Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Seafood versus freshwater food

I am trying to figure out how certain statements are justified in the literature and am drawing an increasingly growing question mark. I realize that nutrition journals are notoriously of poor quality, but even given that, many of the papers we are citing about nutrition and ancient food resources make claims that are demonstrably untrue -- namely that it is possible to get the essential fats and iodine from freshwater aquatic foods more easily than other inland food resources. As far as I can tell, this is simply not the case -- especially with iodine but even with the so-called "essential" fatty acids. Does anyone have a sense for why this pro-AAH argument is being made vis-a-vis freshwater/inland aquatic food? jps (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

In particular, DHA does not seem to be particularly abundant in Clarias. Some authors claim it's because of farming techniques, but I am surprised that this kind of argument is being put forward as legitimate. Maybe there is no connection between the eating of Clarias and the DHA claims, but the section is muddled enough now that it seems to me that we need to start being clearer about what is and is not verified to be correct. jps (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you looking for the reference: Stewart, Kathlyn M. (2010). "The Case For Exploitation Of Wetlands Environments And Foods By Pre-Sapiens Hominins.": 137–171. in Cunnane & Stewart 2010, Human Brain Evolution (Wiley). It's been stupidly cut out of the references. She explains the significance of Clarias, which is not because it's a super-source of DHA but that it was a fallback food during drought conditions, very easy to catch by wading in the pools left in drying rivers, is abundant in hominin sites and shows cutmarks which demonstrate deliberate butchering. Chris55 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that I understand, but how on Earth does this connect to Crawford's claims then? Eating catfish because it is plentiful is different than evolving to accommodate a seafood diet. Connecting Clarias to DHA as our current section does seems like WP:OR. jps (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It's evidence that humans were beginning to benefit from a fish diet. Freshwater mussels are better and almost as easy to pick up, once they'd learned to swim underwater. And it didn't start there as Stewart's 2014 paper reminds us. The fish middens that even Hardy referred to which were a commonplace in early archeology are latterly being rediscovered, whereas those that accumulated during the ice ages have mostly been long buried by the oceans. Chris55 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said, though, this is entirely independent of Crawford's claims. It's really quite incidental and including it in the same section is therefore misleading. jps (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it's part of a process. Things didn't happen overnight you know. It took around 2m years and no one is arguing the steps are clear at this point. Crawford is far from the only person in this scenario and I don't agree with the emphasis that you've given him in the current draft. It wasn't there earlier. There are others: Cunnane, Stewart, Marean, Braun etc who making more of the running at this point. Chris55 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Cunnane seems to have started from Crawford's point and then gone in the direction of Stewart to try to look for evidence that fish was consumed. That's fine, but it is only connected to AAH via the interconnectedness of the researchers perhaps because of their fondness for the idea. Stewart is associated with Cunnane's approach towards looking for fish eating, but this is all independent of the nutrition arguments relating to PUFAs and iodine. jps (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience or Fringe science?

There are frequent comments from 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS (aka jps aka scienceapologist) such as "We need to couch the proponents versus the non-proponents", and "removing all work not specifically mentioning AAH" in the edits to this article, which appear to assume that we are dealing with a classic "pseudoscience" subject. It follows that it is necessary to delineate each side carefully so it's obvious which side you can identify with. But does the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis fit this mould?

It's an odd topic, because it was proposed by a scientist, popularised by a non-scientist and attained an almost mythic following by all sorts of people apart from the feminists it originally appealed to along the way, which may or may not be justified. However, since the turn of the century the idea that there was an important aquatic dimension to human evolution has been growing, after having been almost entirely ignored in the previous century. Something significant happened in 2014. An obscure but mainstream journal in the field, The Journal of Human Evolution, published a special section devoted to the topic of aquatic resources in evolution. You can look at it to see how well represented are many of the people on the AAH page. The converse of course doesn't hold. Many of the authors would stay well clear of the topic.

So the question of whether it's pseudoscience or a fringe science is becoming important. To treat it on the level of UFOs and yetis suggests that Wikipedia editors are getting seriously out of date. They are accepting stereotypes that may once have been justified but are now being challenged by reputable scientists. Many of these same people have been rigorously excluded from the "Reactions" section, which gives the misleading impression that every scientist who looked at the idea was against it, although they were there a few weeks back.

No one is going to accept that there are "aquatic apes" on a par with "aquatic mammals". But the proponents have never claimed this, despite the use of the phrase, and the opponents have often been slovenly in their critiques. The jury is still out on whether aquatic resources were first important 200,000, 2m or 7m years ago. But the important issue is that this is not an argument of kooks against scientists but specialists against more cautious researchers.

So can we please start to treat this not as a pseudo-political confrontation between scientists and anti-scientists but as a subject which needs further exploration, and let us allow reliable sources to speak for themselves. Maybe it's even time to reclassify Elaine Morgan as an Outsider Scientist as her cover picture on a recent book alongside Gregor Mendel suggests. Chris55 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This thread does not appear to discuss improvement to the article. For what it's worth, this is an example that strays close the pseudoscience, but still seems to stay within the bounds of legitimate fringe science. And that is how both jps and I have been attempting to treat it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

How is it even close to pseudoscience? What exactly is it about arguing human beings as old beach apes, that is pseudo? Me, I have never understood that. Other than the dissonance of being forced to reevaluate indoctrinated teachings. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Charles Darwin was not a professional scientist, he was a moneyed amateur. He gained his degree through being good at Theology, despite being very poor at mathematics. Alfred Wallace was trained as a land surveyor not a scientist. Gregor Mendel, of course, was a monk. Arguably, these are the three most important people in the history of evolutionary theory and heredity, and not a single professional scientist amongst them. Food for thought. Urselius (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for letting amateurs in on this article, but above we have a rough agreement to try to source basically everything to published papers and books. If we let in radio programs and blogs, I think there may be some sources introduced that some of the page watchers here won't like. I am sorta of the opinion that much of the "discussion", as much as there is any on this topic, is being done in those venues. But that will change the tenor of this article, of course, and it may end up a bit more rough and tumble. Right now, it seems that consensus is in favor of sticking to academic-level publications. I'm eyeing the removal of Attenborough on that basis. jps (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As soon as someone shows that one of the amateurs involved in the AAH has contributed to the field of anthropology as much as Darwin, Wallace or Mendel contributed to evolution, I dare say that will become a rather good argument. Until then, however its quality can best be described in other terms. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're been trying all the way along to reduce this to a scientist-only discussion. You've reduced the contribution of the main author of the six books this article is about to a couple of lines. You've ignored the popular reaction to the book apart a final very oddly titled section claiming it is Morgan's reaction presumably to her own book. You've excluded comments of scientists who didn't disapprove of it from the reaction section in order, presumably to give the impression that all scientists opposed it (with the gracious exception of Tobias who wasn't incidentally just part of a 'broader critique of paleoanthropology' he was right in the middle of it). Now you're equating blogs and serious radio programmes. Maybe this is not a serious medium in your country but it is in some and deserves to be treated with respect. Chris55 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I really don't care if we keep this "scientist only" or if we expand. But if we expand then you're not going to like the sources I will be introducing. jps (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A paragraph without justification

One of the major changes in human biology has been the growth in size of the brain from around 350ml (Ardipithecus) to 1,600ml (Neanderthal) which took place between approximately 4.4m and 0.4m years ago with the main increase since 2m years, before settling down to 1,300ml in modern humans. Increasing meat consumption by hominins (or even a fruit diet to explain reducing teeth) has been traditionally associated with this growth, but the same effect was not observed in carnivores on the savannah whose encephalization quotient remained low.[66] Early remains show the consumption of C4 grasses and sedges that typically occur on lake margins or seasonal floodplains.[67] Brain development is dependent on the polyunsaturated fats AA and DHA (or their precursors) which occur in roughly equal proportions, as well as trace elements such as iodine. These are plentiful in the marine environment but are lacking in some inland areas (particularly DHA).[68] A series of papers and books have explained these issues and pointed to the availability of rich sources of DHA in catfish and shellfish which were available in the Rift Valley environments such as Lake Turkana.[69][53][70] These would be available without the use of tools, apart from wave-rounded stones (which were plentiful along the water's edge) for smashing the shells and led eventually to cave dwelling by the waterside which became the hallmark of early humans. When successive waves of Homo left Africa, they followed the coastlines into Europe and Asia, which provided sources of fresh water as well as the benefits of the beachcomber.[71] Dry season access to aquatic resources was also a necessary condition for adaption to savanna habitats.[72]

This paragraph seems to have been written somewhat accurately, but, in that, has had its connection to AAH completely obscured. I suppose the argument (unsaid) is that the availability of nutrients in aquatic foods to grow the human brain makes AAH plausible, but none of the sources actually go as far as to make this claim. There are also arguable points which are asserted as fact but not known (such as the claim that waves followed coastlines). I am inclined to say we should remove this paragraph as WP:SYNTH unless someone can source a connection to AAH directly via any of the sources in the paragraph or other sources we may find that would help to connect these ideas to AAH directly.

jps (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, I've missed this paragraph. Let me respond to it. The AAH says in the words of Hardy that humans have "more aquatic ape-like encestors". It comes from a section which is trying to point out how current research is pointing in the same direction. It is therefore very relevant to the thesis. In addition most of the people are in your favourite word "proponents" of the hypothesis. Most if not all of these points are repeated in the Attenborough programme (e.g. the coastlines) which is referenced in the article so I haven't shown any originality in putting it forward. Probably they would not agree with your phrase "growing the human brain" but rather suggest that the availability of the necessary PUFAs removed the constraint on brain growth that occurs in more arid areas. But that is not in any of the published sources that I could find and I had to ask one of the principals about it and hence for obvious reasons I couldn't put it in the article. Chris55 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The "point in the same direction" claim, though, is WP:OR. I would be fine if we had sources that made the connection between the points in this paragraph and the AAH, but it seems to me that there is no such source. Perhaps the Attenborough program suffices, but we need to have a discussion about this. Are we ready to concede that a TV special is the main source for what is and isn't related to AAH? Because if that's the case, I have some blogs I'd like to show you which have just as much editorial and academic cache. jps (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It was radio actually, and there is a transcript referenced which you can read if you want to (or listen to the podcast, though that will probably cost). That might at least satisfy the issue of OR and it's published by an independent organisation. But the claim has another source in the paragraph. So it meets Wikipedia's criterias which are not the same as legal or scientific proof. Chris55 (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

2005 programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/scarsofevolution.shtml

2016 programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07v0hhm CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to admit Attenborough's program, we will have to admit anti-AAH blogs per WP:PARITY. jps (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you give some justification for that? This programme was not self-published, so why does it imply one has to admit self-published sources. Chris55 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Because we're talking about an academic idea and there is as much editorial oversight over a radio program as there is a blog when it comes to such matters. It would be an odd sense of balance to require that the critiques of Attenborough be published by a third party (to what end and for what purpose)? For all intents and purposes, Attenborough has full editorial control of the content of his program and therefore a blog is basically operating under the same editorial control. jps (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

We were talking about WP:SYNTH and WP:OR not about the academic source for coastal dispersion. So the question of whether Attenborough has been peer-reviewed is irrelevant. Chris55 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If the source for a claim is Attenborough, then we have to admit this source is not peer-reviewed. This will mean that we can look for other non-peer-reviewed sources. That's the way it works. jps (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses

Medical Hypotheses

I'm sorry, but I do not think such a terrible journal to be used in this article. jps (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It is, quite literally, a medium for fringe views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes it proved to be a liability, and so what? This is in a section of "Reactions". If it said that someone had an apoplectic fit on reading about the idea and it was reliably sourced then it would not be inadmissable as long as it was relevant to the article. Chris55 (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Because a publication that publishes trash is not reliable for faithfully producing reality-based reactions. jps (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Auditory Exostosis

The section on this topic was full of original research and journal references that we agreed to remove (see the discussion of Human Evolution above). What remains is a reference to a work by AAH proponent Peter H. Rhys Evans who appears to be a practicing ENT, but his publications are rather obscure and generally not within the epistemic communities we would say would be necessary to "garner attention". In fact, he seems to have published in a journal for which he is editor his point about evolution which is not in the remit of the journal's mission statement. I am inclined to say we should remove this section as it does not appear to be as strongly linked to the academic side of investigation as the other three sections above. However, I am keeping it stubbed and would like to hear the opinions of others. jps (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edits amount to arrant censorship. Urselius (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Actionable, specific critiques of the article would be appreciated. jps (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

What this article should contain, what it should not seek to do

I feel that many or most of the editors active here have lost sight of the primary purpose of a Wikipedia article. A Wikipedia article primarily exists to provide information on a subject. An article on a topic like the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis should report what is relevant, not what is scientifically valid. In putting constraints on what is included editors are, by a process of exclusion, actively editorialising. In effect they are imposing their 'personal point of view' on the article by selectivity. For example, an article written about Copernicus whose editors only deemed Vatican records to be acceptible sources would produce a very biased account. The attitude adopted by some editors here has the same distorting effect. Is it scientifically valid? Is it likely to be scientifically valid? These are questions that are not useful questions to ask. Is it relevant to the subject? This is the only criterion that should have any weight. If a blog, radio programme or even a Donald Duck cartoon is saying something about the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, be it ever so scientifically dubious, it is still relevant. Such material can be commented on from a scientific viewpoint, if a relaible scientific source is available, but it should not be excluded solely on the grounds of scientific probability. Urselius (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it relevant to the subject? This is the only criterion that should have any weight. Are the details of AIDS denialism theories relevant to our article on AIDS? Yes. Should they be given weight without regard for their validity? Hell no. There's a problem with your logic here. WP strives to provide truth, or the closest approximation. So we have to ask about the credibility and validity of sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"WP strives to provide truth", no it does not, nor should it. WP should provide an easy access to information, and this information should be verifiable through the provision of citations to source material. Truth is mutable and often subjective; it is up to the WP reader to arrive at the truth, or their personal truth, if they choose to. Nazi racial theory was clearly based on a gross and immoral distortion of facts about human beings and also outright inventions, but WP can and should allow readers access to what Nazi racial theorists wrote. Such material should be criticised, but it should not be excluded, because it certainly exists. The problem is that some editors, in applying personal strictures on "the credibility and validity of sources", are acting as de facto censors, they are not providing readers with access to information, quite the opposite. At present in this article, which is about an active scientific dialogue, we are in the utterly ludicrous position of having the inclusion of the work of proponents of a theory being allowed to be included only if the opponents of the theory provide support for it. This is sheer bloody lunacy! Urselius (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the opponents don't need to provide support for it. They merely need to notice it. jps (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

An equally illogical assertion. By your argument the Origin of Species only became valid when Soapy Sam got on to his feet and began criticising it. Urselius (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No. You are reading in a universal categorical imperative where I merely offered an option. Origin of Species was immediately reviewed by many independent sources upon its publication. Comparing the incidental publications of AAH proponents to Darwin is a bit much, in any case. jps (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact of AIDS denialism is clearly relevant to an AIDS article. Giving it undue weight is clearly not. Would a reader reading the current article learn about what Morgan wrote about? The answer at the moment is a clear no, because the account of her work has been systematically removed. In an earlier section on this page the accuracy and appropriateness of the account were not questioned, but all the same it was removed. That is the effect of selectivity. Chris55 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

A properly WP:WEIGHTed article here would allow the reader to understand how marginalized this idea is in the relevant communities. Waxing poetic about all the different ideas Morgan had is not helpful. jps (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Then you should write a well reasoned critique within the article, not censor what is included in it and not make sweeping edits without any consensus. Urselius (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

"WP strives to provide truth", no it does not, nor should it. I can tell the difference between truth and Truth™. If you can't, then you really need to find another hobby and (assuming you were being honest a few weeks ago) another career path. The simple fact is, "verifiable information" is truth. So are facts. The thing that makes sources reliable is their adherence to the truth. So if you have a problem with WP conveying truth, then you need to stop editing WP, because you're adding bullshit to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Truth is a subjective concept, facts are much less so. Facts are what are necessary in WP, truth can go hang. Please try to avoid your arguments degenerating into personal attacks. Urselius (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Truth is a subjective concept

1. 1 Truth is "That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality", a definition any "scientist" should be well aware of.
2. 2 For the umpteenth time, explaining WP policy to someone (see WP:NOTHERE for a more in-depth explanation) is not a personal attack, so knock off the aspersions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I can recognise when I am being insulted. In a slightly elliptical manner you have questioned my honesty and more straighforwardly advised me to go away if I do not agree with your opinion on what truth is and its application, also you have accused me of "adding bullshit" to Wikipedia. This is insulting and I feel insulted, this is subjective like "the Truth", but equally valid. As to aspersions, I think that the beam is in your eye not mine. Urselius (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

If I want to insult you, trust me. You will know. Other editors will stop editing for hours to laugh at it, because if I'm going to engage in a sanctionable offense, I will make it an epic one, for the ages. It will be immortalized in song. Your wince of emotional pain will be so severe it will give you whiplash. It will wound you so deeply that three hundred years from now our descendants will still be killing each other in a blood feud destined to continue for thousands of years, until one of my descendants falls in with an indigenous tribe on an out-of-the-way planet, becomes their leader and leads them in a rebellion that overthrows the empire of all mankind before wiping out your family line, setting himself up as emperor and gradually turning himself into a giant worm over the course of millennia before eventually engineering his own assassination in order to prevent mankind from going extinct.

So again, I remind you that casting aspersions is a marked form of incivility which, itself is a sanctionable offense. Click on the link, if you don't believe me. Accusations of personal attacks and incivility belong at ANI, not at article talk pages, where they only serve to disrupt the discussions. If you really feel strongly about it, try filing a report at WP:ANI and hoping no-one notices the way I happily traded Monty Python lines with you just the other day, and thus begins to wonder if you really felt insulted because I'm being rude to you, or if perhaps, you are lashing out because you know I am right and the thought of admitting it causes you some level of cognitive dissonance. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

And what? Anyone reading this thread can quite easily see who it was that first personalised the debate, and it was you. Rather than threaten me with sanctions for pointing out your egregious excursion into personal criticism you should defend your arguments. Wikipedia editors are not a jury, we are not in search of the truth, we should act as reporters of facts. In doing so we are not entitled to censor material because we do not believe it is true, we need to include material and then honestly evaluate it in the light of what comment is available in the relevant literature. Urselius (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Once again, ANI is thataway.
2. I've already given you the relevant definition of truth, which is exactly what you said we should be documenting. For you to continue to sit here and argue by insisting that I actually meant some other definition is, frankly, such a horrible argument that it deserves no rebuttal. You're not only putting words in my mouth (after I explicitly denied them), but you're rebutting them by simply asserting your disagreement ad nauseum. It doesn't merit any sort of "defense" beyond pointing out how bad your argument is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm standing up. I began this discourse to point out that the pursuit of "truth", however anyone wants to define it, is making this article unfit for purpose. I would submit that an article on "the aquatic ape hypothesis" that excludes material central to the hypothesis, as proposed by the major proponents of the hypothesis, on the grounds that it does not coincide with the vision of what is true held by one or more Wikipedia editors is not abiding by Wikipedia standards. Although these editors have quoted various Wikipedia policies ad nauseam, they are largely being misapplied. To allow mention only of those aspects of evolutionary theory that have been noticed and commented on by creationists would be absurd, to allow mention of only those aspects of the AAH that have been noticed and commented on by opponents of the AAH is equally absurd. Urselius (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I would submit that an article on "the aquatic ape hypothesis" that excludes material central to the hypothesis, as proposed by the major proponents of the hypothesis, on the grounds that it does not coincide with the vision of what is true held by one or more Wikipedia editors is not abiding by Wikipedia standards. I wholeheartedly agree. Which is why I'm happy that no-one is doing that here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes they are, in my opinion. What about the rest of my post? I think it accurately sums up a major problem with how the article has been given a heavy bias. Urselius (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you need another reminder about how casting aspersions is seen here? Again, if you want to bitch that me and jps are POV pushers, take it to ANI and see how far that gets you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You really cannot stop yourself can you? Where is "here"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs)

"Here" is Wikipedia. Why do I need to explain this? Also, please sign your comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"Here" could have meant this page. Urselius (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This article needs to be referred to independent formal arbitration

The article as it stands is not fit for purpose, and the active editors are at loggerheads. There is no likelihood of this situation being rectified without outside intervention and it should be referred to arbitration. Urselius (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

How are we at loggerheads? What is being objected to specifically? jps (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You will allow no inclusion of material that has not been commented upon by self-identified opponents of the hypothesis, on no logical grounds. You have excluded any relevant material tending to support the hypothesis on the sole and specious grounds that the authors have not said "this supports the aquatic ape hypothesis". You are, I have no doubt, quite aware that for any academic looking for the next grant award, tenure or promotion to make such a statement would be prejudicial to their personal welfare, as the hypothesis was and is controversial. Hardy was a very senior academic and he was very cautious in putting forward the hypothesis, but was able to do so because his position was secure. Morgan was not an academic and Morris had ceased to be an academic before he commented on the hypothesis, so they were free to publish whatever they liked. The result of this is that in many or most of the research tending to support the hypothesis the author(s) will not have made direct reference to it. As a result of your personally evolved policies the article is curtailed, does not represent the hypothesis accurately or fully and is not fit for purpose - that purpose being a description of all aspects of the hypothesis and its reception. Urselius (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• You will allow no inclusion of material that has not been commented upon by self-identified opponents of the hypothesis, on no logical grounds -- If you read the article, you will see that this is not true. In fact, there are a number of papers used in the article which have been published and, though receiving few citations, are included on the basis of a full explanation of what research is being conducted by AAH proponents.
• You have excluded any relevant material tending to support the hypothesis on the sole and specious grounds that the authors have not said "this supports the aquatic ape hypothesis". -- I have tried my best to follow WP:OR. If you disagree with that rule, you should try to get that rule discarded.
• The result of this is that in many or most of the research tending to support the hypothesis the author(s) will not have made direct reference to it. -- This is, no doubt, correct. Please see WP:RGW. We cannot fix the outside world through Wikipedia editing.
• the article is curtailed, does not represent the hypothesis accurately or fully and is not fit for purpose - that purpose being a description of all aspects of the hypothesis and its reception. -- While I disagree, it would help if you would make an explicit recommendation rather than just a blanket condemnation of the article as though it was solely my personal work.

jps (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"You have excluded any relevant material tending to support the hypothesis on the sole and specious grounds that the authors have not said "this supports the aquatic ape hypothesis"."

This is correct and proper. In fact, it's almost perfect summary of WP:SYNTH, the first sentence of which is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

A fact's relation to AAH is only notable if a RS says so. ApLundell (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Final state?

Here you go. In keeping with the theme of the page, these are even fish tacos!

I am actually much happier with the article now that I ever have been before. Is there anything that is missing from the current treatment that we think we need? jps (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Tacos and beer. Everything would be easier if we did all this editing over a nice spread of tacos and beer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. jps (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the section outlining the basic hypothesis should be followed by a concise point-by-point rebuttal of the arguments proffered to support it -- for example:

• that it's not true that a lack of fur is characteristic of aquatic mammals
• that the claims made about body fat are factually wrong
• that bipedalism is not, as claimed, an adaptation for an aquatic life
• that it's untrue that only humans and aquatic mammals can control their breath voluntarily
• that humans' really big sebaceous glands do not support the hypothesis

...and so on. I can have a go at that, if no one objects; I think I have sufficient supporting RS, and others can add (or subtract) if they are so inclined. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This is an admirable idea, but I think a longer exposition (perhaps based on Langdon) which engages in this specific sort of comeback stuff is perhaps placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on the initial hypothesis which, as far as I can tell, is no longer considered viable even by proponents. To the extent that current AAH-proponents think ideas related to these points are at all convincing, their arguments are way-modified from the bullets you outline. For example, they no longer argue that a lack of fur is a generalized characteristic, but instead claim that a lack of fur happens more often in aquatic animals than it does in non-aquatic animals -- a point which is hard to argue for or against because how one would quantify such a thing is rather difficult to consider. Naked mole rats might mean that we argue that humans lived underground for a time? I admit that the rejoinders you point out follow Morgan's initial claims somewhat straightforwardly, but today's AAH arguers have moved past those points with less strident (and often more difficult to actually follow/falsify) argumentation. So there is a danger of paper tiger burning here when we dwell on the errors that are awkwardly and universally acknowledged. Is point-by-point rebuttal the best technique? I'm not sure. jps (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm with jps on this: A point-by-point rebuttal just reeks of WP taking a position, instead of simply documenting the consensus view. Even if we source each point, it will be obvious to any reader that an editor tracked down each of those sources for the purpose of rebutting. That may not be precisely true, but it will be obvious, nonetheless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course, we might consider as well trying to make the explanation of the Morgan hypothesis more of a narrative which would lend itself to brief discussion of how it may have been naively set out. I don't like the list prejudice on Wikipedia, so it seems to me that writing something like, "Morgan argued that the lack of hair in humans was indicative of an aquatic past, mistakenly declaring that hairlessness was a characteristic of aquatic mammals." At least I think Morgan makes this point. Perhaps we can be a bit clearer? jps (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The word "mistakenly" in that sentence irks me, even though I know it's accurate (this is in comparison to something like the small text below). I think doing something like that would be inviting more POV complaints, and we have too many of those as it is. That's my only objection, though.

"Morgan argued that the lack of hair in humans was indicative of an aquatic past, declaring that hairlessness was a characteristic of aquatic mammals. However, the anthropologist John H. Langdon pointed out that numerous aquatic mammals are possessed of hair, including seals and otters."ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

My intention was not to take a position, but to create a bit more "pro" and "con" balance. As it stands, the "pro" arguments go largely unchallenged, implying (at least to me) that WP is lending some validity to the hypothesis -- and in that sense is (unintentionally) taking a position. In the interest of WP:NPOV, the arguments against should be included in some form, should they not? I see your point that specifically rebutting each argument might not be the ideal way to go; perhaps a paragraph following the present one, more or less in the form outlined above, that "Morgan (or whoever) has argued that ..." and so on? Just to make it clear that the hypothesis is founded on very shaky assumptions? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Using a prosaic form and including the "con" claims along with the "pro" claims is my preferred way to go. To be fair, I was nitpicking at jps' suggestion. I'm perfectly okay with it, I just don't think it's ideal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Getting the wording right is a delicate balance. I understand the desire to want to make sure that the facts are plainly outlined in contrast to the more famous claims that are outlined. I think the Morgan/Langdon dichotomy makes some sense in that regard, but it is also the thing which keeps the article firmly rooted in the past while there are current advocates plotting about in different directions (see the last section). Still we can't right those wrongs here. The most prominent indicators of AAH are the arguments in the past -- it's been years since Morgan was a bestseller. That's the context of the article, much to the chagrin of those who want to see the idea rehabilitated. Anyway, all this is to say that I support the endeavor to try to explain the facts including the facts about Morgan's opinions. jps (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried to address some of these concerns, but probably did a terrible job. Maybe you all could help me? jps (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good. Just one small change, however... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

DoctorJoeE (talk · contribs): At this point we have included many plain mainstream points countering Hardy's claims. Are all your concerns addressed? jps (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Apologies for not getting back in time to lend a hand, but my newly arrived grandson and the current holiday have stolen most of my WP time over the past week. (If you don't like that excuse, I have others.) I'll review the books at home for any additional details that might be worth adding, but it looks quite good as it is. Well done. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A final suggestion: The FRINGE and OR article tags can now be safely removed, yes? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

And now I see that you've already removed them. I would vote for removing the tags within the article as well. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I, for one, am very interested in hearing Joe's additional excuses. I've always preferred a bit of an excuse buffet. I'm also on board with removing all the tags. I'm kinda liking the way the article looks right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• I ran out of gas
• I got a flat tire
• I didn’t have change for cab fare
• I lost my tux at the cleaners
• I locked my keys in the car
• An old friend came in from out of town
• Someone stole my car
• There was an earthquake
• A terrible flood
• Locusts
• It wasn't my fault, I swear to God! (Jake Blues always had a great selection to call on.) DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I think I'm gonna go with locusts. Can't beat a classic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

History section, "Out of an apparent abundance of caution, Hardy delayed reporting the hypothesis for some thirty years.", my emphasis. Is that in the sources (I didn´t see it) or is it the musings of an editor? From the context I´m rather thinking "prudently" or "wisely", but it´s easy enough to remove it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Same section, it would be nice to have a source for "she dropped the feminist polemic". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I find this section a little challenging:

In 1995, paleoanthropologist Philip Tobias declared that the savannah hypothesis was dead, because the open conditions did not exist when humanity's precursors stood upright and that therefore the conclusions of the Valkenberg conference were no longer valid. Tobias praised Morgan's book Scars of Evolution as a "remarkable book" though he said that he did not agree with all of it.[41][42] Bender[who?] and Tobias further criticised the idea by arguing that the coming out of the forest of man's precursors had been an unexamined assumption of evolution since the days of Lamarck, and followed by Darwin, Wallace and Haeckel, well before Raymond Dart used it.[43]

• savannah hypothesis = savannah theory?
• What open conditions?
• What conclusions? The summary by Vernon Reynolds?
• What idea? Savannah hypothesis again?

If anybody wonders, I´m reading through the article and posting here as I go along. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Food sources, nutrients, and brain size section. Can "isomorphic" be changed to something I understand? Isomorphism (disambiguation) didn´t really help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Same section: "What has been lacking has been the paleontological evidence that early humans consumed fish in significant amounts earlier than tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago.[67] Part of the problem has been the avoidance of taphonomic bias by researchers:" Are these things no longer lacking/problems or should "has been" be "is"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And are those things even lacking/problems in this context? And hold on, I just read the second sentence again. "Part of the problem has been the avoidance of taphonomic bias by researchers." Really? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, according to Elaine Morgan (writer) AAH has "achieved significant acceptance and serious scrutiny". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave most of the above to others, as I simply don't have time this afternoon -- but to the last point - if you've read the article, you know that Morgan was AAH's most enthusiastic (and virtually only) proponent, so her assessment of its "acceptance" is anything but objective. And since you brought it up, I'll add that the Elaine Morgan article also needs some work, as it appears to have been written by a fan and AAH believer. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I meant according to Elaine Morgan (writer) the article, not the person, so yes on the needs some works part. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, Taphonomy is another article with problems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the savannah hypothesis; the formal name is "hypothesis", not "theory", and I've only ever seen "theory" used by AAH proponents because it lends their hypothesis more weight. That being said, if you know it by the name "theory" then I'll need to look into that and see if it's a more common name. I've dug up some sources on it, and I plan to (eventually) write up an article on it and on the woodland hypothesis. You can see the sources I've got so far at my sandbox. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me put it like this, would it be reasonable to wikilink "savannah hypothesis" in that section to Bipedalism#Savanna-based_theory to increase readers understanding? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, what I "know" is that savannah theory is an existing redirect, but savannah hypothesis is not. What I don´t know is if savannah theory is what is talked about in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That section describes the svannah hypothesis; the hypothesis and theory are the same thing. It's not actually a theory (it doesn't have a rigorous model, doesn't make any predictions), so that might explain why we have a redirect, but no article. It's certainly worth an article; it was a major hypothesis for a long time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. My pain-in-the-assing here is not about what it´s called (I´m totally behind you on the theory/hypothesis thing), what I want as a reader of this article is to be able to read about savannah hypothesis when the article mentions it. So on the point of wikilinking savannah hypothesis, I´m good. If you or someone else write a better article on it, we can change the wikilink. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great. I'll probably start writing prose later tonight (I'm still digging up sources). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The Hardy/Morgan hypothesis

Hardy's hypothesis as outlined in the New Scientist was:

My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch.

Morgan's most recent summary of the thesis was in 2011:

Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan.

Neither Hardy or Morgan ever envisaged a stage where humans lived at sea, although this quickly became part of the public perception. Also the time period for this dependence has changed significantly over the last 50 years in line with anthropological thought.

The possible consequences of Hardy's hypothesis, discussed by Hardy and Morgan, include:

• Bipedalism: Hardy stated:

It seems to me likely that Man learnt to stand erect first in water and then, as his balance improved, he found he became better equipped for standing up on the shore when he came out, and indeed also for running.

• Loss of body hair: Hardy pointed out that "the loss of hair is characteristic of a number of aquatic mammals, for example, the whales, the Sirenia and the hippopotamus", though he pointed out that the hairs were still there, though so reduced in thickness that they were almost invisible. When swimming in the sun, only the head still needs protection. Morgan compares this with seven other theories for hairlessness starting with parasites.
• Subcutaneous fat: unlike other primates, humans have an extended fat layer, that is seen more markedly in whales and other sea mammals. This was Hardy's original spur to forming the theory, quoting a 1929 book: "The peculiar relation of the skin to the underlying superficial facia is a very real distinction, familiar enough to everyone who has repeatedly skinned both human subjects and any other member of the Primates." Hardy also notes that this contributes to human ability to cope with varying air temperature, which adds to their widespread distribution in different habitats.
• Speech: Humans together with aquatic mammals depend less on smell and touch as means of communication than vocalisation. By the 1980s Morgan focused on the human larynx, which is situated in the throat rather than the nasal cavity, a feature that is shared by some aquatic animals who use it to close off the trachea while diving; it also facilitates taking large breaths of air upon surfacing.
• Eccrine sweating and Tears: Human sweat using a different type of gland than other primates, which predominately use panting for cooling as sweating is wasteful of water for an animal on the savannah, although baboons and patas monkeys (which feed on fruit) do supplement this by sweating. Humans, alone among primates, cry. Tears are often observed in sea birds to get rid of excess salt.
• Sex: Human sexual activity varies in several ways from other primates. Copulation is typically frontal, which is observed in aquatic mammals and manatees, but not apes. This front entry probably causes the loss of orgasm in the female.

Human infants can control their breath without instruction

• Swimming: humans share with aquatic mammals the diving reflex by which the heart slows down when under water reducing the need for oxygen. Infants also have a specific diving relfex present until 6 months where the glottis spontaneously closes when they are submerged under water.
• Fat babies: Human babies have far more fat, acquired in the latter stages of pregnancy. This helps in swimming which they can do naturally if exposed early enough.
• Water birth: Birthing in a pool has evidence of reducing pain during labour, and is now supported by the Royal College of Midwives. It is available at most NHS labour wards in the UK
• Fingertip wrinkling in water: Wrinkling of fingertips when immersed in water is now known to be under neural control in response to water. Studies have investigated whether this gives rise to increased grip under water.

This is a very brief description of features previously accepted by both sides of the argument, and is a much shortened version of previous edits, so it does not give undue weight either way. It is a good summary of the main features of the AAH and then readers can analyse the evidence for themselves as to whether they believe it or not. Does anyone object to this section being reinstated?Aquapess (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I do, for one. In my opinion, the present "Hardy/Morgan hypothesis" section already summarizes the hypothesis quite adequately. In addition, we do not want to give undue weight to arguments that are factually wrong (and thus not accepted by both sides), such as the one about human subcutaneous fat, which is just like other great apes' fat, and very unlike the fat evolved by furless aquatic mammals - to cite just one example. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doctor Joe, thanks for your reply. Maybe that is something you could add to the section on subcutaneous fat, to show both sides of the argument, and then people can make up their own minds based on the facts. I am not sure what you mean exactly though, is it about the biochemical composition of the fat? I'm sure that must be very similar, since the great apes are our closest relatives. I think AAT supporters believe the function of the fat is most important, in that it only functions as a thermal insulator in water, whereas hair (which we have largely lost) serves better as a thermal insulator on land. Moreover, the structure may be the same, but the amount and distribution of it is different - chimps do not have fat deposition on the breasts and buttocks the way humans do, and they are unable to lay down thick fat stores even when being overfed, which is why you do not see obese chimps, even when being kept as pets.

Regardless, whilst you may believe the subcutaneous fat argument to be flawed, it is nevertheless agreed upon within the AAT community, and therefore a page purporting to describe it, should at least mention it, even if the editors wish to present reasons why they believe it to be flawed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with DoctorJoeE. This is undue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"Agreed on within the AAT community" pretty much underscores my point, yes? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Um yes, because this page is called The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?

Not that long ago, there were two camps of palaeobiologists - ones who believed that birds evolved from dinosaurs and others who swore that anyone thinking that way was crazy. Having separate camps of thought is part of the progression of science - you analyse and weigh up the evidence rather than shy away from discussion Aquapess (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. How many times have I heard this exact same argument from a supporter of some fringe theory or another? In this case, it's particularly bad because there is no AAH camp. There's just a bunch of non-anthropologists whining about anthropologists not taking their pet theory seriously, and a very small handful of anthropologists saying "well, if you just take this one aspect out of it, then it might be part of a legitimate explanation".

If all you've got is these sorts of rhetorical arguments, then please stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal is a good one. Nor do I think it is accurate to claim there was anything approaching a consensus that this outline was appropriate for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

References

List outlining AAH features

Dear all, there have been a number of changes to create a large overhaul of the AAH page. I think that the page definitely needed some improvements, but at the end of the day, Wikipaedia is an information source, so the purpose is to describe the topic outlined in the title. For this reason, I propose that the list of features purported to be linked to AAH should be returned. This list was accepted for many years by both pro and anti-AAT editors.

The list format was ultimately rejected as being problematic in the sense that it assumed equality of strength of evidence/investigation. Some things were just plain wrong in Hardy/Morgan's list (subcutaneous fat claims, e.g.) while others are inspirational but hardly considered convincing evidence (iodine and PUFAs, e.g.) Summarizing in paragraph form seemed like a better way to allow for a narrative description of the ideas that can be weighed more easily by the reader according to their own judgment. jps (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Vernix caseosa

After removing all the content that is sourced to arguments made by Attenborough, we were left only with the original argument by Morgan and a description of the feature. As such, it does not rise to the level of "academic research". So I removed the section. If we find some research that is connected to AAH about this subject that was published in academic journals, I'm happy to restore the section. jps (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong! The cited research came right out of the Scars of Evolution programme that Attenborough made in 2003. Let me quote you Tom Brenna, whose paper is cited in this section, from Attenborough's 2016 programme:

"To cut a long story short, we eventually found marine mammal centres on the west coast in California who were willing to collect samples. We analysed the vernix of sea lions and humans in the same way by mass spectrometry and we found that they were extremely similar both in their structure and in their quantity. We found that the structure of the molecules were similar and we found that the distribution of the various molecules were similar. So they were strikingly the same and we also did some quantitative analysis which told us they were being produced, at least in the context of the vernix, in a very similar way. An extraordinarily exciting result, and in fact we also saw this in a single harbour seal that we were able to acquire and we saw the same thing there and so I’m almost willing to say this probably extends to all marine mammals.". (Attenborough 2016, 2nd programme, 31:25)

Um... That Attenborough interviewed Brenna is undeniable, but I don't see Tom Brenna himself connecting this research to AAH. Can you find any indication of such? jps (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph before the quotation I gave you includes the comment: "one person who listened to those programmes was Professor Tom Brenna of Cornell University and he was intrigued. As a chemist and specialist in mass spectrometry he had spent many years researching the biochemistry of human vernix. So when he heard this observation of vernix potentially in another species he set off on the hunt." So here you get it. A radio programme can actually influence scientists at Cornell! Chris55 (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what I asked for. Please try again. A publication by Brenna that indicates his work is supportive of the AAH is what we need here. Not a radio transcript. jps (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I reject that argument. Brenna has done the research, published the paper (with his team) and contributed supportively to Attenborough's programme called the Waterside Ape. That adds up to full relevance to this article. Chris55 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If I listen to a program and that inspires me to do an analysis that leads to a publication and then I'm later interviewed by the person who made the podcast about that paper, that is one kind of story. Is that the story you would like to be told? If so, we need something more than just Attenborough to back up that this is at all important to the overall story of AAH. jps (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking for it to be told. You were challenging the idea that this section concerns the topic of the article and I was showing that it did. A meta-analysis if you like. No need to add more. Chris55 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The story as I told it is connected to AAH. The previous section discussion that was included was not. jps (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What was included was "In a second radio series in 2016, The Waterside Ape, Attenborough included a report from Tom Brenna of Cornell University that vernix from California sea lions was composed of the same fatty acids as are found in that of humans." It does seem to be connected. Chris55 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not the story as outlined. jps (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've put a quotation from the 2011 AAH conference at the end of the section which claims less than Attenborough but establishes the link to the AAH more clearly. Chris55 (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It most certainly does not! It makes no mention of AAH whatsoever. jps (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused about this. Previously, a comment regarding fingertip wrinkling as an adaptation to water was accepted after a WP:OR argument when the following page was presented as a reference: http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/pruny-fingers-are-evolutionary-advantage/ As far as I'm aware, the research itself does not have to mention the AAT (either for or against) as long as a reputable source is found demonstrating that AAT supporters believe this to be evidence. This page is about describing the aquatic ape theory isn't it? It's not a list of publications that mention AATAquapess (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Rather distinctly from MjolnirPants, I'm not opposed to using grey-literature and internet-based sources in the article, but the warning is that this will require the introduction of a lot more of the grey-anti-literature to boot. There are websites excised by the pro-AAH crowd which have been done so on the basis of the lack of credentials of the author and the lack of editorial control of the self-published blog/website. Since AAH is WP:FRINGE, I'm not particularly worried by that if the sources can be judged to be reliable. However, I'm also fine with going with what I judge to be the current consensus which is that we should only use sources which have been published or are verified to come from academic professionals speaking in an academic capacity. To that end, blogs have been removed in favor of peer-reviewed papers and published commentary by acknowledged experts in mainstream science reporting outlets. If this is upsetting to you, I suggest you think carefully about how you would feel if Jim Moore's website started to make an appearance here. As long as we keep that website out, similar sources (and I would include the IFLScience source in that) should also be excluded. jps (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• I will personally revert anyone who uses iflscience as a source, and will flood any RSN discussion about them with examples of their crappy approach to science journalism and ridiculous sensationalist headlines. They are not reliable for anything but their own views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That's really quite interesting, given that IFLS has been accepted as a source elsewhere on wiki, and this particular piece merely states that AAT supporters were interested in the wrinkled fingertip research, and qualified it with an anti-AAT comment to give a balanced view:

This information has piqued the interest of those who subscribe to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH), which claims that ancestral apes lived in water at least part of the time. Others, however, dismiss the idea, as these adaptations could have come from water being ever present in the environment without spending as much time in it as proponents of AAH would say.

Why is it not possible to present both sides of the argument like this on the Wikipaedia page too?

Mostly because it treats with equal validity two claims that aren't on the same footing. The "argument" isn't between experts, it's between people complaining online. Not really what Wikipedia tends to write about according to our editorial standards. jps (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I dunno. Why is it not possible for you to get into the habit of signing your comments?

jps, it's IFLScience in particular, not internet-based science sites that I'm opposed to. I've seen some really awful crap from them. Like an anonymous article that takes an interesting but obscure hypothesis which has never been tested, presents it as established fact, and then goes on to portray adherents of a fringe theory as being on an equal footing with the mainstream view. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Catch-22

There is a remarkable Catch-22 situation operating here:

The work of proponents of the AAH is inadmissible because they are advocates of a fringe theory, and mentioning their work would give it "undue weight".

Simultaneously, work that might be supportive of AAH, but whose authors choose not to make this connection overt, is inadmissible because they have not referred directly to the hypothesis.

How very jesuitical, I'm impressed. Or am I thinking of Torquemada? George Orwell? No it's definitely Catch-22! Urselius (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It's none of the above. It only seems like a catch-22 because of the underlying assumption that an article about the AAH must promote the AAH. If one eliminates that assumption, then there's nothing circular or impossible about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If people want this article to reflect different rhetorical points, they need to convince the outside world to make sources that comply with our policies and guidelines. Publish in Nature. Publish in Science. Make the references explicit. jps (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

But simultaneously, many of your sources are articles in books or newspaper articles. Where are the research articles in "Nature" or "Science" stating that AAH is wrong? Why do you guys have to rely on Langdon so much if these journals you state are so awash with anti-AAH articles?Aquapess (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Now you're just making stuff up. Both jps and I have commented multiple times on the lack of sources excoriating the AAH. Stop. You're becoming disruptive. Either help us improve the article or go prove you're not an SPA. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The lack of anti-AAH sources is somewhat indicative that the mainstream has not found it compelling enough to comment much more on the idea. That is hardly surprising. As Hitchens's Razor points out, there is an asymmetry in controversies over reality. The onus is on the advocates to make the opponents sit up and pay attention. This is not done on web fora, in Wikipedia, or in the comment sections where all the content currently resides. It is done in flagship peer-reviewed journals. jps (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Jps, but that's exactly it. Your camp would interpret it as AAH being ignored. But with the absence of comment, it could well be interpreted that people are afraid to comment positively on the AAH for fear of being ridiculed by people who misunderstand the theory. It is clear that there is an interest in the role that the sea and what role it might have played in human evolution, otherwise they would not be getting published in PNAS and Nature. However, they cannot put a comment stating a pro-AAT stance for fear of their reputations. Surely the researchers must know that their results would be interpreted positively by the pro-AAT camp. If they were really so against it, they would qualify somewhere in their paper with a statement such as "we are not proponents of any aquatic ape theory and these results should not be interpreted as being in support of any such theory". But they don't.

Lastly, I'm not sure what an SPA is, but last time I checked, Wikipaedia didn't take kindly to threats being thrown around on their boardsAquapess (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:ADVOCACY and WP:THETRUTH. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:RGW. I know the AAH people feel put upon, but they shouldn't try to work out those feelings at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Primary source of food"

Hello, just wish to discuss the editing conflict over the statement

Niemitz's hypothesis places the wading bipedalism of hominids as occurring in the late Miocene,[47] being a primary diet source for any group of humans is, at oldest, from 200,000 years ago.[51]

Reference 51 is a Guardian article.
I'm claiming WP:OR because
1) The article does not state that seafood was a primary diet source for humans. It says only "our fondness for seafood is much more recent, emerging, as far as we know, with the origin of our own species around 200,000 years ago". Therefore the source does not make the statement for which it is being used
2) There is no reference to confirm the evidence that the earliest "fondness" of seafood by early humans was 200,000 years ago. Therefore it is not a testable, scientific source of information
3) There is research (which was available at the time), demonstrating that early humans ate seafood as early as 1.95 million years ago. This is from a reputable source, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
4) The AAH does not state that humans exclusively subsisted on an aquatic diet. It merely states that in addition to hunting, early humans supplemented their diet with substantial amounts of seafood when game was not available. It is a common misconception of AAH that it means humans ONLY subsisted on the sea, and modern day hunter gatherers also do not eat game every day, but supplement their diet with other food sources.

Therefore, the Guardian article should be removed with its factually incorrect statement, and updated with information from a scientific source

It's a little rich to claim that an article from 2010 is an "update" to an article published in 2013, but I agree arguing over whether "fondness" is properly contextualized is as a primary diet source is hard to determine. Still, it seems a reasonable interpretation to me, but if others want to explain an alternative interpretation of Gee (not just stick-in-the-mudism), I'm all ears.

You cannot complain that the Guardian article doesn't have a source. We are not editors of the Guardian article. We just report what it says.

Whether humans or other apes ate aquatic food is incidental to the question of AAH (see above). More importantly, the PNAS article does not mention AAH.

AAH cannot work as stated with supplementation (although you don't explain what you believe "substantial" supplementation actually is). The point is that in order for AAH to work, you must have an evolutionary pressure. At the point where it is claimed that simple supplementation of the diet with aquatic foods is consistent with the hypothesis, there is no longer any difference between AAH as an idea and normal statements about human anthropological development. We are writing an article about how AAH has been argued (mostly by Morgan and Hardy) and what people have said about it. That rehabilitation has not been occurring with reference to the hypothesis itself is something we cannot do anything about. One source mentions AAH. The other does not. We can only go by the sources which mention AAH.

jps (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

1) No, but the article strongly implies it through the context. We are not robots, and we are not expected to read like robots. If we were, we would not be asked to summarize what sources say.

2) Not our problem. See jps's response.

3) "early hominids" != "early humans". Homo Sapiens first appeared in the fossil record 200kya and while the earliest Homo lines appeared 2.8mya, the source you cited specified "hominins" which is the same thing as "hominids".

4) See the section above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for the quick reply, unforuntately you cannot simultaneously say that this article lacks scientific basis, and then refuse to add in a scientific article when it doesn't agree with your opinion without losing credibility.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 20:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not real concerned about my credibility with you, and I've never even suggested that we can't use that particular article. All I've done is point out that you drastically misrepresented what it said. That doesn't really say anything bad about my credibility. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If "that particular article" refers to the one published in PNAS, I will suggest that we can't use it here, because (as already pointed out) it does not mention the AAH, much less assert that the reported findings support it. Making or implying a connection not explicitly stated by a source violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Them's the rules. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear all, thank you for your quick and polite responses. That's ok, I've proved my point, that when a tenuous, unreferenced source agrees with your opinion, then "heavily imply" is ok, but if its pro AAT then it's WP:OR, thank you :) Aquapess (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest that you re-read the above responses, as you clearly do not (or choose not to) understand what they say -- nor, apparently, do you have a cogent grasp of the guidelines under which WP operates. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the good Doctor. You haven't proven anything except that you're not listening to anyone else. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Doctor Joe. From one doctor to another, I think you can agree that "heavily imply" would not wash in any text book.

Lastly, the Guardian article, as I stated above, was being used to date when humans first ate seafood. Even if the PNAS paper is contested, other subsequent research has also shown human seafood consumption to be earlier to roughly 500,000 years ago quote "found evidence for freshwater shellfish consumption by hominins" from the abstract. This still means that the Guardian article is out of date, indeed, the author qualified his statement with "as far as we know" because he knows science moves along and new evidence can be found all the timeAquapess (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"heavily imply" would not wash in any text book. It would go over a hell of a lot better than "early hominids were human", or "humans were around 2mya" or even "humans were around 500kya". Any of those would get the writer fired and blacklisted in a heartbeat. This isn't even anthropology 101, this is stuff I learned in middle school. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MjonlnirPants. I don't really understand what you mean, I think there is some confusion here. The aquatic phase happened some time between when early human ancestors split from Pan and before they became anatomically human. If, as in the quote, it happened in the late Miocene, that would be well before the appearance of the genus Homo. We're talking about early human ancestry, not anatomically modern humans. I think perhaps either "humans" was added as an error, or the second half of that sentence needs to be removed entirely. Of course the earliest time point when evidence of seafood consumption by humans can be found can be no earlier than the appearance of humans themselves, otherwise it's just tautologyAquapess (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and your edit stated that "humans" were eating an aquatic diet 2mya. Which is bullshit. If you'd said that "early hominids" were eating that diet, that would have matched the source. Why do I have to explain this to you? (This still doesn't address whether this is due or relevant or neither, however.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No, humans was in the original edit. I didn't add it, I merely changed the date and added a reference. You can check it if you likeAquapess (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, re-reading the Guardian passage, it says that although humans diverged from other hominins 5 mya, evidence of seafood consumption at the time was only datable back to the emergence of humans (this is not defined what that means, because 200,000 ya doesn't correspond either to the appearance of Homo or Anatomically Modern Humans - AMH).

So if I understand you correctly, if we change the terminology to "human ancestors" instead of just "humans" then we can reinsert the sentence with the PNAS reference and the correct date? Because although they state "hominin", the authors clearly imply that this has impact on our knowledge of human evolution, stating could have played an important role in the evolution of larger brains in the early history of our lineageAquapess (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edit caused the article to make a demonstrably false claim. Not only that, but a claim whose falsehood could be demonstrated by a middle schooler. I don't care if you re-worded the existing text, composed new text, or concentrated real hard until the text appeared on its own: when you put a ridiculously bullshit claim in wikivoice on a page where I can see it, I'm going to revert you. Every single time, no questions asked. As will the vast majority of other editors here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as correcting the text and re-inserting it; as I already pointed out, there are issues with whether or not this information is due and relevant. The AAH is not mentioned in either of the papers you cited, whereas it is mentioned in the guardian source. I'm not as opposed as jps is to this sort of inclusion, but that doesn't mean I'm for it, either. If you have a good argument for inclusion, and can propose a use that doesn't reek of synth, then I'm okay with it. But you need to convince me before I'll support it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite response again. The problem is that in this case the Guardian article was being used to give a date of when humans first ate seafood - for this, an article doesn't have to mention AAT. It only has to mention humans (or their ancestors), seafood consumption and evidence that is reliably datable, with an estimated date. For example a page on the dinosaur theory of human evolution may have a sentence on when feathers first appeared in the fossil record. This sentence does not have to reference a dinosaur/bird evolution theory page, only the original research paper of the earliest fossil where feathers are found.

You guys are welcome to insert the Guardian article elsewhere if you would like to quote about Henry Gee's opinions, but it's not a reputable source to pin down a specific time point in human evolution according to wiki's rulesAquapess (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

in this case the Guardian article was being used to give a date of when humans first ate seafood No, it isn't now and never was used that way. And yes, it is a reliable source according the WP:IRS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The sentence says "a primary diet source for any group of humans is, at oldest, from 200,000 years ago" and if you read the Guardian article, it does indeed say that date. Referencing conventions state that you put the reference at the end of a statement where you wish to back up your information or quote your sources for information. How is it not being used as a source for a date of when humans first ate seafood? And if it is not, what is the purpose of inserting the reference? Which statement is it proving? Aquapess (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

And quite frankly, you must be grasping at straws if you're pretending not to know how referencing worksAquapess (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not pretending not to know anything, nor am I demonstrating any lack of knowledge. You need to drop this stick now, you're not convincing anyone of anything except your own inability to admit fault. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant to join the fray, as it were, however, I do think I have something to add.

• Please keep it civil. This topic, and discussions regarding it are fraught. It can get frustrating when other editors do not come around to your point of view, but you must always give them the benefit of the doubt: everyone contributing here cares about WP, the topic and edits in good faith.  :-)
• @MjolnirPants:: The Niemitz content outlines his hypothesis, but then everything from "and though..." looks like WP:OR. First, because Gee does not mention Niemitz's hypothesis at all, and also, while Gee does say we "developed a fondness" for seafood, I think saying "seafood as a primary diet source for certain human ancestors seems to have emerged only around 200,000 years ago" goes further than that. Also, there is nothing in the summary of Niemitz's theory that ties it to the date of bipedal-ism and the date of the emergence of a "fondness for seafood", or even the emergence of "seafood as a primary diet source". The appropriate way to introduce the last part of the sentence would be to reference someone discussing Niemitz's theory. At a minimum, a citation needed would be good.
• @Aquapess:: I don't understand how your points 2, 3, & 4, including your reference to the Braun article support your claim of WP:OR. If you have an issue with the Gee article's reliablity, that should be addressed, but that doesn't mean the passage itself is OR.

For the record, I was quite shocked at the tone of the Gee article. I would expect something more... thoughtful(?) from an editor at Nature. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I was quite shocked at the tone of the Gee article. Why? Even scientists get sick of dead horse being beaten. I know I'm sick of it, and I'm a huge fan of this theory.

The Niemitz content outlines his hypothesis, but then everything from "and though..." looks like WP:OR. Maybe you didn't check the Guardian source well enough, but it states:

"The ancestors of humans became bipedal at least five million years ago, but our fondness for seafood is much more recent, emerging, as far as we know, with the origin of our own species around 200,000 years ago."

Given the context of the statement, it's clear that the content in the article is an accurate summary of Gee's sentence.

Also, there is nothing in the summary of Niemitz's theory that ties it to the date of bipedal-ism The Neimitz source proposes a hypothesis to explain the emergence of bipedalism. I'm not sure how you think that could avoid any connection to the date of bipedalism, but it can't. The section is fine. When you read it as a whole, it does look like synthesis, but that's natural for a section that's not based on a single source. The text doesn't explicitly define a connection between sources, it simply presents them. The connection is from the sources, specifically the fact that that they're all discussing the subject of the section in part. The way the text comes together to present a single coherent narrative is nothing but the (desired) result of good copywriting. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: thanks so much for your very thoughtful reply. And thanks for being civil :-)

• How does "a fondness for seafood" = "seafood as a primary diet source"? They do not seem to be the same. You could say "humans have a fondness for chocolate" and it would be correct, but it doesn't mean that chocolate is a primary diet source for humans. Is there another source that says "primary diet source" that could be added?
• I think if the single sentence were broken into two, with a second sentence that began with something along the lines of "AAH critics point out that..." and the content from the Gee article. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

How does "a fondness for seafood" = "seafood as a primary diet source"? Through context: In the context of AAH, "a fondness for seafood" taken literally and exclusive of it being a primary source is nonsensical, but taking it as a euphemism for "seafood as a primary diet source" allows it to make sense. A literal fondness for seafood -even at a population level- would not bring any evolutionary pressures to bear, unless that fondness rose to the level of it becoming a primary food source. Because remember: a primary food source would generally always fall within the aegis of food sources a population is fond of. So there are two ways of interpreting it, one that makes sense and one that doesn't. Since there isn't any viable reason to doubt Gee's reliability for this claim, we must choose the former interpretation. This is only a weakness when it becomes contentious, such as when an agenda-guided editor begins looking for excuses to excise a source which is critical of their avowed pet theory. Absent that rather obvious (and somewhat understandable) POV pushing, there remains no reason whatsoever not to take the two terms as interchangeable. Thus, the need for a more specific source only exists in the context of this claim being disputed. Since it is disputed by an editor with an avowed agenda... Well, it's simpler and more rational to chalk the dispute up to a problem with that editor than to a problem with the source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: It seems like there are other sensible readings. For instance, "evidence of the consumption of seafood", that do not elevate it to a primary diet source. But perhaps I am splitting hairs. Thanks so much for the dialogue. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

There could be other sensible readings, yes. In different contexts. In this context? Not so much. Feel free to prove me wrong, however I don't see how that could be the case. I'd be happy to admit being wrong if you can come up with an alternate reading that makes sense in the context of that piece. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@InformationvsInjustice: I do not think you are splitting hairs at all. This is exactly the issue I have with the use of this article. You are quite right, that "fondness" is ambiguous - to me, it only implies that humans ate some seafood at all. The word "primary" does not appear in that passage. I particularly liked your chocolate example, we are nearly all "fond" of chocolate, but none of us could say that chocolate is the "primary" source of our diet.

In points 2, 3 and 4 what I meant was that any article being used to prove a date should be a primary source, not a secondary one, and furthermore, that by using a unreferenced article meant that the reliability of the source was questionable. I proved this by citing the two other papers demonstrating earlier consumption of seafood by early human ancestors, one of which was available at the time! I don't doubt that Gee's article is an accurate representation of his opinions, but if being used to confirm a date, or reading extra things into it such as "fondness" = "primary", then it is definitely WP:OR. I am loath to say that at the university where I work we would not accept secondary opinion piece articles as sources to prove dates, and only primary research articles would be accepted, but I have heard that a lot of wikipaedia editors are anti-academia, so I fear saying this would only result in more backlash.

Lastly, thank you for the comments regarding civility. This last section is one of the most civil replies I've had in response to trying to insert reputable research from PNAS and Nature, after being subjected to vernacular like "sick", "bullshit" and being threatened to be reported to wikipaedia (despite sticking to all the rules) Aquapess (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I do like academia a lot, but, crucially, Wikipedia is WP:NOT academia. As such, you are confusing best practices and standards of academic writing with best practices and standards of Wikipedia article writing. Our goal is not to write a review article for a journal or to have a "university" accept sources (whatever that's supposed to mean -- like in a class or something?). We are here to report what has been said about AAH. Nothing more. When a source does not mention AAH, including it in this page is not okay. We include sources that do mention AAH and try to summarize them as best as possible. If you think we are not doing that, please explain. But insisting that Gee is "out of date" because of a paper published three years before he wrote this opinion piece is not doing it for me. jps (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: Thanks so much for your contributions! I don't think Gee's article could never be used here, my problem is the way it's being used now. The Gee article cites no authority for the claim that we developed a "fondness for seafood" 200,000 years ago. Without knowing what development in human evolution he is referring to, one shouldn't cite it in support of any claim other than what it explicitly says.

• An appropriate use of Gee's claim as an authority would be: "Humans have shown a 'fondness for seafood' for at least 200,000 years."
• An inappropriate use of it as an authority would be: "Anything else." :-)
• WP:STICKTOSOURCE According to the WP policy, the "best practice" when editing is to "summarize" what the source says and to attribute each statement with a source that "makes that statement explicitly". Our job is to "summarize or rephrase" without changing the source's "meaning or implication". We are charged to "take care not go beyond what is expressed" in the source.
• WP:SYNTH Synthesizing published materials is a form of Original research. This includes combining sources to make a claim that is not "explicitly stated" by any of them. Editors cannot "imply another conclusion" of the source. Any claim in the article must have been made by the source and must have bee "related to the topic of the article" in the same way.

"Seafood has been a primary diet source for Humans for 200,000 years." is not what Gee said. It's what the editor thinks Gee meant. "Fondness for" is just too vague. It's not like I'm a crazy stickler for citations, but citing Gee's claim to support anything beyond its explicit self is WP:OR. The editor is not reporting on what Gee said in his article about AAH, He is theorizing about what Gee meant. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you think Gee meant when he said, "fondness for"? jps (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: What do I think Gee meant when he said "fondness for"? Before I answer, I should tell you that I come from the legal profession, and the law places a very high premium on precision when citing any authority in a brief or other memo. When summarizing a legal decision in support of my position, I always err on the side of caution. If your argument can't be made with anything but the plain language of your supporting authority, you're in trouble. That's very much in keeping with WP:STICKTOSOURCE.

My answer, "There is evidence that 200,000 years ago, there occurred a change in our ancestor's consumption of seafood." I think no further meaning (beyond the explicit "fondness for") can be discerned from the four-corners of the article itself. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Good start, but doesn't quite get the meaning across as I read Gee. A "change" in consumption of seafood is not the same thing as developing a "fondness" for seafood. jps (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have decided, in an attempt to forestall this kind of argument, to try a version where Henry Gee's point is quoted in full. Does this satisfy? jps (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: I think that's the right choice. :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Langdon's "Umbrella" Paper in JHE (1997)

Although I think this article has improved considerably since I last took a look at it - congratulations to all those involved with that - I am frustrated that John Langdon's (1997) JHE paper is still rolled out as a major, and unchallenged, put-down of the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" (better, in the plural "waterside hypotheses of human evolution" - nice to see, by the way, that the last quoted statement from Morgan is basically our (joint) definition of that term) - and given academic credence that is not justified.

Langdon's AAH critique is weak and unscholarly. It uses the most blatant straw man technique.

At the very least, in a balanced article there should at least be some reference to a chapter that severely critiques it - such as "...(but see... Kuliukas (2011) for a critique)..." or similar.

Kuliukas AV, (2011). Langdon’s Critique of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis: It’s Final Refutation, or Just Another Misunderstanding?. In: Vaneechoutte M, Verhaegen M, Kuliukas AV, (eds.), (2011). Was Man More Aquatic In The Past? Fifty Years After Alister Hardy: Waterside Hypothesis Of Human Evolution. Bentham (Basel)

E-mail me (algis.kuliukas@uwa.edu.au) if you have difficulties obtaining a copy.

Of course, rules do not permit me from making such an edit but I am hoping some impartial editor will think it fit to do so.

AlgisKuliukas (talk)

The reason that Langdon's paper is getting play is because it is peer-reviewed and published independently and is widely referenced by both proponents and opponents alike. In contrast, the rejoinder you wrote which is published in a collection that you and your colleagues edited is obviously not subject to the same level of editorial review in the relevant epistemic field which means it is hard for us to contextualize. We aren't here to hash out debates -- only to report on the state of the art. For better or worse, we are trying to stick to works that align with WP:FRIND which is why I would have a hard time inserting a reference to a book that only contains AAH-proponent arguments.

My (unasked for) advice is to try to get such a rejoinder published in a mainstream journal. Or, even better, publish a work that shows that the legitimate criticism of Hardy and Morgan has been taken on board in a "rehabilitated" fashion. Wikipedia cannot be at the frontiers of the debate and since it looks like Langdon had the last word in the mainstream journals, that's kinda where we have to sit until someone else is successful in making some other point that is directly connected but not suffering from being cloistered only among proponents.

jps (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Since the volume in question is already cited in the article (note 28) and a review article by Langdon is also cited (note 72), and it appears in the article's bibliography, it seems to me reasonable and consistent to have additional relevant content from it included in the article. To “report on the state of the art” would be to reference the critique of Langdon and the new AAH based models explored in the volume along with Langdon’s review. Almanacer (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Was I really just "informed" that a peer-reviewed paper is "weak and unscholarly" and then directed to a self-published book? Really? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Langdon's review raises no issues re the academic credentials of the book which was, contrary to your claim, independently published by Bentham Science who state on their website "submitted articles/eBook chapters are subjected to an extensive peer review..." Almanacer (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I know who Bentham is, and I know the "quality" of their peer review process. How many fake papers have they published now? 6? 7? More? That we know of, at least. They're just a vehicle for self-publishing. Your book isn't worth using, and your commentary to open this thread makes anything you say suspect from an NPOV standpoint. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The relevant judgement here is that of Langdon/Homo editors who published the review rather that of a self-appointed arbiter of what constitutes a worthwhile contribution in the field. Almanacer (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

First off, apologies for confusing you with the OP. Second, I'm not sure what you mean here. If you're suggesting that I am the "self-appointed arbiter", then I would ask you to review the credentials and relevant expertise of the book author. It should be quick; there are none. That's a fairly convincing explanation as to why it was published through Bentham, rather than a publisher with a reputation for integrity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Apology accepted. We have got off on the wrong footing here. Will try again later. Almanacer (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up the also-read section may be worthwhile. I was thinking that the repository may be of certain referential interest (sticking to books, papers, and radio shows, rather than blogs for reasons of consensus keeping), but if the argument is to be made that proponent works that suffer from a lack of editorial control are somehow supposed to be at WP:PARITY with the classic takedown of AAH (as it was incarnate 20 years ago), I am more inclined to begin removing such things. jps (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Primarily aquatic diet

An edit conflict has been breaking out about whether to use Gee's take-down of AAH in the Guardian or to use a synthesized claim from a PNAS paper that does not mention AAH. I think the rules of Wikipedia are clear that my version is better than the one that the other editor desires. diff

But more than this, I want to make it clear what the problem is. AAH cannot rely on evidence that a human in the past ate seafood. The AAH, to be supported, needs evidence that there was sustained consumption of seafood as a primary food source for a significant enough period of time to affect evolutionary outcomes. The PNAS source doesn't come close to providing such evidence.

jps (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a huge barrier to overcome. "Some humans ate a heavily aquatic diet in the past" doesn't even come close to being what this particular version of the hypothesis requires, which is that either a large proportion of the population ate a heavily aquatic diet immediately prior to a genetic bottleneck event, almost all of humanity ate a heavily aquatic diet during a genetic bottleneck, or almost all of humanity ate a heavily aquatic diet for a prolonged (in evolutionary terms) period of time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I lament that we may be arguing over what the semantic value of "fondness" is in the Guardian article, but I think it is not simply, "I ate some aquatic food yesterday". Undoubtably, Braun says that this foodstuff makes nutrient arguments about brain growth more plausible, but this is getting more than a step removed from aquatic apes. jps (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

1) I agree, AAH cannot rely on evidence that humans in the past ate seafood. However the PNAS article was added to correct the date about when seafood eating first occurred, not as evidence either for or against AAH (although the article does state that this consumption of seafood could have helped to increase early human brain expansion, which AAH supporters also believe)

2) The reason to remove the Guardian article is because it was being used to date the earliest evidence for human consumption of seafood - it is unreferenced - it does not point to an original source of information, so it is not a reliable source. "primary" was added to the wiki article later, but is not mentioned in the Guardian article later. Moreover, other evidence has been published showing human seafood consumption prior to 200,000 years ago quote "found evidence for freshwater shellfish consumption by hominins"Aquapess (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The date from PNAS just documents that human ancestors ate things found in water. This is quite different from claims that humans were systematically eating seafood living near the ocean 200,000 years ago. They are substantively different points. Evidence for consistent sea dwelling is at oldest from 200,000 years ago. Evidence that human ancestoars (and indeed other primates) ate things found in water can be found going back much further, but certainly is not AAH fodder as it doesn't differentiate a hominid from other apes or indeed primates! jps (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry jps, what exactly are you trying to say with the Guardian reference? I thought it was being used to give a date for when the archaeological evidence first shows humans or their ancestors eating seafood. Now you're saying it says "consistent sea dwelling" - which is it? And how on earth would "consistent sea "dwelling"" show up in the archaeological record?

Hardy stated that humans would have had to have come back to land in order to sleep and do other activities, and he suggested that they must have spent about half their time on land. Nobody has ever suggested that humans "dwellt" in the sea, they merely took advantage of what it had to offer, and spent a lot of time foraging in the water. That's it.

Furthermore, yes hominin doesn't differentiate between human and other great apes, but are you seriously suggesting that early Pan (or Gorilla) picked up tools and ate seafood (in the forest no less) and then put the tools down again and promptly forgot all about them? This is an intriguing idea.

Please read the Nature paper regarding shellfish consumption at 500,000 years though if you dislike the PNAS paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7538/abs/nature13962.html Aquapess (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to be as faithful as possible to Gee's complaint. If you disagree with his complaint, that is something you need to publish elsewhere. Wikipedia is a place where we report what is said. We cannot litigate this dispute. If I understand Gee correctly, he is arguing that we have evidence for sustained seafood consumption (which is, not inland) from about 200,000 years ago which aligns with evidence for coastal settlement of humans as well! Using shells as tools is not evidence of sustained seafood diet. Eating clarias is not evidence of pressure on brain development in favor of nutrients like iodine or PUFAs which are not found in inland aquatic foodstuffs. I think his point, briefly made, is clear. If you think there is dramatic evidence (though neither of the papers you are citing provide it) that he is incorrect, you need to get a secondary source published that points this out. But we cannot stitch together your argument using papers that make no mention of AAH. Sorry, that's simply not how Wikipedia works. jps (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Josh, so what I'm trying to say is that Gee's article is unreferenced, which means that although he says that the earliest seafood consumption was 200,000 years ago, he has no evidence to back it up. Since it is a personal opinion piece in the Guardian, he could really say anything and we would have no way of knowing if it was correct. A source for a date cannot point to an opinion, but should point to evidence

As I said below, you are welcome to insert the article at another place if you wish to discuss Gee's opinions, but a source to substantiate a claim on the earliest date humans ate seafood doesn't have to mention AAT. It only has to mention human ancestors, evidence and a (reliable) date. Aquapess (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

And what I'm saying is that the fact-checking doesn't fail on that basis because, it seems to me, you misunderstand Gee's point which is that seafood (from the sea) was first eaten with fondness (as a major food source) only from ca. 200,000 years ago. I have seen evidence provided by other editors on this page that serious coastal settlements date back to approx. that time, and I have seen no evidence for serious coastal dwelling before then. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I don't think Gee is incorrect in using this as a convenient marking point. Neither of your sources point to evidence for settlement nor high levels of seafood (from the sea) consumption -- and thus neither, I contend, directly contradict Gee's general point as I read it and as we explain it in the article. If Gee was wrong about the time estimate for an agreed upon age for evidence of serious fondness for seafood, then I would like to see sources that are better than the ones you describe which clearly demonstrate such. Otherwise, we're just filling in a timeline of accoutrements associated with water, food, etc. in human/hominid history. Timeline of human and hominid interaction with water this article/section is not. jps (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not, but you guys inserted the issue of time into this article, not me. The original statement says "wading bipedalism of hominids as occurring in the late Miocene" and then a segment from Gee's article is added as trying to contradict the proposed date for when the aquatic phase occurred. Gee's article is unreferenced, and also out of date. I am surprised that you would like to see "sources that are better" because most people would find papers in Nature or PNAS to be pretty much the best scientific sources aroundAquapess (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Gee is writing on the subject of the section. His rejoinder deserves inclusion and the implications of what he means seem clear to me. That it is "out of date" is an odd opinion considering that you want to insert original research referencing articles that are older than Gee's piece. jps (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The Nature article is 2015, Gee's piece is 2013 Aquapess (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Nature article is about freshwater shells -- NOT seafood consumption. jps (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "Aquatic" encompass all sources of food from water-based environments? This page talks about humans inhabiting lakes and rivers on a number of occasions. "Aquatic Ape" is called Aquatic - rather than Marine - for a reason - it does not mean solely inhabiting seashoresAquapess (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Related academic and independent research

The introductory sentence to this section references Brenna’s research, along with that of Crawford and Schagatay as relevant. The latter two have their own subsections but attempts to add one for Brenna continue to be reverted. I appreciate that previous content on the topic of Brenna's research has met with objections (see above) but what had been added was new content formulated to take account of these objections and to be WP:CITE compliant. In the absence of further objections I propose the content be restored to read as follows:

A 2016 research programme conducted by Tom Brenna (then at Cornell University), with the help of Judy St Leger at San Diego Seaworld, compared the chemistry of vernix on human neonates and samples of a vernix-like substance on California Sealion pups. They established that its molecular composition is comparable to human vernix, being rich in both branch chain fatty acids (BCFAs) and squalene. They conclude their findings add to the evidence for human traits which have evolved in parallel to the aquatic adaptation of marine mammals. (The source is Brenna, Tom. "Sea Lions Develop Human-like Vernix Caseosa Delivering Branched Fats and Squalene to the GI Tract". Scientific Reports. Nature. Retrieved 26 May 2018.) Almanacer Almanacer (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is there no content on the vernix and the recent research regarding its presence in aquatic mammals? I searched the archives but I couldn't find anything on point. I'm pretty certain Morgan mentions it specifically in The Descent of the Child.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

“evidence for human traits which have evolved in parallel to the aquatic adaptation of marine mammals” that was worded very carefully, because this could be taken to mean aquatic ape theory or convergent evolution. What exactly did the source say?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I'm not sure I understand your distinction. A human trait that "evolved in parallel to" that of another animal is an example of convergent evolution. Such traits may or may not be germain to this topic. The source says the presence of the vernix "in a marine mammal supports the hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans." So, they appear to be saying it's both :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I moved the discussion to the section above. It’s definitely talking about AAH   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Scientifc Reports

The journal Scientific Reports really should not be used as a sole source for anything on any page in Wikipedia owing to the editorial philosophy which is essentially "accept all comers and find your friends to peer review your work". There had been earlier attempts to use an article published in a different, more prestigious and relevant journal, by Brenna which would have worked had he actually cited AAH. But he did not. Then he went to Scientific Reports where he could get away with being looser and being more provocative with his language (which is still couched, but certainly attempts to make claims which remain completely unfounded and uncited by others relevant to the subject of evolution). Wikipedia should not be in the business of reporting on this kind of gaming in articlespace. Best to leave it out of it. jps (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

See? Quoting the truth is suddenly sacrilege. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

ජපස Take it up with the Arbitration Committee, but until then, Scientific Reports is a legit publication and is fair game on Wikipedia. We can’t throw out an entire publication (especially the biggest megajournal) just because of one bad article (which they later corrected, and mind you, it was a dispute over a graphical display)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration committee? Huh? Anyway, the point is that this journal is not good enough editorial control for us to use a single paper to base an entire section. If you can find other sources where Brenna actually refers to AAH that aren't reviewed by AAH supporters (such as those on the editorial board of SR), I'd be pleased to learn of them. jps (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

to decide that an entire journal is full of crap and should never be used is a decision that should be made by the larger Wikipedia community, not by only you or all of us here in the talk page of AAH, which is the job of the Arbitration Committee. Your argument started as it didn’t use the exact words “Aquatic Ape Hypothesis”, then when we dealt with that you moved to saying all the journal publications are inside the pockets of bigger publications which are full of crap and we can’t trust anything they’re saying, then you said that the paper doesn’t cite any AAH proponents, and then we went over his use of Attenborough, and then you said that no one has made a similar connection with sea lion and human vernix caseosa, and then when I said it’s because no one looked at sea lion vernix caseosa before, you went back to the big conspiracy that scientific report and journal of comparative human biology can’t be trusted because they’re either a megajournal and megajournals are full of crap because they’re so big or they’re in the pockets of scheming publishers with no sense of dignity, and now you’re saying the entire peer review system is rigged over there. At first I thought CEngelbrecht2 was exaggerating but after seeing you will steadfastly refuse any information published in a sizable journal, I’m starting to agree that it’s getting ridiculous. You would never do this in any other article, or at least I hope not   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

"to decide that an entire journal is full of crap and should never be used..." is not what I'm arguing. Try reading my post again. jps (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Then say it again but in different words because "this journal is not good enough editorial control for us to use a single paper to base an entire section" translates to "it's full of crap" because if you can't use a source alone don't bother using it at all, and it's not gonna be a section, it's gonna be two sentences which I've written above   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

If you cannot understand my concern that a single paper from Scientific Reports isn't enough on which to base a section, I'm not sure what you want from me. If you would like to start a new discussion section to try to workshop two sentences (where are you intending on putting them?), be my guest. As I intimated above, you have a lot of original research not supported by independent sources that you seem to want to include. jps (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

If you conducted this type of censorship on articles about, say, Darwinian evolution, you would be stopped immediately. But because water and human evolution has been arrogantly stigmatized for decades, here you get away with it. Congratulations on your successful rape of inconvenient truths. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You are the only person I have ever seen say that Scientific Reports is unusable. The apparent lack of 'editorial control' is just one article and about a single graphic that had absolutely no bearing on the factual accuracy of the article which they later took down, and some retractions following investigations. You can't unilaterally decide an entire journal is not reputable, so if you want to say that we can't take Scientific Reports at its word, you need to take it up with the Arbitration Committee. Until we get a consensus from the greater community, your concerns about its reputability are just that, yours, and yours only   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't said that Scientific Reports is unusable. Please try to keep up. With the concerns expressed over things published in Scientific Reports, it is only natural for us to look for corroborating publications. You haven't identified any others. Please find some. jps (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think you’re keeping up either. No one else has looked at sea lion vernix caseosa, therefore, no one else will talk about sea lion vernix caseosa. Because of its obscurity, it’s unlikely anyone else will look at sea lion vernix caseosa in the foreseeable future, and you can’t hide behind a wall of I-think-we-should-wait-until-a-journal-that’s-actually-good-publishes-something-like-this, and you most certainly can’t exclude it for being too trivial or too stupid to put in. At this point, you’re just fishing for excuses to exclude, so unless you can come up with a real reason, please stop   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to include a sentence or two about the sea lion research with a variety of sources that would explain the more expansive claims. But you have proposed to keep these statements in while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge issues with the factual nature of the statements about evolutionary implications in the article. Why is that? jps (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You are making it up. Out of sheer irritation that this idea can't be denied. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And then what? What's your next excuse for keep denying scientific truth? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A warzone

Ten years down, and this article is still a warzone. New relevant studies are still censored away. People are not to supposed to know about studies into vernix caseosa or surfer's ear in Homo erectus, 'cause past human aquaticism is to stay a laughing matter for all eternity. It's a disgrace that Wiki's standards can't protect such a topic from malicious vandalism bent on keeping knowledge from general access.--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Although there is much I disagree with you on CEngelbrecht2 the following is very apt, but I also can see no way of improving this encyclopedia on this particular subject at the moment. “At the heart of science is an essential tension between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counter-intuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.” Carl Sagan

This talk page is here to try formulas and discuss ways of improving this article so how would we get the introduction of vernix caseosa (both positive and negative) back into the article? Edmund Patrick – confer 10:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Any and all edits, that doesn't scream the knee-jerk assumption, that any version of aquaticism in recent hominin evolution is psychotic lunacy gets deleted within hours as a matter of course. It's the only "pseudoscientific" idea I know of, where it isn't necessary to present what it's talking about. "When the great innovation appears, it will almost certainly be in a muddled, incomplete and confusing form. To the discoverer, it will only be half understood; to every one else, it will be a mystery. For any speculation which does not at first glance look crazy, there is no hope." (Freeman Dyson) --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

it’s very simple, you go “This is what the aquatic ape theory says...” and then you go “however, this is what the scientific consensus is...” it really isn’t as complicated as you guys are making it out to be   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If you keep track of this article, it's not even allowed to do that. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If only the please look through the back history for a clearer picture. Edmund Patrick – confer 17:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I still don’t see the problem, there’s absolutely no reason why it shouldn’t be that simple. I just keep seeing people say “it’s not that simple, end statement.” The biggest thing I’m seeing is people saying sources that support the theory are unreliable which is the most twisted logic I’ve ever heard of   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77, Edmund Patrick, and CEngelbrecht2: This topic is probably one of the most problematic there is. I would recommend proposing changes here before editing the article itself. One problem is the nature of the topic itself. It is not a theory regarding the cause of cancer, or some other Medical question. There is no way to recreate the origins of our species in a lab. It's difficult to imagine a dispositive scientific discovery that would settle the matter. We should all keep that in mind when we edit the article. :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It’s not like you have to phrase it as “this is what happened,” you just have to phrase it as “this is what the theory says” as you should with really anything. You still have to present what the theory says even if it isn’t well supported (so long as you’re clear it’s not well supported)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's the very issue on this topic: You can't present the theory as not well supported. You can't list a proposed argument and then list the rebuttal that's supposed to null it, 'cause the extremely few rebuttals that have been presented for some strange reason are grotesquely weak. That's why the rebuttals still aren't being presented by anyone, 'cause none of them can null the strongest arguments, even though they all "know" it's still nuts. From that, you'd might be forgiven being very confused as to why the concept of water and human evolution is still so obviously wrong. But what can you do against this very strong, decades old sociological expectation for the idea of human aquaticism to be completely nuts, simply because it was the "wrong" people that pursued it way back when. Faced with that tiny "plebs" issue, it quite clearly doesn't matter if it is nuts or not. And any outsiders are left to still assume that it's wrong, even though no one can answer why it's wrong, 'cause that's what you've been told to do. That's why you don't need to read the best arguments in a place like this, 'cause then you'd risk stop laughing at it, which is what you're supposed to do. You're not to supposed to read such banned volumes and draw your own conclusion, if a concept just happens to be an inconvenient truth for an established segment of Academia. Who really cares what human origin actually was?

This is a very strange pseudoscientific idea, I agree. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Case in point: This section was deleted just now. And the reason given was that it was "offensive."

Newborn baby immediately after birth, covered in vernix

Vernix caseosa

A 2016 research programme conducted by Tom Brenna (then at Cornell University), with the help of Judy St Leger at San Diego Seaworld, compared the chemistry of vernix on human neonates and samples of a vernix-like substance on California Sealion pups. They established that its molecular composition is comparable to human vernix, being rich in both branch chain fatty acids (BCFAs) and squalene. They conclude their findings add to the evidence for human traits which have evolved in parallel to the aquatic adaptation of marine mammals.

The only thing offensive about it is that it's perfectly reasonable science. And it isn't supposed to be, if it dares to support this "pseudoscientific" idea. 'Cause you all "know," that the idea is wrong. You don't know why, and you're not supposed to know why. That's why censorship on this article is perfectly admissable and quite clearly preferred. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree, that really shouldn't have been reverted. The study specifically says "Its presence in a marine mammal supports the hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans" so it directly references aquatic ape hypothesis. @ජපස: why exactly did you delete this?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

As for your reversions of, "Most of the criticisms of Langdon have been refuted," and, " This hypothesis was in itself criticised in a 2012 article in the Journal of Human Evolution," I'd agree those statements are POV, but it really called for rewording like "In 2012, [credentials] Mario Vaneechoutte refuted this by saying/in response said/etc." Honestly, all I'm seeing in this article is a lack of communication and cooperation for seemingly simple problems. There's absolutely no reason why there should be so much warring when the only problem evident is wording   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the sources intentionally do not mention the aquatic ape hypothesis and cite none of the literature from the champions of the subject, and, apart from the Atteborough program, there is no way to connect Brenna's publications yet to this page. He is being intentionally coy. Also, the Vaneechoutte reference is to a source that is impeached above. In short, this really brings nothing new to the table. jps (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

ජපස "the hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans" is exactly the same as "aquatic ape hypothesis". To exclude it is POV. If we operated like a court of law, that argument would still not hold. As for Vaneechoutte, Mvaneech, if you want it in there, you have to put it as "proponents of this hypothesis say that..." and then talk about Langdon and the current scientific consensus. As for it's reliability, I don't know much about Bentham, but his response was also published by Journal of Comparative Human Biology, doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2012.09.003, so, so long as we don't try to use it to say "this is why AAH is true" (which is effectively what you were doing before which is why it was reverted), it should be fine to use   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The Journal of Comparative Human Biology is a pocket journal that publishes AAH papers because the editor-in-chief's POV skews as such. So, no, I don't think the "he said/she said" here is appropriate at all. We're not in a court of law. We're at Wikipedia, and if Brenna cannot be bothered to cite ONE AAH proponent in his paper, then it is dishonest for us to connect those papers to AAH. jps (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Does David Attenborough count as a proponent, because Brenna cites Waterside Ape. It’s dishonest of us to try to pretend this paper isn’t relevant at all to AAH   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, let's try to contextualize this. The Scientific Reports publication isn't subject to the peer-review that would be required to properly contextualize these farcical claims. No one pays attention to the kind of out-on-a-limb arguments in Scientific Reports because of this. Look at the complete lack of citations! The proper articles Brenna has published on vernix caseosa do not cite AAH at all. See the problem? Wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting shoddy research done by AAH proponents in game-y open access journals. jps (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Consider, for a moment, that an author can make a conclusion that no one else has made before because, say, no one else has done anything like this before. Do you know of any other study that looks at marine mammal Vernix Caseosa? There aren't any, so no one would have been able to say anything about it. Making a conclusion isn't anything to be shamed on and the hope is you wouldn't do anything like this on any article, and Scientific Reports is indeed a reliable source. You can't throw out every journal publication that brings evidence to AAH especially on an article about AAH because you believe any publication who would do that must be full of conspiracies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which discuss marine mammals vernix caseosa. It is silly that you think that there aren't. Did you even try to look for them? (Here's a random example: [1].) jps (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The source you just gave says “pulmonary vernix caseosa” which is very different, and yes, I did look it up. It’s found only in humans and, this just in, sea lions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Please, how is it "very different"? I just looked through a huge number of sources and I can't find any explanation as to its difference. jps (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

do you know what “pulmonary” means?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

See what I mean? Censorship, that's the only word for it. These are banned volumes as from the days of Copernicus and Galileo. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please stop trying to get Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Convince your AAH-believing brethren to publish in journals with impact factors that break 1.0 and have editors who aren't fellow travelers. jps (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That link states: "on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." And when it is reported in both mainstream media and reputable publishing houses, and still gets censored out in here? Look at that deleted section above. That was in Nature. It's not "offensive", and it's not "unrelated". Its crime is to not confirm an abused idea is nuts. And then we are not to hear about it, and any nonsensical excuse for its censorship is fine. Because it's a Copernican idea. Half a century later. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It was manifestly not in Nature (journal). It is published by the same people, but in an open access journal called Scientific Reports which is about as poor-quality as you can get in the game of things that claim peer review (one step above predatory publishing, actually, and Nature publishing group have been criticized on such places as Retraction Watch). jps (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You have to be joking, it is the largest megajournal for 2 years running, you mean to tell me we have to throw them all out now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

As the only source for an entire section? Absolutely. I have no problem using papers from Scientific Reports that are widely cited or discussed by others, but it clearly has editorial control problems in part because is so mammoth (and, worse, it is likely so mammoth because of some editorial control problems). jps (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

So then how are you deciding when to throw out articles? And a discussion on vernix caseosa should be a sentence or two at most, like "The vernix caseosae of humans were once thought to be unique, but has now been demonstrated to be similar to that of the California sea lion in a 2018 study. According to the study, the high levels of branched chain fatty acids (BCFAs) in sea lions–and thereby humans–may be an adaptation to defend against the pathogen-heavy (compared to a savanna) shore environment, and the high levels of squalene are typically only seen in animals where the skin is often wet," and then if you can find a study that talks about the function of the vernix caseosa in humans, throw it in if it pertains to this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

We aren't "throwing out articles", we are looking for sources for Wikipedia content and the proposed paper (the only source being asked for us to consider here) is not particularly good because it is published in a megajournal and doesn't seem to have any serious editorial notice. I also think the second sentence you propose is original research speculation. jps (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I just skimmed over it and wrote that as an example, but for the actual thing it'd be, "The vernix caseosa was once thought to be unique to newborn humans, but has now been demonstrated to be present on California sea lion pups in a 2018 study. According to the study, the vernix caseosa has high levels of branched chain fatty acids (BCFAs) and squalene, and in sea lions, BCFAs may be an adaptation to defend against the pathogen-heavy (compared to a savanna) shore environment, and the high levels of squalene–both in the vernix caseosa and skin secretions–are typically only seen in animals that live in a damp environment."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a source for the claim that the vernix caseosa was "once thought to be unique to newborn humans". That needs to be verified independently. The claim that BCFAs "may be an adaptation" would need to be acknowledged by third party sources for it to be relevant. The claim that squalene is only seen in animals in a "damp environment" would need to be verified as well -- especially for newborns that come from aquatic environments in wombs and eggs. In short, not a good draft at all. jps (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's the Scientific Reports article, it literally starts out with "Vernix caseosa, the white waxy coating found on newborn human skin, is thought to be a uniquely human substance," there can't be another source that says anything about sea lion vernix caseosae because no one's looked at sea lion vernix caseosae, and "Early authors investigating sebum lipid classes observed that squalene is only found in animals that inhabit a 'damp environment' suggesting a function for squalene in skin lipids of mammals whose surface is often wet." Have you actually read the article?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Can you find any corroboration of claims such as "it was once thought unique to humans"? It's not in the citations in the paper and I pointed out another paper that mentions a vernix caseosa on a non-human animal, so where is the evidence that anyone thought it was unique to humans? The article makes expansive claims that are not found elsewhere (yes, I've read the article -- it's terrible!). jps (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Pardon the digresion, but isn't Donghao Wang the lead author of the study at issue? Why are we calling it the Brenna article? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Because Wang is not connected to AAH so this would be irrelevant for our matters here. Brenna is the AAH connection. jps (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@ජපස: I took a look at Retraction Watch's posts on Scientific Reports, per your comment. I don't think it supports the rejection of this particular article. It is still a peer-reviewed publication. The fact that there were issues raised with some other articles (issues that appear to have been addressed) shouldn't render it unusable in its entirety. Unless such a determination comes from a larger community consensus or the ArbCom. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, best practices are not to write sections based on a single article published in a megajournal. Find a better source or couch the connection in a better fashion. jps (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And then what will be your next excuse? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Workshopping a mention of Brenna

Alright, let's get down to business here. First of all, Brenna once claimed that he got interested in this subject because of Attenborough's program, I believe he must be referring to Scars of Evolution from 2005 where the vernix caseosa on harbor seals was first suggested, though he may have listened to a rebroadcast. In any case, documentary evidence shows he has been associated with the AAH crowd since at least 2010. [2] This puts his research firmly in the camp of the others outlined.

Now, the next question is how to approach the next discussion.

Tom Brenna, professor of pediatrics whose primary research focuses on fats and oils and fatty acids, led a team that collaborated with Judy St Leger at San Diego Seaworld to compare the chemistry of vernix on human neonates and samples of a vernix-like substance on California Sealion pups. They established that the molecular composition is comparable to human vernix, being rich in both branch chain fatty acids (BCFAs) and squalene.

I think I can live with this inclusion. How about everyone else?

jps (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, except the lead author, according to the source, is not Brenna. Is there a source that says he led the team? Am I missing something here? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it is somewhat normal for medical papers to have the leader of the team to be the last author. In this case, it is pretty clear to me that Brenna is the one connecting the researchers, and he is the corresponding author. jps (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct, it's by Dong Hao Wang, who seems to have done a lot of stuff with lipids and BCFA's. Also, you should really give his discussion on the function of BCFA's and squalene. Also, "vernix-like substance" is OR as the source specifically describes it as a "true vernix caseosa"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The function of BCFAs and squalene are debatable. It is unclear to me how someone can make a determination of what is a "true vernix caseosa" and what is not. Can you explain how they came to the determination that is was true? jps (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

we’re not here to right what you might perceive as great wrongs, we’re here to synthesize what the experts have said, not read what they say and say “I think I’ll only believe these sentences over here and omit the rest” which is blatant OR   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, we're not here to synthesize, really. jps (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I meant summarize, and give Wang some credit, the man's been researching and publishing papers on lipids and fats for some time now, he's allowed to be taken seriously on what he makes of the purpose of BCFA's and squalene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable bringing Brenna's student into this article. While I can verify that Brenna is a member of the AAH caucus, this is the only paper that Wang has written that seems to be in line with this and I haven't seen other indications that he was inspired by AAH to write this work. jps (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You have to be joking, I thought we already established this, "the hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans" is AAH. There is absolutely no other alternate way to understand this, and he cites AAH works, like Attenborough's Waterside Ape, so if there's any doubt in your head that he's not talking about AAH, you're being paranoid, and you're fishing for excuses   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Brenna is the PI and Wang was his student. I am worried about the WP:BLP implications of connecting Wang to the AAH community as he is a student and not a PI. I've been able to verify Brenna's voluntary association with AAH. It could be that Wang doesn't mind the association, but I'm uncomfortable with Wikipedia explicitly naming a young researcher in the text of an article that is WP:FRINGE with no other mention of him in the entire encyclopedia. jps (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is that even a problem? It’s his study, so credit him on it. He’s listed as an author of the study, so, therefore, has already declared that he supports everything said in it. You’re fishing for excuses   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If you think that a student necessarily supports everything that's written in a paper that their PI puts in, I don't know what to say. I promise you I'm not fishing for excuses here. I simply think that we shouldn't use his name in the article text of this particular fringe article. I have no problem linking to the article. There are even possible venues where mentioning his name in Wikipedia text can be done with less WP:BLP concern. The article on vernix caseosa, for example. jps (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do we even need to mention his name? Just say "a 2018 study"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think mentioning Brenna's name is okay as it helps to contextualize the AAH-connection which is the key part to this section (researchers inspired by AAH doing related research). I wouldn't mind a sentence that explains the claimed Attenborough inspiration. jps (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

E.g.

Intrigued by an observation reported by Attenborough in his 2002 radio documentary Scars of Evolution, that harbor seals were born with something that resembled human vernix caseosa, Tom Brenna, professor of pediatrics whose primary research focuses on fats, oils, and fatty acids, led a team that collaborated with Judy St Leger at San Diego Seaworld to compare the chemistry of human vernix and samples from California sea lion pups. They established that the molecular composition of both vernix is similar, being rich in branched chain fatty acids and squalene.

How's that?

jps (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we're getting there. But here's a rewrite which includes the key finding of the Brenna et al research which should surely be included:

Intrigued by an observation reported by Attenborough in his 2002 radio documentary Scars of Evolution, that harbor seals were born with something that resembled human vernix caseosa, Tom Brenna, professor of pediatrics whose primary research focuses on fats, oils, and fatty acids, led a team that collaborated with Judy St Leger at San Diego Seaworld to compare the chemistry of human vernix and samples from California sea lion pups. In research which demonstrates for the first time that vernix caseosa is not unique to homo sapiens, they established that the molecular composition of seal-lion vernix is comparable to human vernix, being rich in branched chain fatty acids and squalene.

Almanacer (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I cannot verify that this is the first time that non-human vernix was shown. In particular, here is a source from the 1930s that reports that chimpanzees have a vernix caseosa: [3] jps (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

More recent and hence more reliable source. See also Brenna's citation in support.

Singh G, Archana G. Unraveling the mystery of vernix caseosa. Indian J Dermatol [serial online] 2008 [cited 2019 Feb 13];53:54-60. Available from: http://www.e-ijd.org/text.asp?2008/53/2/54/41645

"According to present knowledge, vernix production is unique to human" Almanacer (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears that the categorical statement is simply false, or at least both Brenna's group and the group writing for the Indian Journal of Dermatology missed this earlier citation. Maybe neither group did the appropriate literature search? That's neither here nor there, but there is clearly a source from the 1930s discussing vernix caseosa on a chimpanzee. jps (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This is an intriguing enough case of whether verifiability is satisfied that I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Errors/mistakes_in_reliable_sources. jps (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources which provide evidence from the molecular analysis of the substance are the one's to rely on here rather than a non-specialist's implausible account from decades old anthropological field work. You need to come up with examples of the former if you want to call the Brenna claim in to question. Almanacer (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Pardon? Yerkes and Elder were not doing anthropologial field work. They, competent biologists and certainly specialists, reported an observation. If there is a standard by which molecular analysis is the only way to identify vernix caseosa, I have not found it referenced in Brenna's work nor anywhere else. jps (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm fairly certain that the dichotomy is the result of an arbitrary change to the commonly held definition of "vernix caseosa" over the years; prior to the 1960's, it seems to be used to refer to skin surface lipids in newborns of multiple species. But after that point, it seems to be specifically used to refer to human newborn skin surface lipids. See my last comment at the RSN discussion for a more complete answer. Of course, this answer is OR and I do not endorse mentioning it in the article. But it explains how Yerkes and Elder could have observed vernix in chimps, yet Hao et. al. "discovered" the first example in a non-human. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, then, I would say that this line about the claimed discovery certainly does not bear mentioning in this article. What to do about the article on vernix caseosa is an entirely separate matter, of course. Have fun not originally researching, MPants! jps (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my thoughts are to exclude that line, as well. As for the rest of the mention, honestly, without seeing research establishing the existence of a vernix analogue in other marine mammals, I don't see this as particularly relevant unless the Hao e. al. source explicitly mentions the AAH. If it does, then we can add it here. If not, then I think it's WP:OR for us to cite it here (though we can certainly cite it over at Vernix caseosa). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

it very specifically says, “Its presence in a marine mammal supports the hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

And I very specifically said "if it [mentions the AAH], then we can add it here." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

there's no other hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans, but if you're so uncertain, we can email the author for clarification if it really comes down to it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Jesus dude, stop being so defensive. I was agreeing that we could add the mention. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The paper cites both of Attenborough's AAH radio programs as well as the Crawford and Cunnane papers. I suppose it's not surprising that they avoid mention of Morgan and Hardy. jps (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm just saying if we're not sure what the guy said we can ask him   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's already in the article, and nobody's trying to remove it, so I think we're good here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Catch-22

I mentioned it before, but as it still seems relevant I will mention it again, the editors 'guarding' this article operate a Catch-22 policy. Papers that mention and overtly support the AAH are inadmissible because the AAH is a 'fringe theory'. 'Mainstream papers' that could be employed in support of the AAH are inadmissible because they may not overtly state that their findings are applicable to the AAH. A classic catch-22 situation. Urselius (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually agree that it is a Catch-22 scenario, but the policy extends way beyond this article into the WP:PAG of Wikipedia itself. Therefore, this is not something we're going to solve at this talkpage. It is a problem that AAH proponents have to solve outside of Wikipedia or, if you prefer, start a discussion about it at WP:RSN, for example. Remember, too, though that someone will probably tell you to re-read WP:RGW. jps (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"the whale"

"He pointed to humans' lack of body hair as being analogous to the same lack seen in certain other marine mammals, such as the whale and the hippopotamus"

"The" whale? Which one? There is no such thing as "the whale". Please change to "He pointed to humans' lack of body hair as being analogous to the same lack seen in certain other marine mammals, such as whales and the hippopotamus". --Khajidha (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"The Japanese are resilient." "The car is useful." The plus singular noun is a (rather pretentious) way of talking about generalities.

There are also two hippo species. I disagree that this is at all confusing. Further, saying something like "other marine mammals" implies that humans are marine mammals which they are not. jps (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say the average reader will know they mean "whale" as in the type of animal.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying it's even worse than I thought on first read. Recommend changing to "He pointed to humans' lack of body hair as being analogous to the same lack seen in whales and hippopotamuses". --Khajidha (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer "He pointed to humans' lack of body hair as being analogous to the lack of body hair in whales and hippopotamuses." I don't think hippos are generally considered a marine mammal. jps (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I caught that and left it out of my last suggestion. --Khajidha (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It bears pointing out, yet again, that we editors have no standing to evaluate the scientific nature of the comments issued by reliable sources. We only evaluate them as fringe theories. Tl;dr: leave the science to the scientists. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

...Okay. But I think we have an edit here that we all agree upon. jps (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

We should say what he says, if he says "marine mammals, such as the whale and the hippopotamus" so should we. I think we need a quote here so as to avoid us second guessing what a source meant.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and dig up a quote if you think it better. I think it's silly. jps (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not have access to any of those sources, but if there are doubts as to what he said (or if what he said is correct) we need a quote. What we should not do is alter what he said to better fit what we think is correct.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any doubts about the sentence we agreed to above and am willing to implement it once protection expires tomorrow. If you have doubts, feel free to propose some alternate wording involving quotes. You can use WP:Resource request if you can't get access. I have read these sources some time back and am confident we are being true to them. jps (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If the sources show that he actually said "marine mammals, such as the whale and the hippopotamus", then we REALLY shouldn't be relying on him as a source. --Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring over lead

Edit warring over the lead by Alexbrn is a seriously unwelcome development for this article given its controversial nature. The protocols on removal of content specify: "If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal." WP:RVREASONS and should be adhered to. The allegations he makes in his edit summaries regarding the long established content he seeks to remove are baseless. Almanacer (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What edit warring, I see 3 (2 non consecutive) edits by him this month, and 1 by you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Also WP:RVREASONS is a mere essay, whereas WP:V is a policy - and no, we're not going to inject stuff into the lede that misrepresents the cited source. (Add: and Almanacer is at it again[4] - have notified them that DS apply in this area). Alexbrn (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC); amended 11:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This phrasing being continuously edit warred out of the lede by user Alexbrn:

Though much of the mainstream academic community ignored or derided the initial proposal, a small group of academics in the last 15 years have undertaken research programmes linked to the AAH.

References

As Alexbrn states in two of his removals of the lede.

"Novel source in lede, and thr source does NOT SAY THIS anyway"

"Rv. naughty to make stuff up"

You can read the source yourselves and draw your own conclusions as to whether the above summary is misrepresentative:

http://static.squarespace.com/static/504273a6e4b0b97fe5a6a1e6/t/52a5f6b2e4b0525f9c3acbce/1386608306279/Milam-2013-Dunking%20the%20Tarzanists.pdf

I sincerely doubt, that Alexbrn has actually read it him/herself.

--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It needs attribution as it is one source. Moreover it lack important context (such as most of them are not anthropologists, or even biologists). Also what is this source, a book, a magazine, what is its provenance?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, we can add this one to the same paragraph:

https://www.crcpress.com/The-Waterside-Ape-An-Alternative-Account-of-Human-Evolution/Evans/p/book/9780367145484

--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What does it say? Also is it even an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Is De revolutionibus an RS? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What has that to do with anything?Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It's just strange, how so many sources on this topic are still only one source. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What? Where has that been said?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You did, just now, 14:08. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree that the sentence implies that AAH is garnering actual scientific rapport and was unfairly derided, and both of these statements are false   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Okay, why not suggest different Ledes? Remember that - as the lede is a short summary of the body of the article, we cannot say anything that isn't in the body of the article. And strong statements require strong (if not stronger) references. I would advise stop arguing about who did what and confine the issue to the article. Present potential ledes (and their supporting documentation) below. That way, we can work collaboratively to a consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It has just proven impossible over the years to reach consensus on this article, because you can't summarize this idea without the neutral reader suddenly stop laughing at it. And they're supposed to laugh at it. On this one topic, Nullius in Verba doesn't apply. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The lede "The hypothesis remains highly controversial and is generally more popular with the lay public than with scientists; it is generally ignored by anthropologists", that seems to be to sum it up nicely. It does not say it is totally ignored, just mostly ignored.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

And it's not necessary to point out that significant studies have taken place in. People don't need to ever know that. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

later decades? one source for that sentence is from 2014, the other 2012.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Right, 'cause you censor out all the other sources. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, I am not going to try and not be sarcastic. Which source from 2020 have you presented? as to be a decade after 2014 it would have to be at least one published in 2020.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Good day - axe handle? What are we doing here? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Well I am saying we already cover the fact that most anthropologists and non lay persons have ignored this (and thus by implication some have not). That this (in fact) reflects the situation as it was when this source "Dunking the Tarzanists. Elaine Morgan and the Aquatic Ape theory" was published. Thus nothing needs to change. That this is unlikely to have changed over the last decade.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

So, so.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98 (2016)

https://www.crcpress.com/The-Waterside-Ape-An-Alternative-Account-of-Human-Evolution/Evans/p/book/9780367145484 (2019)

Just off the top of me head.--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

None of those contradict the claim that its "generally ignored by anthropologists". In fact the disputed edit does not say anything that contradicts it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The edit is not trying to. It just summarizes, that aquatic studies are taking place, despite all the derision and ignorance. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Well lets see. As it stood when this was first posted three was one source, published in 2013, thus could not have been a source for "last 15 years", nor (as far as I can tell) does it say that there have been "research programmes linked to the AAH". It says one academic said there should be more study, and one paper that said that sea foraging may have helped humans become bipedal (which is not what AAH claims). Thus I would suggest (based on that source) the claim is undue. I am unable to verify what your two new sources say. So can you provide a summary or quote of the text you think supports the edit?Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The foreword in Evans 2019 is plenty:

https://books.google.se/books?id=hTS

I can ooDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22The+Waterside+Ape:+An+Alternative+Account+of+Human+Evolution%22&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3rKSjgoPlAhWKepoKHVshCYEQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Waterside%20Ape%3A%20An%20Alternative%20Account%20of%20Human%20Evolution%22&f=false

--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to quote it, as I cannot find where it mentions any new studies over the past 5 or so years that would be classed as academic (apart from the book it is a forward to).Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)nly put the telescope in front of you, Your Holiness, if you're not gonna look into it, I can't help you.

If you're feeling lasy, foreword pages xiii and xiv is enough. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Its not laziness, I cannot see any. So I am asking you to provide one example.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

https://books.google.se/books?id=hTSoDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=da&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Sabotaging the link. Real mature. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That looks like an edit conflict (If you care too look there was a bizarre text moving), and you have still not provided one quote. I would also suggest lay of the PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

>SIGH< Euh-kay...

"In 2004, Elaine said that she thought that within 10 years AAT would be 'over the cusp' and in the mainstream of evolutionary anthropology. That was certainly the case in terms of public support and, with this pivotal book, Peter Rhys-Evans has pushed the weight of evidence well beyond the tipping point. [...] I thought I had pretty much kept abreast of research relevant to AAT, but I found more than a dozen astonishing facts that were completely new to me in this invaluable reference work. I also found a number of new, as yet untested hypotheses, including an exciting and very credible mechanism for the evolution of the descended larynx. These will, I'm sure, result in many more revelations in the future. There has never been a better time to be an evolutionary anthropologist." ("The Waterside Ape: An Alternative Account of Human Evolution", Peter H. Rhys Evans 2019, foreword by Gareth Morgan, page xiv.)

Anything else? It's real hard to assume good faith. I know it's still heresy to actually read these banned volumes and form your own opinion. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes something that supports "small group of academics in the last 15 years", not "since 2004 Peter Rhys-Evans".Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

-

• What do other encyclopedias say ?? H. James Birx (2006). Encyclopedia of Anthropology. SAGE. p. 227. ISBN 978-0-7619-3029-7....yup 40 years of nothing!!!--Moxy 🍁 16:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Jim Moore??? You don't mind the opinions of that amateur? Because he says what you want to hear?

Just like people chastising Elaine Morgan's contributions about beach apes of human origin for being the pathetic fancies of a feminist playwright... while being fine quoting Robert Ardrey the playwright talking merrily about the skull splitting males of human origin. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Now we've got Almanacer, with an explicit bad faith agenda, trying to edit-war material into the lede which is (a) not in the body and (b) misrepresenting the source. This is bad. Alexbrn (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You're just disgusted, that independent researchers are indeed ignoring the command of the fraternity cardinals, conducting heretical studies into this beach ape concept. Why won't they just let you keep censoring this inconvenient truth? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What's the next item on your agenda? Deleting that four line quote by Alister Hardy from 1960, that doesn't make it all sound crazy? Delete any mention of iodine and the hominin brain? Y'all have done this in years past. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Better to WP:FOC. We're not going to misrepresent sources and disregard the WP:PAGs to promote nonsense, however much advocates wish it. If you want to promote this stuff maybe start a blog, or try Wikiversity or something? Alexbrn (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There you go, "to promote nonsense", enough said. You know, that the Earth is the center of the Universe, no damn way you'll look into that damn telescope.

What's bad is how many years Wiki have letten y'all get away with censoring one of the most important ideas of our time. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's the problem from what I'm seeing: the only information relevant is what the author says about how AAH works, whereas the part you're focusing on is how shocked the author is about the fringe status of AAH   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

No, my problem is, that this article is apparently not supposed to relay, what the idea is about. We all know it's nuts and pseudoscience, but every time you summarize the idea, it just doesn't look insane. And we all know, it's supposed to look insane, therefore we obivously can't relay what the idea is about, and we have to turn the article into gobbledygook. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, somebody told me a big fat lie around junior high; that we can't possibly repeat the atrocity of 1632 against Galileo, 'cause now we have the scientific method. The treatment of this idea just collides with a feeling of utter betrayal by my elders, 'cause they quite clearly ignore their own scientific method, whenever the next incovenient truth hits them personally. Sure, nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature ... unless the fraternity cardinals don't feel like it. Thrasymachus was right, and y'all can keep urinating on your own giants. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not the situation at all. Take the passage, "Though much of the mainstream academic community ignored or derided the initial proposal, a small group of academics in the last 15 years have undertaken research programmes linked to the AAH," that you want in the article so badly. What exactly does this tell me about how AAH works? Exactly nothing. It's just "AAH deserves more respect"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Almanacer's edit[5] is also misrepresenting the source which says nothing about "research programmes" and cannot possibly tell us about "the last fifteen years" since it it over six years old. What is more ledes (per WP:LEDE) are meant to summarize material that already exists in the article body - where this content would be poor in any case. Add on top deletion of the fact that AAH "is generally ignored by anthropologists" and a grammar error and we have something which is in every way a bad WP:PROFRINGE edit. Alexbrn (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am going to advise everyone to calm down. There is a lot of namecalling and accusations of bad faith. Focus on the edits, and not the editor.

In the interest of clarity, each person here please present - concisely, please - the problem in a single, short paragraph. No more, no less. And no attacks. Just give it a try, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

see above[6]. Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources presented seem to support "a small group of academics in the last 15 years have undertaken research programmes linked to the AAH". They may support different text, but no alternative has been presented for us to discuss.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem in sum is edit warring (accompanied by PAs “bad faith”, “making stuff up”) over content removed from the lead without consensus viz: "Though much of the mainstream academic community ignored or derided the initial proposal, a small group of academics in the last 15 years have undertaken research programmes linked to the AAH” and deemed unacceptable because, to quote the edit summary “Ledes can only summarize content which appears in the body”. This objection is transparently in bizarre denial of the content of the article which covers scientific research explicitly linked to the AAH in the section of the article on “Related academic and independent research”. As for other objections, the time frame of “15 years” can be replaced with “last decades” as per the body text; the objection to the phrase “ scientific research programmes “ is trivial; it is a description of normal scientific work as mentioned in the citation and covered in the above mentioned section of the article. Almanacer (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding new content needs consensus, not removing it. But the objection is that is was undue because the bulk of "supporting studies" are not from experts in the field, whereas the bulk of experts in the field have rejected the theory. Yet despite this the support gets paragraph and the rejection get a line (as we give the early proponents a vast amount of space in the lede, thus the whole lede would need a re-write for balance if we add yet more claim of support). Moreover I am not sure the body does support "in the last 15 years", as I am having trouble finding any mention of supporting studies carried out in the last 15.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that it is perfectly fair to point out that the wording should not say or imply that the studies conducted by AAH proponents necessarily support AAH. What I think is verifiable is that a) proponents of AAH have conducted studies because of their interest in AAH and b) these studies have been published in various venues, but c) there is no evidence that anyone outside the AAH proponent community thinks these studies actually support AAH. How to illustrate that is not easy to do in a simple summative statement. jps (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no mention of “support” or “supporting studies” in the wording. It refers to research “linked” to AAH. Since an entire section of the article is given over to such research, mentioning it in the lead is fully consistent with WP:LEAD. And to repeat what I’ve already stated, reference to “the last 15 years” can be replaced with verbatim from the body viz. “last decades”; in fact either wordings correspond to the dates of most of the research papers in the “Related academic and independent research” section. Almanacer (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's not make stuff up. This kind of the stuff is undue WP:PROFRINGE puffery and per WP:RELTIME we can't be unclear about time periods. It's not going in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Mention of the scientific work covered in the article section on “Related academic and independent research” merits inclusion in the Lead as per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. I’m glad you have now taken the trouble to read the article, generally a good idea before contributing here, and are no longer objecting to the content on the ground that “Ledes can only summarize content which appears in the body”. Try reading the section more closely and you will find all the content is cited to academic publishers of books and journals whose editorial teams and peer reviewers provide the judgements on which WP depends on to determine reliability and relevance of content. As opposed, that is, to individual editor’s POVs on what constitutes “puffery” fringe material or anything else. Hurling around defamatory remarks about established scientists and attempting to portray their work as pseudoscience to the detriment of their reputation could get you and, more importantly, WP into serious trouble: “a defamatory claim is actionable” WP:BLP. All the research papers are clearly dated - WP:RELTIME is a non-issue.Almanacer (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

That is one of the most pathetic WP:CRYBLPs I've seen! Now that's it been established that the material you were trying to get into the lede is bogus, I think we're done. The outcome is positive in that at least we have some article improvement. From RS it's clear that the book was closed on the AAH a while ago and it remains as a crank science rump for True Believers. Wikipedia needs to be clear about that, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Well at least we can see where’re you’re coming from with this stream of denigration and personal insult allied to repeated baseless objections to substantive reliably sourced content and contempt for peer reviewed science. And as stated there is a point where your denigration has tipped over with the pseudoscience accusation and other comments into defamation of accredited scientific work to the detriment of the reputations of the scientists who undertake it as well as the reputation of WP - a matter that will be pursued elsewhere in due course. The deny, remove and denigrate strategy you employ no doubt relies on the assumption your tendentious contrarian posturing however transparently fraudulent ( eg “novel to the lede”, “fails WP:V”, etc.) will not be matched to the rebuttals which contradict them with the same persistence as you continue to ignore them. How long it will work remains to be seen. Almanacer (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• The article already includes cited statements that:

-The AAH is rejected by the scientific community.

-That it has been described by a professional member of a relevant field as equal to creationism in terms of plausibility.

-That it has been labelled pseudoscience by professional members of relevant fields.

The lede summarizes the body, plain and simple. I can't find source- or policy-based consensus on this page to exclude the description of AAH as pseudoscience from the lede. Even if there were a brief moment where its supporters had a circle-jerk while people who understand that WP:PSCI is policy were somewhere else, that doesn't mean it's consensus.

Now, I will grant that I might personally think that this idea is not as loony as most other forms of pseudoscience, but anyone can see that it's still clearly rejected and not without reason. Even if ten years from now AAH becomes mainstream anthropology, Wikipedia is especially conservative when it comes to science. Whether research is being conducted or not means nothing, as Parapsychology gets plenty of research programs. What is needed are professionally-published mainstream academic sources (from the relevant fields) which explain the hypothesis as plausible or credible, written by individuals who are not seeking any sort of credit for proving it -- proof that uninvolved academics who would know better see AAH as having merit. We don't actually cite De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in Heliocentrism so comparisons to Galileo and Copernicus are just pointless indirect attacks that only make their speaker come across as yet another egotistical fringe-advocate. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A bit of history

The offending sentence in the lede was workshopped for a time to allow for a summary of the final section of the article. I am a bit uncomfortable with the final section of the article as I have always been because it seems a bit overdone in comparison to the actual notability of these researchers. There are some problems with citogenesis and back-scratching, but this is elucidated rather well in Milam's chapter on the subject, I would say. How we indicate this is another matter. The wording that was cobbled together back when MPants was mediating was basically to point out that (a) there were AAH-inspired people doing (b) work they try to publish in various venues (including some rather dubious ones) and they are (c) generally ignored but for their champions like Attenborough and the other academics and academic-adjacents. Nevertheless, I think it reasonable to let people know that such work does get published here and there. How exactly to WP:WEIGHT this, however, is not something I pretend to know. I defer to those pointing out issues with sourcing above, but am happy to help if I can. jps (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

For all those complex systems, Wiki still can't protect this topic.

I don't know what would be worse, if the vandalism and censorship comes from soldiers of creationism, or misguided voices of free science. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you think the "wiki" should "protect" this topic. Surely, you've been around long enough to understand now that this is not going to happen here. If protection is your goal, you ought to try a different website. jps (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let me put it this way: In 2016, David Attenborough did his infamed radio special for BBC, summarizing the latest years' developments about aquatic apes, waterside apes, etc. The day after, several paleoanthropologists came out in the press, thoroughly denouncing Attenborough for being 'irrelevant'. Damage control, that's what it was. "Sorry David Attenborough, We Didn't Evolve from 'Aquatic Apes'" was the headline from PAs Alice Roberts and Mark Maslin. Then, as they were pushed for further, it quickly turned out that Roberts and Maslin ... hadn't even heard the radio special in question! They couldn't even be bothered! As soon as it's Elaine Morgan, they do not have to read up! Nullius in Verba does not apply!

That is how this idea is being treated! At the least art historians actually read The Da Vinci Code, before they tell us, that Dan Brown is full of shit! Tell me, how there isn't something completely wrong here??? For decades!

And I'm a complete pseudolunatic for calling it out? For feeling a deep sense of injustice against Elaine Morgan? Where do you think I get the analogies with Galileo and them cardinals from? PAs are deeply corrupted here and not worthy of being called scientists! --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Mecum omnes plangite. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

-

Some busybody: Well, what about, for instance, the presentation about Vernix caseosa in newborn human babies versus in harbour seal cups? How can that be the "stuff of creationism"--?

Maslin: I don't know anything about that. I can't speak to Vernix caseosa.

B: Well, just based on the radio piece with Attenborough--

M: I haven't heard that radio piece.

B: [--] Beg your pardon? You haven't heard it?

M: I haven't heard it.

B: You didn't hear the radio piece, you're rejecting so thoroughly the day after it aired???

M: I'm sorry, I don't have any more time for this.

-

That's not an exact transcript, but it's the gist of it. This is what's going on! --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You are arguing with the wrong group of people. If you think that these think pieces in response to Attenborough should be retracted, you need to contact the publishers. If they retract the pieces, I guarantee Wikipedia editors will sit up and pay attention. jps (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2: the wiki strikes back

Look, all the flowery rhetoric is nice and all, but we aren't here to argue the merits of the hypothesis.
That bears repeating:
We are not here to argue whether the AAH is valid or poppycock. None of us here are anthropologists; even if we were, our opinion as editors has no bearing on the article. Full stop.

It has been pointed out that the current lede represents the current state of the body of the article. Is that a fair assesment? If I could trouble you all, please answer yes or no, below. Do try to limit any statement as to the motives of others out. Stick to the facts. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• The current lede is fine as is. jps (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Try this:

Alternative lede

Newborns float and hold their breath instinctively when submerged. This is argued to be one of many aquatic adaptations by proponents of the aquatic ape hypothesis. A female gorilla wades across a body of water. Observed bipedalism in many simian species in shallow water is argued as illustrative of the origin of human bipedalism. The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH), also referred to as aquatic ape theory (AAT) and more recently the waterside model, is the idea that the ancestors of modern humans were more aquatic in the past. The hypothesis in its present form was proposed by the marine biologist Alister Hardy in 1960 who argued that a branch of apes was forced by competition from life in the trees to hunt for food such as shellfish on the sea shore and that this explained many characteristics such as man's upright posture. This proposal was noticed by Elaine Morgan, a script writer, who objected to the male image of the "mighty hunter" being presented in popular anthropological works by Raymond Dart, Desmond Morris and others. Whilst her 1972 book The Descent of Woman was very popular with the public, it attracted no attention from scientists, who saw no way of testing assertions about soft body parts and human habits in the distant past. Morgan removed the feminist polemic in several later books, and her ideas were discussed at a 1987 conference devoted to the idea. Her 1990 book Scars of Evolution received some favorable reviews, but the thesis was subject to scathing criticism from the anthropologist John Langdon in 1997 who characterized it as an "umbrella hypothesis" because while advocates for AAH argue it explains a lot, the hypothesis is not more parsimonious than simply rejecting the hypothesis. Since around 2000, one corollary of the hypothesis has received some support within the scientific community: that at some point in the last five million years humans became dependent on essential fatty acids and iodine, which are found in abundance in aquatic resources. Efficient function of the human brain requires these nutrients. In recent years, another observation gaining ground centers on observing aural exostoses in fossilized Homo erectus specimens, necessitating extensive aquatic activity for early Homo. The entirety of the "aquatic ape" proposal remains highly controversial, and is more popular with the lay public than with scientists. References

--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

NO, as it give undue weight to a few studies, and largely ignores the bulk of "scientist" who oppose it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, like whom? What bulk of scientists who opposes it? Apart from John Langdon's "umbrella hypothesis" rebuttal from 1997 (don't know why the theory of evolution isn't an umbrella hypothesis, but never mind that now), there's actually very little rejection in official litterature. I only know of personal blogs and a few op-eds in the daily press to burn Attenborough at the stakes. Official academic litterature is loaded with official rejections of Bigfoot, ancient astronauts or Dan Brown, but when it comes to these beach apes, the crickets are deafening. The experts have almost never gone on record to tell us, why oh why Elaine Morgan was such a drivelin' lunatic. It's almost as if they don't dare to, 'cause they know they can't make it stick. Everyone assumes it's refuted anyway, even though they don't quite know why.

That's why it's almost impossible to balance out the lead with this assumed mass rejection of AAH. 'Cause there's almost nothing in official print to source it with.

"One of the reasons, I think, for an early hostility to it, was purely a feeling that, 'Well, why didn’t one of us come up with that? If it was true, one of us would have come up with it first.' It was a kind of incredulity almost, that this outsider could produce this theory which seemed to pull so many threads together. But there was also a feeling that they were all glancing around the room, feeling, 'Well, I can’t personally think of the knock down argument, but surely one of you can.' And there was the thing that, 'Which one of us is it that has got the knock down argument?' And it gradually became apparent that none of them had the knock down argument!"

- Graham Richards, Scars of Evolution, BBC Radio 4, 2005

--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You right of course, as we say they have ignored it, which still means we give undue weight to a fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, then go ahead and delete the entire article! Then there's no point in even having it! Let's just mimic Academia's reponse to it! --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, this is the first time you've offered an actual way forward that is within the bounds of what it is possible to do at Wikipedia. If you think there is a strong case to be made to delete this article, feel free to file WP:AfD. jps (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Alternative lede 2
Following the stand of contemporary academic science, this idea does not exist! Do not write anything about it! Doing so risks ban to your Wikipedia account!

• There is nothing worth considering here. The originally researched illustrations, the text written from the WP:FRINGE POV, and the essential POV-pushing nature of the text is a non-starter. jps (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I was actually trying. Desperately. But there's nothing official in the litterature to quote from. No one wants to say flat out, what's so obviously stupid about it. Langdon is still the only one, and his is an incredibly weak rejection. We all know AAH is being fiercely rejected by the academic establishment, but no one wants to say why. Personally, I know why they can't say why. 'Cause the big boys just can't say flat out, that they're disgusted that some grandma armchair scientist got the better of all their fraternity degrees. How dare that peasant have a point? Who cares if we're old beach apes? Elaine Morgan's not supposed to be right!

That's why you panic at a genuine summary of what's going on again and again. 'Cause you've all been told this is laughable pseudoscience. You know it is! But a genuine summary just can't carry that over. And the pseudo part is supposed to be in there. We're supposed to laugh at this. Where is the stuff I'm supposed to laugh at? This presentation makes perfect sense! Something is wrong! I know these lunatics believe in mermaids, and there's nothing about mermaids or sea monkeys here! Elaine Morgan must have believed in them mermaids, that's all I was ever told about this! Who the hell cares, what she actually wrote, I need those lies confirmed! --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There isn't any reason for us to argue with you about the situation. The sources are what they are, the state of the field is what it is. As we've tried to explain to you for years, Wikipedia is simply not set-up to do what you want to do. As you rightly point out, the subject is on the whole ignored by the mainstream and to the extent that we can talk about it, the discussion is haphazard and treated as a second thought rather than someone looking carefully into it. We have a number of sources which explain this state of affairs anyway. It may very well be as you say, but without serious sources that can make this case, our hands are tied here. You need to go encourage the creation of sources that are of the quality and provenance that we use in Wikipedia articles in general before you can effect the change you want to see here. jps (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

At this point in time, the vast majority of sources in the peer-reviewed litterature are supportive of aquaticism in human evolution. Only one is speaking officially against it.

Bingo. That should make it very easy to finally compose a balanced summary of all this hooplah. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There isn't enough cited to independent sources for us to follow that lede. You need to encourage the field to cite it. Then we'll pay attention. Right now, it's a WP:Walled garden. jps (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Alfred Wegener was a joke for fifty years. No geologist dared to pursure the fancies of that pathetic wheatherman speaking out of office. Academic careers were destroyed for trying. His was an inconvenient truth, too.

All the headway hasn't come from PAs, complacent with presenting every single African hominoid as another hominin. It had to be outsiders again. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Have you read Right great wrongs? It has cleary been shown to you before. There is absolutely nothing we can do about the situation outside of Wikipedia. You are clearly mad with PAs, but Wikipedia is not a venue of PAs. jps (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope, RGW is also completely new to me.

What would Wikipedia circa 1950 have done about Alfred Wegener's nonsense about floating continents? Are you telling me, it would be perfectly reasonable to just not list his baloney about matching coastlines of Africa and South America? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps best to see what academics think of your argument Association fallacy#Galileo Gambit.--16:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia ca. 1950 would have not hailed Wegener as the insightful scientist he turned out to be in hindsight and would have only discussed his opinions inasmuch as they were noticed by independent sources who, absolutely, were generally detractors. That's just the way it is. If you think there should be a different way of setting up the website, you either need to propose changes to our model at the policy level or start a different reference work. jps (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This will be my last word on this matter, as we are going round in circles (at best). I oppose any edit to the lead that gives undue weight to claims this is being taken more seriously, when it is clear that academia largely ignore it. This is not some call to delete this page (and I have argued long and hard that all fringe topics deserve articles, its what I want to come here to read about. That however does not mean (nor should we) give the impression that fringe views are not fringe views, or do anything that implies any kind of mainstream acceptance. THus I have not choice then to say I oppose any change to the lead unless I say otherwise.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is gobbledygook. And it is, because this fringe concept is caught in a grotesque limbo of being historically assumed to be nonsense, while more and more PR research confirms, that it never was. That is what the article should be summarizing. Wikipedia fails in its objective on this one. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"Objectivity" is not the name of the game. WP:NPOV with respect to WP:V WP:RS is. You are fighting this battle in the wrong place. jps (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess I have completely misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. It was never meant for information, but for indoctrination. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Six of one/half a dozen of the other? I'm surprised it took you this many years to understand. The point is that Wikipedia cannot be "objective" because it is crowd-sourced. If we named CEngelbrecht2 the editor-in-chief, you would clean things up in short order, no doubt. But that's not how things work here. So the community, such that it is, cobbled together a set of rules that looks at what the sources in the outside world say (and offers a few guides for how to evaluate them for independence and reliability) and simply summarizes the status quo. If you are opposed to the status quo, this makes Wikipedia feel like it's in opposition to you. The way to fix that is to change the status quo. It's a conservative (in an information science and epistemological sense) reference work. jps (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You know what status quo is on this? That paleoanthropology just don't have a case against Elaine Morgan, and never had. And now the entire field is stuck in most likely realizing it, but they can't admit dishonourable defeat to somebody from outside their fraternity. That it has to be researchers from other natural scientific fields other than paleoanthropology having to do their job, doing the research they are supposed to be doing. And making more and more headway doing it.

And, fair enough, I wouldn't know how the hell to summarize that. 'Cause it's such a grotesque situation. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel like the status quo is so grotesque, but Wikipedia simply isn't the place to fix it. If you think it should be, you can propose to alter our policies and guidelines accordingly, but I would suggest actually fighting this battle in places where you can effect change where our policies currently ask us to pay attention to--at the level of attributable publications. jps (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to let people know, CEngelbrecht2 is currently indefinitely blocked so may be unable to participate in this discussion further. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Can we condense this into one place now, its hard to follow where someone said something.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing on Shell Middens

Shell Middens are found in coastal or lakeshore zones all over the world.

Once upon a time there was a huge discussion on this subject promoted by AAH advocates. Problem is, there isn't much in the way of WP:Independent sources which connect these to AAH as a salient feature of the argument. Part of the problem is the disconnect between AAH and anti-AAH straw horses. AAH proponents claim that anti-AAH refuse to accept any evidence that humans were near water. The pooh-pooh-ers characterize the AAH proponents as simply looking for any water-association in anthro/acheao as evidence. We're left in the middle looking for sources which offer enough analysis so our readers can understand the context in a WP:NPOV fashion that is duly WP:WEIGHTed by WP:MAINSTREAM analysis. Not an easy task. jps (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The oldest shell midden is from Blombos Cave so it doesn't really have any bearing at all on AAH   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Tuomisto, Tuomisto, and Tuomisto study

As was already said at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#AAH (permalink)

the paper has no independent citations outside the AAH citogenesis community, this is also a social science paper published in a journal that is not dedicated to social science. -- ජපස

Having read the paper, the study's results and its conclusions are wildly out of whack. The results throw a huge number of "hypotheses" at the respondents and ask them to "rate the credibility of 51 alternative hypotheses that have been proposed to explain their evolutionary origin (such as freeing the hands for tool use or seeing over tall grass)". The analysis then groups all the AAH traits into a large group called "other" and says that the credibility of that aggregate group is rated as highly as some of the individual parts of the Bipedalism or Encephalization groups. This is not science in any actual sense of the word. The large number of items surveyed and hopelessly muddled analysis and really dodgy credibility scores render the whole thing meaningless. Of the three related authors (siblings?), one works on tropical rainforest plant communities, one works on experimental psychology, and one organic pollutants; none work on human evolution. On top of all that, the Discussion doesn't actually say what the editor was trying to get it to say. There is no way that this can be included under any rational standard. -- Eggishorn

It doesn't take a scientist to tell that if you poll people with "which is better, A, B, C, or D?" you don't just add up B, C, and D against A and call it a day. You have to poll with "which is better, A or B+C+D?"

In short, that dog won't hunt, monsignor. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that the noticeboard article cited above starts by calling Ecology and Evolution an "out-of-the-way journal". According to its web page it's published by Wiley (one of the world's leading science publishers), it's peer reviewed, and it's supported by the British Ecological Society, the European Society for Evolutionary Biology and the Society for the Study of Evolution. To me, that sounds like a respectable scientific journal in a relevant field.

I am also puzzled about the claim that "the Discussion doesn't actually say what the editor was trying to get it to say". I did try to do an accurate summary of what the source said, but it is true that not all of the information came from the Discussion section of the paper, some came from the Results section. I would think that's allowed, however.

The justification for reverting my edits was "That study dishonestly lumps together the results of various AAH ideas against specific mainstream ones". Maybe I did not read the paper well enough, but I did not see comparisons like that. Instead, the comparisons were either between specific AAH ideas and specific mainstream ones, or between the average scores of groups of ideas (e.g. dryland vs. water-related).

The survey paper largely seems to confirm what many editors here have been saying all the time: hypotheses that swimming or diving have played a role in human evolution are not popular, and anthropologists are especially critical of them. Both of these points were included in my proposed edits of the AAH article. However, the survey study also reported that most scientists did not think that AAH is pseudoscience. Is this why the paper must be deprecated and cannot be cited? Now the wikipedia article gives a lot of weight to the claim that scientists do consider AAH to be pseudoscience -- based on a conference report which briefly mentions that someone said so in a talk, and a blog post that is more than 10 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricetus (talk • contribs) 21:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• The source is junk and should not be used per WP:FRIND. Alexbrn (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Bioko

There needs to be a consensus on the Talk page before a paragraph like this can be added. Thanks for commenting.

Bioko island postulated to be the aquatic location

Bizarre creatures sometimes evolve on islands, a phenomenon known as the island syndrome. Geology professor Allan Krill recently suggested that humans evolved by peripatric speciation on a barren volcanic island, in a scenario similar to that of the Galapagos Marine iguana. The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor may have accidentally rafted to proto-Bioko island of western Africa. As with the iguana, these arboreal animals may have been stranded with no forest foods, and their exclusively marine diet and semiaquatic habitat resulted in unique anatomical changes. Bioko has a rainy climate with neither strong sun nor cold nights, so body fur would not be as necessary there. Bioko has no large predators, so primates evolving into vulnerable humans could survive there without inventing weapons. Beaches on Bioko are visited by many sea turtles each night during much of the year, so turtle eggs and meat could have been shared by blubbery semiaquatic humans without tools or fire. Plentiful marine food may have supported large coastal populations, as with the marine iguana. Dense habitation may have led to self-domestication and Proto-Human language. Some hominins may have left Bioko and invented clothing, tools, and fire, that were necessary elsewhere. Because the warm humid climate of western Africa causes bones to decay rapidly, no mammal fossils have ever been reported from Bioko or any areas inhabited by chimpanzees or gorillas. Therefore there is no fossil evidence for chimpanzee or gorilla evolution, or for an early human presence on Bioko. If there was an average population of 10,000 semiaquatic humans on Bioko for 5 million years, this would be one billion people. The corpses of the 200 people who would have died each year could have been buried respectfully in the sea. Genetics might be able to test the Bioko hypothesis. Complementing the recent African origin of modern humans it seems possible that Neanderthals and early modern humans came directly from Bioko while it was connected to the mainland by a Pleistocene land bridge. Krillaa (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure the ideas of a man operating well outside his area of expertise should be included.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

that journal only appears to be interested in publishing these kinds of fringe ideas. It says it won't publish anything with actual empirical evidence, and to me it seems it's more of a creative writing journal than a scientific one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that relevant ideas, that have been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, are not qualified to include in a controversial topic that has been deemed to be ‘pseudoscience’? Isn’t the real problem that this paragraph shows the aquatic ape hypothesis to be both scientific and plausible? Dunkleosteus77, it seems to me that you are afraid of the aquatic ape hypothesis seeming plausible, because it challenges the 38 wikipedia articles about hominns that you have authored. Krillaa (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

See wp:fringe, and this is not even by an evolutionary biologist.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This is also not a place to be publicizing your own work (looking at your username I assume you're Mr. A. Krill?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The aquatic ape hypothesis is a fringe theory. On wikipedia it looks like pseudoscience because most of the actual evidence in support of it is not mentioned. No wikipedia reader would ever think that the aquatic ape hypothesis is a mainstream or orthodox theory There will be no confusion about this. I am trying to inform wilipedia readers that within the context of this fringe theory there is a plausible location. These testable ideas have been published in a mainstream scientific journal. You are trying to keep wikipedia readers from knowing about this location and this open-access science article, and there is no legitimate justification for hiding these facts. Krillaa (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

That is like saying "well yes I know the moon is not made out of green cheese, but I want to tell readers about what kind of green cheese it is". Sorry, but if the theory is fringe it does not matter where they did not evolve, as the scientific community says they did not evolve there. Nor (again) does it matter what a non-subject matter expert thinks. He (or is it you) is not a biologist.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, if you really think this comparison is intelligent, you should retire (again) as a wikipedia editor. Science knows exactly what the Moon is made of. Science has no idea about where in Africa humans were exposed to the selection pressures that caused them to evolve so differently than other primates. An average chimp is considerably stonger and can run much faster than anyone in the Olympics. Why? Why did humans lose their protective body hair and their long canine teeth, that all other primates still have? Do you have possible answers? Do you care? Krillaa (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Slater, I think your evidence here is flimsy beyond belief, and your arguments in support of your view are unconvincing and immature. Your source is an essay written by a Geologist (part of the problem with the AAH is that there are no anthropologists endorsing it) and published in one of the "Ideas in..." journals, which are technically peer-reviewed, but which states on it's about page that: ""IEE does not publish traditional review articles, or papers based primarily on experimental, data-driven studies." and which describes it's activities as "publish[ing] forum-style articles that develop New ideas or that involve original Commentaries on any topics within the broad domains of fundamental or applied ecology or evolution." (Emphasis in original)

So no, we're not going to include an entirely speculative essay by an author with absolutely no relevant credentials published in a journal that makes no effort to filter pseudoscience from science, provided it's written in sufficiently up-to-date jargon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Note they have admitted they are the author of this piece [[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That explains a lot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Krillaa: I happen to agree with you that there is a distinct possibility of the existance of an aquatic ape. One only has to look at (eg) coronovirus to see evolution writ large. But it is understandably a fringe theory and may well stay at that for the chances of fossils being found in a tidal zone that itself may not have existed for 100,000s of years must be very small. Science moves ever onwards (look at Plate tectonics) to see how even into the 1960s people backing such proposals were not appointed to various universities! Writing and having an article published (I believe the paper you reference is written by you, please correct me if I am wrong) but then not acknowledging that fact, or checking if such a reference is acceptable does nothing to further the case for the aquatic ape. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and as such should and must list the hypothesis and the informed / referenced thoughts of those that work in the field. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Speciation on Bioko is an alternative paradigm that must be ignored (for now). It would mean «game over» for paleoanthroplogy as we know it. Krillaa (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't pretend that your argument isn't super arbitrary. If your entire idea is based solely on absence of evidence isn't evidence of absent, and any supporting evidence is inherently undiscoverable, I can pick any island I want and just say chimp fossils simply haven't been identified that far away yet, or make up an island which is now underwater and can't be discovered   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand that Geology isn't exactly a magnet for cranks, but surely, you have to have some experience with the sorts of people who publicly pronounce that "[my pet theory] means "game over" for [field of science]." Were any of them ever even remotely right? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, Flood geology. MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I literally had that in mind when I said that they have to have some experience with it. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

When third party RS decides it should not be ignored so do we. Until then it violates wP:fringe and wp:undue to include it.12:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

krillaa What? Edmund Patrick – confer 14:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There are three questions you are asking: 1. Why is an aquatic environment indicated? 2. Why is the island syndrome indicated? 3. Why is Bioko island indicated? I suggest that you read something by Elaine Morgan (free pdfs on AquaticApe.net) and then read my paper three times. And try thinking for youself, instead of waiting for reliable sources with conflicts of interest to consider this alternative paradigm. (If you can’t change your mind, how do you know you have one?) Krillaa (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

No, there is one, do wp:rs care about this. You do not have consensus, it is clear you do not and it is now time to wp:dropthestick.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks for commenting. Krillaa (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Human waterside evolution

This article "Aquatic Ape hypothesis" is strongly outdated. For recent views of human waterside evolution, google e.g. - "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo", - "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:89EF:3100:DC68:99AB:1C8A:E9F4 (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)