User talk:Lynne elkin

Welcome!

Hello, Lynne elkin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Rosalind Franklin[edit]

Nice work!! Alun (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No original research[edit]

Hello again Lynne. You've really done an excellent job on the Rosalind Franklin article, and I certainly appreciate your work. I would like to draw your attention to our content policies though. We have three inter-related content policies which form the core of Wikipedia's reliability. Because Wikipedia content is editable by anyone who wants to participate, we need to have rules to ensure that the content is reliable. These content policies have developed over time for various reasons, but the reasons for them are sound. These are our core content policies. Content on Wikipedia is usually determined by discussion on article talk pages, discussion is aimed at achieving consensus. But our core content policies cannot be ignored even if there is a consensus to do so. We demand three things, that claims be verifiable, that they be previously published, not original research and that articles should have a neutral point of view.

Verifiability. Make sure that you cite the source of any claim. The source should be something that anyone can verify, so it must be a published source. We're an encyclopaedia, so we should be mainly citing secondary sources that have already synthesised any primary sources. We cannot cite personal communication as this material is impossible to verify. Sources should be reliable.
No Original Research. New and original research by editors is not acceptable. Wikipedia is interested in verifiability and not truth, we want to include the published thinking of academics and scholars and not the beliefs of Wikipedians. If an editor claims to have an email, say, from an expert in a certain discipline that repudiates a previous statement by the expert, how are we to judge it's reliability?
Neutral Point of View. Obviously if we are going to include verifiable claims from published sources we cannot treat all of these sources as equal. Some theories in science are more credible than others, historians are more respected than others etc. So we have what we call the NPOV policy. This does not mean that we give all points of view, orthat we give equal weight to all points of view. It certainly does not mean (as many Wikipedias believe) that we give no point of view. We give all relevant points of view including minority points of view, as long as these minority points of view do not constitute fringe or extremist tiny minority ideas. Fringe ideas can be included if they are notable as fringe ideas. Any point of view should be presented in such a way that it does not receive undue weight. So the primary theory in a scientific field should always be given more space in an article than, say, a fringe point of view.

These policies are very important, and it would be beneficial for you to take five or ten minutes to read through them and understand them. Understanding these policies helps us to edit and makes us all better Wikipedians!! I've commented out your citation of personal communications, I don't dispute that you are correct, but you need to provide sources that have already been published.

Also try to remember that we are an encyclopaedia, therefore we should provide the facts as they are and try to write in a businesslike manner, without too many value judgments, e.g. "Even while undergoing cancer treatment ~~the stoic~~ Franklin", allow the reader to make up their own mind about Franklin's stoicism. Please feel free to send me a message at any time, I've been around Wikipedia a bit and know reasonably well how things work. Again I'm very encouraged by the improvements you have made to the Franklin article, keep up the good work. All the best. Alun (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I took a look over at Wikipedia talk:No original research and noticed an interesting comment. The material we add should be verifiable, it doesn't necessarily have to be verified in the article, as long as anyone can verify it. We don't need to verify the obvious, for example that the world is round, because any reasonable person would not challenge a claim like that. This still means that we cannot cite personal communications. But I did change my edit to the Franklin article. I put the claim about her mother back in, as I suspect that this is not particularly controversial, and it is probably verifiable from other sources anyway. The claims about her misuse of X-ray equipment may be a bit more problematic. I think Maddox claims that she was no more or less careful than others at the time, and unless my memory is faulty she makes the claim that this was just a way of blaming Franklin for her own death. Anyway I changed it back to that and will check what Maddox says when I have time. Cheers, Alun (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my inexperienced mistake about original research. I have always greatly appreciated having a mentor, and in this case, your interest in REF has been a great help. if you were the original author, I was so relieved at how you put in all of those critical links. I have gone back and wherever I wrote personal communication, I either let it be cut out or found a published reference to that effect. I will be more careful in the future revisions to abide by your warnings. I was glad you let the mother crying entry stand, because Watson has used REF going to the Crick's as an indictment of allegedly how horrible REF's family was. As far as Maddox's statement about radiation, i know it is incorrect, but cannot substantiate it until I publish my own work or open up my own professionally transcribed interview papers already deposited at the University of California Berkeley Bancroft Archive. They are scheduled to be open as soon as I publish this information, or within a set amount of years, I do not remember how many. The unrestricted Anne Sayre archives were a model which I wish to follow, both for future scholars and for those who wish to check my work. No one else has done this. Judson at least filed all of his iinterviews, but refuses many people access, even me, in spite of my specific letter of introduction to him that I had from Crick. With regard to Maddox's radiation statement, under the circumstances I thought it best to just eliminate it, rather than propagate incorrect information. I also did not want to let Perutz off the hook so easily for handing over the MRC report, so I added a weak Maddox indictment followed by what I know I can substantiate more fully as soon as I can look up the date of Perutz's open apology in Nature. Those files are in my main office, where I have my 11 file cabinets of archival papers and laptop, but alas no internet. I try to go there to write, without distractions. At home, I only have a few duplicate key REF books, and a very balky DSL connection. Because the archive is a weaker reference, I unhappily gave up the statement about Randall's letter showing he was really upset with Perutz. Thanks again. I will return to editing after lunch. Lynne elkin (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought that when your book is published we can say that she was somewhat less careful about radiation safety than others and cite your book. I contributed a great deal to the REF article several years ago, mostly citing Maddox, Sayre and Wilkins. I don't pretend to be any sort of expert, I just thought I could contribute constructively to the article. I have found it difficult sometimes to differentiate between what is relevant to include and what is better left out, and for some reason this article has become the subject of some quite heated debates. My perception is that REF probably would have remained relatively obscure if not for Watson's portrayal of her in his book. I'm very happy that you are contributing to this article, I think your input will make the article exceptional. Please feel free to contact me at any time, I have email enabled on my account, so you can email me, or just leave a message on my talk page, User talk:Wobble. Cheers, Alun (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your encouragement. It is good to be in dialogue with you and I look forward to your input. A point about which I agree with you is that REF would have remained obscure if not for the DH. If you carefully look at the 1954 methods paper wording, the Nobel prize speeches and their interviews, I think they demonstrate a serious pattern that is of questionable ethics. That is my main criticism of Maddox. She never objects to their borrowing REF data, just that it was not acknowledged. I am not surprised this REF entry inspirers controversy. The DH versus SAyre's response set up the initial polarization, Watson's continued trashing of REF continued and intensifids it, then the Wilkins biography followed by articles by his supporters resulted in extending the polarization to mean they must attack REF. Then this evolved into vica vera. Talking to Gosling and others who were at Kings, especially Wilkins at length, got me neutral about their feud. I think they were both childish. Although I am supportive of REF, I am critical of her actions, just as i am of those of Wilkins. I love to give lectures about REF and I always have someone upset that I am not attacking one or the other. When I spoke at the annual 2003 HSS meeting in Boston about my view of premeditated acts to avoid crediting REF, I was pleasantly surprised no one got upset. Back to WIKI, with one of the revisions you made, i think you might have thrown the baby or with the bathwater-- i.e. when I inappropriately used a personal communication reference, you took out everything that came before it, sometimes two-three sentences, instead of one, or else you just deleted it instead of asking me to look up a retrievable reference. It would be quickest/best to e-mail me <lynne_elkin@yahoo.com> if something bothers you or if you wish me to ask me a question or if you think there needs to be an additional topic addressed, because I will be spending most of my time writing my own book now, rather than checking WIKI. If you e-mail me i would be glad to send you my CV/bio and would appreciate yours-- especially what got you interested in REF. I was sorry to see on the REF discussion page that you had some differences with Martin as he has been most helpful to me sending me information. Lynne elkin (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on everything yo say. I think we need to avoid "taking sides" in the article. I'm ambivalent about how Franklin's work was attributed. I seem to recall that Wilkins takes some responsibility in his book for not pushing for more credit for Franklin, but obviously hindsight is 20/20. Excuse me if my memory is faulty, but is it correct that Crick and Watson offered him co-authorship of their original paper? I seem to remember Wilkins writing in his autobiography something to the effect that he regrets not accepting co-authorship for himself and pushing for Franklin as co-author as well. It's good to now that you don't mind if I email you, I know that you are probably very busy so I'll only email you if it's really necessary. If you think I was overly zealous with my removal of some information please feel free to refactor my edit. I have had some problems with Martin, I don't doubt his good faith or his enthusiasm, but often he seems to lose sight of what we are trying to achieve here. I find that he has little understanding of how to structure the article, for example he has included too much detail in the introduction many times, often producing an introduction that discusses Crick, Watson and Wilkins more than it does REF. He also seems to have a great deal of difficulty remaining neutral while editing. I've asked him several times to read through our core content policies, but he seems to take this as a criticism rather than as an attempt to offer help. I have found him a very difficult person to work with, and I can say that I'm not the only person who has been the target of personal attacks from him. I must admit that I have little patience with him any longer. It's frustrating that Martin often refuses to log into his account when he edits, so his edits are often attributed to IP addresses. Alun (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to fix the Perutz reference and took a look at your comments. Yes, Watson did offer co-authorship to (at least ) Wilkins. Wilkins reports it as having been offered only to him. Intrigued with why i say (at least) ? I was watching an ( as usual), well prepared Charlie Rose interview Watson in connection with Watson's latest book. Rose took him to task about REF, at which point JW replied that they had offered co-authorship to everyone at King's, and Wilkins turned it down. Of course I was shocked to hear such a different story so I called Crick the next day. Actually I e-mailed him. He immediately replied he did not remember, but that he would have agreed to anything Jim had suggested. So my personal opinion, is that I believe Watson and that Wilkins was so emotionally upset about REF and DNA events at Kings' (believe me he still was that upset even around fifty years later when i talked to him several times) that he could not hear/conceive of anything but himself being offered co-authorship. If you even check the 1999 MRC letters to "Science" ( not "Nature" i was wrong) by Pertuz, Wilkins and Watson, you can see how Wilkins is trying to promote ideas that he had as good data as REF. He soon did, but not in time for the W&C model. He had not quantified the squid data he mentions yet. Back to the Rose interview, I have been meaning to recheck this with Watson, but I have not done so yet. It could be Jim reinventing another aspect of the story. However, I do have the Rose interview taped so that is accurate. Lynne elkin (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]