_disrupting_Rosalind_Franklin Alun (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What I love about Wikipedia is how much I learn when "spats" like this break out. I removed "very" from the lead sense that is silly and unnecessary for a lead sentence. My two cents is that user Nitramrekcap is trying to introduce into the article that Franklin should have, or would have won a Noble prize if she had lived. Or that others who won the prize used her work in order to win the prize or something or something. I am sure I'll be corrected and told to go enjoy the lovely Rhode Island evening :) I believe this falls under speculation, crystal ball, or original research or some other wiki law (i didn't attend wiki law school so forgive me). I would please ask that any additions or changes be worked out here on the talk page and sources provided for material that is added. Nobody owns any article but sometimes people act like it. I am not saying that is the case here but I would encourage all parties to respect each other and assume good faith. If I haven't done that myself, I apologize. Good luck and cheers. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

re: the Nobel, when I lecture, i acknowledge she was not eligible by her deatt, but I still encourge people to use the phrase WAtson, Crick, Franklin structure of DNA. This has insulted many Wilkins supporters, but I meant no disrespect and respond it was because although MW started the work, his data did not contribute directly to the solution. Lynne elkin (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The more I try to go through the article, this page, edit history and the ANI board, the more confused I am :). The whole controversey section of the article is muddled in my opinion. Did others riffle through her draws and take papers and material there were not suppose to? It actually makes it sound like others stole her work? I guess that is why that section exists. As pointed out, I had little to no prior backround on this material and the article leaves me wondering. I guess I'll stay tuned :)--70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Franklin had taken the photograph about a year earlier and had not shown it to anyone. When she decided to leave King's she sorted out her things and gave the picture to Gosling, she didn't need it as she was leaving. Gosling gave it to Wilkins, as Wilkins was taking over the DNA structure project anyway. Wilkins then showed the picture briefly to Watson, at which point Watson has himself said that he saw the image and thought "that's a helix". Watson himself states that this was a very important event. No one knows if Franklin was aware that Wilkins had shown the picture to Watson, and it is probably not important. Wilkins states in his autobiography that he was angered by a dramatisation of the events in a 1980s television programme, that showed him entering Franklin's office and taking the picture from her desk without her knowledge. This was not an accurate portrayal of events, but of course added spice to a drama. Wilkins' anger is quite justifiable, he was made a villain by someone writing a television drama, and one thing Wilkins certainly wasn't was dishonest. I don't think anyone disputes this chain of events. The issue is whether Franklin was aware that Watson had been shown the image by Wilkins, and even this may not be of great importance. Personally I'm not sure why Nitramrekcap wants to include the information about the Nobel Prize in the introduction, I do think it belongs in the article, but I don't understand why it is important for the introduction, the Prize was awarded some five years after her death. It's dubious whether she would have been a co-recipient of the prize had she been alive, the prize can only be split three ways, Watson and Crick were always going to take two places, and Franklin worked on DNA for only about two years, Wilkins had worked on DNA for well over a decade, with much of his most important contributions coming after Crick and Watson proposed their model, his work more than anyones helped to establish the model as correct. Nobel Prizes are awarded for a body of work and Wilkins had a long body of work on DNA. I don't think this is disputed, and I don't understand why Martin is so keen to include the Nobel Prize into the lead, it is not a major part of her life, simply because it is no part of her life. This is a biographical article, the lead should concentrate on her major contributions, and not on what happened after her death. Alun (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong. Photo 51 was taken by Franklin and Gosling for his thesis. It was her guiding him. She was supposed to be working on the A form so did not evaluate it till she had finished up her other work and was leaving so she was writing up all of her work. Read my edit of how Randall made her leave her DNA work behind and Gosling thought he needed a thesis advisor so he took the pictures to Wilkins.Lynne elkin (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't see how that makes what I wrote "wrong", it simply adds more detail to what I wrote, I was writing from memory so my version was necessarily sketchy. Detail is good. You're an expert on this so it's excellent we have you here. Cheers. Alun (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"although MW started the work, his data did not contribute directly to the solution" Actually, is this correct? The impression I remember from the accounts of both Watson & Crick is that The work of Stokes, Astbury and Wilkins meant that they had some measurements to go by. RF's X-Rays were clearer, to be sure, but I'm concerned that people are trying to re-write history as they want it to be, which is not the point of historical accuracy. But hey, who cares about that when there's a point of gender politics to be made...

As for encouraging people to call it the Watson-Crick-Franklin model: she didn't solve the structure - hers was just one part of the puzzle. Crick and Watson did the problem solving, and as such deserve the credit. Franklin in fact argued against the helical interpretation for a long time, whereas Wilkins supported it. If you want to include everybody who contributed significantly, you may as well include the 3 other scientists mentioned in the name, and Chargaff too. You're simply going along with the vogue for over-crediting Franklin, in my view.--109.144.226.127 (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

==Working relationship with Wilkins== The article currently does not discuss the difficult working relationship Franklin had with Wilkins. As such it does not discuss how the research at King's was split between Franklin and Wilkins, or the point of view that Franklin believed that she was to be working on X-ray diffraction and not under Wilkins' supervision. Wilkins, in his autobiography claims that there was significant misunderstanding between himself and Franklin, and he attributes at least some of the blame for this misunderstanding to John Randall's leadership. He went so far as to claim that Randall had mislead both himself and Franklin, that Randall has implied to Franklin that the X-ray work was her project, but that Wilkins had been given the impression that the X-ray work was to be collaborative. If my memory serves Wilkins had been performing X-ray work at King's for some time upon Franklin's arrival, and Wilkins himself was not present at the meeting between Franklin and Randall where she had been lead to believe that she would have the X-ray work to herself. There's a letter published in both Maddox's and Wilkins' books written by Randall that strongly implies that she alone would be working on the X-rays. Wilkins claims to have been unaware of this letter until the publication of Sayre's book (again I'm relying on memory so if I'm wrong please correct me). Ultimately this lead to a great deal of bad feeling between Wilkins and Franklin, with her perceiving his interest as interference, and him perplexed at her attitude "get back to your microscopes". Wilkins addresses this a great deal in his autobiography. Finally this lead to the "splitting" of the DNA work at King's, with Franklin having the best DNA and the X-ray work, and Wilkins having some poorer quality DNA to work with and the light microscopy. Subsequent to this event there seems to have been little communication or collaboration between Wilkins and Franklin. I think Maddox and Wilkins both claim that this lead to a retardation of results from King's and may have been an important reason why they did not discover the structure sooner. Wilkins for example was keen to build models, but his relationship with Franklin was so poor that his enthusiasm for this approach was dismissed out of hand by Franklin. I've avoided this discussion because I've wanted to avoid "finger pointing" and bringing personalities into the article (this was a concern some years ago), but it's important to the story, and both Wilkins and Maddox discuss it. Should we include this material, and if so how should we include it in as neutral a way as possible? Alun (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2000/mar/05/featuresreview.review

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/about/history/archives/dna/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.12.204 (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

91.108.2.34 (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The way you describe it seems quite neutral. There seems to be plenty of finger-pointing (at everyone else but Franklin) in this page and others. It never seems to occur to anyone that there are 2 sides of a misunderstanding, and that her behaviour may well have contributed to it. Wiki pages on the history of the discovery of the DNA structure have been hijacked by those trying to make the facts fit their preferred version of history. This is not scholarship.

We are fairly sure that seeing Franklin's X-Rays helped Crick & Watson reach (or feel sure of) their model for the structure. Unless you believe everything Crick & Watson later wrote was all lies, you can be pretty sure that the data fitted in with ideas they already had wrt symmetry and anti-parallel chains and how the molecule might fit together. So if looking at the data gave them the answer - why did Franklin not see it? Why did she keep saying DNA wasn't helical.

You have to give them C&W some credit, and understand that their eclectic model building approach - whilst it led to false starts - also got to the structure quicker than anyone else.--92.2.233.223 (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)''Italic text

"Though this image and her accurate interpretation of the data provided valuable insight into the DNA structure, Franklin's scientific contributions to the discovery of the double helix are often overlooked.

This has been deleted as opinion, not fact in the Introduction. The facts are: a. the discovery is (and always will be) credited to Watson and Crick; b. the 1962 Nobel Prize was awarded to Crick, Watson, and Wilkins; c. Rosalind Franklin's "scientific contributions" are now no longer 'often overlooked' to put it mildly. Debate over; Rosalind Franklin should now be allowed to rest in peace? 2.30.208.50 (talk)

"Often overlooked" is perhaps still true, unfortunately, as the first paragraph of this book review makes clear. Scientists are very familiar with her work, but students might not be. James Watson is still extremely famous for winning the Nobel Prize, and journalists are capable of writing the material quoted in the book review. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Formerly often overlooked" might be a lot more like it.
98.67.108.12 (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

X-ray -- X-ray

"X-ray" - X-ray always written with a capital X, and that capital X goes all the way back to the time of Roentgen, Becquerel, and the Curies, even though they didn't write in English, and all the way back to the first English-speaking scientists to deal with them. X for "the unknown", and besides that, "X-ray" is a proper noun, and not a common noun. Hence, it starts with a capital letter.
98.67.108.12 (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Schooling

The claim that Rosalind Franklin attended North London Collegiate School was introduced with these edits that were made from an anonymous IP that changed only this page and the school's. The claim has been contested (from another anonymous IP). If someone has access to the cited works, please check this. Thanks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Agnosticism

The section about Franklin's early life originally contained the sentence "Despite being born into a Jewish family, Franklin later became an agnostic." I moved the sentence and altered it ("Franklin herself later became an agnostic"), but it still doesn't really belong with the rest of the section, which is mostly about the prominence of the Franklin family members, not their level of religious observance (with the exception of a mention that one of her relatives was the first practicing Jew in the British Cabinet). If her agnosticism later in life is important, it deserves a few more sentences, and not in the section on her early life. -AlanUS (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Protection

I personally think that this page needs Semi-Protection.

1357abcd 02:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)1357abcd1357abcd

External links

The number of external links seem excessive, maybe removing the categories and a trim will help. I will do the former. Widefox; talk 00:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Private life

Did she have one? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange comment. Everyone has a private life even if they choose it to include much solitude. Privacy of self is a large part of everyone's private life, in fact the essential part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.25.3.21 (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

The introductory paragraph is far too long and complicated; it was almost an article in itself! This needs to be integrated into the article:

Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray diffraction images of DNA which led to the discovery of DNA double helix. Her data, according to Francis Crick, were "the data we actually used" to formulate Crick and Watson's 1953 hypothesis regarding the structure of DNA. Franklin's images of X-ray diffraction confirming the helical structure of DNA were shown to Watson without her approval or knowledge. Though this image and her accurate interpretation of the data provided valuable insight into the DNA structure, Franklin's scientific contributions to the discovery of the double helix are often overlooked. Unpublished drafts of her papers (written just as she was arranging to leave King's College London) show that she had independently determined the overall B-form of the DNA helix and the location of the phosphate groups on the outside of the structure. Moreover, Franklin personally told Crick and Watson that the backbones had to be on the outside, which was crucial since before this both they and Linus Pauling had independently generated non-illuminating models with the chains inside and the bases pointing outwards. However, her work was published third, in the series of three DNA Nature articles, led by the paper of Watson and Crick which only hinted at her contribution to their hypothesis.

2.30.211.164 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The last part of the first graph "genetic information is passed from parents to children" should read "genetic information is passed from parents to progeny", or perhaps "genetic information is passed from parents to offspring". This is because inheritance applies to all species. The existing term 'children' only applies to humans. The alternative terms 'progeny' and (perhaps, to a lesser extent, 'offspring') 'progeny' applies to all species. This is not just semantics, because the importance of DNA is that is applies to all eukaryote organisms. The significance of this adds to the achievement of Rosalind Franklin, and of her co-workers. I would be happy if anyone can suggest an even more generic terms than 'progeny' and 'offspring', because both are still limited by being mainly associated with the animal Kingdom. Thanks, Martin Barker (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Martin BMartin Barker (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The opening paragraph seems to have been graffitied by someone with an anti-Israel slant; there's much talk of her uncle's Zionism, and a reference to a clearly anti-Zionist paper ("A Broken Trust: Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians" by Sahar Huneidi"), which is cited outside the normal Wikipedia fashion by listing the title directly in the text of the paragraph. The level of detail and bias here on someone whose influence on the subject person is not made clear seems a problem.. 184.182.182.75 (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Posthumous recognition

Is it really worthy of mention whenever Google publishes a doodle in recognition of someone/something? I believe a section recognizing popular culture references like I've seen in other articles would be more appropriate.

Why cite The Guardian when according to Google News The Independent had wrote about the Google doodle 10 hours before The Guardian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atucovic (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Franklin's contributions no longer overlooked

The lede claims that Franklin's contributions to discovering the DNA double helix are often overlooked. Here's objective evidence that that is not the case: NGRAM Rosalind Franklin v. Maurice Wilkins. Google's NGRAM database records uses of phrases of up to five words in the entire corpus of books scanned and OCRd as part of the Google Books project. The chart in the link shows that Rosalind Franklin has for the past few decades been mentioned in books twice as often as Maurice Wilkins, who shared the Nobel prize for his work because he was still alive when it was awarded. I propose that the lede be reworded so that the importance of Franklin's contributions is still emphasized without claiming that she's currently underappreciated. I can testify that every undergraduate textbook stresses Franklin's contributions in discussing the discovery of DNA structure.Jbening (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This article should be nominated for a GA

Hi. This article is really great. It should be nominated for a Good Article. I don't have the volunteer capacity to lead the effort in improving the article during a review, however, I encourage watchers and interested Wikipedians to nominate it and go through the process: Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. It's worth it - this is a great article! SarahStierch (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Claustrophobia

The book review that was cited, and which I've just removed, for the statement about claustrophobia is not a suitable citation, though perhaps the book that is reviewed is. All the review says is "Not the least charming feature of the book are the vignettes, some of them highly personal, of the workers concerned. … Rosalind Franklin and her claustrophobia; von Laue noting the exact point on the street in Munich at which the idea occurred; ..." (The review is Waterson, A. P. (5 August 1978), "Crossing boundaries", British Medical Journal, (review of A Century of DNA: A History of the Discovery of the Structure and Function of the Genetic Substance), 2 (6134): 422–423, doi:10.1136/bmj.2.717.422-c). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Fix Allegations of Sexism

Is there more on Rosalind Franklin’s early life? The article focuses more on her family and their activities than on Franklin’s life itself. If you compare this to someone like Francis Crick, which has almost trivial details about his schooling and young life, Franklin’s early life is severely lacking in information about her. Furthermore, throughout the article, it seems to be biased towards the men that Franklin interacted with. The text uses negative terms to describe Franklin’s actions, whereas the men have either innocuous or positive terms. Take for example this passage: “The unimpressed Franklin became angry when Watson suggested she did not know how to interpret her own data. Watson hastily retreated, backing into Wilkins who had been attracted by the commotion. Wilkins commiserated with his harried friend…” The men who stole from Franklin and belittled her are described as though they were innocent and confused at this angry woman. By far, the most confusing section is the Allegations of Sexism section. The text quotes multiple different sources and doesn’t transition between them, despite them having rather different messages in the first two paragraphs. It is not clear that the author is challenging Sayre’s statements by comparing it to other texts. Nor is it clear that this is the allegations of sexism. Furthermore, the last two paragraphs seem not to be allegations whatsoever. It is very clear that there was so serious sexism towards Franklin from the men who were involved in the discovery of the structure of DNA, namely James Watson. 24.205.237.105 (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Adjustments to "Allegations of Sexism"

A beneficial addition to Franklin’s Wikipedia page could be a more extensive personal background including more about her life especially from her college days and if possible even from her childhood. There is also not much on Franklin as a person or the various circumstances that could have explained her chose career path and how she eventually chose he path of study and focus. The section of “Allegation of sexism” also seems to be missing a lot of material. In my opinion the article also doesn't shed much light on the allegations that Watson and Crick may have possibly stolen a large amount of Franklin’s work. The section does mention that Franklin experienced a lot of sexism while she was working but does not discuss the possibility that the reason she did not get much recognition while still alive was because her work was stolen. One of the only mentions of Watson and Crick in the article is the statement that suggests that Watson may have been patronizing towards Miss Franklin but doesn't address more serious issues between Watson and Franklin. In addition the statement, “Franklin herself is said to have been "not immune to the sexism rampant in these circles." In a letter to her parents in January 1939, she called one lecturer "very good, though female” seems to suggest that Franklin herself was alright with the sexism towards women in the science community. I think that the quote might not be appropriate as we cannot be sure of the context or circumstances under she may have mentioned her professor being female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.24.235 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DNA Funeral Card: proposed deletion of image

Is the proposed deletion of the "Rosalind Franklin Joke Card" your idea of a joke? It is an essential part of the article and it appears in Brenda Maddox's biography and Maurice Wilkins's autobiography. Having spoken to Professor Raymond Gosling in the past, I do feel sure he would have no objection to it appearing in the article; unfortunately it is not possible to gauge the opinions of Franklin and Wilkins, as they are both now dead. To remove this image is totally illogical as it is an integral part of the story of the Double Helix. Please comment asap. MP
20:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.187.190 (talk)

The issue is File:Rosalindfranklinsjokecard.jpg which has been tagged for deletion. The rules around copyright are hard to follow, and I only superficially understand them. However, what is required is a careful read of the instructions in the box ("This file is claimed to be used under Wikipedia's policy for non-free content but has no explanation as to why it is permitted under the policy..."). One of the links points to WP:FUR which is mandatory for images of this nature. The image page (link above) identifies the source as this, and there is an assumption that material on such a page is copyrighted. To be used here, the external site would need to be clearly marked as releasing the image under a suitable license, or the image would need to be donated to Wikipedia, or there must be "fair use rationale" (an example of such a a rationale is here). I see no evidence of a suitable license or donation, and I suspect a fair use rationale would not work because the image is not vital for this article. You might ask for assistance at WP:HELPDESK but the area is tricky, and the people who understand the issues are overworked. The primary policy is WP:Copyrights, and that page has a link explaining how material can be donated (search for "Donating copyrighted materials"). Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. You are mistaken as the image IS vital for the article, in my opinion. MP
2.30.188.96 (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Essential?? MP, you obviously have no idea what the word "essential" means. An article of this nature should be written in such a way that any picture, and any paragraph, could be deleted at random — but yet the meaning of the article remains essentially unchanged. The whole idea in communication theory is called "redundancy", and it is widely used in good documents. In well-written documents, an entire chapter here or there could be deleted w/o changing things very much.

You would have to be a widely-read person like me to grasp this. Many times I read a well-written novel, and I understand it and I enjoy it. Then some time late, I read it all over again. I wish that I had $5.00, or five euros, for every time it has struck me, "I don't remember this chapter at all from before." Sometimes, there are entire characters (such as in subplots) that I had forgotten all about. All of this is something that makes rereading novels entertaining and fun. It also happens with nonfiction books.

98.67.108.12 (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the WP discussions that led to the decision to gradually delete all WP images that do not have absolutely clear copyright permission, but several bots are constantly at work doing this deletion. The deletions make WP largely limited to text and impoverish it greatly. The weird thing is that no one requires us to do this; it is completely our own decision; we already have separate procedures in place for copyright owners to ask that materials be deleted. The law does not require proactive deletion, only deletion upon request. Thus, we are voluntarily and systematically removing the majority of images from WP. Worst, most of the images removed are not in clear copyright violation. In many cases, the images have been used freely in the public domain and owners are unknown. In some cases, the owner is known to be the U.S. Government, or one of its divisions--copyright may not apply at all to Government-owned images. WP would be a much more wonderful place if images are kept and only deleted when actual requests are received from copyright owners (as required by law). But this policy of deletion now bears the mantle of common usage, since it has been done for years now. Such policies are almost impossible to reverse, and then only by those willing to present air-tight cases. Such a presentation is well beyond the capability of the average WP editor such as myself. It is a sad state of affairs indeed. David Spector (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Franklin Sexism

In the article, it mentions a quote from a letter Franklin wrote to her parents were she wrote that a lecturer was "very good, though female." I don't think this necessary means she thought that, the fact that the lecturer is female is a bad thing. She could just be saying it's particularly note worthy that their was a lecturer who is very good but also female. Perhaps she looked up to this lecturer in some way? Of course, I haven't actually read the book this quote is taken from, so I'm not sure if it's explained in more detail there but at the moment, I think that part is pure speculation rather than fact.

Agree, as written it sounds like pure speculation. "Very good though female" could mean "has achieved great knowledge in spite of the hurdles placed in front of female scientists". If it can't be supported with both a more solid citation from the book that would reveal whether the author was speculating, and quotation from the actual letter, perhaps it could be removed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to expand on this point also. This might at first be seen as sexism because it shows that being "good" and a female are not directly correlated. But I have seen this point made even to this day when people might exhibit a racist attitude by saying, "I love my teacher, even though he's Asian." This has a profound effect because, as already stated, women or people of color do not have it easy. They have more obstacles in their way and it is triumphant that they can be called "good" by the world's standards. The very idea of having the ability to be on equal standards of men is hard to grasp, and I believe Rosalind Franklin was showing that women are able to attain that. She did not exhibit internalized sexism in her own life when she had the will-power to discover the the structure of DNA. It was also seen in the article that she tried to conform to the male attitude by possessing a confrontational and unnerving front when she was around others. She was willing to give up her feminine aspects in order to excel as a scientist. People must recognize this part of Franklin's life, because it is necessary to her contribution to science. One might want to ask: does a woman who aspires to be great/recognized in science have to hide some of her own self and put on a different front in order to excel? Rosalind Franklin possessed the motivation, and showed, as a correlation to the quote that she was very good at being a scientist, though female. Adblair33 (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is it not obvious that she is being deeply sarcastic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.150.19.114 (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What we might think is "obvious" and think we know what she really felt, we're looking at it from a many-decades-later perspective, so we really can't be sure without someone who actually has studied and published about it. DMacks (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

given the potential interpretations, perhaps it is best to simply remove it. It does not offer a comprehensive account of her views, it is simply a blurry snapshot that may imply something but may not. The article doesn't need it, especially in a form that draws a conclusion about its meaning that is not clear. This smacks a bit of OR204.65.34.238 (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In this sentence "Franklin's part in the discovery of the nature of DNA was shown in the 1987 TV Movie Life Story, starring Tim Pigott-Smith as Francis Crick, Alan Howard as Maurice Wilkins, Jeff Goldblum as James Watson, and Juliet Stevenson as Rosalind" why are the men all referred to by their first and last names, while Franklin is referred to by her first name alone? If it's because "Franklin" has already been referenced earlier in that sentence, then please use "Franklin" at the end of the sentence as well, rather than "Rosalind." As a comparison--if the earlier part of the sentence had referenced Watson, would you end the sentence by referring to him as "James"? Of course you wouldn't. In general, the use of a first name alone to refer to a historical figure should be reserved for situations where that is necessary or appropriate (e.g. discussions of her childhood and family, when there would be many Franklins). 129.105.50.163 (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Drawing a major conclusion from a short phrase, written long ago in unknown circumstances, is not a good idea. This is another reason why WP policy is to cite reliable secondary sources. David Spector (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

X-ray crystallographer

Thought I might mention that Rosalind Franklin did not have a degree in crystallography, nor did she officially study it. Jaques Mering just taught her some things about it. She, in fact, insisted that she was NOT a crystallographer, but merely someone who had some amount of exposure to crystallography. 98.217.230.157 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. Many contributors to human knowledge did not have formal credentials in some of the areas of their contributions. David Spector (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ill effects of ionising radiation

There is nothing in this article about the possible contribution of X-rays and ionising radiation to her illness. Nowadays dentists leave the room when X-raying patients and pregnant women are no longer X-rayed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-induced_cancer--Wool Bridge (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

In the Illness and death section, it says "Exposure to X-ray radiation is sometimes considered to be a possible factor in her illness." I adjusted it so that the phrase "Exposure to X-ray radiation" is linked to the Health effects of radiation article to help readers learn more about that situation. DMacks (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I read in a review of the Dark Lady of DNA that she was X-raying herself excessively possibly because she was looking for a 'Jewish Gene'. --Wool Bridge (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Remnants of misinformation and non-NPOV

Some statements still remains, which are not entirely true or misleading. They sound like attempts to downplay the genius and integrity of Watson and Crick. It generally started with Sayre's ultrafeminism and anti-Watson accounts. E.g.:

1. Photo 51 was "shown to Watson without her approval or knowledge", "shown to Watson by Wilkins – without Franklin's permission" and "Without Franklin's permission or knowledge" (overtly generous mention). Wilkins nor Watson did not require Franklin' authorisation to see photo 51, as she was already giving up her position at KCL, and Wilkins was now the sole authority. Yes, Gosling later recalled, "Maurice had a perfect right to that information."
2. Crick and Watson credited UCL researchers "with only a footnote acknowledging "having been stimulated by a general knowledge of" Franklin and Wilkin's 'unpublished' contribution." The only implies greater expectation, but in reality UCL people had not published anything on B-DNA previously, and is more than sufficient to credit their "unpublished work". This is in fact the only possible honest gesture. Further, it was the Cambridge people who agreed to simultaneously publish, and furthermore, Watson and Crick did invite Wilkins to co-author their paper, to which W declined. Even furthermore it was Wilkins who toned down the acknowledgement text in the manuscript.
3. "[Watson in his The Double Helix] denigrates her work". This is flatly false. Although he adopted the sarcastic "Rosy" in calling her, as did others behind her back, he actually noted her (admitting his often faulty first impression of her) "honesty and generosity", "exemplary courage and inetgrity", and said her work was "superb", and, in their Nature ms, referred to it as very beautiful (but which Wilkins insisted on deletion).
4. "Indeed a clear timely acknowledgment would have been awkward..." whole para, except quote, is apparently WP:orginal research. To clarify, firstly that there is nothing to cite specifically on Franklin's work, Acta ms is bout A-DNA, and acknowledgment is quite sufficient. Franklin's paper was in support of W-C's, hence citing the supporting material would be contradicting (why would one cite a paper which is just after it?) Secondly, W-C did cite a relevant paper from UCL by Wilkins and Randall.Thirdly, it was Wilkins who trimmed down the generous acknowledgement. So asserting "inadequate acknowledgement" to W-C paper is not really justified.

I believe these are merely projecting negative impressions on Franklin. As her sister Jenifer Glynn remarked, she was not a feminist symbol, but simply a first-rate woman scientist. She had suffered enough prejudices. Chhandama (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Birkbeck College - TMV

Under Birbeck College, this sentence is incorrect: Franklin and Donald Caspar produced a paper each in Nature that taken together demonstrated that the DNA in TMV is wound along the inner surface of the hollow virus.

TMV virions contain RNA, not DNA.

I can't edit it because the page is semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snabbott (talk • contribs) 16:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin from one perspective.

I think the article should focus less on her personal life and more on her accomplishments. The article is quick to mention other famous male scientist like Watson and Crick. I think they should be mentioned however not to a large extent. Instead the article should emphasize her other accomplishments. They portray Franklin as having an assertive behavior that can only be looked down upon; however how does one know if that behavior didn’t contribute to her accomplishments? She was a Jewish female in the 1940s; I think she would’ve had to be a little assertive to get to around. The article even mentions one particular comparison where they try to compare Wilkins (a white male) to Rosalind Franklin. They make it seem as if Rosalind Franklin was the crazy controlling female who was “unlady like” and Marcie Wilkins was the shy person who hated working with her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulnava92 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article should include more of her accomplishments, and you have a good point about possible bias or undue focus on certain personality/gender ideas. Feel free to write a few sentences (or paragraphs, or...as much as you know and can cite from published sources). Be careful that we have to use already-published sources (if the refs all portray her a certain way, the article here has to do that also even if we have other thoughts about why she may have been a certain way). DMacks (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. I came here to read about what Dr. Franklin did, not about whether or not she was a "femininist." [sic] Just about every female scientist of that era was assumed to be someone's wife, secretary or girlfriend bringing sandwiches to the lab. It's still like that today to a great extent, although much better than in Dr. Franklin's day. There should be a general article on the history of prejudice against women in the sciences, but the lengthy section in this article with all the fragmented quotes from various sources should be cut down or scrapped completely. --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rosalind Franklin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120114162700/http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/factsheets/women2.html to http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/factsheets/women2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

The publishers of the ODNB have released an audio recording of their biography of Franklin. It's non-free content but publicly accessible on SoundCloud or as a downloadable MP3. I'll let others decide, but this is possibly a suitable external link. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin and Sexism

I disagree with some of the comments arguing about including more information about Rosalind Franklin's personal life. Only information that pertains to her accomplishments should be displayed, while the latter should remain private. What in fact already distinguishes her article from other male scientists similar to her, like Watson and Crick, is the focus that is spent on the petty things that happened in her life that had no influence on her scientific endeavors.

In addition, changes to the article should be made regarding the language used. In the article Franklin is often described as a very assertive individual. However descriptions of this attitude are often displayed in negatively. For example, "Franklin's habit of intensely looking people in the eye while being concise, impatient and directly confrontational to the point of abrasiveness unnerved many of her colleagues. In stark contrast, Wilkins was very shy, and slowly calculating in speech while he avoided looking anyone directly in the eye," compares these two scientists, but puts Franklin on the back foot almost blaming her. The article even continues, "In spite of this intense atmosphere..." making it seem like working with Franklin was difficult, therefore reinforcing any negative stereotypes that may be held about female scientists like herself.

That being said, I believe a women and gender studies section should be added to the page. I think the article lacks is a proper analysis of the struggles Rosalind Franklin experienced as a female in the STEM field. It should continue to discuss similarities that Franklin may share with other distinguished female scientists, and compare how they each overcame the challenges they faced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.50.39 (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. You don't see this on pages about male scientists -- discussion about eye contact and being "confrontational". This is subjective prejudice and one we have all had as we encounter women working in usually-male fields. Many of her male colleagues may have seen her as "difficult" simply because she was a woman and they didn't know how to relate to a woman who was on their own level (or higher) intellectually, therefore making it "difficult" to relate to her, which got elided into "she is difficult". --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I could not have articulated this better myself. I find that there is plenty of information on Rosalind's personal life in the article. I would even say that there is too much personal information, an example would be the information on Rosalind's uncle, Hugh Franklin and "how was another prominent figure in the suffrage movement, although his actions therein embarrassed the Franklin family." This piece of information does not add at all to the article. There are details throughout the article that could be pared down. This would not only have a more focused article but also help the article length.

Additionally, there is a large section under the King's College, London subject heading that contains a lot of information, but contains mostly unfavorable information which shows her in a negative light; therefore overshadowing her scientific contributions. It is extremely important to highlight her struggles as a woman scientist, this article does address this issue but lacks some finesse. When compared to other Wikipedia pages about other women scientists such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie#/media/File:Marie_Pierre_Irene_Curie.jpg or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chien-Shiung_Wu, the pages are more concise and highlight their struggles as well as accomplishments while being informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bb4tun3r (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Biographical details in the lead

I have recently made a series of edits that significantly reduce the lead section. User:Chhandama has reverted one of these edits to restore a biographical paragraph to the lead. the paragraph in question is:

Born to a prominent British Jewish family, Franklin was educated at a private day school at Norland Place in West London, Lindores School for Young Ladies in Sussex, and St Paul's Girls' School, London. Then she studied the Natural Sciences Tripos at Newnham College, Cambridge, from where she graduated in 1941. Earning a research fellowship, she joined the University of Cambridge physical chemistry laboratory under Ronald George Wreyford Norrish, who disappointed her for his lack of enthusiasm. Fortunately, the British Coal Utilisation Research Association (BCURA) offered her a research position in 1942, and started her work on coals. This helped her earn a PhD in 1945. She went to Paris in 1947 as a chercheur (post-doctoral researcher) under Jacques Mering at the Laboratoire Central des Services Chimiques de l'Etat, where she became an accomplished X-ray crystallographer. She became a research associate at King's College London, in 1951, but was compelled to move to Birkbeck College after two years, owing to disagreeable clashes with her director John Randall and more so with her colleague Maurice Wilkins. At Birkbeck, J. D. Bernal, chair of the physics department, offered her a separate research team. She died in 1958 at the age of 37 of ovarian cancer.

The editing comment was restoring deleted info, it is important to highlight brief bio, per WP:LEAD. I think that Chhandama may have misinterpreted the Manual of Style (MOS). I can find nothing in WP:LEAD to support a need for this paragraph. The most relevant section of WP:LEAD is:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.

There are more guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies, but they give us no further guidance for this issue.

I can find nothing on these MOS pages to support the need for this paragraph. It is not necessary for the lead to give the schools and universities she attended nor the jobs she held. This material is covered in the body of the article.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability", so Jewish should not be in the lead.

The lead without this paragraph is sufficient to define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The chief points we need to cover in the lead are:

• Name, dates, nationality, profession
• Contributions to her field for which she is notable
• Nobel prize controversy

I propose to remove this paragraph. Or have I missed something? Verbcatcher (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Good points. But you might have overlooked some points like:

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents... The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

According to the Lead Improvement Team:

The introduction or Lead section is arguably the most important part of the article; it should accurately summarize the article... important facts discussed in the article [should be] represented in the lead.

And the reason for your deletion in this edit was Prune lead (material is repeated later), which is not justified by the guideline. Important points in the main text are repeated in the lead. You are just making up your own "chief points". In fact, as a general rule, the lead should have sufficient information to cover the Five Ws, see WP:CREATELEAD.

And for this particular biography, her background – birth, education, work places, how Mering and Randall came to be pivotal in her career and controversies, etc. – is vital in understanding her notability. There is no need to remove the whole para, though copyedit might be of use. Chhandama (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Posthumous Nobel Prize

Regarding Franklin of not having received Nobel Prize, it shoud be noted that, according to the Nobel statute (cf. Paragraph 4):

1. posthumous nomination is not allowed (Work produced by a person since deceased shall not be considered for an award.),
2. but posthumous award is possible if the person so chosen was alive at the time of nomination. This particular point is the meaning of the 1974 amendment. Chhandama (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for digging this up (and correcting my mistake). I had confused a posthumous award with a posthumous nomination.  Rebbing  talk  03:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Part of the article appears to be implying that Franklin has priority for the DNA structure

The wording around the March 17th paper appears to imply this.

I think this quote should be added for clarification.

"The existence of this paper does not challenge for a moment the priority of Crick and Watson's structure"

https://books.google.com/books?id=sgqFuy4LGb0C&pg=PA164&dq=franklin+does+not+for+a+moment+challenge+the+priority&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMop7hv9LNAhWCdSYKHWo7CigQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=franklin%20does%20not%20for%20a%20moment%20challenge%20the%20priority&f=false

Franklin did not produce a complete mathematical DNA model before Crick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammonitida (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Discovery of DNA happened long before Franklin.

I did a minor change. The article gave her partial credit for the discovery of DNA, which happened in the 19th century. Her contributions were part of the discovery of the structure of DNA, i.e. that it takes the form of a double helix.72.200.205.206 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Syd Henderson

No, the structure is much more than just a "double helix". The idea of a double helix had been suspected by Gosling even before he teamed up with Franklin. Later, it was perfectly evident from photo 51, but there was much more work needed before a complete model could be formulated (where every molecule locked together perfectly). Crick produced the first complete mathematical model for which he was awarded the nobel prize -- BEFORE that unpublished March 17th paper by Franklin (and this paper was incomplete). Franklin had struggled on several important modelling issues, but Crick and Watson put all the pieces together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammonitida (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

New image

This is a new donation

Can we replace the fair use image with this donation? Victuallers (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the photograph is much better for this article. The cartoon captures some of Franklin's features, however she had an Ashkenazi ancestry but the cartoon seems to indicate a different ethnicity. Also, the style of the photograph reflects the period in which Franklin lived whereas the cartoon is in a more modern style. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a pity - I must say I'd prefer to have free images. Preferably a photo but if not then a sketch. Victuallers (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The donation is nice and all, but I can't see the good in replacing a quality image with a sketch. The NFCC are limits, not ends in themselves; our purpose is to serve the reader—and, here, a contemporary portrait informs the reader better than an artist's rendering. Rebbing 21:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Plus, the branding on the lapel in the sketch... sorry, but the photo is far better. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2017

Addition to Cultural references

In the 2014 science-fiction novel, The Girl With All The Gifts, a mobile laboratory is named “Rosalind Franklin”. In the 2016 film of the same name, the name “Rosalind Franklin” is marked on the side of the laboratory. Hoxshox (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Those are rather trivial references compared to the existing entries under "Cultural references", which list films/plays where Franklin is the primary subject. Sorry. Altamel (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Readers of the Wikipedia article regarding Rosalind Franklin will be interested to know that her name has found its way into the popular culture (science-fiction), to some a significant event. The laboratory wasn't named "Francis Crick" or "James Watson", it was named "Rosalind Franklin" -- a significant shift in the popular awareness. Hoxshox (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is too trivial to merit mention in the article. VQuakr (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rosalind Franklin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829185654/http://www.iotasigmapi.info/ISPprofawards/ISPprofawardees.html to http://www.iotasigmapi.info/ISPprofawards/ISPprofawardees.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925091313/http://img.cryst.bbk.ac.uk/BCA/CNews/1997/Sep97/Cover.html to http://img.cryst.bbk.ac.uk/bca/CNews/1997/Sep97/Cover.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Incurrect Acknowledgement

In the asubsection "DNA Model", following scentence is written:

"Crick and Watson then published their model in Nature on 25 April 1953 in an article describing the double-helical structure of DNA with only a footnote acknowledging "having been stimulated by a general knowledge of" Franklin and Wilkins' "unpublished" contribution."

As being under quotation marks, it appears as if the original paper acknowledged Frankling and Wilkins only with their last names. However, in the original paper they are cited as "Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins and Dr. R.E. Franklin". I would either use the original quotation, or write "Dr. Franklin and Dr. Wilkins, as the current form can be misunderstood as great disrespect by Crick and Watson towards the 2 scientists by not using their academic titles.

Source: http://www.sns.ias.edu/~tlusty/courses/landmark/WatsonCrick1953.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robi313 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

RNA

This article should have a section on Franklin's discoveries of RNA, which are equally important as DNA. 138.28.12.224 (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I see, it's under Birbeck College. Perhaps make the header "RNA structure, at Birbeck College." 138.28.12.224 (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC) scadel scadoodal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.99.154 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we incorporate the commemorative 50p coin in the article?

The UK released a 50p coin on 25 July 2020 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Franklin's birth. See King's College London. "Rosalind Franklin's legacy celebrated with commemorative 50p coin".. This should certainly be mentioned in the article but it is probably not worth doing so until a picture can also be incorporated. However, the design of British coins is the copyright of the Royal Mint, and Crown copyright is 50 years, so photographic images taken of coins from 1970 and after cannot be hosted on Commons. Does that mean we are stuck for now? If so, then I'll add something within the article with the external reference but not use an image. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I see that there is already an entry under "Posthumous recognition", so that's may be all that can be done until 2070 ;-) Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Nature editorial

A Nature editorial profiled her work ahead of her 100th birthday. Perhaps someone can weave this into the article.

• "Rosalind Franklin was so much more than the 'wronged heroine' of DNA". Nature. 583 (7817). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 492. 2020. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02144-4. ISSN 0028-0836.

Peaceray (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is quite short and what's here in Wikipedia already covers much more. The reference could easily be included somewhere but I don't think it adds much. Were there specific quotes that you felt were making new points? Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sexism section-title

A section-title of § Allegations of sexism in a bio article sounded to me like it was going to be about alleging that the subject of the article was sexist. But it's mostly about disputes over whether the labs/general academic environment where she worked were sexist. Victim and perpetrator are quite different ideas. I don't have a concise alternate wording in mind though. Anyone help please? DMacks (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

That's tricky. Victim of sexism is much too strong, and Effects of sexism or Sexism in work place are not quite right. Exclusion due to sexism? One problem is that any lengthy heading will be shortened to "Sexism" by a passing copy-editor. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Exclusion due to sexism sounds about right. If people haven't changed "Allegations of sexism" to "Sexism" I think we're okay on length? DMacks (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, you may like to try it although it does remove any suggestion of doubt from the title. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Rosalind's remark, "very good, though female", might have been a rhetorical device, speaking in the name of one's opponent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.34.25.243 (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not Allegations of sexism towards Franklin? That makes it pretty explicit she was not the perpetrator, without being too strong. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done @DMacks: I've changed that subheading to Alleged sexism towards Franklin, which I think removes the ambiguity entirely and is better than my earlier suggestion. By all means discuss further if you disagree. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That's quite clear. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)