Talk:Kin selection

message: This section badly needs to be rewritten as it hardly can be seen as NPOV (no matter if the factual information is right or wrong).
:: OK, I've copy-edited it for neutrality. It seems to report fairly plainly what happened. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  All that is interesting and as may be, but this is not a forum for discussing the science or other matters. Our only interest here (as on all article talk pages) is to establish what the article should cover, using reliable sources. If you are familiar with the work of Macdonald and Hicks then why not edit the section and cite them as needed? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Article says "If you save a grandchild or a nephew, the advantage is only two and a half to one. If you only save a first cousin, the effect is very slight."
Yet even cats share 90% of our genes, which are rather more distant relatives than a cousin.   How does the math of "shared genes" really work?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.63.27 (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How related are we? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Kin selection. 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/20070928003342/http://westgroup.biology.ed.ac.uk/pdf/West_etal_06_altruism.pdf to http://westgroup.biology.ed.ac.uk/pdf/West_etal_06_altruism.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928145433/http://www.cefe.cnrs.fr/coev/pdf/charpentier/Charpentier%20et%20al%2008%20Int%20J%20Primatol.pdf to http://www.cefe.cnrs.fr/coev/pdf/charpentier/Charpentier%20et%20al%2008%20Int%20J%20Primatol.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211032629/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n11_v154/ai_21156998 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n11_v154/ai_21156998
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150803214955/http://www.vims.edu/research/units/labgroups/marine_biodiversity/publications/_pdf/Duffy_et_al_2002_BES.PDF to http://www.vims.edu/research/units/labgroups/marine_biodiversity/publications/_pdf/Duffy_et_al_2002_BES.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first sentence states that kin selection is an evolutionary strategy. I think this is incorrect - Kin selection is a mechanism of evolution in the same way as natural selection. Kin selection operates when interacting individuals are related, and the phenotype of one individual affects the direct fitness of other individuals.
In all realistic populations interacting individuals are positively related because dispersal is limited, and individuals in the same area should have some recent common ancestor. All cooperative and competitive phenotypes will be shaped by kin selection, which makes kin selection the most general mechanism of evolution!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk Tasmania (talk • contribs) 17:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is kin selection? 

message: I've grouped the 'Human' materials in the article under 3 subsection headings. However, too much of it consists of uninterpreted primary research reports, i.e. A studied X, B studied Y, C studied Z: all basically close to useless and unencyclopedic. What we need is 'Hypothesis H is supported by A's study of X', etc. The article already has a substantial 'theory' section but it's only weakly connected to the many post-Hamilton studies, so the article's structure as a connected argument is, well, weak and rambling. We need the evidence to support (or refute) the theory, not go on about who worked on what. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human materials 

message: Please define all variables. What is p? What do the subscripts mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.11.194 (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mm, you're talking about the unintroduced and uncited "Derivation" section. You are correct, those variables aren't defined or explained. Actually, at least 10 derivations have been made in the literature, see Nowak et al, 2017 (its refs 1 to 10 each offer their own distinct derivation). The uncited example of a derivation is WP:OR at worst, random editorial selection from the field at best. If editors feel that a section on derivations is justified, then it must tour the field, cite the major papers, and cite secondary (review) articles that compare and contrast the different derivations. Nowak et al, by the way, is not neutral as it seeks to reject Hamilton's rule altogether, a 1% minority view among biologists. I've removed the derivation as hopelessly unbalanced and uncited, without prejudice to the creation of a suitable section as outlined. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  derivation