Talk:Savanna theory

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 August 4. The result of the discussion was keep.

Savanna theory received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Savanna theory redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

NPOV tag

I'm putting a NPOV label on this article because the author put way too much time refuting this theory, without displaying the prose and cons from both sides. Arbadihist 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. An aquatic ape supporter is not a suitable author for the opposing theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

internal inconsistency

This article has been flagged for NPOV due to author's pro-wet ape theory, but the Aquatic_Ape_Theory article has not. This is probably confusing to the reader.

The Aquatic Ape Theory article is balanced. The author makes a strong case for it, points out the criticisms, then rebuts those criticisms. This article (Savannah Theory) makes no case for the theory, then makes a strong case against it with no rebuttals. Regardless of the author's strongly biased orientation, the Savannah Theory has the most fossil evidence to support it, and (likely because of this) has the most support among anthropologists. This is just a badly written article. (Danaidh 01:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

What can be done?

This page is really appallingly bad. I don't know wikipedia well enough to know what can be done about this. It seems that there were attempts to bring it to the attention of the wikipedia community at large, but those attempts have obviously failed. And the article desperately needs revision. Not only because it's biased, but also because it contains next to no useful information about the theory at all.

I've been trying to research the topic so that I can improve upon the article, but it's quite a complicated issue, and I don't have the necessary background knowledge, nor valid sources. Actually, my limited research thus far seems to indicate that the term "Savanna Theory" is only used in context of the Aquatic Ape discussion, and not in discussion of human evolution in general. That is, when people discuss the theory, they do not refer to it as such. Additionally, it appears that the savanna itself is not playing as large a role in theories of human evolution as the article indicates. It appears, therefore, that this article is not only biased in its coverage of the material, but also a simply incorrect portrayal of the "conventional" or prevailing theory of evolution at the moment, or at least an incorrect portrayal of the savanna theory as the prevailing one.

Then again, I could be wrong about the above--I simply do not have the knowledge or resources to discern what the theory actually is, what it is called and by whom, and what role it plays in the anthropological and paleontological communities.

But I would love to find out more, and as Wikipedia would be an ideal way in which to compare the two theories, I beg someone with the ability to rewrite this article!

I know that I haven't really made a contribution here except to whine and ask for help, but the poor quality of this article has been bothering me all day.

Hi. You might want to read this article, which has a more scholarly view of human bipedalism origins. I agree, that savanna(h) theory is language not used by professionals researching the subject and that this article is a textbook example of a strawman argument. What can be done are a number of things. At first I was going to suggest a complete rewrite of the article, although as the term isn't really used, that may not be wise. A merge / redirct to Bipedalism might work. JPotter 06:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I do not think that this should be redirected to the bipedalism, as the bipedalism page is about far more than the savannah hypothesis or aquatic ape hypothesis. I think that the savannah hypothesis page should be merged with the aquatic ape hypothesis, as it is part of the aquatic ape hypotheisis argument. Alternatively it could be kept as a page and made clear that it is what the aquatic ape camp think is wrong with the other human evolution camps. I have removed the redirect. Nicolharper 11:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't describe the "savanah theory". It sets up a strawman in order to discredit terrestrial based ideas of the origins of bipedalism. JPotter 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I agree it is a strawman argument and needs altering in some way. I think that it should probably be merged with the aquatic ape hypothesis page, or renamed "criticisms of the savannah hypothesis". Redirecting to the biped page is one possibility, but I am not in favour of it for the reasons I gave above, and because that is essentially deletion, which is something I think is best avoided unless absolutely neccesary. Nicolharper 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered the introduction to make it clear what is meant by the savanna hypothesis. Nicolharper 16:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please enlighten me on wikipedia policy. I saw a candidate for deletion notice on this article which said 'please do not remove.' Unsure as to why it is okay for someone to put up such a notice, but not for another person to take it down, I deleted the deletion notice. Best to discuss such things in the discussion first, I think.

I agree that the article is poor quality and something needs doing about this, such as merging with the aquatic ape hypothesis page, or a substantial rewrite, or possibly deletion. It is also very biased and should be more balanced. However, the term savanna theory is only used from the perpective of aquatic ape theory, so any article on savanna theory will be biased, rather like any article called 'criticisms of christianity' will, and should, be dominated by arguments against christianity. I have tried to make this clear in the introduction. Nicolharper 11:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please do not remove the AfD notice Nicolharper, once an editor has nominated an aritcle for AfD (articles for deletion), the notice must stay up until tghe AfD process is complete (5 days). Removing the notice again will be considered vandalism. If you need further information on the AfD process, feel free to leave any questions on my talk page.--Isotope23 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On terminology

See this from New Scientist, 1991.--Pharos 03:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key sentence here is She sets up a false dichotomy between 'the aquatic theory' and 'the savannah theory,' Morgan's code name for other prevailing reconstructions of human evolution.--Pharos 04:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs serious rewrite

Some observations Fred Hsu 03:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to have been written to attack the Savanna Theory from the AAT perspective. I don't have an opinion one way or another, but the article is lacking in details of the Savanna theory, and contains way too much discussion about AAT.
Why doesn't the article mention anything about the hypothesis that by standing upright, the head is farther away from ground thus can remain cooler in the hot savanna? Is that not part of the theory?
The Bipedalism#Turn-over_pulse_hypothesis section seems to contain more information than this article itself?

Merge this article?

Since, as far as I can tell, only advocates of the aquatic ape hypothesis ever seem to mention "Savanna Theory," wouldn't it be better to merge this article with the aquatic ape hypothesis article? Woland37 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, I thought it was a bit weird to find so many references to the AAH on this page. WLU (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought maybe it would be better to simply delete this article and have a redirect to human evolution. Woland37 (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the terminology is only used in the AAH, it should be a merge and redirect to the AAH - redirecting to human evolution gives the impression that it's a mainstream idea in HE, when really it's a term used exclusively by proponents of the AAH. From what I understand anyway. WLU (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I would say that what they call "savana theory" is a mainstream idea, even if the version described by the wet apers is at best a caricature of the real idea. I mostly thought that people searching the term "savana theory," even if they got the term by reading something about AAH, would be looking for the mainstream concensus in regards to human evolution. I was also able to find a few non-AAH sources (popular science sources, nothing really scientific) that talk about "savana theory," which is why I thought that it would be better to redirect it to HE. I do understand your position though, I'm really not sure which is the best idea now. Woland37 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Support Merge JPotter (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried redirecting it to bipedalism at one point, but was denied JPotter (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect to Bipedalism#Humans would be a good interim solution, until someone finds time to write a full-blown Evolution of human bipedalism article.--Pharos (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be redirected. I think Bipedalism#Humans is fine. Fred Hsu (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of bipedalism, the page needs work and I lack the knowledge. Anyone want to kick at that can? WLU (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about giving it a try, it's finals week though so I'm a little busy. There is some weird wet ape stuff written in the 'Turn-over pulse hypothesis' section that needs some attention at the very least. Woland37 (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]