Talk:J. B. S. Haldane/Archive 1

Questions

Fischer and Wright? which? who are they? can we wikify them?

and

Is he significant enough to work into the history of science —Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisDaniels (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 October 2002 (UTC)

Haldane

The page Haldane redirects here. Given the text of the article "the son of the medical doctor John Scott Haldane and his wife Louisa Kathleen Haldane, and descended from Scottish aristocrats (see Haldane family)." Is J.B.S. Haldane really the only important Haldane, or should the Haldane page be converted to a disambiguation page? There are about 10 Haldanes with a Wiki page, and that doesn't include the two craters Haldane (crater). (I was looking for the enzymolygist, myself) -- 14:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.112.72 (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Image

The second photograph does not look like that of a man born in 1892. It is probably John Scott Haldane, not his son JBS. 21/2/2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.226.49 (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Having seen many photos of JS and of JBS, and having seen JBS in the flesh, I am certain that this is a photograph of John Scott Haldane, illustrating an article on his son. See, for example: www.coheadquarters.com/figjhaldane.htm Joe Felsenstein

I commented out the image since it is incorrect. Shyamal 04:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nationality

Haldane was (I think) born in Oxford (I thought it was his father who was from Edinburgh?), educated in England, and spent much of his working life in England. I don't recall ever reading that he worked for any significant period in Scotland, but I make no claims to be a definitive expert on The Life of JBS Haldane, and I may be wrong. Did he consider himself Scottish, British, or (latterly at least), neither? It is not clear to me that he considered himself Scottish, nor is it clear that his work and life were significantly affected by his Scottish roots. I do not personally feel it obviously appropriate that he be described as 'Scottish' in preference to 'British'. Having had a quick glance around Wiki, it strikes me that the editor who made the change (Mais Oui) may have something of a political agenda, as opposed to a strictly encyclopaedic one. Certainly however, if anyone has evidence that Haldane considered himself to be Scottish as opposed to British, or that he would have strongly favoured one assignation over the other, then I will of course yield to the consensus. I realise this is a prickly issue for some and I don't want to provoke anyone's ire- but this IS still an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 00:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. When you select Haldane you get some choices, one of which is JBS, who is declared to be "British". Although the Haldane family came from Scotland, and JBS served in the Black Watch regiment, I doubt that he considered himself Scottish. I'll look this up in the Ronald Clark biography, which I have. I do not believe he ever worked in Scotland -- he has more of a claim to be Indian. I also note that in the entry on his sister Naomi Mitchison he is inexplicably identified as "Jock Haldane". I've heard people refer to him as "Jack" but never "Jock". Again, I'll consult Clark. Google searches of both names show him occasionally being Jack but never Jock.

Joe Felsenstein

It's Jack. Macdonald-ross 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I should note in addition that the quote from JBS about his conversion to socialism during WWI was: "If I live to see an England in which socialism has made the occupation of a grocer as honourable as that of a soldier, I shall die happy". Note: England, not Scotland. I doubt he made a big distinction between England and Britain, but when he mentioned his country it just came out by default as "England". Joe Felsenstein

Well, I am usually not in favour of User:Mais oui!'s cat changes, which often seem to motivated by his own POV rather than the facts. In the case of JBSH however, I think there is some reasonable ambiguity and he may have a point. I couldn't find a reference to his birthplace in Clark's biography, but it seems to hint that it may have been Edinburgh. His only blood relation to England was one of his grandparents (I think?). By the same token, he was educated at Eton and Oxford and spent his whole life working in either England or India. Clark also describes JBS discussing his Scottish family history. The 'England' quote mentioned by Joe above is important, but should be placed in the context of the Imperial mindset, where the boundaries of national identity may have been somewhat more diffuse than they are today. In short, I still support putting JBS into the 'British' catagories, but there is some ambiguity and were it to be shown that he strongly self-identified as Scottish, and/or was strongly identified by others as Scottish, I may be tempted to change my mind. Badgerpatrol 14:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

On looking at the Clark biography I see that he asked to assigned to a Scottish regiment when Word War I started, which is certainly some Scottish identification. He may have been born in Edinburgh (that isn't stated in the biography) but his family was living in Oxford during that time, so he wouldn't have stayed long in Edinburgh, and he grew up almost entirely in Oxford, worked all of career in England and India, and used the name "England" for his country in the quote I mentioned earlier. That would seem to warrant the designation "British". But as people seem adamant about wanting him to be Scottish, I will leave this inaccuracy uncorrected. (I will be interested to see whether Ewan MacColl is also claimed as Scottish by the same criterion!) Felsenst 13:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's only Mais Oui! who is keen to change the cats from British to Scottish; it's a habit of his to change cats on British biographies to English, Scottish, Welsh etc., sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. By the way, your papers are impressively difficult to understand! (I am prepared to accept the horrible truth that this may be because I am a bit of a thicko, however)  ;-) Badgerpatrol 14:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

He was British, but of Scottish ancestry. That much I though was fairly obvious. — Dunc|☺ 15:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't obvious. He was indisputably Scottish, not merely 'of Scottish ancestry' (assuming I am correct in thinking that JBS was born in Edinburgh, which isn't 100% clear but may be strongly suspected). And he was indisputably British. The question is, given the unique ambiguity of nationality for UK citizens, is it more appropriate to describe him as British or Scottish? I would suggest that unless he strongly self-identified as Scottish, was identified as Scottish, or produced work or writings which were heavily influenced by his Scottish origins, he be described as British. I am not usually one to stick up for MO! because I do get the impression that he has a POV to push on occasion. On the other hand, whilst I may disagree with him, I don't see anything obvious here. The cat changes certainly weren't 'erroneous', although if they were inspired by POV rather than a neutral interpretation of consensus then you were correct to revert them. The best solution would to include both, but I do appreciate that that would likely make the formatting a bit unwieldy. Badgerpatrol 16:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of attempting to determine what the truth is, we could resort to reflecting what verifyable sources refer to his nationality as being? If previous biographers have labelled him a Scott then that's good enough for me (unless solid sources disagree). If the appropriate sources make no reference either way on this question, then perhaps it's time to wonder why there's a we need to resolve this question one way or another here on WP. my 2c. Pete.Hurd 21:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the basic rules, viz: all citizens born in the UK have British nationality; they may also be Scottish &c as well! Just as a person born in Spain may be Basque or Catalan as well as Spanish. Macdonald-ross 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Birth records from 1892 (here) show that Haldane was born in Oxfordshire.--DavidCane (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Who was like who

John Maynard Smith is declared the student of Haldane's "most like him". I saw JBS Haldane lecture and listened to him talk to others (in 1963) and I did know John Maynard Smith quite well. Although JMS admired JBS enormously, in many ways he wasn't like him. JBS was bristly, often got into disputes with authorities, and enjoyed outraging people. JMS was sociable, talkative, entertaining, and kindly. Joe Felsenstein —Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC).

yea he was cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.11.212.2 (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

His major publications in evolution

The text says that his book "The Causes of Evolution" was a major work of the evolutionary synthesis. This is a myth of sorts. It had an appendix that summarized a series of papers JBS published in the 1920s on the mathematics of natural selection in the Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society and the Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (1924 through 1927). The material in "Causes of Evolution" is just a popularization of those important results. Of course he also made many other innovations in population genetics, including the branching process approximation to the probability of fixation of a single advantageous mutant and the effect of truncation selection on a normally distributed trait. The present wording perpetuates a Great Books myth that ignores the role of scientific papers. Joe Felsenstein

Hi Joe. See the article A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection .— Dunc|☺ 13:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Discuss infobox

The infobox has just been removed from the Haldane page. Please enter your discussion here as to whether there is a consensus for retaining it or removing it. To remind you what it looked like, here it is:

J. B. S. Haldane
John Burdon Sanderson Haldane in 1914
Born	November 5, 1892 Oxford, England
Died	December 1, 1964 Bhubaneswar, India
Nationality	British, then in 1961 a naturalized Indian citizen
Alma mater	Oxford University
Known for	Population genetics, enzymology
Spouse(s)	Charlotte Burghes (née Franken), Helen Spurway
Children	None
Awards	Darwin Medal (1952)
Scientific career
Fields	Biologist
Institutions	Cambridge University, University of California, Berkeley, UCL
Doctoral advisor	Only obtained an M.A., but then worked under Frederick Gowland Hopkins
Doctoral students	John Maynard Smith, Krishna Dronamraju

bunix 15:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely for the photograph and most of the information but not so much for things like Erdos number which is ok for user/vanity boxes. Not so sure if info about people can be put into standard boxes. cheers Shyamal 05:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. I can easily blank out the fields that you don't like. No problemo. However, before I go ahead and do this, and revert the infobox, does anyone else have any arguments for or against those fields? Speak now or forever hold your peace :-) bunix 08:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a terrible attempt at a box. wtf have you included whether he is right or left handed? And why have you no clue that he hadn't any children, or the fact that he wasn't Scottish? And for that matter how on earth is his Erdős number relevant? — Dunc|☺ 09:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dunc, The intention was that anyone can correct the infobox, in the same way they correct articles. Thank you for your correction that he had no children. I also had difficulty trying to dig up his doctoral advisor...can you help with this one? If not, once the infobox is displayed, I'm sure someone out there will be able to fill it in...wiki is a collaborative idea after all! I hope we can all help each other dig up the info.

He was born in Scotland, so I am interested to hear your reasoning for suggesting he was not Scottish...your help with correcting such things is appreciated. Incidentally, what was he? The idea of the Erdos Number/Handedness field is that people (and scientists themselves) are interested in such things. These fields can be commented out if you wish. No problem. However, the actual reason for the fascination with these parameters can be seen at: [1] and [2] and [3] ....though I agree these details may be deemed a little esoteric and thus if there is consensus, we can easily comment them out. Easily fixed. Before I revert the infobox with Dunc's & Shymal's corrections, does anyone else have any arguments for or against retention of any fields? bunix 12:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, what's your source that he was born in Scotland? I couldn't find this stated unambiguously in his biography, although it is hinted at in the discussion of the Haldane's life around the time of JBS' birth. It is certainly not unreasonable however to describe JBS as Scottish, and I also would like to hear Dunc's reasoning for thinking otherwise (see discussion above). By the same token, I would personally put British rather than Scottish in the nationality field, simply because that is what is written on one's passport- this is basically a matter of preference. I am quite happy with the infobox, to be honest, although I'm not sure what the MOS guidelines are regarding the addition of non-standard boxes. The picture is horrific, but that can't be helped. The Erdos number, religion and chirality fields should be ditched (pronto) but apart from that it is fine to my eyes. Badgerpatrol 12:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: nationality, I think he was born in Oxford, but has Scottish ancestors on both sides, and anyway even if he was born in Edinburgh (Clark should know), he was educated at Dragon School in Oxford and then Eton, and Oxford.

If you are going to use infoboxes, you must keep them simple -- as in very simple -- I'd ditch pretty much everything apart from dates and places of death and field. Because the wiki database structure is so simple, you must keep things simple (and whatever you do, don't do something because you think it's l33t because it invariably looks crap). Secondly, if infoboxes are to be used, they must be used across subjects to produce a uniform appearance to articles, which again brings us onto simplicity. — Dunc|☺ 13:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dunc & Badger...in reply to Badger first. Sure, commenting out the Erdos number, religion and chirality fields is easily acheived. Regarding "British," yep, we can do that. Even if it is wrong, my attitude is not to worry as someone will come along sooner or later and change it, if it is.

Secondly, in reply to Dunc...I hear you saying that one has to minimise fields that are a bit too "geeky." Happy to do that, as it seems a consensus is forming (at least for these biographies linked to game theory)....anybody else out there want to argue for their inclusion, before I go ahead & remove them? Speak now :-)

Okay, that's the geeky stuff. Now, regarding the fields of a more biographical nature like nationality etc., I would like to propose leaving them in for the time being. (They can be easily commented out later if necessary). My motivation being that many of these articles are still evolving and being corrected, and it is useful to have those there in the infobox as a kind of quick checklist, where future contributors can easily spot if we have, say, a nationality wrong or have not been able to track down a name of a spouse etc. It keeps the "checks and balances in place" so to speak. Many people are busy, and a succinct summary of biographical facts in a box is usually appreciated.

Finally, when these fields have served their purpose and are commented out (if that's what the concensus wants) I would like to put forward a vision of why it would still be great to keep "doctoral advisor" and "doctoral students" fields in. The idea of this is it turns the infobox into a "succession box," just like is currenly done with the wiki articles on US Presidents (for example). If you look for example at [4] you'll see how useful that is to quickly see who preceded and succeded each president. Similarly when studying and navigating through the history of science it is pretty exciting to just be able to click on an infobox to find the PhD supervisor or "father" of the scientist, "grandfather" and so on. If we encourage this for all wiki scientific biographies, it will be fascinating for readers to see where the historical paths converge. Will Newton be the ultimate "hub" or will it be someone we all have not heard of? Is there a silent hero out there who's biography has not yet been dug up?

Maybe that's just a pipe dream. But it seems that a web-based tool like this is a perfect medium for navigating these fascinating interconnections.

Best regards, bunix 14:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a psychologist interested in individual differences I can see why handedness would be of interest, especially if data was gathered on a reasonably large number of subjects. The problem I see with that has more to do with verifyability than anything else. As for Erdos number, I can see why that might be of interst too, maybe more so than information traditionally considered appropriate for biographies (what does it matter which *exact* day of the month the suject was born in, really). I can see problems with this infobox scaling though, I sure hope the intention isn't to list every grad student of every notable scientist. Just my 2c, not really strongly motivated either way. Pete.Hurd 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pete, I take your point about exact birthdates...it is rather "fine grained." However, I include it simply because of biographical convention. So to prevent the ire of serious biographers, exact date is needed. For the general public, they love the exact dates too, for a less serious reason...and that is because they love it when a famous person shares the same birthday as them. Makes good dinner time conversation :-) So dates are needed by popular demand. Erdos number is also becoming increasingly popular, and while I take Badger's point that it is a little esoteric, at present, I guess we have to look ahead a little and see that it will be popularly demanded more & more over the next few years. I'm happy to leave Erdos in or out, as the present consensus demands. Any one else out there want it left in? As regards scaling, yes, the idea is *not* to list every graduate student...the intention is to have only those students that also have a wiki link to their own article or are sufficiently famous that a wiki article should be written. My policy is to display as many of them as I can find for the time being to act as "place holders" and then successive edtors and writers can trim and weed them as time goes on. With the whole infobox thing, my intention is to err on the side of putting more in (for now) and let editors naturally weed it over time. It is better than putting nothing in and leaving blank space for people to work with. (The potter needs some clay, so to speak). Hope this all explains my intentions. On your point of verifiability of handedness of scientists, this is fortunately quite easy (even for dead ones) as there is invariably a photo of them writing on a blackboard. Also handwriting experts can tell this from the writing. My personal policy has only been to enter handedness, if I have been able find two independant photos that confirm this. In the case of J.M.S., it was a little easier, as he & Sheila visited me on a research trip, when he was alive...so I watched him like a hawk :-)

So a radical question I have for Dunc & Badger is this: how happy would you be with just leaving the infobox as it is, as a starting point for weeding; with the intention to let people discuss fields and comment them out as the consensus evolves?

By the way, anyone out there know who J.B.S's doctoral advisor was? Help needed. Best regards, bunix 23:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that he never had a Ph.D. He took a "first" in Greats (classics) at Oxford, and his 1924 paper (part I) on a Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection lists him as "J. B. S. Haldane, M. A.". I don't know where the M. A. was earned but as far as I know he never had a doctorate, hence no doctoral advisor. Felsenst 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for that info. OK, I'm now on a mission to find his Masters advisor. Any ideas? bunix 23:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll be looking a long time. All Oxbridge graduates are automatically awarded an MA a few terms after graduation, upon payment of a small fee. It does not involve further study. Badgerpatrol 23:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Badger, good point. I had a "senior's moment" and forgot that detail. OK, I've updated the trial box above to reflect the latest discussion. Best regards, bunix 10:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, well it's been a couple of weeks since the infobox has removed. It seems the discussion has drawn to a close. Thank you all for the discussion and corrections (above) that have helped to correct the content and make it more complete. In order to respect Shymal's and Dunc's comments I am commenting out some of the fields, before replacing the infobox back to the front page. Let's see how it goes and what succesive editors do to trim and refine it. bunix 13:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appears that Dunc reverted it immediately after after I put the box back. About 20 days have gone by. I posted some questions on his talk page to try to understand his actions but there has been no reply. As he seems to have lost interest, and that there doesn't seem to be anyone else objecting, I put it back now. In order to come to some compromise I'm making it even shorter this time. Please discuss here what you think. bunix 11:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the box, it is blaoted with unnecessary metadata.--Peta 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the photo, which was obviously wrong. I also recommend the box just be removed altogether. Canadian popcan 04:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, weird, clicking on the logo led to the intended photo... I don't know how the team logo got in there, but it appears to be impossible to link to the intended photo without getting the obnoxious bird logo. Pete.Hurd 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Haldane and respiratory physiology (and diving)

Shouldn't someone (not me) put in some material on his contribution to physiology of breathing? His self-experiments on this are mentioned, but not the actual results. Although his father is rightly famous for the work on carbon monoxide and the "bends", JBS made major contributions. He is apparently the originator of the standard sets of tables of gas mixtures used in diving, and is regarded as a great pioneer of diving, celebrated by people who haven't a clue that he ever worked on evolution. See this entertaining account: [5] Felsenst 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kototherium haldanei

According to [6], there is a jurassic mammal of that name but there does not seem to be any available material on Kototherium, perhaps it is Nototherium ? Shyamal 03:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"most like himself"

I changed the bit about Maynard Smith being "most like himself [JBS]" on the advice of Joe Felsenstein above. Joe is quite a well known geneticist himself, and although younger than Haldane and Maynard Smith was old enough to encounter both and didn't find their personalities very similar. Perhaps changing blanket similarity to sharing similar political (Haldane and Maynard Smith were both Marxists who later became disillusioned with the Soviet Union) and scientific interests (much of Maynard Smith's work is a continuation of that of Haldane) would be more accurate. Jonathan Badger 16 Aug 2006.

"Misc" Section

I call for the removal of this completely useless section. Canadian popcan 04:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no section for discussing his justification for his atheism, I'll stick it in here. In June 2009 this "god, angel, or devil" quote was reproduced in an "Opinion" piece in the Wall Street Journal. As a mathematician, well versed in logic, I conclude that this quote is both arrogant and illogical. The unstated assumption is that if any "spirit" existed, then that "spirit"s highest priority would be to "interfere with" (which seems to mean "mess up") Haldane's experiments. I am reminded that soon after WW II, I moved to a small town that had a small Air Force training base nearby. The citizens of that town truly believed that their town would be a prime target when the Russians attacked, because of that tiny AF base. Similarly Haldane's ego was such that he could not accept that "God" was not busy paying attention to HIM and his experiments. He would prefer to believe that God did not exist, and thereby risk "eternal damnation", than allow himself the thought that God might think that "he" wasn't worth bothering with. (Not to mention the even more devastating idea that his experiments worked, not because of Haldane's own brilliance, but because some spirit had lent him a helping hand.) WmMBoyce (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Misc" section is in any case gone. You are free to opine that you are unimpressed by Haldane's justification for his atheism. However I can't see that your views would affect the article (even if it did discuss his justification) -- the issue would be what justification he gave, not whether you thought it was cogent. Felsenst (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fiction?

There's a short story, entitled Rats (copy here which I read as a kid which is attributed to J.B.S. Haldane, presumably this guy himself. Anyone know enough about this to include his fiction in the article? Donald Hosek 04:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. Thanks. Definitely sounds like the same person, but would probably just be a mention that he wrote some (science) fiction :) Shyamal 08:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He also published the brilliant short story 'The Gold-Makers' in 1932. I believe the publication was called The Inequality of Man. London: Chatto & Windus.

Tapsell (not signed in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.108 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

There's also a children's book called "My Friend Mr Leakey" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.243.112.20 (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Haldane's Law

1. Haldane's Law: The ratio between carbon monoxide affinity and oxygen affinity has a fixed value.
2. Haldane's rule (sometimes referred to as Haldane's law) If one of the two sexes is missing, sterile, or rare in a population of first-generation hybrids between two different species, then that sex is the heterogametic sex

I agree thst the queer world quote needs a RS. Pete.Hurd 15:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the first Haldane's Law may be not JBS but his father, who is the one who did the work on carbon monoxide and hemoglobin (although JBS worked with him some on things like that). The seond Haldane's Law is not invariably true and is thus usually instead called Haldane's Rule. I also see a third, the statement about the universe beeing queerer than we can suppose, which is sometimes also called Haldane's Law. It is apparently JBS's version of a statement by Arthur Eddington, “Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.” (By the way, I was at a dinner recently with Richard Lewontin, and he had a story about how, when Haldane visited the U.S, in 1963, he visited Rochester (where Lewontin was) and for some reason Dick took him to the local Sears Roebuck to buy something. The thought of Haldane and Sears in the same sentence blows my mind.) Felsenst 11:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Source for inordinate fondness for beetles

Hi, where does the quote "an inordinate fondness for beetles" ultimately come from? I've seen someone on the Internet mention it was reported by G. E. Hutchinson, "1959, Amer. Natur. 93:145-159" but that's about all I've found. --Kjoonlee 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that this very famous quote is, in fact, apocryphal.Pete.Hurd 17:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

G. Evelyn Hutchinson said it might be apocryphal as well, so I just added him as the reporter. --Kjoonlee 18:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, for those wondering, the Hutchinson paper, footnote 1 on page 146, reads

"There is a story, possibly apocryphal, of the distinguished British biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, who found himself in the company of a group of theologians. On being asked what one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of his creation, Haldane is said to have answered, "An inordinate fondness for beetles."

Pete.Hurd 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found some comments on a blog, citing Gould's "A Special Fondness for Beetles" from Dinosaur in a Haystack, where it says Haldane was fond of saying the phrase. --Kjoonlee 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Spy?

The Rupert Allason article refers to him as the head of a GRU spy ring during WWII. Anyone have any more information on this, as it should surely be included. 62.25.109.195 10:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth

J.B.S.Haldane is said to have been born in Oxford and Edinburgh.

His birth certificate is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.79.38 (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It now has Oxford throughout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Same marriage twice

Likewise, he is at two different places in the article described as having married Charlotte Franken. He is now only described as "born in Oxford" but is in the category of "People from Edinburgh". I do know he grew up in Oxford, but do not know where he was born. Felsenst (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)