Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 8

Suggestion - new subsection - anthropological consensus on human evolution

I'm still trying to do something about this hopeless, negatively biased article. I propose to lead the section about the actual hypothesis/ses by summarizing the contemporary consensus on human evolution, as expressed by the scientific field of anthropology. This is to illustrate the background for Elaine Morgan's AAH, since she based her work on what she perceived as shortcomings to parts of that consensus, straw man arguments and whatnot. Whether we then further detail her challenging of this consensus in the following sections is for a different discussion. If you skeptics really desire an optimal, non-POV article detailing what the hell all this boohah is about, let's start with this, since it should contain the fewest controversies (unless creationists are also hanging out in here, which is not bloody unlikely the way things have been going).

Suggestion

Background - anthropological consensus on human evolution Family tree showing the extant hominoids: humans (genus Homo), chimpanzees and bonobos (genus Pan), gorillas (genus Gorilla), orangutans (genus Pongo), and gibbons (four genera of the family Hylobatidae: Hylobates, Hoolock, Nomascus, and Symphalangus). Great Rift Valley in East Africa, key to human evolution. File:Paranthropus on Plains art.jpg A classic depiction of the consensus on the earliest evolution of hominins in East Africa, here Paranthropus. See also: Human evolution Modern humans, Homo sapiens, developed from earlier forms found as fossils at various locations around the world, seeing an early concentration in East Africa. Other remnants from early humans such as tools, foods, dwellings, etc., have also been detected. Combined, these finds present a partial image of the process, that developed the species Homo sapiens. From the collective work of anthropology, and in later years also genetics, established consensus states, that humans belong in the biological tribe Hominini, this in the family of Hominidae (the great apes), this in the order of primates, this in the class of mammals. Humans are closely related to, in order of closest kinship, the great ape genera chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and further distant the family of gibbons. Hominini includes the subtribe Australopithecina with the genera Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Paranthropus, Australopithecines; and the subtribe Hominina, encompassing the genus Homo, some of its species being Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, the Neanderthals and modern humans, the latter being the only extant species. There is still some uncertainty about the interrelation between the known Hominin fossils; new finds can still drastically rewrite the human family tree, most recently with Sahelanthropus. Contemporary anthropology estimates, that the direct ancestors of modern humans split from a common ancestor to chimpanzees somewhere between 4 and 8 million years ago in Africa; the fossil ape Sahelanthropus tchadensis which lived some 7 million years ago in Chad is considered the earliest possible homininin. Since the breakthrough of Darwin and Wallace's theory of evolution in the 19th century, it has been debated why humans have features that distinguish them from their nearest evolutionary relatives; most notably by being near-furless, employing upright bipedal stance on their hind limbs, and having the perhaps most complex brain in the animal kingdom. A wide range of difficult to corroborate hypotheses have been presented as to the evolutionary background of the unique features of modern humans; for human bipedalism e.g. altered carrying behavior, improved energy efficiency, improved thermal regulation, altered social behavior and increased dominance behavior. The human split from the lineage of the chimpanzees is linked to the geological formation of the East African mountain range Great Rift Valley that extends from Djibouti to Mozambique. In this region are found many of the key fossils of the earliest hominins, leaving it to be considered the cradle of humanity. The most widely considered hypothesis is that woodland dwelling, brachiating hominoids, specifically on the eastern side of the mountain range, gradually lost their habitat to more open areas, for instance grasslands, and that this and other changes forced these hominoids to develop the shapes, that gradually resulted in modern humans. In recent decades, the traditional image of human origin having taken place in grasslands (e.g. the African savannah) has been challenged, since particularly the oldest homininin fossils are found alongside fossilized fauna and flora from traditional woodland habitats, rather than from grasslands, e.g. the some 4.4 million year old fossil Ardi, an Ardipithecus ramidus. References

signing (with falsified date to match the original conclusion of this discussion) for archiver. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:05, 3 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Redraft of AAH

Though the Rfc above is still open, Maunus has effectively closed it by acceding to the requests for removal of the Regal quote. So I’d like to ask what next.

This article is a mess, the typical result of warring factions on Wikipedia who can’t agree about anything and lay their stakes on something that can’t be instantly deleted. And it doesn’t properly represent the topic that it is supposed to be about. As an example, the largest part in the Proposals section is about Encephalization. Whilst this is the most important area of current research, it was a topic about which Elaine Morgan was consistently ambivalent about, initially preferring to credit it to neotony and never including it in the main chapter sequences in her books.

Since this article is about Morgan’s hypothesis, which remained relatively constant over the years, I think it should start with summarising what she actually said. The basic thesis is that water played an important part in human evolution, but it is argued by a series of plausible consequences, that Daniel Dennett has called adaptionist Just So stories. (Dennett ’95 p243-245 penguin edn) They may or may not be true and many of them will never be able to be independently verified or refuted. Langdon 97 compiled a list of 24 features but even his list has notable gaps: he never mentions babies for example; and such a list is unsuitable for the article.

There is still a place for modern water-related research in the article but it should be separated from Morgan’s claims since researchers unsurprisingly have varying reactions to Morgan. Many are apprehensive of being tainted with the AAH brush and it is only the old men whose positions are impregnable (sorry to be sexist) who have boldly come out in support.

If there is support for a redraft, how do we proceed? Bold editing will probably lead to endless edit wars, drafts on the talk page would be unmanageable. I suspect the only possible way is the sandbox, which can then be discussed on this page. I’m not sure which section of WP should be used. The only suitable place I can suggest is a subpage of my user area and I’d be happy for people to make non-contentious changes to that (with others taking place here).

What do people think? Is it necessary and does this sound a feasible approach? Chris55 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that the subject of the article breaks down into three reasonably separate sections: 1) Morgan's hypothesis, 2) the reaction to her ideas within academia and by the press and other non-academic agencies, and 3) more recent evidence that has some testable basis, which support a water/waterside phase in human evolution. In 1) and 2), it should be emphasised that hotly contested discussions were largely made without any real evidence, the furore being based largely on "gut-instinct" (scientists are not without bias in their views). However, 3) reflects scientifically valid evidence and a beginning in the objective testing of the theory and its predictions. Urselius (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Chris55 a good idea which hopefully will result in a real development and improvement of this article. I will start to re-read the book this week and assist where I can. One thing instantly springs to mind, a result of this may well lead to the necessity of the creation of the waterside ape theory page which is different from the AAT. In terms of a subpage this has worked for a few editors when we took a deep breath and restructured Matthew Hopkins transferring the whole article to a sandbox with <nowiki >at the beginning and obviously </nowiki> at the end. We found it useful as all wikilinks etc do not link (teaching grandmothers to suck eggs!) Edmund Patrick – confer 13:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you both for those suggestions. Separating the academic reaction from popular media is probably important so that discussion of mermaids isn't mixed with theoretical issues! I'm not so sure about the <nowiki> idea. When I tried it (easy to preview on the article without pressing the save button) I found the loss of sections and paragraphs more offputting than the inclusion of references which wasn't as distracting as I feared. This article is nearly 3 x the length of the current Matthew Hopkins article which shows it's a big job. Chris55 (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Good it was cumbersome, we had self appointed "protectors" of the Witchfinder General and all he stood for, that I doubt will occure here. Let the journey begin. Edmund Patrick – confer 05:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see myself getting involved in this (only here for the RFC) but I think the proposals sound good. Personally I have severe reservations on unconstructively anal application of OR and SYN strictures, so good luck in avoiding them as snares for your feet, because a worthwhile and balanced article would need a lot of evaluatory explanation and narration. JonRichfield (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Starting: I'm finally ready with the start of a redraft which can be found at User:Chris55/AAH2. Sorry it's taken so long. I have in fact only just managed to get a copy of The Descent of Woman from my local library, still more popular than the followups, but that's not the reason. Partly the delay came from trying to get a transcript of the Attenborough Radio 4 series online which seemed to me important as it's not easy to make references to a radio programme. I'm glad to say this is now available here. So those who have been unable to receive it can scan it rather more quickly.

I've also put the text of the current article at User:Chris55/AAH to act as a resource from which one can transfer text easily to the redraft. Please follow the instructions at the top of each page. Discussions relating to details of the redraft can be made at User talk:Chris55/AAH2. Chris55 (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Article redrafted

This article has had a POV headnote on it for 4 months. Following the discussions earlier on this page, I've now redrafted the article completely and it's available for inspection here. It's been entirely restructured and follows more closely normal Wikipedia style for this sort of article. Sorry it's taken so long but it involved reading quite a few books and many more scientific articles. I propose that it should replace the current article. Please read it carefully and indicate whether or not you agree with this. Chris55 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to look at it in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

apologies for the delay, 1st look reads well and I would support posting it and enabling others to add. Am impressive amount of work Edmund Patrick – confer 13:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Edmund. Maybe I should suggest to others to skip the first two sections (History and Hardy/Morgan hypothesis) which don't say much new, and look at the last two sections: Reactions and Waterside research, which is where the rewrite most differs from the current version, following others' suggestions on structuring. And of course there will be plenty of opportunity to improve the details. I've tried to be as neutral as I can. Chris55 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking very promising, indeed, and I agree it should go up as the article. I've made some small tweaks. Refs 8, 20, 21, 23, 24, 61, 68, and 70 do not point to any (Harvard) citation. Books and journals don't need accessdates. It looks as if initials are punctuated (Bloggs, J.) not (Bloggs J), by the way, I fixed quite a few. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for those corrections. A great help. I've fixed the Harvard citations. The fill-in boxes for citations are a great help but need tweaking in 2 places (ref=harv and removing unnecessary dates). Chris55 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've left it a week to give time for comments and there are no disagreements so I've posted the redrafted article. Enjoy. Chris55 (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chris,

Thank you for your very interesting redraft. Just a few comments:

1) The image you have chosen for the header, whilst it is cute, it is not actually of the Aquatic Ape Theory. I think it's highly unusual, if against Wikipaedia rules. to have a page with the main image as something not of the topic that the page is covering. For example, if you go to the theory of evolution page, you don't expect to see a picture of what it is NOT, like Lamarckism for example. A more appropriate image would be someone free diving, without any breathing equipment, such as this: [[1]]

• I've moved the image down. We have to use copyright-free images, so finding a lead is not easy, but will look at your suggestion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Chris, that seems more appropriate, I know it can be a challenge to find copyright-free images

I'm not Chris, 55 or otherwise! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

So sorry Chiswick Chap, my apologies!Aquapess (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

2) There has been some further removals of supportive evidence-based research from the list of biological features that support an aquatic era in human development. These include:

i) Sympathetic nervous control of finger wrinkling leading to improved grip in aquatic environments, much discussed on this page on a number of occasions, and also mentioned on the wikipaedia fingertip wrikling page. Please reinstate this passage which was actually previously approved by an anti-AAT wiki editor:

• Finger wrinkling:

  

  Finger and toe wrinkling is a response to wet conditions.

  Humans are the only great apes to show finger and toe pad wrinkling in response to exposure to wet conditions. One hypothesis that has been put forward is that wrinkled fingers are adaptive for grasping in wet conditions in the same way as tyre treads help to avoid slipping on the roads. However if it is such an adaption it could have evolved to cope with water in the environment rather than from having to spend time in it.

ii) The use of water birth is incorrectly mentioned as "recently rediscovered" - it has been in practice for many years and all major NHS maternity wards have birthing pools, and since 2007 have been part of the NICE guidelines (National Institute of Clinical Excellence https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg190/chapter/recommendations ; https://www.rcm.org.uk/sites/default/files/Immersion%20in%20Water%20%20for%20Labour%20and%20Birth_0.pdf) The benefits of water birth have been proven in pain reduction and diminished risk of perineal tears in the mother. The previous reference for this was replaced with one of Morgan in the early 1980s, I'm not sure why and it seems unusual and unscientific.

If changes in these areas could be made, we would be most grateful Aquapess (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Aquapess, thanks for your comments. As Chiswick Chap has noted, I didn't put the picture at the top of the article and agree it was a bit odd there. I hope the new one doesn't give to rise to more misapprehensions about humans being related to dolphins :) But the real problem is that I couldn't find any more appropriate picture in Wikimedia Commons. I haven't even been able to obtain a copyright-free picture of chimpanzees wading, though there are plenty of (copyright) pictures on the web.

About finger-wrinkling: I realise that this and other plausible physiological effects have been omitted from the redraft, but it wasn't something that Hardy or Morgan picked up on and there wasn't a suitable place to include it. There may be a place for another section covering other hypotheses. But at the moment it falls between two stools (Morgan's ideas and that for which there is scientific testing). The problem with plausible ideas for which there was no scientific evidence relating to the past was that they became targets for skeptics to knock the whole notion. Chris55 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

About water birth: in the 1980s, water birth was more novel for most people. Certainly it's becoming normal now, but we are dealing with an idea that was presented a long time ago. Chris55 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

References

The scientific article on which this news item is based is called "Are Wet-Induced Wrinkled Fingers Primate Rain Treads?" and includes a picture of the wrinkled fingers of a macaque monkey. So it's unclear to me that this is something distinctly human. Chris55 (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is a picture of a macaque monkey also, when the studies were done on humans, and the lack of information is unhelpful. However, in an interview with one of the lead authors (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110628/full/news.2011.388.html) it suggests that the macaques in question were likely to be hot-spring dwelling japanese macaques, which is interesting from an AAT point of view, because their lifestyle may have some parallels with the waterside ape hypothesis (ie. they are not full-time inhabitants of water-based environments, but nevertheless rely heavily on it).

The original fingertip section that was in the AAH page was a shortened version of what is on the fingertip page, and I think that the section there which has more references to more recent scientific research articles shows that the issue is relevant to humans that merits a mention on the AAH page. I think if it is paraphrased, it could be added to the "Evidence for a waterside context" section. I've copied and included it below for your convenience:

Fingertip wrinkling in water

Although a common phenomenon, the underlying functions and mechanism of fingertip wrinkling following immersion in water are relatively unexplored. Originally it was assumed that the wrinkles were simply the result of the skin swelling in water, but it is now understood that the furrows are caused by the blood vessels constricting due to signalling by the sympathetic nervous system in response to water exposure. One hypothesis for why this occurs, the “rain tread” hypothesis, posits that the wrinkles may help the fingers grip things when wet, possibly being an adaption from a time when humans dealt with rain and dew in forested primate habitats. A 2013 study supporting this hypothesis found that the wrinkled fingertips provided better handling of wet objects but gave no advantage for handling dry objects. However, a 2014 study attempting to reproduce these results was unable to demonstrate any improvement of handling wet objects with wrinkled fingertips.

I also think that in between "swimming" and "fat babies" there could be a section mentioning the infant swimming reflex. Whilst many mammals have a basic "dive reflex" involving bradycardia and vasoconstriction, as far as I'm aware, only human babies have a reflex where the glottis spontaneously closes, to reduce the risk of drowning. This reflex is usually lost at six months, but can be prolonged by training. Would it be possible to include something about this unique feature?Aquapess (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris, thanks for your reply. I read through your comments and also your previous thread explaining about why you wanted to redraft the page. I agree with a lot of your points, and I think that the previous page was a mish mash of arguments here and there which is not helpful or informative.

I understand your point that you felt that AAH was largely Morgan's theory, and that you've tried to make this page an illustration of her ideas, which I think you've done competently (and explains why you put her as a reference for the water birth, rather than NICE or RCCOG, and the fingertip wrinkling, as you've said above).

HOWEVER, the AAT hasn't remained static since Morgan, and there have been a lot of developments in terms of research since her books, not only the finger wrinkling research, but many mentioned by David Attenborough in his second BBC Radio 4 show recently. Many AAT supporters now believe a slightly modified version of Morgan's ideas, which are a result of a synthesis of new evidence since her initial works, including those mentioned above and by others on these threads. Some people jokingly/affectionately call this a "watered-down" view of the AAT, and is more like a water-side ape, since it is unlikely that humans ever had a 100 % solely water-based life. Some people call this the "Waterside Ape" theory, as was the title of Attenborough's show. The theory undoubtedly builds on Morgan's ideas, but as with all scientific theories, has responded to emerging evidence over the past 40 - 50 years when Morgan first started publicising the idea.

Therefore, my question is, if you would like to keep this page solely to describe ONLY Morgan's ideas, then does this mean that AAT/Waterside Ape supporters should/would be able to start a new wikipaedia page describing the current Waterside Ape theory? My feeling is that since the two topics are quite intertwined, there would be a lot of repetition between the two pages. However, this would free up the second page to summarise recent research, including those mentioned. What is the general consensus on this? Aquapess (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The article is already not limited to Morgan, and must not be. As you say, the Waterside ape version is closely intertwined with the older version, and is not really separable (we call that a FORK, and it's strongly deprecated), so I'd certainly agree that we must not create any "second article" on the same topic. The article is quite short and there are plenty of bits and bytes available, so if we need to say more on the Waterside ape, suitably sourced, we can and will do that in this article. We have however already relied heavily on fairly weak sources (Morgan, the BBC) for a scientific article: further detail should come from scientific sources, preferably review papers not primary research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Aquapess, I don't really understand your request. The final section (now called Evidence for a waterside context) is very much based on recent research which supports the basic ideas. If you look carefully at the references you'll see that it includes a transcription of the Attenborough series, as the original radio version is not available outside UK (it took me a little time!) In particular it is my (unconfirmed) understanding that it was David Attenborough who made the running on demonstrating that vernix caseosa is seen in other aquatic mammals. The name (AAT/AAH) has been questioned since 1998 when Tobias asked for an alternative, and "waterside" seems the only common factor: "waterside ape" & "waterside hypotheses" have both been used. I don't think it's the job of Wikipedia to decide, and it's not just about a radio programme. If there was a second article, why would anyone look for it? It would certainly be good if the supporters could make up their minds! Chris55 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, so sorry, I didn't get time to have a thorough read of all the changes you made, but I've had a look through now and I see that you have included a fair amount of the research mentioned in Attenborough's show. I appreciate that this must have taken some time, and the overall article is a vast improvement on the previous version. I've made another comment regarding the fingertip wrinkling above however.Aquapess (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The finger wrinkling is an odd case; it's been in and out of the article, and as Chris says it doesn't fit in easily. We must remain neutral - we can't put in every bit of possibly suggestive evidence to try to "prove" AAH, that would certainly be taking sides (WP:POV), and we don't have one: our position is simply that here is a theory that people stated different positions over, and here is what they argued. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Aquapess, I find it rather confusing when you invent new sections retrospectively and don't place comments in sequence. Please consider other users.

You've now added several other references for wrinkled fingers but they seem to cancel each other out and don't add any historical insights. (And references don't really work on talk pages.) You also refer to fat babies. You should be aware that Cunnane & Crawford have an entirely different explanation of fat babies to Morgan, although both of them relate to AAH. Morgan thinks it's to help them float: Cunnane & Crawford start from the staggering fact that 74% of the newborn's energy is taken by their brain to argue that the baby needs fat as an emergency energy supply. I find that rather compelling but it shows how difficult it is to relate physiological effects to evolutionary advantage. That's the main reason I've downplayed such arguments in the article. [see Cunnane, S.C. and Crawford, M.A. 2003. Survival of the fattest. Fat babies were the key to evolution of the large human brain. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 136A:17–26.] Chris55 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris, some fair points, I agree with the confusing format, but I was just following the interruptions as others had done to me - see comments arising between points 1 and 2 of my original comment above for example.

Also, very interesting comments about the baby fat, but I don't wish to debate the issue - what I was interested in adding is the glottis closure reflex in babies under 6 months after the baby fat sectionAquapess (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I agree it should be there in the Fat Babies section. Please add it with citations. The problem is with your "as far as I know". To go beyond being a guess or a hypothesis you have to eliminate the other possibilities. All mammals start in an aqueous environment and it's not until the amniotic sac (or equivalent) breaks that they start to use their lungs. Are humans different in the way they make that transition? I don't know and it would presumably take some tests on other species to establish it. It would be a brave experimenter that risks drowning baby chimps to find out! So whilst it's fine in the 'hypothesis' section it would take better citations to have it in the research section. Chris55 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris, yes it makes sense that you would have this reflex in the womb, the interesting thing about humans is that this persists for up to six months, much longer than any other infant reflexes, and with regular use, can be maintained beyond the six months, whereas if the reflex was solely to keep out amniotic fluid, one would imagine that it would disappear very quickly once outside the womb. However, I agree as well that it needs careful research with solid citations, so I will look into this and then suggest a passage later with reputable sources of information.Aquapess (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary graphic

Arguments proposed by Hardy/Morgan and other related works (reference list at bottom)

Great thanks to @Chris55: for the redraft, the current version looks much better and up to date.

I propose to add this summary graphic, perhaps near the section "Hardy/Morgan hypothesis". It includes more points than those listed, but all of the points can be traced back to the original proposal and other related published works (peer reviewed papers or edited volumes, see the reference list at the bottom of image). It could provide a clearer picture of the complex set of ideas, and surely we should emphasize in some way that, among these points only a minor subset have produced testable hypothesis (e.g. those mentioned in the "waterside context" section) while most others are either unsupported or remain to be tested as of today. Chakazul (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a fine wall poster, but it is perhaps markedly less suitable as a graphic in an article, where a single message needs to be conveyed in a small space (a single section or paragraph with a relevant illustration) rather than a complex message in a large space (not available on mobile devices, for example). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, I was trying to make an encyclopedic summary of the model, but maybe it's not the best format for use in wikipedia. One possibility is to chop it into several diagrams, but that will overwhelm the page Chakazul (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

An excellent piece of work, informative if a bit overwhelming! I love it and would happily use it in talks as a wall poster, not sure if it can transfer to a graphic on a computer screen, which is a shame, but chopping (seperating a better word) it would work if presented as image / text of image / reference to text. Just a thought. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with others in liking the graphics. But maybe it could be split up into small sections. One thing I find odd is the reference to the man's bald head. Alister Hardy has a lovely graphic in his original article (p643) suggesting why hair on the head is the major place left and it would be nice to see that (the original is copyright of course: I did approach New Scientist without any response. You could also annotate the swimming woman.) Also a picture of a chimp wading would be great. I haven't been able to find a free photo of one. Chris55 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If we are to use any of it, we'd need individual graphics elements with no text, or almost no text (generally best to have none, as other language Wikis don't specially want English; and text works very poorly on thumbnail images, best keep it to captions separate from the image). But not sure any of these images will work like that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments and I agree that separating it into several graphs with no text would better fit the wiki format. The text would be in the caption but that will make it very, very long. Or the points (as well as the references) could be added to the text proper, even better, listed/tabulated in a new section "Arguments from other proponents", but would it violate WP:DUEWEIGHT by presenting too much arguments (most are speculations)?

@Chris55: Yes there are different arguments about the scalp hair, one that it remained for blocking sunlight according to Hardy (see the left side of "head & upper body"), one that the long hair in females for infants to cling on according to Morgan, and that the bald head in males for further streamlining as argued by Verhaegen. These lead to some proponents think that males would have engaged more in diving and females more in floating/swimming. Chakazul (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Censoring the topic

This article has a very weird history. Every time some one dares to describe what it's talking about, it will be a matter of days, before someone will remove everything pertinent, under random false pretences. Somehow, with this particular "pseudoscientific" idea, people are not supposed to be told, what it's actually suggesting. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

To describe "what it's talking about", the article must use reliable, independent secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary work meant to reflect accepted knowledge about a topic. It is not an ersatz secondary work giving an exposition of fringe theories based on primary sources from their proponents. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, false pretences. That's not what this is about. It's a very weird phenomenon to observe. A lot of people have been told for decades that this entire topic is pseudoscience, so that's what they expect to read at a place like this. But if you would make a balanced encyclopedic presentation on what all the hubbub is about, you just can't get that point across. And instead of thinking that maybe they misunderstood the whole thing, people go into a state panic. "This can't be right! I know this is pseudo!" And the only outcome is that people start hacking away at random, still desperately trying to censor the topic away, if not only subconsciously.

It's so dreadful to anticipate the worst of human psychology, and be proven right. You look at a rewrite and go, "Well, this is at least a bit closer to what's been talked about all along. I wonder how long it will take this time, before the book burning starts?" And in this case... a fortnight. This has been going on for years now on this article. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Remember to WP:FOC. Commenting on other editors is disruptive. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions and disruptive behaviour is likely to attract editing restrictions. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Before I get thrown back into the dungeon by people who doesn't care what the truth is, let me quote P. K. Dick: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." So we would be an old beach ape, so what? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As soon as you have reliable sources supporting your claims (and I can't really see what they are, here) you have good grounds to update the article. If you have no sources describing this hypothesis as a mainstream scientific opinion, your rambling above is moot. I strongly suggest you adhere to WP:AGF (and WP:FOC) and refrain from personal attacks. Kleuske (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleting Dan Dennett? A specialized natural scientific philosopher? "He doesn't say what I want to hear! I need an excuse for burning his book! He's a philosopher, it's perfect! Begone!"

You all know what's going on here. Do take note as to how long it will take for every notion of Phillip Tobias stating this isn't an unreasonable idea is censored away, too. We are being dictated the truth on this topic. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Cite me some of Dennett's published work on evolutionary biology, please. I (being quite the fan of Dennett) had been under the impression that he was a philosopher. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"Darwin's Dangerous Idea"??? How 'bout that? I quote Dennett:

"During the last few years, when I have found myself in the company of distinguished biologists, evolutionary theorists, paleo-anthropologists, and other experts, I have often asked them just to tell me, please, exactly why Elaine Morgan must be wrong about the aquatic ape theory. I haven't yet had a reply worth mentioning, aside from those who admit, with a twinkle in their eyes, that they have often wondered the same thing." (ISBN 0-684-82471-X, p. 244)

Of course, this extremely relevant quote was censored out of this article yesterday, so how could you know of its existence? You're not supposed to know. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Which journal of evolutionary biology was that published in? Seriously, the fact that you can't distinguish between a specific science and the philosophy of science (with a focus on epistemology and ethics) really doesn't help your case any. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. Now excuse me, I'm off to remove all Wikipedia's references to On the Origin of Species. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck not getting blocked over that one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, mate, I've spend all my patience for human stupidity a long time ago. I still fail to see how in the hell this perfectly reasonable splash-splash idea can be so brutalized by people claiming to adhere to Darwinian consensus. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not WP's problem. You want to promote this theory? Get a degree in biology and start working on finding evidence for it. But arguing here is just going to get you banned from editing. Also, complaining about human stupidity when you don't get your way is an even quicker way to get blocked. You want to know something? I think this is a wonderfully nifty theory. I find it fascinating, with broad explanatory power. But I'm not going to use my own personal beliefs to inform the way I edit this project because I'm smart enough to know I will quickly get blocked if I do. I suggest you try to be that smart, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

My only beef is that Wiki can't or won't prevent this article from being censored. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE for in-depth explanation of why material you support is being removed. Also, wikipedia is not censored. And a personal tip: editors who cry "censorship!" when they don't get their way don't last long, and don't get any respect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Then there's no issue with the sources currently being censored out of the article. Except for one little problem: They don't say what is being expected of them to say — That. The. Aquatic. Ape. Hypothesis. Is. Nuts. Thrasymachus was right. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Ignore my advice. See how far that gets you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Just tell me, how and when this article will stop being sabotaged with Wiki's tacit. Why on Wiki is it so much easier for a fringe theory that's blatantly wrong to be allowed to list what it's actually suggesting than one of the rare ones, that are on to something? That is so bloody ridiculous. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the whole "Hardy/Morgan hypothesis" section was deleted. Even if AAH is totally wrong, surely it has to be properly described so the readers could know what's wrong? I don't see why secondary sources are required for such a plain description of the original thesis. Compare to "Gaia hypothesis" and "Cold fusion", they have been described as fringe/pseudoscience as well, if no original source is allowed then most of their contents (e.g. "Details" section) would be removed? Chakazul (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia reflects "accepted knowledge" about topics. Digging up the original text and presenting here is an undue reflection of a fringe theory based on wikipedia editors' selections. If Morgan's notions have any weight at all, it should be easy to find commentary & description in secondary sources -- the kind of sources which should form the basis of all our articles. Alexbrn (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So should we remove the "Detail" section of Gaia hypothesis and the "History" section of Cold fusion because they are not "accepted knowledge"?

As for secondary source, there're planty of them (e.g. Langdon's 1997 critique, BBC's 1998 TV program, David Attenborough's 2005 and 2016 BBC radio programmes), which have described and discussed the original thesis in details. Chakazul (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Also please do not remove that section (a significant change to the article that hasn't happened before in its history) before a proper discussion here. Chakazul (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If other articles have problems, it is not a good reason to make this one poor too. If there are secondary sources on the AAH, it may be possible to have a sensible section. Scholarly independent sources would be best (so ideally not popular media). There is no policy that requires discussion before removing bad content: quite the opposite. Alexbrn (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Bad content being anything that doesn't state what you have been indoctrinated to know to be true: That. The. Aquatic. Ape. Hypothesis. Is. Nuts. That is what people are supposed to read in here. You get that point across easily listing the core arguments of the likes of Gaia or cold fusion or Bigfoot or Holy Blood Holy Grail, but doing exactly the same with them beach apes, suddenly that doesn't come across. Suddenly, it doesn't look nuts. So, there the core arguments have to go. 'Cause the indoctrination of the fraternities comes long before the scientific method. 'Cause we haven't moved a single step since Copernicus. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The theory has very little support in anything like its original form and it I think is quite rightly listed as pseudoscience. But I agree the section should not have been removed. Wikipedia is supposed to describe things whether they are nuts or not providing thee topic is notable and there are reliable sources. The topic is notable with lots of secondary sources writing about it. Those people are considered experts in the field whether they are considered nuts or not. Dmcq (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not its original form anymore, is it? Continental drift is no longer continental drift, but plate tectonics, and the aquatic ape is no longer the aquatic ape, but the waterside ape. Keep up. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So that's the dilemma here, the original Aquatic Ape is nuts, the Waterside Ape is legitimate science but not notable enough to have its own article, and the boundary between the two is not always obvious. Chakazul (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Label it a Fringe (please lets use the word quack more honest less scientific) theory, and because of that, information which in the first place led to that informed decission can then be removed because, well because it is a quack theory. What cannot be allowed to happen is that the ideas are presented so that readers can arrive at their own opinion. In this case it was weeks of hard thoughtful work mainly by one editor ended up giving the readers far far too much information, not what wikipedia is here for! A couple of us have the timer running on when the quack cleansing will get round to this one. “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.” and for scrutiny you need information. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No one is arguing human beings as old dolphins apes in this. No mermaids. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Aaand now vernix is being slowly taken out. If anything would give the unholy impression, that the splash-splash idea is perfectly reasonable, it has to go. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Fringe Status

I'd like to update the "WP:FRINGE" or "pseudoscience" status of the AAH in light of one recent secondary review -- David Attenborough's BBC 4 radio documentary "The Waterside Ape" (episodes transcript). It presented new evidence supporting some aspects of the AAH, namely:

• Diving physiology in modern humans
• Aquatic diet and brain evolution
• Diving signs in human fossils (auditory exostosis)
• Wading bipedalism.

and this acts as a basis of the article's "Evidence for a waterside context" section.

There's one critic article [2] and a response from the scientists [3]. According to the scientists' response, the critic article is actually critizing the original AAH while ignored all the evidence presented in the documentary.

Since the scope of the original AAH is so large that different aspects would have varying degrees of verification / falsification. For example, the original Hardy/Morgan timeline that "one semi-aquatic phase occured in the fossil gap" has been thoroughly disproved by the discovery of hominin species like Ardipithecus, while at the other extreme, the utilization of aquatic resources by human ancestors has been widely accepted in archaeology and paleoanthropology. Therefore, I suggest to treat the topic per WP:FRINGE/PS:

1. Those aspects enjoying evidence support and/or academic acceptance (now called the Waterside model) should be considered alternative theoretical formulations with potentials of becoming mainstream.
2. Other untested aspects (e.g. hooded nose, hairlessness, and most part of the original AAH) should be considered questionable science and not giving undue weight.
3. The AAH as a whole should NOT be considered "pseudoscience" due to point 1 and also the RfC result that rejected such a notion.

Chakazul (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Well it is classified as pseudoscience by a number of people and there is precious little evidence for the original idea to such an extent that it has morphed into a waterside hypothesis and moved to millions of years ago.

What I would like to see happen though is less people coming around trying to remove sections of the article as pseudoscience. As far as I can see currently the article is well structured and fairly describes the theory and the reasons it has not gained acceptance. Going around removing a summary of what the theory is about is simply vandalism. There are books and articles discussing the various points, we don't need big long lists of citations to everyone who has dismissed a point in the section outlining the main points just so the main thing being discussed can be listed. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTVAND. It is fine for Wikipedia to describe fringe theories from a mainstream perspective. It is not fine for Wikipedia to be expounding those theories at length from its proponents writings. If there is no mainstream perspective on a fringe notion, Wikipedia must be silent on that notion. Alexbrn (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Translated: "Keep silencing it to death!" Well, that's not working anymore, darling. 'Cause we most likely are them ol' beach apes. Even if you do keep adding on conditions to keep with the program dictated by aristocracy refusing to be proven wrong. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You're a creationist, ain't you, Alex? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Knock off the personal attacks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Then you be Giordano Bruno up in here! CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"If there is no mainstream perspective on a fringe notion, Wikipedia must be silent on that notion."? I'll take it then that you removed the content in good faith because you misunderstand Wikipedia's core content policies. Please see WP:WEIGHT "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". This is reiterated in the lead of WP:FRINGE. The article size is fine. The listing the main points in the Hardy/Morgan hypothesis did not expound at length and is immediately followed by a reactions section which is larger and mainly consists of the scientific criticism. Just having the criticism without listing what thy are criticizing is against the whole business of what an encyclopaedia is about. Wikipedia is not about only saying the mainstream accepted truth and removing anything else. Fringe should be shown with due weight. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We are dealing with a fringe theory here and the relevant policy is given in WP:VALID

Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. [my bold]

If we can't state aspects of the AAH through the lens of mainstream RS, we shall not state them at all. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

With respect to describing the features of the theory: primary sources are fine so long as they don't contradict secondary sources (which generally won't happen with the postulates of the theory, but happen quite often with the implications of those postulates). When it comes to evidence of the theory, or any judgement of the theory (such as statements about its explanatory power) or anything about the reception the theory has had, we need to use reliable secondary sources for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It does not say "If we can't state aspects of the AAH through the lens of mainstream RS, we shall not state them at all". What it says is "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity", and it leads with "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic". You are taking a subsidiary point about subsidiary claims and trying to remove everything on that basis. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: A few primary sources may be okay to fill in round the edges, but we need secondary sources as the basis of the article. Currently much of the foundation is primary sources. Wikipedia shouldn't be the only publication on the planet elevating this stuff beyond its origin -- we are meant to be reflecting accepted knowledge about the topic and we need secondary sources for that, so we can know the weight to give these fringe ideas. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dmcq: But you are not inserting "significant viewpoints" on the topic; you are inserting the views themselves, sourced to the proponents. Alexbrn (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If the basis of the article is just an outlining of the theory, then the article needs to be deleted. Instead, the basis of this article seems to be on the details surrounding this particular fringe theory, which is just fine, as they're rather interesting and unique details. For instance, we use The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity as a source to describe the features of the theory at General relativity. Of course, we don't use it as a source for the evidence presented therein, but that was because Einstein didn't write with a focus on evidence that supported his theory, but with the proper focus on how other scientists might find evidence to disprove it. With the main primary source in this case being pop-sci books, that's not the case and so we need to look out for that. But we can't remove all description of the theory on the basis that no reliable secondary source has repeated that description. Why would they, when the audience those sources were written for can easily get a copy of the primary source to see for themselves? I thin kyou would be very hard pressed to find an article on a scientific theory that uses predominantly secondary sources to support the description of it. If a theory is pseudoscientific or fringe or just has a lot of problems, that information belongs in the lead and in the reception or reaction or evidence sections: not in the description. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly my sentiments. Dmcq (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we need to create "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding [this] subject" (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). The danger here has become this article in tending towards an exposition of the subject itself in a way, it seems, that RS has avoided. Is Wikipedia to be the only independent publication on the planet which indulges the detail of AAH? WP:NPOV tells us not to legitimize fringe theories by including them outside a mainstream context. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Which bits would you say have not been referred to by reliable secondary sources? or scientists? Dmcq (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of the Morgan/hardy hypothesis section is sourced to ... Morgan and Hardy. This is not "accepted knowledge regarding" their ideas; it is their ideas themselves. Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

All of this is still only about one thing: That people are not supposed to know, what the aquatic arguments are. 'Cause that's when the laughter stops. And we can't have that, can we? 'Cause then you'd be on the losing side. And in Academia, serving the fraternity reigns far beyond serving science, like politicians serving Skull & Bones long before this democracy stuff.

Quoting: "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! And so they resorted to this kind of rhetoric about, “Oh, she’s cobbled together a kind of collage of different facts and figures...” Which is exactly what scientific theory’s supposed to do. Why was Newton’s theory of gravity so important? Because it integrated everything from why the moon went round the earth to why apples fall. That is the key thing of a good scientific theory, that it does this linking job on a lot of phenomena, that were hitherto thought to be totally unrelated. And whatever the long term merits of the theory are judged to be, it certainly did that." - Graham Richards, unquote.

CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

For those watching, this screed makes the case well why we don't expound fringe theories at length: it's using Wikipedia as a platform for nonsense that serious RS has swerved. Alexbrn (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't ask for an ad hominem attack, nor did I ask for who devised the theory, I asked which bits were not discussed in reliable sources or to make it easier, which bits are not talked about in the reception section? Dmcq (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Suddenly, Graham Richards isn't serious RS. How dare he speak against the fraternity? Why don't you just use the word heretic already? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dmcq: Let's take the first bullet point, bipedalism - there is no mainstream context for this but there is reinforcement in the "Evidence for a waterside context" section, from sources which have little or nothing to do with AAH. More SYN and OR giving us a fringe-fest. This article should just summarize the AAH from decent secondary sources which discuss the AAH. What we have is fundamentally non-encyclopedic. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You are getting rather obscure here. Are you saying the bipedalism in the waterside hypothesis has nothing to do with AAH? That would be saying that the waterside hypothesis is not a watered down (!) version of AAH. Dmcq (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You asked which bits of the hypothesis weren't discussed in the Reception section. I gave an instance. You've ignored this. Please stick to the point. Alexbrn (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So you are taking a literal view and restricting to the precise section rather than dealing with mentions in the article by commentators. Could you cut out the crap rhetoric thanks. Dmcq (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No. My complaint was that "The danger here has become this article in tending towards an exposition of the subject itself in a way, it seems, that RS has avoided". You are asking me for instances (if you're not playing games). The article says "The possible consequences of Hardy's hypothesis,[a] discussed by Hardy and Morgan, include .." and gives the bidealism exammple. What RS talks about these "possible consequences" of Hardy's and Morgan's ideas? Isn't the footnote in [a] pure editorializing? Alexbrn (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:Most of the Morgan/hardy hypothesis section is sourced to ... Morgan and Hardy. This is not "accepted knowledge regarding" their ideas; it is their ideas themselves. If we don't describe what the theory is, then how will any reception, analysis or criticism of it make any sense? WP:PRIMARY is quite clear that it's appropriate to use primary sources for statements of fact which are verifiable. So unless you're suggesting that Morgan and Hardy have misrepresented their own theory in their publications about it (I"m not sure how that's even possible), then they are acceptable for making statements of fact such as "This theory alleges that X is a result of Y." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not "quite clear". Policy says this: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." [my bold]. The relevant policy here is NPOV which states: "currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship". This article is doing almost nothing but comparing the AAH to accepted theories. It is a fringe fest. Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Current header: "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view." Okay, let's get that straight at least, the mainstream view is still, half a century in, that the whole topic of water and human evolution is beneath discussion, that it's obvious nonsense. And that's when all the problems emerge, 'cause as we can clearly see just this last week, it has proven impossible to get across why it's nonsense if you are to give any discription at all about what it's about. And what is the solution, then? Aparently to not relay at all what it's talking about. "Okay, we all know this is wrong and stupid, but why is it that it's wrong?" "Well... They don't really say why. And I'm not supposed to ask. Just me asking about one or two of the arguments, my professor starts talking about me ruining my academic career." (True anecdote, BTW.) That's what's so weird, no other fringe or pseudoscientific topic has this problem. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Just need to apply Hitchens's razor. But that is beside the point. All we should be doing is reflecting what mainstream relilable sources say about the AAH so as to provide a summary of accepted knowledge on the topic. The current article is far from that goal. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, 'cause you started to hack it to pieces, mate. And Hitchens's razor doesn't apply to your point, 'cause the aquatic mongers have no problem what so ever supplying that burden of proof. Which aparently is their biggest crime. Hitchen's "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence," that only works after you censor away the evidence. And that's the only weapon you have, 'cause when presented with the evidence at hand, it's impossible to hand over the aquatic idea as this load of rubbish you've been indoctrinated to believe it is. Arguing human beings as a ~2 million year old beach ape doesn't have these massive scientific problems, you desperately need it to have, all it has is a sociological problem. Because the idea's chief proponent for forty years Elaine Floyd Morgan was not a member of a fraternity, she's to be regarded as a peasant speaking up in proper company. Human sociology is at the core of all this controversy, nothing else. That's what's nonsense, this Academia pissing on one of its own giants! CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the Regal quote from where it's been reinstated. I should remind editors who've recently come to this page that it was the subject of an Rfc (see Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis/Archive_7) which was defeated and the quote was removed by the proposer. Chris55 (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at that, the RfC was about particular wording, not about use of the Regal source in general. Alexbrn (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn Check out the sourcing at such disparate fringe theories as Flat Earth, Creationism and Loop quantum gravity where primary sources are used extensively to describe the theory. I'm a little surprised here, because there's no real question of notability to this, and there's no undue weight coming from using primary sources to describe it, but you seem to think that using the primary sources will somehow legitimize this theory. I don't see how describing the beliefs of creationists, or the mathematics of LQG or the thoughtless lip-flappery of flat earthers legitimizes them, or how that compares them to legitimate (or in the case of LQG, more widely accepted) theories. I'm not suggesting we create "strengths and weaknesses" section, which would absolutely be legitimizing this theory by comparing it to the mainstream view. I'm simply suggesting that two paragraphs of description (less than what's there now, with those bullet points completely wiped) sourced to primary sources isn't going to violate WP:FRINGE at all. So yes, it is clear to me that WP:PRIMARY applies here. I'm confused as to why it isn't clear to you. Don't mistake my earlier admissions to being rather fond of this theory get you wrong: I fully intend for this article to paint this as a fringe theory which has been described by reliable sources as pseudoscience and which isn't taken seriously by the mainstream of science. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, the problem is the disonance between that we're expected to laugh at this idea versus that that becomes impossible after having been presented with the core arguments. That's why a basic description of what the aquatic idea is actually suggesting can't be included, otherwise it can't relay the mainstream story of the aquatic idea being nuts. Anything you don't understand? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. There might be some basis for not mentioning bits that others did not comment on but the basic theory and those bits that others thought worthwhile commenting on should definitely be outlined. The idea of just put in comments about something without outlining what they are commenting on is just surreal. Dmcq (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"If there is no mainstream perspective on a fringe notion, Wikipedia must be silent on that notion." Surely this is not true for the whole Wikipedia (if so we need to delete every single article about fringe science?), but may be applicable to an article of a more general topic. See Human evolution or Aquatic mammal, they rightfully don't mention AAH at all because AAH is not within the accepted knowledge in those regards. But saying that AAH should not be mentioned in the AAH article itself is totally absurd. Chakazul (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is saying flat out it shouldn't be mentioned - but it must only be mentioned to the extent that mainstream RS mentions it. There appears to be good RS summarizing the AAH: we should be mirroring that, not giving a detailed exposition from primary sources in ways that serious scholarly works don't. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia: a tertiary source built mainly on secondary sources. We are not meant to be an ersatz secondary source on the AAH. Alexbrn (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I am generally loathe to look at other articles for guidance rather than the WP:PAGs, but as it happens Flat Earth seems to have good examples of fringe done right. Taking the first "Ancient Near East" section it discusses those flat earth ideas using secondary scholarly sources which gives us weight and context. It does not (in the style of this AAH article) state in an editorial voice that Ancient Near East texts are pertinent and then quote them at length. Alexbrn (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me elaborate on my point that AAH should not be considered pseudoscience, both in Wikipedia standard and in principle. It has been ruled out in the RfC in Oct 2016 for describing AAH as pseudoscience, main reasons being that the sources are unreliable, or merely criticizing the methodology, not the thesis itself. I would add that none of the accounts took the recent developments into consideration, so they are out-dated or incomplete.

The definition of "pseudoscience" is something that is unfalsifiable, i.e. cannot be proven wrong. The majority of the claims in AAH haven't generated falsifiable hypotheses, and it's hard to tell whether it is not possible or not attempted to test them, but the responsibility is on the advocates' side. On the other hand, a couple of claims (notibly around diet, diving reflex, bipedalism, and where to find the fossils) have successfully generated their own hypotheses / theories, leading to more fruitful results than the original scope. Saying AAH is pseudoscience is contradictory to the fact that at least part of it could be (and have been) taken to test. Chakazul (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If we just follow RS we'll be fine. We need sources from people who consider the type-of-science categorisation question. Skeptics in the field of anthropolgy would be ideal. Alexbrn (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yap, so the conclusion of the RfC is, we couldn't find RS that consider AAH pseudoscience. Chakazul (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

We now have Eugenie Scott though - ticks the boxes. Alexbrn (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a single sentence opinion recorded in a conference report, no detailed rationale is given. Okay to include it in the Reception. Chakazul (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Evidence section

I'm at work, which means I'm editing about 5 minutes at a time. But, given the paucity of scientific responses to this theory, this section at its current length seems very likely to contain quite a bit of SYNTH. I think it needs more eyes. I've verified the citations in the first sentence of the "Wading and bipedalism" section as directly addressing the AAH, but there's still quite a bit to go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You could refer to Attenborough 2016 documentary which reviewed most of the evidence in this section. As for bipedalism, Niemitz 2010 is a recent review of various bipedalism hypotheses including wading as a possible factor. Chakazul (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Damage

Dmcq has removed the Description section and restored dubious and unsourced text.[4] What is the justification for this? Alexbrn (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The description section was based on a tertiary source and doesn't adding a useful description or adding to the scientific objections. Its sole purpose seems to be to say it is pseudoscience and that is a meta description not a description. I think the bit in the lead should be changed to just refer to the waterside hypothesis instead and what is there moved down to the waterside hypothesis section. I don't rush around removing proper descriptions like some people, I try and consider what I'm doing and how best to do it. You removed that section just a ahort while ago, stop complaining so quickly or else per BRD justify in full why it should be removed and nothing put in its place and nothing said about the waterside hypothesis. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Except it didn't say "pseudoscience". It was one of the few independent descriptions of the AAH we had and you junked it (and the article now has no "Description" section). Alexbrn (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The title was "Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia". Might I also point out to you that the encyclopaedia was happy to use the sources you removed. I am happy for it to be used in conjunction with a proper description but not instead of one. Dmcq (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can object to a source because its title (accurately) contains the word "pseudoscience". The whole point of using such sources is that they "launder" the primary sources we we are not engaging in original research by sifting the field ourselves. Alexbrn (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"Accuse your oponent of your own weakness." - Niccolò Machiavelli. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That comes from Machiavelli does it? Thanks. It's something I've noticed a lot in different areas and it has always struck me as rather strange. I wonder if there is an article on it. Dmcq (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• I would just like to point out that we still have a description section in all but name. We don't need another. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn you have repeatedly reinserted a quotation labelling the idea as pseudoscience that was agreed after a long discussion and Rfc to be unreliable (see here). Before doing so again, please explain why you believe it must be included on the page.

You have also put a tag on the page which says "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view". We've taken a lot of trouble to represent the opposition to the idea fairly so please explain why this tag is justified. The aim of Wikipedia is to represent all sorts of issues from a neutral point of view and your edits are simply representing the typical student distortions. There's been a lot of new research published in the last ten years which may not yet have reached all parts of the scientific community but which is nevertheless worthwhile to be represented here. Brandishing slogans does not help this. Chris55 (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the RfC, and my edits. The question posed by the RfC was "Should the lead and reception section mention that the theory has been described as pseudoscience." I haven't made it do so. Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The lede includes the citations and much of the discussion in the Rfc concerned that very text. It's riddled with contradictions and evidence that the writer didn't know what he was talking about. Chris55 (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, so not what the RfC concluded. And do you find anything to worry about for the unexceptional content it is used to support. Better than having it unsourced, surely? Alexbrn (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No, exactly what the Rfc concluded. Let me quote you the introductory statement: "Should the lead and reception section mention that the theory has been described as pseudoscience, based on the inclusion in Regal's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and John Hawks' blogpost in which he labels it such?" The conclusion was "There seems to be a clear decision here per WP:SNOW to OPPOSE this proposal." Chris55 (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

So we don't mention it's pseudoscience based on that source. That hasn't happened. You misrepresented the RfC and my edit. Glad all is clear. Alexbrn (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

But you have reinserted that hugely unreliable source in those places. Chris55 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Original research - "the medical community"

In general this article is suffused with much original research and advocacy. I would like editors to consider just one claim:

Awareness of the possibilities in the medical community led to positive reviews of Scars of Evolution in the British Medical Journal[29] as well as one in Nature.

The source simply does not verify the claim. Alexbrn (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I have checked the source given and it confirms what is stated. There isn't a source for the Nature claim and you would be justified in adding a citation needed tag. Though it's attested in several sources I haven't managed to dig up the relevant reference and doing so involves some travel to a library which still has some paper copies (becoming rare these days :( ) Chris55 (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

So what words in that source back the claim that "Awareness of the possibilities in the medical community led to positive reviews" ? Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Now you are being silly. The previous paragraph provides ample context. Chris55 (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually I'm being serious. It's quite a claim that a whole community was energized to the extent that positive reviews started appearing as a result. What's the source? If it's true, should be easy to find one. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It makes no claim about the whole community. The editor of a journal is easily able to block a review that they consider is outlandish. Chris55 (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Core policy: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." [my bold] So, Wikipedia editors are constructing a narrative about the influence of this theory on "the medical community", and mis-using sources to support it. Are you really okay with this or do we need to go to WP:NORN? Alexbrn (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my assertion that the publications described by the previous paragraph justify the use of the phrase. The arguments about the AAH stem from the fact that most of them are about soft tissue issues which are very hard to distinguish in the fossil record. It's hardly surprising that medical community has much more interest in these and their attitude is different from the paleontological community. This section doesn't suggest there is widespread acceptance but it does show what they've been doing with the ideas. You seem to think that because in your opinion the whole idea is rubbish then it is impermissible to record these views. They may be right, they may be wrong but they are published views by established professionals and therefore merit inclusion. Chris55 (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I gave you the policy: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." [my bold] If this is backed by one of the previous publications, which is it? At the very least there is a WP:V and WP:INTEGRITY problem here, no? Please WP:FOC rather than trying to personalize things. Please also remember this topic is covered by discretionary sanctions: we can't just ignore the WP:PAGs on a whim. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Translated: "We need to challenge any source, that makes the peasantry realize, that the aquatic idea isn't unreasonable!" CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I accept your change, even the uprating from "positive" to "enthusiastic" :) Chris55 (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Should this article have a Fringe theories tag?

I and others have taken a lot of trouble to try to construct a WP:NPOV article on this topic to replace the hopeless battleground that existed before. This tag says "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view". I don't believe that to be true. There is an extensive section of reaction from different areas although one critical section has been deleted for some reason (presumably because it was not wholly critical). Before this it had a WP:POV tag because many editors thought that it was hopelessly negative. As it stands it attempts to present both sides fairly.

It seems to produce gut-level responses from some Skeptics who align it with the anti-evolution and similar movements despite the fact that it has been at least partically supported by notable scientists such as Philip Tobias and naturalists like David Attenborough. The article strictly limits itself to the presentations by Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan for this reason and tries to avoid the many fanciful extensions that seem to swirl around American campuses. But it also seeks to present more modern research on what some have called the "weak" version–the waterside environments for which evidence is growing stronger.

So I'd welcome the feedback of other editors as to whether the current article gives appropriate weight to mainstream views. Chris55 (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Note this article is also being discussed at WP:FT/N. You are commenting on editors not content, again. Alexbrn (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view" but which mainstream view? Human evolution is highly multidesciplinary that involves paleoanthropology, paleontology, genetics, medical science, nutritional science, archaeology, pathology, primatology, etc. Paleoanthropology has more authority, but it cannot dictate the views in other fields. The article already gave appropriate weights according to the reception and development in those fields: paleoanthropology -- widely rejected, nothing happening; other biological sciences -- moderately welcomed, some evidence. Chakazul (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

As we probe the sources we're finding a lot of puffery, original research and misrepesentation though -- see below. Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I just arrived at this article by accident (it showed up on a list of articles that had been frequently edited in the past week). Seeing the Fringe Theories tag, I was expecting the article to be largely uncritical of the theory, but that definitely isn't the case. The article seems to devote significant attention to criticism. I won't go so far as to say that the article is now perfectly balanced, but the Fringe Theories tag seems like it might be overkill at this point. Kaldari (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Original research - "the scientific community"?

In the lede we are told:

In the last thirty years, one aspect of the hypothesis has received growing support within the scientific community ...

What is the source for this please? Alexbrn (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

References to Attenborough and MOCA have been added. Chakazul (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

And which refers to the scientific community and 30 years? Alexbrn (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarise what occurs later in the article, which it does. You could also add quotes from Henry Gee, Curtis Marean, Kathy Stewart etc. Chris55 (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay so which source(s) are being summarized to get us to "the scientific community". And how do the citations used in the lede support this? Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason for 30 years is 3 scientific conferences that have been held around issues relating to AAH: the Valkenburg conference (1987), the Human Brain Evolution conference (AAAS 2008), and the Human Evolution: Past, Present and Future symposium (2013). (The publication of these is of course several years later.) Chris55 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

So this is WP:SYNTHESIS that has the effect of a "growing support" narrative. Very basically "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." One might as well say "Only three conferences have been held on this topic in the last 30 years". It is better just to reflect the good sources without spin. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It's still three more than the previous nearly 30 years! But that phrase has been removed. Chris55 (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Crawford and Marsh's "substantial contribution" - OR and WP:PROFRINGE

We learn:

But the substantial contribution at this point was by the director of the Institute of Brain Chemistry in London, Michael Crawford, in his 1989 book The Driving Force. This explored the contribution of nutrition to human evolution, and in particular the importance of Omega-3 fatty acids for the development of the brain.

This glowing assessment is sourced to the book itself (huh?) And then we have a few sentences of this "substantial contrubution" given, yet again, using the primary source. But isn't this book junk? The review in the New Scientist (a secondary source for Crawford and Marsh's views, so the sort of source we should be using) calls the book's argument "totally unconvicning" and finishes by saying "Most alternative theories of evolution, including this one, place undue emphasis on a few topics and fail to address large areas of biological knowledge. A few anecdotes and some wishful thinking do not make a convincing theory." This is symptomatic of the problems this article now has because editors appear to have taken it upon themselves to play scholar and build a piece from primary materials, inserting their own personal assessments into the text in Wikipedia's voice. Alexbrn (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This is starting to get desperate, lad. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

'Substantial' is true of its length compared with the other contributions. The very negative review by Pond is consistent with her long-time opposition to aquatic ape ideas and is indicative of a very different approach to fats. However the omega-3 approach does appear to be being vindicated in nutrition advice the world over. In one earlier discussion on this page someone produced the idea that vegans have children with normal brains as the ultimate disproof of these ideas. However omega-3 supplements are now recommended by most authorities particularly for this group (there are plenty based on algae). I'm not saying it's a brilliant book, I think it's quite muddled. But some of the ideas are imo important. The alternative to marine PUFAs accepted by many paleontologists seems to be an exclusive diet of animal brains and marrow and that seems to me far less likely. And Crawford is not alone in his views. Chris55 (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

So there is no source for "the substantial contribution at this point ..." You've selected this book as pertinent because it's in your opinion "important". The only secondary source we have disagrees but that's okay because you can judge that source's bias. Are you aren't seeing a problem with this? seriously? Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree a cite to New Scientist review should be used in the article to give a secondary source view on this. The book should just be cited for the views in it, if a source talks about itself as a substantial contribution then that should be attributed to the author or just left out rather than put in as a general opinion. Dmcq (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

As to whether Omega-3 is as important as the book says I'm afraid WP:OR is pretty clear we've got to use sources that show a relevance to the broad area of AAH rather than just to Omega-3. Overriding that in specific instances can be done with a widely publicized RfC but it's not something that is at all usual and I'm not sure the case for Omega-3 is strong enough for that. Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason for citing it is its continuity with later contributions with Broadhurst, Cunnane, Muskiet, etc. But if you think the description is too effulgent, I'd be happy to tone it down. (done) Chris55 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It's just not our job to be sitting in judgement like this, selecting and sifting primary sources, and providing assessments of them in whatever tone. This is like Wikipedia 101: assessments of primary sources absolutely require secondary sources. In general we should build articles from secondary sources and in the fields of science and biomedicine primary sources should not be used at all (see WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS). This is meant to be an encyclopedia article, not a literature review. Alexbrn (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine in science and mathematics. They have some special rules in medicine that don't correspond with anything in the rest of Wikipedia, but then again they should have plenty of secondary sources too for anything worthwhile so it doesn't matter too much except editors sometimes try calling things medicine which have precious little to do with it to try and make Wikipedia a doctrine of the one true truth rather than doing things by weight in reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

They're allowed for careful and occasional use, but articles must be based on secondary sources. What we've got here is content based on primary sources, with the secondary source being ignored -- which is arse-about-face. Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Except for the secondary sources that says, what you don't want to hear: That the aquatic ape hypotheses are perfectly reasonable: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23272598 CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That's actually a handy source. You know if you spend less time being a WP:DICK and concentrated on providing actual stuff we could use like this, we would make more progress. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir/ma'am, whenever I and others have done exactly that in here, within days it has all been deleted! That exact source has been referenced to hundreds of times on this very article over the last couple of years, and has been removed every single time with no consensus! All while being tacitly accepted by Wiki, who think they don't have to protect this topic from vandalism! CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well it's now in the article in two different places, so maybe one of them will survive :) But evidently our new experts haven't read that far in the article yet :( Chris55 (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay so now we have from you that primary sources are allowed and hopefully no further mention of MEDRS.

Next does that section do anything other than make straightforward statements about what they said were consequences of their hypothesis?

And after that is a short description of each of them justified because secondary sources have discussed them? Is what you want a second citation on each showing that they have been discussed? Dmcq (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Just because we can use primary sources (even in medical articles, yes) does not me we should - quite the opposite because (WP:PSTS )we are told to base articles on secondary sources. The basis of this article is a load of primary sourced fringe theory. Using primary sources is generally tricky because without secondary sourcing it is not possible to know how much WP:WEIGHT they should be accorded. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Give us one sentence. One sentence as to why the aquatic ideas are being rejected by the mainstream. If that sentence can't be, "Because an arrogant academic field'll be damned if they'll ever be proven wrong by a sniveling amateur," what is it? "Because I said so!" is not enough. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not the job of editors of Wikipedia and it doesn't fit in with WP:NPOV. You need a source that says something like that.That sort of question belong at best on the science reference desk or some outside discussion forum. Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, what is the sentence? The closest to it is John Langdon's 1997 attitude, that it's because "It's an umbrella hypothesis, that's not parsimonous." If that's the final word on the matter, bam, there goes the Theory of Evolution right there. Congrats, palaeoanthropology, you have handed the creationists their biggest victory. And for what? Just because you didn't come up with human beings being two million year old beach apes? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I have found the answer, based on the multiply use of primary rather than secondary sources in this article the example I used above Lynne Kelly (science writer) only exists because her theory is explained under an article "about" her. So an article about AAH listed under the author would solve this. user:Chris55 and others are you happy that I start the process to transfer the article to Elaine Morgan and this one can concentrate on the quackery of it all. I am asking as I am not a dragon nor St George. Edmund Patrick – confer 15:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It's really uncomfortable looking through Galileo's telescope, innit? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There's multiple secondary cites too. The topic satisfies WP:Notability. If you want to think sensibly try and think of reasons why your ideas are wrong - not just of reasons why you are right. Dmcq (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Equal validity

An attempt is being made in this article to give "fair treatment to both sides". This is counter to both WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia pays most attention to the mainstream evaluation of a fringe idea. This article does not do that. It gives a whole lot of space to proponents and amateurs who support the proponents' viewpoints. The WP:WEIGHT really needs to be flipped towards those skeptics and professional physical anthropologists who have pointed out the problems with this proposal. jps (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

One big problem: The skeptics never say anything. They're silent like a fish. How can we weigh their attitude, when we have nothing to quote them on? I'm not even sure if the academic consensus is against the aquatic ideas anymore, Academia just can't state the paradigm change untill the last arrogant dinosaurs have died off.

But, if you want, we can easily change the entire article to just state: "This idea is nuts. You are not to ask why. Now go away, or we'll ban you." And then maybe link to the article on Thrasymachus. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Provide citations for the mainstream sources which have shown this to you and I'm sure they can be incorporated. Dmcq (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Take note of all of this nonsense, 'cause we're dab stab in the middle of a paradigm shift. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Where is the source/justification for 'An attempt is being made in this article to give "fair treatment to both sides"'? So has this section any relevance? Chris55 (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You yourself write above: "As it stands it attempts to present both sides fairly". Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, should have realised his quotation marks were meaningless. So is it a crime to do so? The first sentence of NPOV article talks about "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views." I don't find anywhere in the guidelines that "Wikipedia pays most attention to the mainstream evaluation of a fringe idea". That is a misrepresentation of the guidelines, though some editors certainly behave as if it were true. I don't accept that this idea is correctly classified as pseudoscience. It can certainly be classified as an "unproven hypothesis" but that's different. The original proponent (Hardy) was a well-established academic. Foley and Lahr, who I'm told are highly respectable sources say "there is little doubt that throughout our evolution we have made extensive use of terrestrial habitats adjacent to fresh water, since we are, like many other terrestrial mammals, a heavily water-dependent species." The sooner many scientists who are not dealing with their own field get rid of their idea that humans developed on the Serengeti plains, the sooner sanity will be restored. Chris55 (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no either/or about the Serengeti plains. Humans didn't have to live for the last five million on either one or the other. The climate has changed quite considerably over that time, areas have become wetlands and changed back to deserts. Humans who lived in different environments may have at times come together, lots of hominid species have gone extinct. It hasn't taken modern humans very long to get different genes for dealing with living in the arctic or drinking milk or high up on mountains. Dmcq (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yet it is still the point of view of many that humans came down from the trees and chased the game on the savanna with their clubs and spears. It predates Darwin and still isn't dead. It was only in the mid-nineties that people finally worked out the climate changes in Africa and paleontologists have had to change their story considerably. I agree with you that humans have become highly adaptable to almost all environments, but water is still a key and underacknowledged factor that Morgan spent many lonely years trying to uphold.

Human's genetic makeup still hasn't adapted to an absence of iodine in the environment. Throughout the world iodine is routinely added to salt to compensate for not living near a marine environment.Chris55 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be a lot more convincing argument for AAH if we didn't have some hunter gatherers even nowadays pursuing a nomadic existence and sometimes having to get water by digging for it or getting it from plants. Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Remember WP:NOTFORUM. Suggest taking these discussions offline if you want to continue. Alexbrn (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been rereading the Fringe theories guidelines and it seems to me that AAH falls between Questionable science and Alternative theoretical formulations but does not correspond to Pseudoscience. It contains nothing that is scientifically impossible, but it certainly includes a potential paradigm change for primatology, which helps explain why primatologists have been so reluctant to consider it. Most scientists like to be very sure before making that jump. Also it's undoubtedly true that some of the 'evidences' that Morgan has produced will be definitely disproved. Indeed there is at least one example in her books where she drops an idea because of evidence that had been produced.

The treatment of "both sides" in the redraft is very different and there's no assumpton of equality anywhere. One thing that I tried to avoid was an evaluation of the individual claims, which had become a major part of earlier versions, because each one would take a whole section and would possibly end up with one source (from the scientific side) being cited 33 times as was the case earlier. And that was more than that source could bear, since most of the claims were dealt with in a few words each.

I've also left out material that is hinted at in various places but for which no strong claims have been made in the AAH community. e.g. the "fossil gap" in hominids which is typically put at 5-15m yrs bp and largely continues to the present except for the hominina, strongly suggests that that group was different and the difference was at least partly due to waterside dwelling. How long will the jury be out on that one, even though Leakey advised looking near water for fossils as long ago as 1968?

The common assumption that the AAH is 'pseudoscience' needs some careful reevaluation by those people making the claims. As several papers (by Lahr and Foley and Wrangham) have made clear, it's holding up scientific investigations. Chris55 (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a fringe theory and according to Eugenie Scott (who should know) it is "crank science" or "pseudoscience". WP:FRINGE and particulaly WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL apply. Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(Add) and John D. Hawks in a blog post devotes quite some time to considering the pseudoscience questions, and decides the AAH is pseudoscience. This is a source we should probably be using per WP:PARITY/WP:BLOGS.

Is the Aquatic Ape Theory fairly described as pseudoscience? Every statement of natural causes is potentially scientific. What distinguishes science from pseudoscience is social. Pseudoscience is supported by assertions of authority, by rejection or ignorance of pertinent tests, by supporters who take on the trappings of scientific argument without accepting science's basic rules of refutation and replication. Pseudoscience is driven by charismatic personalities who do not answer direct questions. When held by those in power, like Lysenkoism, it destroys honest scientific inquiry. When held by a minority, it pleads persecution.

I think that the Aquatic Ape Theory in 2009 fits the description.

Alexbrn (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be better to read Pseudoscience to get a better idea of what it is rather than basing it on something you yourself selected and approved of. Going by the definitions there I think the one you gave would have to be attributed to the author rather than use din Wikipedia's voice. Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Huh? No, the very opposite: we should reflect what appropriate experts think of the pseudoscience question, and not what Wikipedia editors may think. I'm seeing eminent anthropologists categorizing the AAH as pseudoscience; I'm not seeing any RS that considers this question and concludes otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The evidence for Endurance running hypothesis is not based on a lot more 'refutation and replication' than AAH and has had charismatic personalities talking about it on television. Those people you mentioned have not provided good reasons for what they say and are no experts on pseudoscience, they are anthropologists casting aspersions on AAH. It is definitely evidence for it being fringe science but not pseudoscience as understood at pseudoscience or in a dictionary. If you want to see someone do a proper job have a look at what Jim Moore says at [5], but then again they don't have the credentials even though they do the work. As to not responding to refutation AAH has gradually transformed into a waterside hypothesis and much of Elaine Morgan's bits in it have been removed, however Jim Moore seems to think that it not asserting things he debunks is some sort of problem with it.

Anyway I would again oppose the wholescale deletion of the description of the hypothesis so that points in it are criticized without saying what is in it or exactly what is being criticized. There are enough sources to have something straightforward on each point without making a meal of it all like Moore does. Dmcq (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In fact Hawks does explain why it's pseudoscience (see above). "Casting aspersion" is a bizarre way of characterizing that view. Hawks does recommend a look at the Moore site but I think it would be a stretch to use it here. As to the primary sources, anything not at least matched by specific commentary in secondary sources will be going, in line with core WP:PAGs. Allowing exposition from stuff that exists only in primary fringe sources is a path to making Wikipedia a platform for fringe exposition: wouldn't the alien abduction folk love it if we could give details of the abduction because without it the debunking would be somehow unfair! Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess you mean the bit in Hawkes blog talking about the doubling of the hypothesis because he says any changes should have reverted once the environment changed back. If you thought for five seconds about that you'd know it is just some crap thing he put out to justify what he felt. Very possibly he has got some good reasons but that is not one, he says his reasons are too complicated to explain in a blog. With a change like posited in the AAH the optimum point moves from the previous optimum - now just consider what happens when conditions revert. The previous peak point would be approached quicker by hominids or apes that didn't go in for living on shellfish or whatever and any trajectory for the ones that followed the AAH would go to a totally different peak which would exploit as far as possible any differences they had acquired.

I believe that if the fringe theory noticeboard activists succeeded generally then Wikipedia would be seen as biased rather than reflecting the sources and would lose its reputation for trustworthiness. However I have better uses for my time than in getting involved in ideological wars so I'll just take this off my watchlist for a while and come back in say another six months to see what has happened. Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources

I'd like to explain the use of primary sources in the Hardy/Morgan thesis section. The guidelines say:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

This section simply tries to set out the "plot" of the work: the title of this article is after all the name of one of the books written by Elaine Morgan. Therefore I have tried to follow that guideline carefully, giving references to properly published works, most of which are at least partly on the web.

Why should it not be described from secondary sources? In a word, because of the endless misleading narratives that are made about the topic, as well as the almost total refusal of the scientific community to engage with it. Let us take one of the most frequent: that the Aquatic ape hypothesis envisages a period when humans were almost entirely aquatic. Nowhere in any of Hardy or Morgan's works will you find such an notion. So how did it arise? I'd suggest that it comes from the phrase "the ape that returned to the land". quoted by Langdon. What did Morgan mean by that? In the context she had made the hypothesis that rising sea levels had trapped the species that became human on an island in what is now the northern part of Ethiopa called the Danakil Alps and this aided the speciation event. This was shortly after the discovery of Lucy when attention shifted to that region, in which many of the most significant discoveries of recent times have been made. So "return to the land" really meant "return to the mainland" (the word she later used).

Now the speculation was almost certainly wrong: Australopithecus is not now considered to be in the direct line of ancestry for humans and it's far from certain that there was ever an island there. That's beside the point. Her speculation was reasonably scientifically literate at the time. But the critics have latched onto the phrase "returned to the land" and stretched it into something she never supported. Langdon rightly says "that terrestrial hominoids adapted to a marine habitat and then adapted back to a terrestrial one—is a much more complicated and less parsimonious scenario" than the alternatives.

Part of the problem is the name, Aquatic Ape, which many "proponents" would like to get rid of. But most of the "waterside" proponents acknowledge their debt to Morgan for bringing together the ideas, even if some budding scientists are apparently unwilling to touch anything that hasn't been peer-reviewed. The popularity of the AAH may have something to do with people's deep affinity for the sea and the feeling that scientists are unwilling to countenance any connection with it. But that the survival and development of hominins came partly from finding the resources of a lakeshore and coastal environment seems increasingly likely. So one can see a phoenix arising from the ashes. Some have suggested that the name of the article be changed. I don't see that is easy at this point in time.

So rather than trying to capture some amorphous public perception of the idea, I think it's important to state simply what the authors of the hypothesis said and what current researchers are now exploring as a result of that. There is of course also a large section devoted to explaining why most scientists don't accept the idea. Chris55 (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Web links

I still don't think you appreciate the dissonance between the mainstream's expectation of us to keep laughing at this topic, and then not being able to laugh at it as soon as one is presented with the actual core arguments, even in the most neutral of forms. That's why in this WP:FT/N page, a user snortingly calls it "singing the praises of AAH claptrap" to have any such listing, regardless of whatever neutral principles being employed. 'Cause we're not supposed to stop laughing. We're not supposed to ever give this its due time in court. Ever. 'Cause then we can't laugh at it anymore. The whole concept of water and human evolution has become an inconvenient truth for the mainstream. It doesn't really matter, if we're old beach apes or not. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you may have given up on the idea that discussion will get anywhere, but I haven't yet and I don't think your contributions are helping. Chris55 (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

How old is this article, fifteen years? And it has been like this since the very beginning. 'Cause up on high it is dictated that this is to remain nonsense. Encyclopedic principles and the scientific method has no say. Thrasymachus was right. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to start changing what is out in the world, it is supposed to just have articles on which deal with what is out there with some reasonable approximation to weight. Why have you got such a bee in your bonnet about the topic? It is because some people have such strong feelings about topics which have not gained general acceptance that there is your mirror in the fringe noticeboard trying to push the one truth and defend the ignorant from anything else. Either of you would destroy Wikipedia if left to your own devices and I think it is a great pity there are these stupid continual battles just to get something halfway okay and I'm annoyed I can't see anyway around except to have people like you and them just continuing battling till kingdom come. Dmcq (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Dmcq, Assume good faith Chris55 (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I was responding to CEngelbrecht2 who keeps on complaining about powers conspiring to keep this knowledge hidden. The 'either of you' refers to them with their need to have their beliefs expounded in Wikipedia and the mirror type activists in the Fringe Theory Noticeboard who want to save the world from error by turning Wikipedia into a catechism of approved thought. If you feel you fall into one of those camps then please feel free to answer my query about why you have such a bee in your bonnet. Dmcq (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

As to what you say above I basically agree plus the points have been discussed in secondary sources and therefore a list of the points can be justified. Dmcq (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"the points have been discussed in secondary sources" ← except that's not true is it? or at least it's not true for many of the points wrt the secondary sources in this article. I take it nobody is arguing for inclusion of material from AAH proponents that has been ignored in the secondary literature. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

All points of the Hardy/Morgan thesis have been discussed and destroyed in Langdon's 1997 review, otherwise it won't deserve the title of the ultimate debunker of AAH, trust him. Chakazul (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede image

The caves at Pinnacle Point in South Africa show the systematic exploitation of marine shellfish by humans 170,000 years ago.

The lede image right now is one of a cave that shows that humans ate shellfish 170,000 years ago. However, this doesn't seem to be a good image for illustrating, well, anything. The fact that humans ate shellfish in the last few hundred thousand years is not necessarily relevant to a hypothesis that what make humans unique is their aquatic heritage, and further I see no sources which identify this particular cave as relevant to AAH, though maybe someone has a source which does this.

jps (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a terrible photo, even for its attempted purpose. Alexbrn (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If I get this right, the idea is that humans deal strangely well with water/swimming because we evolved doing a lot of it. So how about a pic of a swimming baby? [6] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The swimming baby image is a bit WP:SOAPy for my tastes as the implication is that babies are good at swimming rather than drowning. Can we stick to images that are verifiably connected to the topic? One is shown below. jps (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but that image is WP:BORING (ok, I was expecting a redlink). Another image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm with JPS on this one. The picture should be directly relevant. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A 1987 photo taken at a conference devoted to the subject of this article.

Adherents propose, among other things, diving reflex, hairlessness and fat babies as evidence of the hypothesis.Alternatively: it is unknown whether the infant in this photograph drowned or not.

We can't say the conference photo is of believers (some of them may be skeptics e.g.). And who's the guy whose face is ringed? Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It was meeeeeeee! Totally not serious, but I had to say it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there were any skeptics at that conference, but point taken. It is verifiably a conference photo. I have no idea whose face is ringed. jps (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've altered the title to something I believe is more accurate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I edited it further. Please don't hate me for it. :) jps (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Pinnacle Point photo is related to the Scientific American cover story Curtis W. Marean, (1 August 2010). "When the Sea Saved Humanity". Scientific American. PMID 20684373. I expect you'll delete that reference in due course because you don't see its significance. Chris55 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the aquatic ape hypothesis mentioned in that article? jps (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually found a version and read it. [7] No, there is no mention of the topic of this article. Looks like more original research to me. Should we remove the image then? jps (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course! Alexbrn (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup. I assumed that the description originally there was accurate. But you know what they say about that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• For the record: I'm not opposed to an illustrative image (as opposed to one directly relevant), but I honestly don't know what sort of photograph would do as an illustrative image. I'm pretty sure none would. I noticed there's a vector artist participating here (though I'm too lazy to look up their username and ping them right now). Maybe he'd like to do an image of some tribal humans living near and wading in the water. I think that would be fine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the intention in deleting scientifically relevant pictures to present the AAH as thoroughly non-scientific and therefore easy target to be pilloried? Is it not relevant that the age of consumption of aquatic materials has been extended from 40,000 to 2m years in the last 10-15 years even if Curtis Marean didn't put his reputation on the line by mentioning AAH in that particular artice? He did however contribute to the Attenborough radio programme that was by an older man confident enough in his reputation to stand up against the crowd. It's bloody hard to find pictures that aren't cute or questionable and that picture wasn't originally the first. Chris55 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It may be "scientifically relevant" in some sense but it is not scientifically relevant to the AAH, except through the instrument of Original Research, we we have policies to forbid. Alexbrn (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do you want to drop this or do you really want me to give you a precise description of what a "scientifically relevant picture" would be? We don't include original research which means we don't read between the lines, connect the dots, do the math or engage in any other activity the demanding of which generally ends with calling the audience "sheeple". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Scientists and others

I thoroughly object to Joshua's (9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS or jps) combining of the sections "From anthropologists" and "From biologists" and physicians" under the heading "From scientists". The distinction was made for the very good reason that their reaction was very different. He of course comes from neither of those disciplines and presumably therefore knows them all perfectly. Probably the first person to understand all areas of science in the last 150 years.

According to him, biologists are not even scientists, just "others". Presumably that's why he deleted most of the references to them. It may not have been him who deleted Dennett's contribution and said "Cite me some of Dennett's published work on evolutionary biology, please. I (being quite the fan of Dennett)" but that's the level of ignorance and arrogance that is getting common on this page. Chris55 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Call me ignorant and arrogant again, please. I haven't had my fill of hyperbolic internet butthurt today. If you can't collaborate with others with some basic decorum, you need to find some other way of wasting your time than being rude to people on WP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, sorry. I find your arguments below on the next topic profoundly depressing. It looks as if WP has tied itself up in knots. But if you're honestly trying to apply guidelines that just don't work in this particular case then at least that's some excuse. Chris55 (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

WP is fine and the WP:PAGs are well up to giving us decent articles on fringe topics. I think in fact the issue is that our guidelines don't work with what is envisaged by some editors here. What the AAH enthusiasts want here would be better off somewhere else as it just isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article (this isn't meant as a criticism of that content, it's just an observation). Alexbrn (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Read this carefully: I find this theory fascinating and to have expansive explanatory powers. That is not bullshit, nor appeasement nor a rhetorical trick of any sort. It is bluntly true. If you were to ask me what my opinion of the veracity of this theory is, I would tell you something like "Well, I don't think it's the only evolutionary force that shaped the particular features addressed by it, but I certainly think it played a role in shaping them."

In short, I am not an opponent of this theory. I am, however, an opponent of the way this article read at the time of the noticeboard posting, and an opponent of a number of the changes proposed. (You might also notice that I am an opponent of the idea that we can't use any primary sources for describing this theory.) My concern is creating an article that meets WP's standards for accuracy and verifiability. That's my focus. Right now, the problem is that the guys who don't feel the same way I do about this theory are making more strides towards that goal than the people who do feel the same way about this theory as I do. I really suggest that you, and anyone else who feels that a grave injustice is being done here, take a step back and relax. I've already shown that I'll disagree with the skeptics (whom I count myself among in general, if not wrt this particular theory) when I feel they're clearly wrong, and I'm not getting bent out of shape to the point of facing a topic ban and starting ANI drama about it. Let the cooler head handle this. In a week or two, interest will die down, tempers will cool down, and you will be welcome to find reliably sourced information which can be added to the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I also thoroughly object to the treament that only (paleo)anthropologists can be counted as scientists on human evolution. What is the rationale that "other" scientists are irrelevant to the discussion of human evolution, can those editors kindly elaborate, or provide sources that explicitly support such exclusiveness. Why are general biology and nutritional science (e.g. Crawford, Pond) irrelevant when dietary shift is one of the most important force behind Darwinian evolution? Why is philosophy of science (e.g. Dennett) irrelevant when it is in the heart of every scientific endeavor? In regard of philosophy, I welcome the inclusion of John Hawks' comment (even though it's not RS) because he was talking about the philosophy behind AAH's rejection -- mostly of social factors, which echoes Denette's comments on the reaction of scientists. (By the way, the discussion of whether something is pseudoscience is already in the realm of philosophy of science). We are still waiting for genetics to provide more opposing/supporting evidence which could be even more powerful than fossil records, so are we going to water down their findings because they are not anthropologists? Chakazul (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added important view from "others" -- (1) Daniel Denette in Reception, from his notible work in evolutionary philosophy, mildly critical to AAH; (2) Cunnane et al. in Reception, for their notable but controversial works, including a JHE special issue; (3) Sauer 1960 in History, as reviewed in the widely cited Erlandson 2001 in marine archaeology. Chakazul (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Banners

Who placed all the prejudicial 'fringe' and 'own research' banners on the article page and why?

I, speaking as a professional biologist, suspect that the near future will produce a crop of analytical and synthetic works largely favourable to the vital role of watery environments in human evolution. I also suspect that some of those commenting here will appear rather ill-informed and prejudiced, to say the least. I would suggest caution in presenting too extreme levels of scepticism, especially if they are based on professional opinions voiced more than five years ago. Science sometimes moves too quickly for Wikipedia's sclerotic policies to cope with. Urselius (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, as someone who's been pretty much in the middle of this, I can say two things: Yes, I've seen excessive, not exactly skepticism but let's say zeal for the mainstream of science, but I've also seen a lot of hyperbolic, emotionally charged language on the part of proponents of this theory. In my own interest in this theory, I have seen that it is not taken seriously by the scientific mainstream, and indeed, is even sometimes derided by it. But I have also seen that it is a serious theory that fits the definition of science (as opposed to pseudoscience). With that being said, I want to make a few points to you:

1. Your credentials are pretty irrelevant. No-one here can confirm them without you outing yourself or committing computer fraud. So we can't put any trust that you are being honest, though I'm not saying that to imply that you're lying. I honestly don't know, and while I may tend to believe you, my opinion doesn't establish any certainty.
2. Even if your credentials are confirmed, it is arguable that you are not in the right specialty. Again, I'm not saying you're not (it would really depend on your specialty), but just pointing out that a molecular biologist is not necessarily an expert on human evolution.
3. Even if your credentials were confirmed and your expertise is confirmed, that doesn't confirm your prediction about the direction science will take in the future. You know as well as I do that science tends to go where the evidence is, where the interests of scientists are and where the potential to generate patents is. We can't make very good predictions about that.

Now before you call me out as a nameless shill engaging in pseudoskepticism and denigrating you for the purpose of pushing my ignorant POV, understand that I personally agree with you about the direction science will take in this regards, in the near future. But as a conscientious editor, I cannot edit based on that. I can only edit based on what reliable sources are saying now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to quiz me on my knowledge of human evolution, please go ahead. My first degree was in zoology, I did a lot of comparative anatomy and physiology. I have published on the deep evolutionary history of certain organisms and on evidence for horizontal gene transfer. I am a Fellow of the Linnean Society, of which Charles Darwin was also a member. All this I cannot prove without losing my anonymity, as you say, which I do not wish to do. However, a great deal of the controversy on this page and in the article subject itself surrounds the possession or lack of professional credentials. There are reliable sources supporting a 'watery ape' hypothesis available. However, because they are recent they are challenged here on various 'wiki-legalistic' grounds. As a scientist I would call looking in the ear canals of various hominin skulls 'original research', not reporting the fully published findings of someone else who had done this. A Wikipedia article concerning an active scientific field really cannot be held back from reporting primary sources until a few years has elapsed and someone has written a review or a book, that would be nonsense and a betrayal of Wikipedia's real strength - that it is mutable and easily updated. Urselius (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Urselius, if you want to understand it, look here. I hadn't realised how there's a clique that thinks together and works together. They've long ago made up their minds about AAH and clearly nothing is going to change them. One of the interesting things is that someone who has been totally sarcastic on this page has put some very coherent views there. But that hasn't stopped him being banned for 6 months from this page. I've been threatened by one of them with being banned for posting a quite relevant picture and the main response from the admins is "grow up". Chris55 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, seeing that altercation brought me here. I wasn't previously aware how vitriolic things had become. Urselius (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ignoring, for the moment the claims of a conspiracy which is out to get anyone who dares deviate from the norm (which, in turn ignores my own repeated assertions that I deviate from the norm on this issue), my point was that your credentials don't matter. I stated this explicitly and I gave you the rationale. Please check out our policy on original research to understand that this is one of the core principles of our method here. I really haven't seen much to support your claim that the arguments going on here have to do with anyone's credentials. Everything I've seen has been about whether content meets our guidelines for inclusion based on the holistic reliability of a source, not based on that source's qualifications.

Now, responding to the conspiracy theory above me: Frankly, the notion that we've all made up our minds and nothing is going to change them is complete bullshit. I've expressed my own interest in and regard for this theory multiple times. You've engaged in personal attacks and over-the-top hyperbole, and it has been my almost exclusive experience that those who argue with hyperbole about an academic subject are invariably wrong. If anything, the arguments you and the two others who've been so vociferous about their support for this theory above have made me more skeptical of it, simply because of the weakness implied by your refusal to debate with civility and logic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not altogether certain if both sections of your comment apply to me, so I will not address your second paragraph. The original hypothesis was raised, and subsequently extrapolated and defended, by a person who was not a professional biologist or academic. It can, reasonably in my view, be argued that the antipathy to the theory to be found until comparatively recently in academic scientific circles was based, at least in part, on its originating in the ideas of an amateur. The concept of professional credentials is, therefore, at the very heart of the matter. Urselius (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Only the first paragraph was directed at you. I agree that's a reasonable argument, and I agree that credentials would be at the heart of that. But absent a reliable source which discusses the cause of the scientific community's reluctance to engage with the idea which also brings the angle of Hardy's credentials into it, that's not something that can be put into the article. The only use for Hardy and Morgan's works is to outline what the theory is, something the article currently does in too much detail. This page is not intended to be a forum on which to make the case for this theory. We are not Nature, nor a blog, nor even an open-access publisher. We are an encyclopedia. We should define the subject in the lead, give an overview of the subject, describe any reaction the subject has engendered in the public as well as any relevant professional spheres, then give references for further reading and for the information contained in the article. That's it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Pants, I suspect the 'you' above is me, not Urselius and I admit that jps's aggressive tactics have forced me to respond in kind. It's curious that the pseudoscience brigade don't think that civility or assuming good faith is necessary because they are experts in WP guidelines and need to clean up the mess that other editors have made and go on to other battlegrounds quickly. In turn, they know that the admins have seconds to make up their minds, so they won't give any deep thought either. It doesn't quite work does it. Chris55 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You've already filed an ANI thread, please keep your commentary about other editors there and not here. Also understand that the incivility started here well before JPS started editing, and that you have taken part in it. Ideally, we'd all just stop attacking each other and try to come to a consensus calmly and politely, but at this point the ANI thread has been started, the insults hurled, and the demands that WP make sweeping changes because it's wrong about something have been made. So the best thing to do is to settle down and let things simmer down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There had been almost a month of total calm and three months of inactivity before JPS issued his call to the Fringe community and started making massive edits. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you simply saying this is not the first time there's been dispute on the AAH page? Or what? Chris55 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

CEngelbrecht2 was making personal attacks against everyone who disagreed with him since the 23rd and JPS's first comment here was on the 25th. Seriously, the evidence is right here on this very page. Take a look. And yeah, when an article is being edited entirely by people with a POV favorable to the article, it tends to be pretty friggan calm. Then when someone shows up (rightly!) calling shenanigans on the unceasing credulity with which the article is written, you don't get to blame ole broke angel's combative reaction on them. If Alex was completely in the wrong, you and your cohorts should have been able to demonstrate this calmly and politely. But politeness seems to be markedly absent from this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

While personal attacks are not welcomed, I also see strange cries in the History like "this article is terrible" or "out of control". I hope people here at least respect to the edits not made by themselves as long as it's not vandalism.

As for credentials, I agree with MjolnirPants that editor credentials are irrelevant here, what's matter are the author credentials of the cited sources. But again, I still don't see why a biologist is "not in the right specialty", "not necessarily an expert on human evolution", or equating the fields of anthropology/paleoanthropology/evolutionary biology to "the scientific community". There is no official experts in evolutionary science, in many cases genetics and modern phenotypes have equal importance as fossil records. Chakazul (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The heart of the dispute here concerns the perception by some editors that the "professional academic community of biologists" regards the aquatic ape theory as being fringe in the same way as, say, intelligent design, or even homeopathy. As a professional academic biologist I can at least give an informed opinion on this being a red herring. This is why I set out my credentials. Of course editors without a similar background can make valuable contributions to this article - Darwin was a gifted amateur - but I can at least speak with a certain degree of knowledge on this one point. Urselius (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Although WP:FRINGE is a very large umbrella, it is not in any way intended to paint with a broad brush nor is it intended to describe the opinion of the community of professionals in a categorical fashion. That is to say that every idea that is epistemically marginalized is marginalized in its own way, much in the same way that unhappy families are unhappy in their own ways. Wikipedia only says that this idea was in the same boat as intelligent design, homeopathy, etc to the extent that the independent sources do not treat the idea as being mainstream. It would be highly irresponsible for Wikipedia not to inform the reader that this idea has been marginalized or that it has not received the critical third-party recognition we would require for a mainstream idea. Small piece of advice: if you want Wikipedia to give a more "balanced treatment" of this subject, provide some high-quality, third-party independent sources. If you cannot find these, I would encourage you and your colleagues to publish some that can be used to improve our article. jps (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Having in mind that specialists are good at picking apart in detail any
general synthesis (McHenry 1974, 436), it is remarkable that the several
weaknesses in the classical SHs [Savannah Hypotheses] were ignored for so many decades, while
the analogous weaknesses in the AHs [Aquatic ape Hypotheses] were constantly used to criticize
these models. The application of these double standards is related to the
fact that AHs were proposed to replace what seemed to be a plausible
scenario corroborated by vast empirical data. When in the last 20 years
paleoanthropologists began to doubt the origin of early hominins as an
adaptive response to the transition from forest to a more open scenario,
the rejection of the AHs was already regarded as an established fact in
paleoanthropology. As a by-product of this rejection, topics related to
early hominins' interaction with water became strongly identified with
the realm of the AHs and were therefore stigmatized in paleoanthropol-
ogy. As we demonstrated by presenting two examples, the biased treat-
ment of topics related to hominoids' interaction with water represents
one of the most serious hindrances in contemporary attempts to recon-
struct human past."  

The Savannah Hypotheses: Origin, Reception and Impact on Paleoanthropology Renato Bender, Phillip V. Tobias and Nicole Bender History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences Vol. 34, No. 1/2, Human Evolution Across Disciplines: Through the Looking Glass of History and Epistemology (2012), p. 176.

Here the author is both talking about views many decades old, when SHs were the mainstream, and the challenges that this former mainstream has been subjected to subsequently. The sub-text that there is no "mainstream" at present is inescapable. The treatment of AHs here on Wikipedia should also aim at being "unbiased"; covering the article with 'Fringe' and 'OR' banners does not strike me as being particularly useful or unbiased. We need to have an objective treatment of the matter in question. Urselius (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You may be confused here. The banners are not intended to be permanent. The article as it currently stands has problems. Hopefully, in the future, we will get it to a state where those problems are fixed and the banners can be removed. We are on the same page if you want "objective treatment". The thing to do is gather sources that discuss this idea and write WP:SUMMARY-style prose that will inform the reader about the ideas without diving into our own jaunts of original research. The article, currently, does not do that for a number of reasons evident on this talkpage. Work to fix these problems and I don't think anyone will object to removing the banners! jps (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

We can just treat the banners as "Renovation in progress" signs. Chakazul (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

the first use of the term "aquatic ape"

Is mentioned in the article. Isn't this original research again? Alexbrn (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of that guideline is "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." So no, the book is there, you can go and read it. The reference is in the article. So what's the problem? This paragraph has substantially been in the article for years. It may not be totally accurate, because Westenhofer himself refers to other people who've held similar views. But do you need a source which says "the first mention of the AAH is ..." Certainly Morgan acknowledges him somewhere. I'd need to look it up. Chris55 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless we have a source which explicitly says that the first use was in such-and-such a paper/book/talk/whatever, then we cannot make statements about what the first use was. I suppose if a source didn't explicitly say it, but very clearly implied what the first use was, we might be able to use that, depending on how clearly it was actually implied. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Quite, this is textbook OR then. There seems to be a sense among some editors here that we need an article that is more sophisticated (maybe "better") than what WP allows. We are meant to be writing encyclopedia articles. Here that means finding the decent sources, summarizing them, and conveying that information into article form. It's drudgery work really: the only difficulty is keeping disciplined. Alexbrn (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Easily remedied by the substitution of, "an early instance of the use", for "the first use of the term". Urselius (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

As in many Wikipedia articles that have a partizan editorship one finds the precepts of 'OR' and the anathemas on primary sources being applied with an unusual and perhaps misplaced vigour. Where secondary sources exist it is always better to place reliance on these; however, when they do not exist no editor is entitled to stifle information just on the grounds of guidelines, that would be unfair to the reader. The anathemas on primary sources are not designed to kill any reporting of primary material, they are there to prevent editorialising. For example, if I were writing a review article for an academic journal and 'Smith' said "A was derived from B", whilst 'Jones' said "A was derived from C", I could comment that Jones' experimental design was not as robust as that of Smith and, therefore, Smith's findings carried more weight. In editing a Wikipedia article I could not do that, but I could still say "Smith states A is derived from B and Jones says A is derived from C". The latter bare report would be perfectly legitimate. Urselius (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

We can't say "early use" or "first use" unless that's sourced. We reflect sccepted knowledge as found in decent sources, not the ideas and observations of Wikipedia editors. Alexbrn (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Then the date of publication can be quoted and the reader be allowed to infer that it was an early use; Morris' book remains a secondary source and therefore entirely legitimate to refer to. Urselius (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It might be more useful to describe it as "which Morgan came across" or similar. Ignore my comment above, it was made without checking the article. If you want an indirect reference, you can find it on p154 of The Aquatic Ape (1982), which says "That discussion by Desmond Morris triggered off that well known and witty writer, Elaine Morgan, a former Oxford (Lady Margaret Hall) scholar, Elaine Morgan, to take up the idea and write a book on it." (as you might guess from the style, that is a quote from an Oxford undergraduate magazine, Zenith, 1977 vol 15 no 1 pp4-6). She may have said more in later books but I've long since returned those to the library. Chris55 (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want a secondhand source the best I can offer immediately is by David Attenborough in the "Scars of Evolution" transcript: "Elaine Morgan read The Naked Ape again. And this time she was struck by three short paragraphs on page 29. Desmond Morris had briefly described another more ingenious theory, that before he became a hunting ape, the original ground ape, that had left the forests, went through a long phase as an “aquatic” ape." He did know all the principals personally. Chris55 (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the very first part (abstract) of Hardy 1960 already stated "The author explains his hypothesis that we descended from more aquatic ape-like ancestors" (my bold). Not sure it could be counted as the first use, or either Morgan / Morris was inspired by these wordings. The dropping of "more" would be proven a disaster by evoking the imaginary of a dolphin-man or aquaman. Chakazul (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right, Chakazul. Afaics Hardy doesn't use it in the article, so I guess one has to credit some unnamed New Scientist editor. But it's also clear that Morris was the reason for Morgan's use of the term. Chris55 (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hardy actually does use the same phrase in the article. Abstracting out the two words "aquatic ape" from the phrase "more aquatic ape-like" does of course subtly change the meaning. So we come back to Desmond Morris after all. Chris55 (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• I see that Urselius has presented a perfect solution. We can give the date of Morgan's use and let the reader draw their own conclusions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we please drop the fringe banners as the hypothesis is not fringe

The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis is "one among many 'alternative theories' of human origins, and indeed in that light is one of the most cogent and best argued" (Lewin R., Foley R.A., 2004, Principles of Human Evolution, Maiden: Blackwell, p. 283)

I do not think in the light of this quote from an academic book (authored by Prof. Robert A. Foley, FBA Leverhulme Professor of Human Evolution Dept. of Archaeology & Anthropology University of Cambridge) that the position that the hypothesis is "fringe" can be legitimately upheld in this article. It is not fringe, it is a cogent well-argued alternative. Urselius (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Cogently well-argued alternatives can be fringe as well. WP:FRINGE is what the banner is referring to. This idea, for better or worse, is not considered WP:MAINSTREAM. Since we cannot predict the future, it could be that the hypothesis becomes accepted in the future, but until that time we are required as a tertiary source to faithfully describe the context of the idea as it is currently marginalized. We are, unfortunately, not able to right the great wrongs that may or may not be suffered by those trying to get recognition for what very well may be a "most cogent and best argued alternative". Wikipedia's place is to provide context, not to advertise for the immanent scientific revolution. jps (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Except that there is no mainstream, "WP:MAINSTREAM" or otherwise, here; hardline Savannah hypothesis views have been repeatedly challenged over recent decades. To say that there is a single 'mainstream' in ideas on the course of human evolution is incorrect. There are a number of competing theories and there are many academics who espouse mixed-model views. At one time bipedalism, tool use and increased brain size and cognitive function were regarded as parallel developments, we now know that this was far from the case. As you are an eloquent linguist you will be aware of what the word 'cogent' means. A 'cogent fringe' is an entirely meaningless concept, but you appear to be upholding its existence, one wonders why? Urselius (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You're offering a false dichotomy here, that either there has to be a cogent, unassailable mainstream alternative or there is no fringe. This isn't the case. If you think our article on the savannah hypothesis is improperly WP:WEIGHTed, feel free to go over there and fix (err... create) it. But the problems here are that there are a lot of contentions being made that are unsourced or poorly sourced, including a number of problematic points about adaptation which are so marginalized as to have received no notice other than debunking. That's the extent to which we are required to apply WP:FRINGE. We need to write this article acknowledging its fringe nature. Whether that fringe nature is because it's "crackpot" or because the field itself contains so much poor scholarship that it cannot suffer fools gladly is something we can only discuss in the article provided there are sources which do so. So far, all the sources I've read basically throw up their hands and say, "it's a mess" and the reliable sources from the scientists who are gainfully employed in the study of these ideas are highly critical of many of the claims of AAH proponents. A comparison can be made to parapsychology, actually. In that fringe field, a lot of the protocols used by the parapsychologists are criticized because they are basically lying with statistics. Problem is, mainstream psychology uses the same techniques often employed in a much worse fashion(!) So is the problem that parapsychology is bunk or it the problem that psychology is lazy? Or is it both? We don't have sources that can make that distinction, so we do the best we can with the best sources we find. That means that the "bunk" proposal is paid attention to the most because that's where most of the sources are. As I said above, we are not in a position to right great wrongs at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A 'cogent fringe' is an entirely meaningless concept... Only if you attach meaning to the word "fringe" that doesn't have to be there. I know a lot of people here see "fringe" and think "pseudoscience" but those two terms are not synonymous. "Fringe" means... Well, "fringe". It means "an outer edge; margin; periphery: on the fringe of the art world." Loop quantum gravity is a fringe theory. But if you think it's pseudoscience, then you don't know what pseudoscience is.

Except that there is no mainstream, "WP:MAINSTREAM" or otherwise, here; I don't know where you get this idea from, but you're wrong. There is a mainstream, WP follows it. See below for one of the definitions of it.

hardline Savannah hypothesis views have been repeatedly challenged over recent decades. That is because the mainstream view is no longer the Savannah hypothesis, but the Arboreal hypothesis (or Woodland hypothesis). The Savannah hypothesis is, itself, fringe. Bear in mind that any theory which doesn't currently meet one of the following conditions is fringe:

• It is widely accepted by a plurality of the relevant scientific community, or;
• It is one of a number of competing hypothesis for the current consensus view.

Basically, all outliers are fringe. Loop quantum gravity has dozens (if not hundreds) of physicists publishing papers in it on a regular basis. It's rigorous, fully scientific, and advocated by a number of well-respected scientists. But it's fringe, because the mainstream consensus is that String theory is more relevant.

But the thing is, the WP:FRINGE description is more important with a theory like LQG or the AAH than it is with ideas like creationism or the flat earth. Because if we endorse creationism or the flat earth, we will end up being dismissed entirely as a useless resource. It's easy for the public to see those ideas being presented as fact and to crystallize that into the conclusion that WP is just plain unreliable.

However, when we deride ideas like creationism, but push ideas like the AAH as mainstream, it's not nearly so obvious that we're unreliable. People will read those articles and conclude that they represent the mainstream of scientific thought. And people will do this despite anything the scientific community has to say about it. Look at sites like IFLscience.com, which carelessly publishes ridiculous headlines in the face of scientists saying the exact opposite, only to result in dozens of new editors showing up here trying to "correct" the record and half of my facebook feed getting filled up with people sharing these "science" stories with me and getting pissed off when I explain to them that the story is full of shit, and the headline even more so. Neil deGrasse Tyson didn't get famous by talking to the public about stellar formation and stellar evolution, he got famous for talking to the public about engineering, evolution, particle physics, planetary classification, space probes, black holes, aliens, creationists and politicians. And who's his closest contemporary? Bill Nye, a man whose scientific qualifications extend to an engineering degree and a badass bow-tie. Because people don't listen to scientists, people listen to the people who (at least nominally) listen to scientists, including WP. So yeah, it's important that we group the AAH with other fringe theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That there appear to be no Wikipedia articles on either the Savannah or Arboreal Hypotheses, or any sections on them within other articles, makes all the discussion here rather pointless. Wikipedia certainly does not espouse a mainstream, how it can then treat anything as 'fringe' escapes me. Urselius (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED and we go by what the sources say in determining whether WP:FRINGE applies rather than trying to make a coherent expositional narrative that follows across all 5 million English language articles. It may be a good idea to have articles on those two subjects, but we cannot force the crowds to do so. You, however, are empowered to go start those articles yourself. I certainly won't object. jps (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

But the recent sources do not say that AH is fringe, they say it is one of a number of hypotheses. It has a history of being regarded as fringe, but recent academic commentators have demanded that it be treated in the same way as other competing and overlapping theories. It should be examined on its credentials, and be experimentally tested where posssible, rather than be ignored or dismissed. Urselius (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

but recent academic commentators have demanded that it be treated in the same way as other competing and overlapping theories. Find those sources and add them, then. Or at least post them here so I can add them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Tobias, P.V. (2002) in Nutrition and Health Vol. 16, pp. 13-17

"Sadly, few scientists had lingered long enough over this AAH to give it

fair-minded thought and analysis. In 1997, John Langdon of Indianapolis

made a critical analysis of the AAH. Of 32 features he culled from the

literature, and which had been proposed as aquatic traits, he concluded that 3

were possible aquatic adaptations, whilst 7 were "consistent with AAH". Of

these 7, 4 may be read from the fossil record.

As the competing savanna hypothesis is no longer tenable since I presented

much evidence against it in my Daryll Forde Lecture at University College

London in 1995, I believe that scientists have a duty to re-examine these

claims, much as Langdon (1997) has done.

(i) The AAH highlights a real problem that needs to be addressed. I am not

yet convinced that the AAH is correctly applied to all of the traits that

its proponents have listed, but for at least some of the enumerated

characters it may well provide the most reasonable, or perhaps the only,

explanation which has yet been proposed.

(ii) We should not telescope too many phases and characteristics of hominid

evolution into this single, over-arching hypothesis.

(iii) Those traits for which there are sounder and better-supported, alternative

explanations, should be expunged from the AAH list.

(iv) What is left may still be substantial enough to warrant more research.

We need new investigations such as by fresh, open-minded research

students or post-doctoral fellows.

(v) Above all, let us keep our thought processes open to changes of paradigms,

and especially to the change which would be necessitated if some

aspects of the AAH proved to be valid. In sum, the role of water, while

long appreciated and emphasised by ecologists, has been sadly neglected

by human evolutionists.

This is a plea for the heavy, earth-bound view of hominid evolution to be

lightened and leavened by a greater emphasis upon the role of water and

waterways in hominid development, survival, diversification and dissemination." Urselius (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, you made a direct request for me to provide a specific instance and I have done so, but you have not acknowledged or reacted to it in any way. I am a little puzzled. Urselius (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Urselius, are you waiting for me to add itto the article? I only added that second part as a bit of hyperbole. You obviously have a working keyboard, so make your edit. jps before you revert, note that while Tobias is certainly critical of the AAH, he is calling for scientific scrutiny, which is a WP:DUE addition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, I tend to assume that people mean what they say. Thanks for the clarification. Urselius (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Tobias seems to be criticizing the way the AAH is framed (including in this article) more than supporting it. jps (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite obviously not. He was unambiguously calling for AAH to be treated in the same way that any other hypothesis is, and calling for a measured re-appraisal. The direct criticisms of AAH form only a minor part of his wording, whose major thrust was the request I have described. Urselius (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You are looking for an endorsement where there is only an object lesson. jps (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The wording of the excerpt is perfectly lucid and supports my assertion that academics are calling for a pragmatic attitude to AAH, and for its claims to be investigated on their merits without prejudice. If you are unable to recognise this from the above text it is pointless engaging in any discourse with you. Urselius (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not without some irony that I note your rudeness below in reference to my attempt to summarize Langdon, but here you seem incapable of seeing the same plank in your eye as you attempt to summarize Tobias. I think you are suffering from a desire to promote AAH rather than properly contextualize its contested state. jps (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The motivations of others are often obscure, and I have reservations about yours. I have no vested interest in the AAH. I am a zoologist by training, as was Hardy (a professor of zoology and an FRS), so my attitude to the AAH is more aligned with other zoologists than it is with paleoanthropologists. I was first acquainted with the AAH as an undergraduate, when it was presented to me in an entirely neutral fashion. I am striving for this neutrality here, for the hypothesis to be treated on its merit, or lack thereof, in the face of prejudicial bannering and studied obtuseness. Urselius (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This does not appear to me to be the case at all. The last time a public airing of grievances was done on this idea was long-about Sir David's documentary being aired. The objections from independent sources were largely unchanged: [8] [9] [10] Even the quote you provide above shows that AH is fringe. jps (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That there appear to be no Wikipedia articles on either the Savannah or Arboreal Hypotheses, I noticed that as well, and it is a shortcoming that has made its way to my "to-do" list. But the fact that WP is lacking there really has no bearing on how we write this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

There´s a little at Bipedalism#Evolution_of_human_bipedalism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a specific definition of the term WP:FRINGE which actually consists of a spectrum of fringeness, ranging from plain bogus pseudoscience to more positive 'alternative theories' (as quoted in the Foley book). AAH may be transforming from the pseudo end to the alternatives end, but it's still FRINGE in WP standard, and this labeling is just a tool to distinguish it from mainstream views.

The mainstream view is still the Hunting hypothesis that is prominently featured in the main Human evolution article. The Endurance running hypothesis could be a candidate due to its popularity (many people talks about it as if it's a fact) but I don't see a prevailing support inside the academy. The so-called Savannah hypothesis was said to be a straw-man argument create by AAH advocates and therefore the term is avoided (thus no article in WP), but in fact it exists and it's not even a hypothesis -- more like an assumption / paradigm so deep-rooted that no one has ever thought to challenge or test it (until Morgan). It's now out of fashion. The current consensus has become a Mosaic environment, whatever 'mosaic' means, it includes the elements of grassland, trees, and water. On bipedalism, Arboreal hypothesis is one of the candidates, it's reviewed by Niemitz as two of the most probable factors together with wading, though not the most popular ones. So AAH/Waterside is FRINGE relative to the mainstream views of Hunting and Mosaic, though I do not see contradictions among the Waterside, Mosaic, and Hunting models. Chakazul (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The mere fact that proponents of AAH were instrumental in the re-evaluation of the so-called "Savannah Hypothesis" argues for the importance of the subject. I can see the hunting model coming under considerable challenge. After all it now appears that some chimpanzees make and use 'spears' for killing and extracting bush babies from their nest holes! Urselius (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I have been looking into the history of this and it seems that most of the re-evaluation of ecological contexts for humans and hominids was not done in the context of considering AAH seriously. It was an object lesson that since anthropologists could see how obviously dopey the AAH was, it was rather ludicrous to be hanging on to other dopey proposals. jps (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

How important is the grain of sand in creating the pearl? Urselius (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

We're getting off topic here, but what I read was that the lack of archeological evidence for the Savannah hypothesis was what caused it to be re-evaluated. The Woodland hypothesis grew to become the mainstream view out of that same evidence. I also want to nod to the Hunting hypothesis and the Endurance running hypothesis as mentioned by Chakazul as being additional, not competing hypotheses to the AAH/Savannah/Woodland hypotheses, though they do compete with each other to a degree. For what it's worth (probably about as much as my pocket lint, but here goes anyways), my own personal opinion is that all of them are accurate to one degree or another, with the Hunting hypothesis contributing the most and the Savannah hypothesis contributing the least. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree MjolnirPants. I think that in the context of the one or two independent sources which mention both AAH and criticize SH, the sources have not been not so laudatory towards AAH. jps (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Urselius for the quotation from Foley and Lewin. In view of the fact that one side of this discussion is casting AAH as a fringe which cannot be represented except through the eyes of normal science, it might be worth reading into the record the full quotation from that standard textbook (courtesy of Amazon):

There is, though, a vociferous minority on the margins of the discipline who argue something completely different: that the hominin lineage went through an aquatic phase, and it was during this time that the key characteristics of humanity--bipedalism, hairlessness, language, tool making, etc.--all evolved. Rather than our features being adaptations in drier terrestrial environments, they are adaptations to living in water. The key figure in this model is Elaine Morgan, who has written a number of highly persuasive books making these claims, and who has a strong following on the web and in the more popular literature. She has, however, failed to make many if any converts among the mainstream of the discipline, so that to the uninitiated it might appear that there are two models "out there," talking past each other.

Indeed it is one of Elaine Morgan's complaints that her ideas have been ignored rather than criticized or dismissed, and that this is a case of "normal science" in the terms of philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, ignoring the radical alternative paradigm rather than engaging with it. In fact there have been a number of serious examinations of the theory, most of which have failed to find support for it, but it is certainly the case that most textbooks on human evolution--this one included--simply ignore the aquatic model.

This model is one among many "alternative theories" of human origins, and ideed in that light it is one of the most cogent and best argued. Others posit visitors from outer space, or strange racial theories of events deep under ice (for a survey of these theories see Strange Creations by Donnay Kossy [Fetal House, 2001]).

The existence of such models does raise the question of what it is that distinguishes a plausible model from an implausible one. What is it that makes it reasonable to discuss one model and to dismiss another out of hand? Is the aquatic ape hypothesis a reasonable explanation for many unique features of humanity, and ignored because it is a challenge to scientific orthodoxy, or is it a crackpot theory? If it is the latter, then should the scientific community spend time and resources refuting it? If it is the former, how can it become accepted as a good model?

Foley R.A., Lewin R. Principles of Evolution, 2nd edition, 2003, p282-283

Please do not interpret this as suggesting support for Morgan and remember that it was published 14 years ago. But if Wikipedia is not allowed to report the tentative steps that are being made to confirm it 14 years later, then it must have an agenda based entirely on 'normal science'. Chris55 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

If steps are being made to confirm this hypothesis, then it's moving into the realm of pseudoscience. In science, you try to disprove a hypothesis, and only if you fail do you start using it to do further science. You can't confirm a hypothesis because no matter how useful it is or how little contradictory evidence there is, you never know what evidence might be found in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the approach of a scientist, here I am speaking of an experimental scientist, is to test a hypothesis. He or she should not be trying to either confirm or disprove a theory. That scientists in the real world sometimes have vested interests, one way or another, in a hypothesis does not affect the ideal of scientific method to which they should adhere. Urselius (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Either you are commenting on individual motivations (which should have no bearing on methodology whatsoever) for the sake of arguing, or you are clearly being facetious about your claims of being a scientists. This is elementary school level science education stuff, and not the sort that you find out is actually wrong in more advanced learning. The only way to reliably test a theory is to try to disprove it. Any suggestion that methods designed to confirm a hypothesis might be valid (or even possible) is philosophically and technically ignorant. It is literally conflating pseudoscience with science. Falsifiability is one of the key features in determining whether a hypothesis or theory is scientific or not, because falsifiability is useful both technically and philosophically. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Again no. I can comment on the motivations of individual scientists, human weaknesses as a generalised concept and the ideals of scientific investigation - all within one paragraph if I choose. Once again, an experimental scientist should be testing a hypothesis, he certainly should not be attempting to either prove or disprove it. An attempt to disprove is just as biased and questionable in its motivation as an attempt to prove. They have a moral and methodological equivalence. I have never claimed to be more than one scientist - I hardly ever use 'we' in reference to myself; and yes, this is a real example of me being facetious. Urselius (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I highly recommend Bender, Tobias & Bender (2012) "The Savannah Hypotheses" [11] for those interested in the history of SH and AAH. Quote:

The AH ... contributed significantly to show how the savannah scenario was perceived in popular and scientific discourse on human evolution since the 1980s. In opposition to early publications, which treated the savannah idea as mere description of facts, the open plains scenario became increasingly perceived as a hypothetical construct, subjected to the normal process of scientific validation.

That is, they argued that AAH was pivotal in downgrading the savannah scenario from the status of an unproven 'fact' back to a falsifiable hypothesis, which is later falsified within the academy.

Inside WP, treating AAH as WP:FRINGE on the 'alternative theory' side would do the job. Personally, I look forward to a final reconciliation among the seemingly opposing models. We are excellent divers, runners and tool-makers, perhaps getting the abilities in different time frames. Chakazul (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we cannot just say that it is an "alternative theory" because there are a lot of sources which polemically oppose aspects of it. This puts it rather in a different category than, say, F(R) gravity which is certainly an "alternative theory". jps (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, do you really understand how science proceeds? Do you think that the millions of dollars being spent to establish the existence of the Higgs Boson, Gravity Waves, Climate Change etc. are being spent by people who want to disprove their existence? Ok, we all understand Popper (I hope) but the people who don't believe in say, Climate Change, are exactly the ones who would cancel all the programs to establish its existence. It's they who call it pseudoscience. Chris55 (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my. No, MjolnirPants is correct. Your attempt to say that detection of an observable phenomenon is the same thing as confirming an umbrella hypothesis is definitely a false equivalence. Hey, if AAH made some prediction like the Higgs Boson, Gavity Waves, or Climate Change, it wouldn't be suffering from the critiques so offered. jps (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I have never claimed that someone has attempted to confirm the whole of the AAH umbrella. That was a major reason for restructuring the article in the first place. The research section read "This section only covers issues where efforts have been made to test hypotheses." Note the plural. Ok, I used the word "it" above where it might have been better to say "some of these" but please assume good faith and don't nitpick. And MjolnirPants was making an entirely different point. Chris55 (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Except the research section isn't really well organized and the sources do not really do what that sentence says they are trying to do, unfortunately. jps (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, do you really understand how science proceeds? Yup. I don't want to give too much away, but both jps and I have very, very good reasons to believe we might know a thing or two about how science works. Jps' reasons are significantly better than mine. If you need a primer on the Scientific method or its underpinnings in Methodological naturalism and the Philosophy of science, then I would be happy to provide one. But not at my talk page. You're not welcome there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about motivation not method. Chris55 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

If said motivation affects the method, then my point stands. If it does not, then it is immaterial to this discussion. Either way, your rebuttal is invalid; the money spent on the LHC, LIGO and other projects is spent designing methods capable of falsifying those hypotheses. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Chris said to "confirm" a hypothesis, it should mean "to provide evidence to show a hypothesis highly probable", right?

Seems to me that Chris and Pants/jps are talking about two different things, one of humans' innate desire to prove themselves right, and one of the scientific method that tries to prove things wrong. Without scientific method science won't progress in a healthy way, and without the desire to be correct, there will be no investigation in the first place. Science needs both to proceed.

jps said "if AAH made some prediction... it wouldn't be suffering from the critiques so offered", AAH did make a number of predictions if you read the thesis carefully, the most notable being that more evidence should be found along the coastline. In this regard archaeologists have ready found evidence in a few uplifted or underwater sites for the importance of coastal resources. "AAH makes no prediction" is just one urban legend. Chakazul (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahem, I reiterate: "If said motivation affects the method, then my point stands." We're not expositing the motivations of scientists, we're trying to document a poorly-received scientific hypothesis. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Finding more evidence along the coastline" is not a strong prediction and does not show why one would prefer AAH over any other hypothesis, none of which argue that evidence cannot exist on a coastline, for example. jps (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to admit: For two days now, I've had the image in my head of two anthropologists arguing over this until one of them throws up his hands and says "Fuck it. Let's just hop in the Delorean and go see for ourselves." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well anthropologists have already invented their brand of time machines, a.k.a. Just-So Stories. Elaine Morgan used that too.

Somehow predictions made in biology are not that precise as in e.g. physics or chemistry. For example you can predict that the enegetics of bipedal walking is more favorable under a certain condition, but being energetically favorable doesn't predict causality. I'd say that the existence of Pleistocene coastal evidence is more like providing a proper background for further scrutinizing AAH, back in 20 years ago such a background didn't even exist, thus AAH was impossible and useless. Chakazul (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Instrumentalism?

@9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: You said Langdon 1997 argued that AAH was "fallaciously instrumentalist", I found no such wordings in the paper. It's usually understood that the paper criticized AAH as an 'umbrella hypothesis' which is easy to understand but hard to verify (and the same characterization can be applied to many mainstream models). Both Langdon's 'umbrella hypothesis' and law of the instrument are about oversimplification, but there're subtle differences -- the former is about summarizing, creating something new to simplify understanding, while the later is about inertia, applying an old concept to avoid making new ones. Chakazul (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not think the distinction you make between instrumentalism and umbrella hypotheses is verifiable. Do you have a source which makes this kind of disambiguation? jps (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Answering a question with another question is a means to avoid providing a real answer. The question posed to you was, to paraphrase, 'can you support the use by Langdon of the argument that AAH was "fallaciously instrumentalist"?' Urselius (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is rather obvious that the law of the instrument is synonymous with umbrella hypothesis. Your contention, it seems, is that the law of the instrument only refers to applying "old" concepts. I see that as one possible fallaciously instrumentalist approach, but I don't see how it could possibly be considered to be the sum total context. jps (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Equating umbrella hypotheses and instrumentalism is clearly OR. Chris55 (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Answer the question. The concept known as the law of the instrument (Maslow's hammer), is an over-reliance on a familiar tool, whereas an umbrella hypothesis is a thesis that appears to explain much, but only adds speculations. The two concepts are not synonymous or even overlap to any extent. One could use an umbrella hypothesis as a Maslow's hammer, but that would be the equivalent of using an old duffel coat as a fire-blanket - but duffel coat is not a synonym for fire-blanket. Neither is the law of the instrument the same as an umbrella hypothesis. Urselius (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Urselius You keep demanding that jps answer the question, but I've read the OP three times now and not seen a single question within it. I suggest you re-read it, as well.

I think it's pretty obvious that Langdon was positing that the arguments for AAH were too comprehensive: There were just too many features listed as having been the result of AAH pressures for the argument as a whole to stand. Analogizing that to to Maslow's hammer is completely understandable in context, even if it seems odd to some. The curious thing is that I see you and Chris55 doing much the same thing, here: You've found a single point of distinction between an umbrella hypothesis and Maslow's hammer, and you're using that point of distinction to argue that jps' attempt at summary was entirely wrong. I also sense shades of the argument from fallacy in your response: because an umbrella hypothesis and Malsow's hammer aren't the same thing, he must have been wrong to use the latter. But our job here is to summarize what the RSes say. If you feel that was a poor summary (as Chakazul has indicated), then make that case. But arguing that jps was inserting original research, or implying that he's being dishonest is counterproductive and indicative of a battleground mentality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Either we faithfully reflect the cited sources or we don't. Either the sources state that 'law of the instrument' is relevant to AAH or they do not. jps has asserted that 'umbrella hypothesis' is synonymous with 'law of the instrument' and this therefore supports his extrapolation from one to the other. He has signally failed to prove that this assertion has any support by reference to any published material. His extrapolation is therefore unsound and should be struck or suitably modified. It is as simple as that. Urselius (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Or... or... now hear me out on this... we try to write text that the reader can understand so that they will be able to follow what the major issues are that critics have with this fringe theory.jps (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Address my argument, prove that either the sources state that 'law of the instrument' is relevant to AAH, or that 'umbrella hypothesis' is synonymous with 'law of the instrument', or concede. Don't change the subject. Urselius (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I already addressed your argument and you didn't understand my point. jps (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You did? Where and how? I feel that your powers of explaining what you mean may be as poor as mine are of comprehending. I suspect that your repeated use of obscurantist phraseology may be a deliberate attempt to intimidate your interlocutors, perhaps also aimed at obnubilating their faculties. Am I being ironic or facetious, or both? Urselius (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't claim to understand what instrumentalism is or implies and I suspect that I'm among 99.x% of Wikipedia readers. The Wiki article to which people were directed starts "Instrumentalism is one of a multitude of modern schools of thought created by scientists and philosophers throughout the 20th century. It is named for its premise that theories are tools or instruments identifying reliable means-end relations found in experience, but not claiming to reveal realities beyond experience." What that has to do with the idea of an umbrella hypothsis is beyond me. And even the Stanford Encyclopedia didn't enlighten me. So apart from OR there's also a practical reason not to include that in the lede. Chris55 (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

law of the instrument is the relevant Wikipedia article. If you have a better way to summarize, please feel free to offer it! The one you reverted to was terrible, however. jps (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The comparison of 'umbrella hypothesis' and 'law of the instrument' is new to me, and I don't think it's obvious to most readers. Linking them without source would be OR.

That said, 'umbrella hypothesis' itself is a peculiar notion that we can't see in any other context. By its definition you can apply it to all kinds of hypothesis/theory like AAH, endurance running hypothesis, relativity, universal gravitation, Maxwell's equations, and even Darwinian evolution -- all of them try to put a diverse range of phenomena under an umbrella and explain them with a few overarching principles, so there's nothing inherently evil in it. This led me to suspect that it's a label specifically invented to be put on AAH. It would be interesting if some source relates the 'umbrella' to another existing concept (like 'law of the instrument'), that would give it a bit more philosophical gound and historical context. Chakazul (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Endurance running certainly suffers from a similar critique, but relativity, universal gravitation, Maxwell's equations, and even Darwinian evolution do not apply from a simple perusal of the history of how those concepts were developed. I do think that the label was invented by Langdon in part to describe AAH, but it is clear what Langdon is describing in his text: that AAH is used to argue for instrumental explanations for so many disparate attributes that there is a distinct lack of a parsimony (a feature the other theories you refer to all share). jps (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Langdon neither said AAH has "less explanatory power" you put in lede -- quite the contrary, AAH tried to have much explanatory power that became a problem. Langdon aptly identified 2 levels of parsimony, one for the claims (each trait still need a particular explanation within AAH, so no more parsimonious), and one for inserting a hypothetical semi-aquatic stage, making it less parsimonious. The later is not a problem for Waterside models because of a gradual timeline, but he's right on the original AAH. Chakazul (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

jps, Chris55 actually makes a very cogent point when he said I don't claim to understand what instrumentalism is or implies and I suspect that I'm among 99.x% of Wikipedia readers. It may seem quite simpler to you to explain it in those terms, but it's probably not easier for most readers. I understand you've been under attack (a tactic Chris has attempted to use at my talk page), rather than drawn in to a reasoned discussion of your specific wording, but while I'm more than happy to defend your apparent intent, I think a better way of phrasing this is the better solution. Chakazul, would you be so kind as to make a short draft of this? I get the impression you're a bit less impassioned than the other two here, and I'm not able to devote more than a few minutes at a time to WP until this weekend. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with people rewriting the wording. I do have a problem with the wording that implies that the critique was that AAH wasn't "complex" enough. Langdon goes to great length to explain (1) why AAH advocates misues parsimony claims and (2) why AAH is not actually parsimonious. That's the main WP:SUMMARY, as I see it. There are many ways to write this, but please let's not write something that doesn't say this. jps (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No arguments here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the wordings a bit because being umbrella doesn't imply it to be unparsimonious in Langdon 1997's reasoning. He only said "Umbrella explanations appear to be parsimonious" and went on to analyse AAH in particular is actually the opposite. Also, please don't write in the article as if the critiques were facts -- they're merely counter-arguments (albeit many are reasonable). Chakazul (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I suppose there is a space in the logic that an umbrella explanation can be parsimonious even though its appearance of parsimony is an erroneous indicator! Fair enough, I am actually quite happy with the present wording and linking in the lede. jps (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest revert

We were going pretty well up until today. Then I found absolutely nothing to preserve in the latest round of edits from the nominally pro-AAH editors. [12] I want to emphasize a few things:

1. Stop removing Henry Gee's point from the bipedalism section. It's exactly this kind of timeframe point that needs to be emphasized because it's the obvious rejoinder that does not get addressed in pro-AAH (or its auxiliary hypotheses) sources. Removing this point is being done basically under the radar and is not appreciated.
2. The framing of pro-AAH authors is argued above to be problematic. However, this is an article about AAH. If there is no possible connection to AAH, I will start removing content. The reason the content is relevant is because the authors are pro-AAH. Otherwise, the content that is published in peer-reviewed journals often avoids any mention of AAH for obvious reasons. You cannot have it both ways. Either there is a connection to AAH or there is not.
3. The journal Human Evolution is not the one that is indexed. Rather this ia an obscure Italian journal that does not pass our WP:RS muster. It looks like Kuliukas could not get this provocative paper published in more mainstream journals. Leave it out since it is basically not cited by anyone, please.
4. Removal of aquaticape.org from the article is just poor form since we link to pro-AAH blogs elsewhere in the article.
5. Removing the sentence "There are differences between humans and other diving mammals include human's slower attainment of maximum bradycardia response and the occurrence of hypertension during dives." is extremely poor form. This is just attempting to whitewash and is not okay.

jps (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

1. The evidence of fish eating is not used at all in the wading section and therefore the citation is irrelevant. In addition fossilisation of fish remains 5-6m years ago is almost absent so you are setting up a straw man.

2. That is a ridiculous argument. It is silly to set up pro and con camps at every mention. In addition labelling someone as pro or anti is OR.

3. I've never indexed the "Journal of Human Evolution". The indexes I've put are to the journal that was owned by Springer but is as you say now owned by an Italian company. It is a published source and therefore meets WP guidelines though obviously not as prestigious as the other.

4. The only blog sources that I've seen are anti-AAH blogs. Where are the pro ones? Jim Moore gets his only credibility by having the same name as a paleontologist of the same name at UCSD. WP guidelines strongly discourage the use of blogs.

5. I'm not quite sure why you're objecting to the removal of this ungrammatical and obscure sentence. Does it have a source?

Chris55 (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm with jps 100% on these changes. I see nothing wrong with his arguments, and the content restored in the linked revert reads better, is more informative and more balanced (including a cite-through from the pro-AAH blog). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have checked the two references to the Journal of Human Evolution (the more prestigious Elsevier one) in the article and they are both correct. The 2014 Special Section: Freshwater and Marine Resources contains contributions from at least 6 of the people cited on this page: Stewart, Marean, Cunnane, Crawford, Brenna, Joordens, maybe others. Though I didn't add them myself I can't see what you're complaining about. So evidently they think that "AAH proponents" are worth listening to. Chris55 (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Let me elaborate

1. Quote Gee's paragraph[13]

   First: none of the features proposed to support the idea evolved together. 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.

   He was obviouly criticizing Hardy/Morgan's all-in-one coastal swimming/diving phase. In contrast Niemitz suggested a freshwater wading phase at African lakes/rivers, where you won't find any coastal seafood ("seafood" could also mean freshwater, but Gee was talking about the recent coastal diet 200,000 years ago). Note that coasts and lake/river shores are markedly different biological niches. Thus Gee and Niemitz are talking about different things and by no means contradict each other, citing it here is misunderstanding and OR. A relevant point would be evidence against prolonged lake/river interactions and freshwater food consumption in the Miocene.
2. We simply don't know the standpoint of many of the authors/co-authors (Lin Yu-Chong, Andersson JP, Linér MH, Rünow E, Dacke M, Kröger RH, Warrant EJ, Lodin-Sundström A, Milne N, Fournier P, Halsey LG, Tyler CJ). As far as I know, Andersson JP is even mildly critical to AAH, but nonetheless published works that could support it. Generalizing them as "proponents" is inaccurate and not very informative. Notwithstanding the connection to AAH is obvious, they are studies on the diving and bipedalism aspects of AAH respectively, plus some of the authors are pro- or anti-AAH.
3. I agree with the removal here. Curiously, Human Evolution (not the prestigious Journal of Human Evolution) is indexed in Springer only up to 2006 [14].
4. Non-RS aquaticape.org has no place here. Period. So does theaquaticape.org in the lede, I also removed it. (Please note again the lede image is valid not by its usage in theaquaticape.org but the same imagery in several published accounts)
5. So you're suggesting a preliminary comparison of human vs marine mammals should be included, while similar comparisons of human vs other great apes and human vs semi-aquatics should be removed. What is the rationale for such disparity? (I tend to keep them all for balanced information, or remove all)

ChakAzul (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Preliminary comparisons of the way humans dive compared to other animals was done on the basis of simple facts about physiology. The comparisons between humans and sea otters was claimed on the basis of humans who had trained to dive and sea otters in general. As I pointed out, mountain goats and sherpas share a lot in common too. But not a person thinks humans have convergent evolutionary adaptations to those of mountain goats. jps (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This is how research findings against AAH are treated as "simple facts" and those supporting it as "no real attempt", this kind of filtering is exactly why AAH was perceived as having no evidence support. The mainstream consensus (not facts) in diving medicine and primatology is, according to available data, human's diving performance is much inferior than aquatic mammals [cite Lin], and much superior than other apes/primates [cite Bender]. To counter these consensus we'll need reports of human diving down to several hundred meters without adverse effects, or primates trained to dive down to 40m (the typical upper bound of Sea Gypsies), both are very unlikely. Schagatay's comparison with sea otter is preliminary, I agree. So I'd suggest to include both of the above consensus as useful information.

Indeed, the high-altitude adaptation has also been studied by Schagatay's team, and she suggested that it's a pre-adaptation stemmed from diving, not the other way round, due to the many more factors required for diving. ChakAzul (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how this comment is supposed to be taken in terms of what we should do for the text of Wikipedia. If Schagatay's comparison is preliminary, then it is irresponsible for us to WP:ASSERT it as true. Since no one has bothered to notice these claims beyond AAH proponents, it seems to me like inclusion of such is just a kind of soapboxing. jps (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I won't insist on the sea otter comparisons, but suppose if I suggest to include the human > ape comparison which is also kind of "fact" in primatology and has the same (lack of) direct connection to AAH, what would you say? ChakAzul (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone ever bothered to try to teach a non-human ape to dive? All the sources we currently propose only look at people who train. jps (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Bender and Bender (the source you removed) trained one common chimpanzee and one orangutan, they can dive down several meters in a swimming pool, now the world record of non-human apes freediving. Before that, no one believe apes can dive at all. ChakAzul (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Right. That's why I cannot follow your logic about human > ape. :) jps (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Human record 101 meters >> non-human ape record several meters, is it so hard to do simple arithmetic comparison? XD ChakAzul (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Number of humans who have trained to dive: hundreds of thousands (conservative estimate). Number of non-human apes who have trained to dive: 2. So tell me whether we have a good statistical distribution for non-human ape extrema now? jps (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Judge for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5i1xhq0G2Y (trained chimpanzee, 5 clips)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYSLx4287Yc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=949p-Btf2uI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jzKt7zpABQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkEOBG5nsQU

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGP_j0uOwmc (trained orangutan)

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_sc7j0XHEk (trained human, using some equipment)

https://vimeo.com/7953385 (trained human, using no equipment what so ever) CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources banner

Can we remove the primary sources banner from the The Hardy/Morgan hypothesis section?

I suggest move this on two grounds.

1) The banner was erroneously applied in the first place. The section is self-proclaimed as being about the hypothesis espoused by Hardy and Morgan, therefore the primary sources written by Hardy and Morgan are sufficient in and of themselves, they need no further corroboration.

2) Most of the statements in this section now have secondary source citations, redundant (see 1 above) as they are.

Once again, the use of primary sources is fine as long as they are not used editorially to create a novel synthesis. Urselius (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The undue focus on the Hardy/Morgan primary sources does not seem resolved to me. I think it is important to learn the lesson that only concepts that are explicated in the same detail in secondary sources should be explicated here. In spot checking the secondary references, I see very little in the way of the kind of exposition we offer in that section. In short, I think the banner needs to stay until we pare down or start dealing with the ideas that are most WP:PROMINENT. jps (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The AAH is the work of Hardy and Morgan, a description of the AAH is a description of the work of Hardy and Morgan. The section in question is, indeed, a rather bald description of the major assertions of the AAH, therefore there is no need for reference to secondary sources here at all. In effect we are saying "Smith says "Blah, blah, blah". What you want is "Jones says that Smith says "Blah, blah, blah". I have provided this "Jones says" unnecessary layer and even this is not sufficient for you. Total nonsense! You are just stonewalling and covering yourself with specious references to "WP:Bollocks" in every other sentence. Urselius (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You miss the point. The stuff that Hardy and Morgan said are only relevant to the extent that they have been noticed by third-parties who are not true-believers in their religion. So we need to identify those points which have received outside notice. We can cite or even quote Hardy/Morgan directly, but it is irresponsible to simply reproduce their work as exposition lest Wikipedia serve as a WP:SOAPy WP:COAT. That is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is, you see. jps (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you are not operating within a reasonable framework. I will take the route of proposing an entirely parallel scenario as a paradigm. European swallows are not seen in Europe during the winter. We know as a scientific fact that these birds migrate and overwinter ine Sub-Saharan Africa. This has been proven by ringing studies and radio-tracker studies. However, Aristotle said that swallows overwinter by burying themselves in the mud at the bottom of pools and lakes. Say that I add this interesting but erroneous observation to the Wikipedia article on swallows - it may already be there, I haven't checked. I can legitimately do this by writing "Aristotle said ...", and all the citation I need to give is to the relevant work of Aristotle where he makes this assertion. You seem to suggest here that the following would proceed from my hypothetical edit: that I believe that Aristotle's assertion is true, that I am claiming that the scientific community supports the truth of Aristotle's assertion and, finally, that if the edit stands then Wikipedia is endorsing the truth of Aristotle's assertion. None of these are reasonable assumptions. Your assertion that what Hardy and Morgan wrote are admissable only "to the extent that they have been noticed by third-parties who are not true-believers in their religion" is entirely and completely fallacious. In the context of an article about AAH (the work of Hardy and Morgan) the inclusion of what Hardy and Morgan asserted is central, its inclusion is not dependent on anything else whatsoever. Urselius (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

If there were contemporary proponents of the swallow burying hypothesis, a similar form of exposition as the one we have here (which would encompass multiple arguable bullet points, red herrings, and just-so stories) would be likewise problematic. No one is arguing that we shouldn't explain what Hardy and Morgan said. What is necessary, though, is proper context in light of the critiques and a removal of excessive detail that distracts from what can be verifiably said to be true about this fringe theory. jps (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be doing just that. A section stating what Hardy and Morgan proposed needs no embedded critique - you are confusing the requirements for a single section with the requirements for the whole article. Urselius (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia even has a template for primary sources over-used in a section shows that your argument is not generally accepted. jps (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that does not follow. A template might be used perfectly legitimately on a section that contained any editorial comment or extrapolation (OR) away from one or more primary sources. To use it on a section which is merely repeating or baldly reporting what a primary source or primary sources state is a misuse. The context is all important.Urselius (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The template is not just used to report misquotes. See WP:PSTS. jps (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This banner was discussed above in the section Primary sources and Dmcq agreed that it was a legitimate use of primary sources as defined in WP:PRIMARY. i.e. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts...For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot". One of the reasons for this was the tendency of editors to add other features they found appealing (e.g. finger-wrinkling) which weren't found in Hardy/Morgan. You may disagree that this is allowed in "fringe" articles, but if so please show us the guidelines. Chris55 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Also a considerable amount of paring has already been done. e.g. Langdon includes 24 points but my analysis of the 5 books showed 37 whereas the article only has 9. I tried to choose the most common and central arguments. Chris55 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE seems relevant here. This list is focused on primary-sourced arguments that are, on the whole, derided in the mainstream analyses I've seen. That this isn't substantively dealt with remains a problem. jps (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of the arguments are incapable of disproof at present and many of them might never be demonstrated one way or another. That was the point of including Dennett's critique, which has been deleted. It's also why the research section only includes 2 out of the many arguments, together with a couple that have been suggested as a result. The aim of that was to try to show how science actually proceeds: in this case mostly pursuing the hard rather than the soft tissues. It was of course limited to lines of pursuit that people have picked up from the Hardy/Morgan theses. There are other lines of research that point in the same direction but are outside the scope of the article. Chris55 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Many of the arguments are totally ad hoc. "Incapable of disproof therefore plausible" is not how parsimony works. This is exactly why mainstream academics make fun of evolutionary psychologists, for example. jps (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE would be another issue. WP:PRIMARY clearly states that primary sources could be used for straightforward description of facts (here "AAH claimed such as such") but (1) without further interpretation (2) avoid large passages (3) need to be sourced. The Hardy/Morgan section perfectly comply to these guidelines, plus Langdon 1997 guaranteed the whole thesis has been secondarily reviewed. Do we need a RfC to settle this? Chakazul (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I think a Request for Comments is probably a good idea because I do not see WP:UNDUE as separate whatsoever and I certainly don't see the section as compliant. The problem is that we don't yet have an alternative drafted because there are other things to be worked on as well. jps (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is essentially that you are applying the various precepts and policies of Wikipedia that are intended for whole articles to individual sections and even individual sentences. Indeed, an article as a whole needs to be balanced and to accurately reflect the available sources. Quite obviously this cannot be extended to all individual sections and sentences, as this approach would make the result unreadable. Urselius (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You make a claim with which I categorically disagree. See WP:CSECTION. It is indeed possible and definitely preferable to keep sections balanced. We don't have "on the one hand"/"on the other hand" sections for a reason. jps (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

jps, your habit of putting in quotes phrases that have never been used is either gross carelessness or careful disinformation. Please stop it. Chris55 (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. If you don't understand why I used quotation marks, you can always ask. jps (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Then why did you? And how is that you haven't assumed any good faith on behalf of the editors of this page? Chris55 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I do it, I believe, for the same reason that Tobias did in the quote provided by Urselius. I will try to extend good faith if you will! jps (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

jps, I suppose I have to explain why I thought your remark bad faith. By adding "therefore plausible" to my phrase you put words into my mouth which counter the point I was making, and in the process made the assumption that I'm entirely ignorant or contemptuous of scientific method. Like most people contributing here I guess, I have a PhD in a non-related science subject and am well aware of what it takes to establish a subject scientifically. I prefer to try and explain words like "parsimony" in Wikipedia rather than using them in the lead but many of your remarks appear to assume simply that I'm ignorant. Chris55 (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation. I hope you will believe me when I say that I was not trying to put words into your mouth but rather trying to describe in a hypothetical fashion a problematic counterargument to the claims of parsimony. I also hope you will believe me when I say that I never assumed you were ignorant. I think what is needed at this page is a context of the most notable ideas and I think, sadly, that the most notable ideas associated with AAH are those that are rather more on the pseudoscience end. jps (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Only if you're prone to wishful thinking. Example: Extant Homo sapiens has nowhere near the same ammount of fur as their close ape relatives (or any primate), while it keeps warm employing a layer of subcutaneous fat just under the dermis. The combination of fur loss coupled with insulating skinfat is very common amongst aquatic, semiaquatic and recent semiaquatic mammals, because that combination is a better insulation solution for a medium to large size tropical mammal adapting to life in water. Therefore based on the concept of convergent evolution, fur loss in Homo sapiens could have emerged from aquatic selection. That's not a pseudoscientific argument. At all. Persistently repeating a falsehood doesn't make it a truth.

This disgraceful smearing of one the finest ideas of the 20th century has to stop. Here and everywhere else. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

These particular pseudoscientific arguments have been roundly debunked for years, actually [15], [16]. jps (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You wouldn't accept the input from Elaine Morgan, a playwright, but you would accept Jim Moore's, a retired car mechanic with a distorting blog? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Organizing the section

• jps, I'm with Urselius on this: I think a section laying out the hypothesis is fine to rely on primary sources because it should not contain any analysis or commentary, and does not imply any endorsement. Films and books do exactly that without even giving any attribution. The section is essentially "What Hardy and Morgan think" and for supporting what they think, their own words are the single best source we have. The problem I see with that section is that it's entirely too long and detailed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If you think the section is too long and detailed, you are on my side. jps (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said to Alex, I believe two paragraphs, sourced to the primary works is enough coverage of the details of this hypothesis. The most noteworthy feature of it is it's near-universal rejection by mainstream scholars, and the (IMHO, rather poor) reasons for this. As such, that is where the focus of this article should be. I believe the fact that there's little worthwhile defense of this hypothesis in the literature is sad, but that doesn't prevent me from recognizing that it's true. For the most part, you and I are indeed in agreement as to how this article should be written. Which is remarkable in that I'm pretty sure you and I have very different opinions on the validity of this hypothesis. If that is so, and you think this hypothesis is pretty much bunk, then I think that's actually a pretty compelling bit of evidence that our shared opinion on the content is the best one for the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The size of the section is just right. Compare Endurance running hypothesis, there're many similar points in ER and AH, but a feature would got a long section in ER while not even a mention in AH. I won't say the ER article is a good example because most stuffs were directly dumped from primary sources (where are the secondary reviews?), I just wanted to point out such an extreme treatment, not because of the level of evidence or academic acceptance, but of its popularity and few criticism.

Back to here, one possible change is to reduce each of the arguments into bullet points (e.g. * Bipedalism facilitated and/or enhanced by wading), but increase their number to no more than 20. This could reflect the situation of these arguments -- even proponents have not much to say about them, but a longer list gives a better idea of its scope (its "umbrella-ness"). Chakazul (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The available RSes devote far more time to discussing why (and that) the hypothesis is not accepted by scientists within the proper disciplines, but remains quite popular among scientists outside the relevant disciplines and the lay population than it does to expounding the theory. The article should reflect this, else by definition, it has major POV problems. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Let me just add my agreement with MjolnirPants that changing this section into paragraphs rather than bullets would do a lot to help the problems as I see them. Bulleted lists should be used when reporting uncontroversial members of a category. Here, we have arguments that may or may not be considered convincing, all sharing the same "top level" domain with each other. Switching to a paragraph/narrative form will allow us to explain what the most-dwelled-upon points are and lets us WP:WEIGHT properly to avoid giving false sense of import to the least-dwelled-upon points. jps (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • They are uncontroversial members of the category "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis", which is what this article is about. This article is not about convincing anybody about anything, it is about supplying information about the hypothesis. If the article was about the 'Moon being made of blue cheese hypothesis' then it would not need to prove that the hypothesis was reasonable, it would not have to, oh so carefully, guard against the hypothesis being taken seriously, it would just have to report what the hypothesis claimed and the reactions to it. The strictures you apply to the simple reporting of what has been published are irrelevant and/or unreasonable. Urselius (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Time for you to read WP:CHEESE and WP:FLAT. We are not in the business of marginalizing criticism just to make a hypothesis you enjoy look good. jps (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Crawford and Cunnane

The nutrients section is going to have to be re-centered on two AAH proponents leading research: Cunnane and Crawford. (See this for more on identifying them as ideologues.) Much of the exposition is sourced to them as WP:ASSERT, but given their agenda, independent verification of those ideas as being connected to AAH would be appreciated. So far, I've just seen cited critiques of Crawford and not Cunnane. I think this is because Cunnane is not as well-known. A case may have to be made for removing much of the Cunnane-sourced research, or at least cutting it down substantially.

jps (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Leading researchers in this aspect (pro-AAH) include Cunnane, Broadhurst, Crawford on the nutritional side, Stewart, Parkington, Joordens on the paleontological / archaeological side, and more collaborating scientists in biochemistry, marine archaeology etc. Most recent RS reviews for their works have been positive [17] [18] [19] [20] and received wide coverage in leading journals [21] [22], criticisms maybe harder to find except older ones (before 2007), so their academic reception is quite different from that of AAH. ChakAzul (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not really addressing the point. This is an article on AAH, not not nutrition. The connection between the claims about fats and iodine and human evolution need to be made explicit, and very few of those claims have been reliably vetted. While looking at nutritional requirements and the context of when and where such nutrition may have been obtained in the past is essentially separate from AAH claims in the abstract, the agenda of pro-AAH researchers (who seem to be all connected) and the affiliated researchers who believe that coastal environments may have been exploited hundreds of thousands of years ago is a watering down of the AAH proposal (excuse the pun). What I am singularly unimpressed by is the claims that the four cites you give are "reviews". They are all original research advancing similar agendas that coastal development may have occurred earlier than generally thought. This is a far cry from AAH, and the disconnect between AAH and these other ideas is obvious by doing a quick search and finding no references to early AAH work. This is the WP:OR game, then. We need to use reliable sources to establish (1) there is a connection between some researchers who made claims about AAH and nutrition in the past and (2) certain groups want to study aquatic food in the context of earlier human development. jps (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So you have the content of this article in a double-lock. If any blog site points to people as proponents of the AAH, they are then by definition ideologues and therefore their scientific credentials can be dismissed. If they cannot be positively identified as supporting AAH they can be removed for that reason. The AAH was for many years an untested hypothesis so it's redundant to point to the lack of earlier work. Since all the claims by Hardy and Morgan have been stripped down to a couple of minor paragraphs, the reader of the page will be no more enlightened about what they actually said. This is becoming once again a one-sided critique. Chris55 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I'm arguing that Crawford and Cunnane are relevant because they are AAH proponents! That connects them to the topic. I'm not saying we dismiss their claims -- I'm saying we contextualize them as AAH proponents. However, the bigger issue is that such contextualization is not being done in a fair way at this point as a lot of claims are being WP:ASSERTed for which we do not have WP:FRIND sources. If you can point to some, that would be appreciated. But as it is, I think we will start to restructure the article through an identification of pro-AAH researchers which is of interest to the readers even if their particular research does not necessarily connect to AAH in all cases (sometimes to avoid problems, I'm sure). jps (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you just call the likes of Crawford and Cunnane what you actually think of them? That they're heretics, whose volumes should be burned? CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of evidence you would accept. Take Cunnane and Crawford's article in JHE, 2014. According to Pubmed that has been cited 7 times so far. The 2002 Brain-specific lipids paper has been cited 18 times. Not overwhelming numbers, but not negligible either. Chris55 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like all the citations go to the same small connected group of AAH proponents. jps (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Attenborough's Radio Programs

Should we use these programs as sources in this article? I am increasingly of the opinion that this is not appropriate. Attenborough may have done an admirable job creating a new discussion according to his views of AAH, and he certainly should be credited for getting a lot of the current proponents to opine, but I don't think that using him as a source is necessarily a good idea when we are excluding other sources from similarly credentialed with similar editorial control. Using Attenborough as a source for quotes from named proponents (or opponents, for that matter) would be fine with me, but trying to source direct connections via his program should be eschewed. In other words, use him only to the extent that he is parroting other ideas: do not use his program as a source for points of fact or claims of connection directly. jps (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm iffy about this. Attenborough is pretty well respected (I'm not aware of any criticism of him or Life) and with this not being a medical subject, I tend to be open to such sourcing. But then, I was (and still am) open to using the expert blogs, which hasn't gotten consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well there is certainly criticism of Attenborough's support of AAH easily discoverable in online resources, but these are currently excluded from the article in a way that strikes me as being a bit opposed to the WP:PARITY principle. I would agree with keeping Attenborough as an analytical source (as opposed to just a source for quotes, for example) if we were to go the route of including expert blogs, but that's liable also to change the article into something less focused on research. jps (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is, and that's one of the reasons I support it. Our article on this subject (and every other) should be an introduction to it, not a comprehensive explication of it. Most of the heat surrounding this is about its silent rejection by anthropologists, about the curiosity of it being an anthropological theory that's worked on primarily by non-anthropologists and about the history of it. Hell, the last time I checked every single detail we give about the research is sourced to a primary source (this may not be true anymore, but it was when I last looked into it), which is, itself a bit of a shocker.

On a different note, is there anything in the article you can see which is likely to be OR? I'm inclined to remove the OR tag (though the FRINGE tag should stay for a bit, IMHO). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the research section still contains some WP:SYNTH (see the above). This is especially true where there is some sort of narrative about paleoanthropology being pushed (as in the nutrition section) that isn't being connected directly to AAH but is instead being WP:ASSERTed. We're almost there, but not quite yet. jps (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay then. I'll see if I can't jump back into that section tonight, maybe clear some of it out. (It's been a week or more since I looked into that section, and I know you guys have been editing it). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)