Talk:W. D. Hamilton
|W. D. Hamilton has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for W. D. Hamilton:|
The opening sentence sounds like Richard Dawkins' opinion is important in assessing someone's contribution to evolutionary biology, but Hamilton's scientific achievements dwarf those of Dawkins (and I am no Dawkins basher). Rewrite? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Elsewhere Hamilton's death is said to be due to malaria, yet I don't see that word anywhere here. Shouldn't it be? The average person, me included, isn't going to recognize that long list of damage to his body as being from malaria. - Dougher (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Duncharris, this page now looks like a true memorial. Great research. I especially liked the poetic bit from his will. A world away from the stub that i started as an anonymous contributor. Shyamal 04:35, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused by the postscript... his [obituary in The Guardian] refers to his wish to be decomposed by beetles as a "fantasy," but the article seems to imply that it was actually carried out. It also seems contradictory since it says he was interred in Wytham Woods but his "directions" refer to a location in Brazil. Delmonte 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hamilton's Rule (last paragraph)
Well, for starters Homoptera and Isoptera aren't haplodiploid and I'm not too sure about the rest of the paragraph either! I'll re-write the paragraph once I gather my facts and find the time! Shayno 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Update: Shayno 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC): Removed the mention of aphids and termites. I wrote something longer explaining eusociality in termites but it got a little technical, to the point where it was out of place on a biography page. I'll go spend my efforts on the Eusociality article!
British academic jargon
The article states, "Working through the stodgy prose, Hamilton later blamed Fisher's book for only getting 2:1 degree." Would someone be able to clarify this? From the context, I gather that a "2:1 degree" is somehow inferior to something else that a student might get, but I'm not sure. Also, does it mean that the "blame" arose because the book was hard to understand, or because Hamilton spent so much time on it that he neglected his regular coursework? Thanks for any help you can give! JamesMLane t c 13:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Added a link to British undergraduate degree classification to explain 2:1 degree. Shayno 10:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
AIDS and HIV
As far as I can tell from 1 minute of dedicated and painstaking research, Hamilton's views on AIDS are emphatically not that AIDS is not caused by HIV. Perhaps this should be explicitly stated, as until now that was the only controversial theory of AIDS I had heard of...
ie We could say "the origin of the HIV virus" rather than "the origin of the AIDS epidemic" lay in oral polio vaccines... Evercat 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
William Hamilton does not have an Erdos number according to the link on the Wikipedia page. Can someone who knows more about this topic than I do fix this?
This is his path to Erdős: William D. Hamilton coauthored with Robert M. May, Robert M. May coauthored with Yoh Iwasa, Yoh Iwasa coauthored with Eugene Seneta, Eugene Seneta coauthored with Janos Galambos, Janos Galambos coauthored with Paul Erdős. I've added it as a footnote. --Robin (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
BBC Radio 4 Great Lives
He was featured on this programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qc2hn (on Tue 2 Feb 2010). It mentioned that he was married and had 3 children. I do not know how to include this information in the main page - could someone update this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
An un-refed and not v g summary
I've deleted "Although the theory can be proven mathematically, to date no empirical studies have calculated values for R, B, and C to determine if Hamilton's rule is ever satisfied in nature. After more than 40 years, some scientists claim that the theory remains unconfirmed, although predictions based upon it are largely supported. Because B and C represent gains and losses, it is impossible to compare actual gains and losses with the possible ones that would result from an alternate history. Statisticians, however, argue that such comparisons can be made between similar families in which different versions of history play out." because it's un-refed and not a very good summary. "can be proven mathematically" is far too strong, indeed Nowak, Tarnita and Wilson basically dis-proved it mathematically. But it can certainly be shown to work mathematically under a range of suitable conditions. But then "no empirical studies have calculated values for R, B, and C to determine if Hamilton's rule is ever satisfied in nature" is also far too strong. There are some quite good papers that go a long way towards this, but at NTW notes its a very complex area and almost impossible to get good enough definitions of r B C to be sure. So best left out altogether for now I think. NBeale (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)