Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 5

Article Readability

I claim absolutely no knowledge about the AAH. That is why I as a lay person came here. I saw something that got me interested enough to wiki it. From that prospective I can tell you that this article provided me with no useful knowledge on the subject. I understand that there are people with strong feelings about the AAH, but the point by point refutation has given the article a rambling incoherent tone that is generally unreadable. I understand that there exists a large amount of literature opposing the AAH, but is it too much to ask for the pro side to be able to outline the basics of their argument without tacking on a note to every other paragraph stating that all serious scientists believe it to be profoundly stupid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.21.122 (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

At least the article now has the basics in it, good copywriting requires a different set of skills and I guess people like that would see any work here as just being liable to being torn up and wasted amidst a fight over the article. You should have seen the absolute and shaming wreck it was only a month or so ago when people had removed practically everything about the hypothesis and it simply listed criticism without saying what they were criticizing. Dmcq (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OK so it used to be worse, but could we try to make it better? Right from the introduction, every point is immediately contradicted. Why not state the premise, then the arguments against it? Incidentally, many of the arguments against seem rather weak.Madgenberyl (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Lots of people think the same about the aquatic ape hypothesis. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit (or in my version the encyclopaedia that just about anyone might have edited!) so you're free to have a go. I'd try to just keep all the stuff and just copyedit to a better presentation as a first step, it is better to separate the copyediting and material selection steps for a controversial subject like this. Dmcq (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you have opted for material selection. Pity, it could have done with copyediting more. Dmcq (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not done, but it needed a bit more balance to start off with. It's hardly NPOV as it stands. Much of the article is well-written, but it's biassed and I'm trying to correct that first. Madgenberyl (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is only "biased" if it doesn't reflect the scholarly mainstream. The scholarly mainstream pretty much rejects the AAH. This article reflects that - so it doesn't seem to be "biased" by wikipedia's definition. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The presentation is inherently biased in the way the information is presented. It would be appropriate to present the case for, fully, then have a paragraph discussing against, with justification. It's written badly, as I believe you pointed out before. There's no balance. The other main objection I have is that comments and references that are not encyclopedic are included when they should not be. If there's so much disdain for this theory in the field there should be reliable references to quote. If there aren't, that still doesn't justify including weak ones. Anyway, I'm tired of getting reverted - you don't own this article but if you choose to overwrite every good faith effort to improve it then don't complain if people don't flock here to bring it up to standard. Madgenberyl (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the club, Madgenberyl. I spent quite a lot of time in the beginning of the year trying to make the article more informative and balanced, but eventually gave it up as a waste of time. Every edit that I wrote in the format "this is what proponents of AAH have suggested" was soon either reverted or accompanied with something like "however, they are wrong" by WLU and a few others. I do not know what kind of NPOV policy they are following, but the the wiki guidelines I have seen say the following: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." To me, "proponents of hypothesis x have suggested y" (with appropriate references) is a neutral statement, but "however, they are wrong" is not. I tried to develop the text towards "proponent of AAH have said this, and opponents have said that", but changes to that direction never survived long. Of course, that format has the problem that the opponents of AAH have written hardly anything at all on the topic, so the opinion contra has few serious sources to cite apart from Langdon's 15-year-old paper. Cricetus (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

May I repeat the advice I gave to Madgenberyl to either try and deal with content or try and deal with the presentation but not to mix the roles at least not without a decent gap in between. Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this article is at present subject to fierce sabotage by very few users who seem intent on censoring this topic with no respect for Wiki or encycopedical etiquette. There are really no other words that apply, as I too have seen countless nonsensical edits, reverts and deletions. I have witnessed whole sections being deleted from one second to the next, their only crime being that they describe the individual points of AAH in proper detail and with proper sourcing (exactly as is being requested), without such deletion making any sense what so ever according to all the Wiki standards. I do believe that user WLU should be restricted from further editing of this article, since almost all these violations are done by him/her. Not just at present, but consistently over the course of at least a year. Unfortunately, I am not as well versed in the Wiki editing systems as him/her, and I haven't been able to prevent this user from abusing them in the most despicable manner to smother any attempt of a balanced presentation of the AAH concept, for instance by falsely reporting users for violations of Wiki rules in order to get them (in plural) sanctioned. But unfortunately, there seems to be nothing to be done about this at the present, the user in question is just too determined to wreck this article. CEngelbrecht (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaking censorship for reflecting the mainstream, and (as you say) you're not well versed in editing wikipedia or you would understand this. You're welcome to try to get me topic banned. It won't work. You're mistaking the false balance of the press, which pretends all sides are equal, with a neutral presentation that presents this fringe theory within the proper context - as a bit player not taken seriously by real experts. The AAH is not a real theory, and it's got almost no mainstream acceptance.

Please avoid personal attacks on other editors just because you disagree with them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Whitewashing

It's hardly "whitewashing" to move one paragraph from the introduction to the body of the text where it more properly belongs. If you want to include a refutation of the theory in the introduction that's fine but it needs to be general, not a discursion on one author's opinions. Madgenberyl (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2012

Moving a paragraph does not delete 1,389 bytes from the article. Please think about what you are saying. Dmcq (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You removed all mention that the hypothesis has low support, that should be mentioned in the lead per WP:WEIGHT. Dmcq (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Anon comment

I know nothing about this topic and have no agenda related to the theory. I found this article to be nearly unreadable. It should clearly explain the entire theory and then, if there are those who disagree with it, should include a "criticism" section. Right now this article is both biased and incoherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.207.4.123 (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

1. There is no real theory, there's a half-dozen variants, none well accepted or supported, so there's no "entire theory" to explain
2. Per WP:STRUCTURE, a "criticisms" section is a bad idea
3. If you didn't understand it, if you don't know anything about the topic, how do you know it's biased? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bipedalism

Some attention top the article on bipedalism from editors knowledgeable about AAH may be warranted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Request to add information

Just adding some information. Mabye someone can add it to the page itself? I have given up.

Vaneechoutte, M., S. Munro, and M. Verhaegen. 2012. Reply to John Langdon’s review of the eBook: Was Man more aquatic in the past? Fifty years after Alister Hardy. Waterside hypotheses of human evolution, Mario Vaneechoutte, Algis Kuliukas, Marc Verhaegen (Eds.). Bentham eBooks (2011). 244 pp., eISBN: 1 9781608052448. HOMO. J. Comp. Biol. 63: 496-503. [1] doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2012.09.003

Langdon, J.H., 2012. Book review: Was Man more aquatic in the past? Fifty years after Alister Hardy. Waterside hypotheses of human evolution, Mario Vaneechoutte, Algis Kuliukas, Marc Verhaegen (Eds.). Bentham eBooks (2011). 244 pp., eISBN 978-1-60805-244-8. HOMO – J Comp Human Biol 63: 315-318. [2] doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2012.06.001

There is also a congress coming up, with scientists of both opinions, willing to have a real scientific discussion. [3]

My advice: Spend your time in a useful manner, instead of wasting it with discussions like the one below. I won't waste mine no longer trying to improve the content of wikipedia, although it is a pity: What a terribly flawed page on the Aquatic Hypothesis, completely devoid of the most recent insights. But according to the rules: it is not allowed to add that information... Take careMvaneech (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Mario Vaneechoutte mvaneech

Thanks for drawing our attention to the conference planned for next May, which looks as if it will be very interesting. Just two questions:

• It is stated that the chairman, Peter Rhys Evans, appears under the auspices of "The British Society for the Advancement of Science". Could you clarify what this body is (if correctly named there)?
• Are the proceeding to be published?

Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, SamuelTheGhost,

This is a misinterpretation of the flyer: Peter’ names comes under the Organising committee banner, while the Under the Auspices of banner is separate. Apologies if the print layout appears confusing. They are two separate banners although aligned together.

The British Association for the Advancement of Science is a UK-wide organisation dedicated to connecting science with people, so that science and its applications become accessible to all. We aim to promote openness about science in society and to engage and inspire people directly with science and technology and their implications.

Address: Wellcome Wolfson Building 165 Queen's Gate London Greater London SW7 5HE England

Proceedings will be published by Bentham Science Publishers and Journal of Human Evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvaneech (talk • contribs) 12:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification about the flyer. Arising from that:

• You refer to "The British Association for the Advancement of Science", which is well known to me. The flyer names "The British Society for the Advancement of Science". So is this just a mistake in the flyer?
• I should like to buy and read the proceedings, but

• on paper
• as a private individual
• at a reasonable price

Will that be possible?

best wishes SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved the section to the bottom per the WP:TPG and deleted what appeared to be a redundant copy-paste of some previous material. Also, please don't use the talk page to despair at the alleged stupidity of other editors, it is insulting and annoying. Professionalism is expected of scholars and scientists, civility is expected of editors.

I have a copy of Langdon's review of the book, and really mean to get to adding it...but haven't. Langdon does have some interesting observations about the AAH and general field of inquiry at large (for instance, that the field is large, ill-defined and mutable). Don't have a copy of the reply though. Is there a convenience link somewhere? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I finally got off my ass and added Langdon's latest review. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That's helpful. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a lot of text you have added about a book review in a very low impact journal, ranked 39th on the list for anthropology [[4]]. It's going to take a lot more than this to demonstrate that the e-book is at all noteworthy, preferably evidence that it has been widely cited by independent scholars in higher impact journals. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ya, but that's pretty much the best showing the AAH gets in real journals and (IMO) the weight should go towards sources like these. Also, most of the material isn't about the book itself, I only included a reference to the book (not a citation note, no material was added about the book's contents) since it seems fair the page now has a review. If you look over the material I added, it's mostly Langdon's new summary of the AAH overall and some comments on the lines of evidence that (don't) support it. I'm not saying it's perfect, just that I got off my lazy ass and finally added it over a month after getting the article :) I'm sure it can be improved, feel free to hack at my first draft. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Langdon's (1997) Critique

Having just checked this web page, after months of giving up trying to get it to be a little more balanced, I have to say that I think it has improved considerably. I agree with some of the criticisms above - especially that, generally, most arguments take the form "AAH proponents believe x, y and z, but they are wrong" - but I do accept that the page should reflect the general consensus view of specialists, and there can be no doubt that they are very dismissive of these ideas.

There is one serious omission that I believe should be included on the page, but as I am obviously not the person to make the change I will appeal to the other editors.

The article, quite rightly, gives primacy to the single "refutation" against the "AAH" published in a 1st class anthropological journal, that by John Langdon, in the Journal of Human Evolution. Informed scientific debate must be conducted through the peer reviewed literature. Accepted. But let's not forget that in science criticism is not uni-directional. The scientific method relies on rigorous criticism both for and against ideas. Skeptical minds will not imagine this single paper was the last word on the subject and should question whether there has been a reply, and if there has been one, they will want to hear those counter arguments. The fact is Elaine Morgan did reply to JHE directly soon after Langdon's paper was published, but it was rejected.

Earlier this year, 15 years on, finally, a full and scholarly critique of Langdon's paper has been published.

Ch 15: Langdons Critique of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis: Its Final Refutation, or Just Another Misunderstanding? (pp 213-225) Algis V. Kuliukas in: Was Man More Aquatic In The Past? Fifty Years After Alister Hardy Waterside Hypothesis Of Human Evolution Eds. Vaneechoutte M., Verhaegen M., Kuliukas A. eISBN: 978-1-60805-244-8, 2011.

Abstract Thus far, there has been no challenge to Langdons 1997 critique of the aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH), despite its having a number of weaknesses. The paper lacks scholarliness as it does not draw upon the one published scientific investigation into the plausibility of the AAH in the literature, i.e., that byRoede et al. Langdons summary of “anatomical evidence for the AAH” seems to have been directed against an exaggerated interpretation of Alister Hardys hypothesis that humans were “more aquatic in the past”. Most of the critique was based on cursory and superficial comparisons with fully aquatic mammals, such as cetaceans, rather than considering whether human ancestors could have been more aquatic than those of apes. Even on this basis, Langdon considered eleven out of twenty-six traits to be “possible aquatic adaptations” or “consistent with the AAH”.

It is argued here that none of the specific hypotheses of the AAH have yet been refuted. Instead, what appears to have happened, is that individuals have been left to interpret certain ambiguities in arguments put forward by proponents of the hypothesis in their own way and then reject, or accept it on that basis. More than a decade later, significant new evidence has emerged, and other AAH-based models have been published, which demand serious reconsideration.

I think a balanced, rational, article on this subject should at least mention the fact that a reply to Langdon has been written. As the long debate about whether the ebook should even be mentioned, has now been won, it seems logical that this paper should be referred to explicitly on this page, even if only in the form of "... but see x for counter arguments." Perhaps it might also provide a link to a detailed, and I think interesting and informative, debate between the two authors on the subject... http://waterside-hypotheses.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=133

Algis Kuliukas (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the above shouldn't be included. Also, since there is a published reply to Langdon's review of the ebook (in the same peer-reviewed journal) this should also be included: Vaneechoutte, M., S. Munro, and M. Verhaegen. 2012. Reply to John Langdon’s review of the eBook: Was Man more aquatic in the past? Fifty years after Alister Hardy. Waterside hypotheses of human evolution, Mario Vaneechoutte, Algis Kuliukas, Marc Verhaegen (Eds.). Bentham eBooks (2011). 244 pp., eISBN: 1 9781608052448. HOMO. J. Comp. Biol. 63: 496-503. [5] doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2012.09.003 Yloopx (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There is an extensive discussion in the archives about the reliability of that volume, and the ultimate consensus seemed to be that it wasn't reliable, nor is the personal webpage of a proponent. I don't think we do service to our readers by providing a detailed critique in a top-tier journal of why the latest sally in the AAH is still not a respectable hypothesis, followed by a reply by those very proponents - and certainly not in any detail. I'll add a note to the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that WLU, but this isn't really answering the point I was making. Perhaps the key paper about this hypothesis - Langdon's 1997 JHE "rejection" - is quite rightly central to this Wikipedia article. After all, it is the only scholarly response to the idea published in a specialist journal pertaining to the subject and it is therefore right that this page emphasises that paper. My point was that skeptical minds will wonder if and when a response to that paper has been published. Now that one has (fifteen years later), a balanced page about the hypothesis should at least explicitly mention that a response has been made, if only to say "(but see x for a response)". Langdon's critique of our ebook hardly refers to that specific chapter and neither does the reply to it published in the journal HOMO recently. It's the key attempted refutation that has been replied to. That's the point. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it took 15 years for a reply to be published, and that the reply appeared in the volume it did, argues against including it here. We do not write "balanced" articles, we write neutral ones, which give due weight according to the reliability and credibility of sources - which is exaggerated in fringe hypotheses like this one. The AAH has very, very little scholarly credibility, so pointing to a late, questionable reply that ultimately misses Langdon's real point (umbrella hypotheses are not good ideas, the AAH was merely used as an exemplar - that conveniently rebutted many specific claims) doesn't seem like a good idea. It would give undue weight to the reply, weight that is not warranted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not arguing for balance, I am arguing for academic accuracy. I agree that the article give Langdon's JHE paper primacy. I am not arguing that my reply be given anything near as much weight, just that it be mentioned. A skeptical mind would expect that Langdon's paper was replied to and would be curious to find out about it. You are affectively arguing that the existance of such a reply be censored away. If you think including "(but see x)" is giving undue weight, in response to over 100 words promoting Langdon's view, it's a rather clear indication of your bias. Whether umbrella hypotheses are good ideas or not is a matter of opinion. The material point is that Langdon's critique of the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" was unscholarly and paraded a list of cherry picked, straw man exaggerations of only some of one proponent's arguments for ridicule. It is illustrative that people like you would rather brush this awkward fact under the carpet rather than report it honestly and openly. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Here I am primarily defined as a wikipedia editor, not a skeptic. Were I a skeptic first, the page would be far more critical. I personally hate accusations of censorship that invariably leap from the mouths of the promoters of fringe hypotheses, almost as much as I dislike accusations of bias. It is not purpose of the page or wikipedia at large to promote a fringe idea you hold dear, nor is wikipedia an academic work. May I suggest you devote your energies to conducting the kind of research your academic peers find convincing? Spending your time here puts the cart before the horse. We change after the academic world changes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You are ducking the point. I am not arguing for balance, but academic accuracy. It is not giving undue weight to the hypothesis to report that the one paper published in a specialist journal on the subject has been responded to. ("But see x)" is all I am asking for. It's peculiar that you find such a modest request so grotesque. I can see why you would hate such accusations but can you not see that open minded people (not just proponents) are likely to come to such conclusions based on your record here? I had a paper published in the same journal that the editors currently deem acceptable (they accept Langdon's critique in HOMO of our e-book). I suppose this, suddenly, would not acceptable to cite my paper in favour of the wading hypothesis. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead images

I've removed the mermaid image as rather irrelevant. Also removed the swimming kids images. Children splashing in the water and a baby in a swimming pool seem rather perhaps a far fetched attempt at visual WP:SYN, especially in the lead section. Vsmith (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The page would benefit from some kind of image, and the same arguments could be made about the current ones (the common ancestor of apes and humans, let alone macaques, diverged a very long time ago, making the presence of modern species arguably irrelevant on this page). However, something is better than nothing, so the current images seem OK. A possibly better option would be images of the main proponents, but I don't know if we have one. I didn't mind the paintings, they were far-fetched but at least illustrative. But anyway, support for the current two choices. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The baby swimming in the pool probably would have been relevant as proponents often use the fact babies naturally swim and hold their breath in water as an argument for their position. It may, actually, the best image of all the images (and direct visual example of a specific argument made by the proponents), with the wading gorilla image coming in second place. It probably would go well in the "Specific Claims" section next to the "Descended larynx" argument. It could probably only be improved if the image was of a baby freely swimming rather than one being slightly held. — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A swimming baby is an almost iconic image of the hypothesis. Clearly appropriate. — kwami (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Pix of the Moken would also be relevant, as would a proboscis monkey. — kwami (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Baby swimming is a reasonable choice. Not the Moken though - they're not mentioned in the page, and their ability to see underwater at least is not an evolutionary adaptation (saw a reference to that effect once, can dig it up if needed).

I would say a baby being held is a better option - unlike truly aquatic species, babies are completely dependent on adults for survival. Hold a baby and it will survive for a little while. Let it go and it drowns. Actually a rather good image for the AAH on a variety of levels. Perhaps swap the images - put the baby in the lead, put the wading gorilla (ape?) next to the bipedalism section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The infant in the current image already is being held rather than swimming independently, and I agree it is a very appropriate lead image. I've updated the caption to emphasise the important point is that it holds its breath by reflex, not that it is actually an effective swimmer. It might be worthwhile to add some more sourced information to the caption, such as which animals do and do not reflexively hold their breath underwater (particularly whether or not it is widespread among mammals and apes), at what age humans lose the reflex and have to learn to do it consciously (seems like a topic that should be covered somewhere on WP), and whether or not it has been a specific claim by AAH proponents at some stage. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a lot of information for a caption, particularly considering the body itself doesn't include that sort of detail. I don't really think it's necessary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the captions of the baby and gorilla photos to explicitly state how they relate to AAH. Although "baby being held by daddy while submerged" would describe more accurately what the first photo shows, the activity is generally known as "baby swimming", so I think it's appropriate to use that term in the caption. Pointing out that the baby is not an effective swimmer does not seem necessary, as at that age humans are not very good at walking either. Cricetus (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The breath holding reflex is cited as evidence for the AAH, the inability of humans to walk when born isn't used as evidence for anything. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Citations and arguments in captions

The captions of the new images are being used to shoehorn in more pro/anti arguments for the AAH. Several months ago there was pretty clear consensus to include a small number of "major" arguments in the body rather than the massive list of pro/con arguments that pop up like mushrooms after the rain. The captions should not be used to expand these arguments again, or introduce new ones. I'm reviewing WP:CAPTION to try to figure out what a good caption involves, but including lengthy arguments is not, I'm fairly sure, good practice. Keep in mind if we're going to include any "for" argument in the prose, we must also include an "against" per WP:NPOV. That means longer captions, more citations and almost certainly a lot of discussions - and a resulting "nets to zero" outcome since thesis must be accompanied by antithesis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In this page, "consensus" seems always to emerge by tiring tactics: those who are determined that AAH should not be described but only criticized are so insistent that everyone else gives up. An encyclopedic article should be able to both state what a hypothesis has proposed and make clear that it is not generally accepted without squeezing an "against" argument in every sentence. Cricetus (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. We don't need an antithesis for a note that X illustrates a claim of the hypothesis. A note explaining why an image is relevant is entirely appropriate. Neither of the captions claims the interpretations is correct, only that it is proposed. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that WP:NPOV requires we indeed include such captions. Further, WP:CAPTION indicates that the images and their captions are often read when the body is not - making it even more important that the images and their captions properly represent the dispute. I've adjusted the captions accordingly. We can take this to an RFC or noticeboard if you'd like. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can start an RfC. Wiki-lawyering every caption just because you don't like the hypothesis is itself POV: you introduced claims which are not supported by the article.

To illustrate how ridiculous this is, take the first image at Jesus, captioned "Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd". It doesn't go on to say "However, non-Christians do not accept Jesus as the Good Shepherd", and I have a hard time believing non-Christians would complain that the article is pushing Christianity because of that: the word "depicted" makes it very clear that this is a Christian depiction. Same thing here: we clearly spell out that these are claims of the hypothesis. — kwami (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I can dig up the references if you'd like, they were in the article previously when it included the lengthy list of claims and counter-claims, which the captions themselves are tending towards as was my concern. It is not a matter of not liking the hypothesis; there is a large amount of evidence that the AAH is not a well-accepted theory, that it is essentially at best a high-quality fringe theory. Certainly it is not a mainstream hypothesis debated regularly within journals or summarized within most textbooks. I do not see it as wikilawyering when WP:DUE says:

Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

WP:CAPTION does not address neutrality specifically, but does indicate the importance of accurate captions:

Along with the title, the lead, and section headings, captions are the most commonly read words in an article, so they should be succinct and informative.

I would rather my comments be interpreted as an experienced wikipedian who has read a not-insubstantial amount on the topic, both pro- and con-, and corresponded with some of the authors themselves, rather than attributing it to a mere personal dislike. I have spent many, many hours on google books and scholar looking for references, integrating even those I personally disagree with, and it consistently comes up as a minority hypothesis at best where individual authors point to personal agreement with certain aspects rather than a well-established and accepted body of research. As an experienced wikipedian, seeing highly one-sided captions strikes me as very problematic, particularly after spending part of my day reading WP:CAPTION. I am very open to alternative captions that reflect the overall opinion on the AAH and incorporate both supporting statements and criticisms, but the versions reverted to incorporate only "pro" information. A reader who looks only at the captions is given the mistaken impression that both these images are accepted and acceptable evidence for the AAH. After spending a lot of time reading what I can in scholarly and reliable sources on the topic, I do not think this is the case.

On a page regarding the historicity of Jesus, I would expect to see any images used in the article that present controversial items to include both pro- and con- statements. Regarding the theory of evolution, I would not expect the AAH to appear prominent in the page, or that section to have an image at all; regarding controversial points, I would still expect there to be an adequate (brief) summary even in captions. For me the overriding policy is WP:DUE, and the relevant feature is that the page is controversial and fraught with disagreement. Am I wrong? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the captions again; do other editors find this acceptable? I've tried to strike a balance between brevity, accuracy and neutrality, and I hope an acceptable version that incorporates these attributes can be written. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to apologize for saying the hypothesis says what it says. All we need to do is be clear that these are claims of the hypothesis, and we do that. The point of the article is not to disprove the AAH, but to present the AAH and to summarize its degree of acceptance. The illustrations are there to illustrate. For someone coming here wondering what the AAH is, those two images summarize it fairly well. We do not need to explain under every picture of a crucifix that "some people do not believe that Jesus is the son of God", even when that crucifix is being used to illustrate some concept of Christianity. We do not need to explain under every image of an astrological sign that "mainstream science does not accept astrology". This is no different. — kwami (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The captions do not indicate any of the skepticism found in the professional literature regarding the AAH. The captions currently say essentially "look at these two pieces of evidence for the AAH". If the images in Jesus or astrology were presented as evidence for either, then I would expect relevant skepticism to be noted. I will start an RFC some time in the next day or so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That's because illustrations illustrate the topic. The article is not about the refutation of the AAH, but about the AHH. It the Jesus article, the caption *is* making a claim: that Jesus is seen as the Good Shepherd. It wouldn't be captioned that way in an article refuting Jesus, but that's irrelevant. — kwami (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Can a caption like "Some AAH proponents interpret X as an aquatic adaptation" be neutral without immediately appending "but they're wrong" in every little case? I agree with Cricetus and Kwami. WLU, I think we need to credit readers to read not only captions but also the lead (and perhaps the section headings, etc), and in general we need to describe AAH and explain its level of mainstream scientific acceptance, but beyond that it starts to sound petty if every single sentence is a rhetorical attack. (Do you consider it undue that the article on vitalism has a caption "Louis Pasteur argued that only life could catalyse fermentation"?)

That said, obviously the breath hold reflex *is* an aquatic adaptation. It's just not unique to humans, and therefore it says nothing about the divergence of humans from other apes. So I can see that by presenting what appears to be clear evidence of one aquatic adaptation, we are going to need to explain in the text somewhere a little more about that example, so that the readers are also eventually exposed to the obvious refutation of it. But it doesn't need to fit into the caption. When you tried to do that with bipedalism, it made the mainstream alternative look weak.

If we want to illustrate not only AAH itself but also the acceptance of it, maybe we should put alongside (in multi-figures) an image of a puppy holding its breath, and of a savannah chimpanzee briefly walking upright? Maybe portraits of the proponents should be added too. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Using other pages as examples is always tenuous since, after all, it is a wiki that can be edited by anyone - which is why policies and guidelines are so important. For instance, I think the caption in vitalism could be improved with the addition of a single word. If such a minor change could be applied here, I would heartily endorse it but the reality of the AAH's acceptance and evidence base is more complicated and difficult to summarize in a short caption. Since the mammalian diving reflex is not unique to humans, as you say it does not support the AAH as an explanation for human's separation from their common ancestor with chimps and I can only see its inclusion in the caption as misleading - particularly since it's not addressed in the body either (Langdon, 1997 discusses it BTW, explicitly stating "The data on this subject are insufficient to support the AAH"). Readers who do not read the body (again, WP:CAPTION suggests a not-inconsiderable number) will not uncover this, and currently even readers of the body will not because it is not discussed. Regarding the wading gorilla, I think the caption could be appropriately balanced by stating simply that the theory is not seen as an acceptable explanation for human bipedalism, though I doubted such a blunt statement would be acceptable so I tried to include some nuance. I think trying to balance the article by adding more examples, text and images just increases the creep without necessarily improving the page.

Portraits of the proponents (I don't think any are available) would be acceptable since they do not purport to show evidence for the theory. I would happily support them, either as an alternative, or merely as extra images.

Those are my counter-points, but since other editors are in agreement, I will bow to the consensus and not edit the captions further and will not place a request for comment. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Breath-control is a major part of the AAH, so it should be in the text. It used to be, but opponents objected to including the various aspects of the hypothesis as fringe, thereby doing a disservice to coverage of the hypothesis. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the crux of the issue. For example, one of the things I want this page to inform me about is the latest developments of AAH, and yet there was strong opposition to mentioning the recent book by the current proponents. We all agree that AAH is fringe (and frankly misguided) and that the article should make that clear, and yet a great deal of the discussions here seems determined to interpret every other contributor as an advocate of the hypothesis.

WLU, how do you know Pasteur incorrectly argued for vitalism? Have you studied his arguments? Are you sure that it is the argument itself, and not simply the premises, which were flawed? It would be correct for scientists to draw different conclusions depending on the facts which were known at different points in history. I wish you'd quit editorialising; right now the only reader who I'm afraid is likely to interpret the captions in the middle of an article out-of-context from the lead of the same article is you. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My reasoning is that since vitalism is incorrect, any argument made for it is incorrect.

But anyway, part of wikipedia is accepting when the consensus is against you. In this case it is, so I consider the issue settled. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What "it" is called

There is no doubt that the heading "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" is the best one to use for this Wikipedia page, but it is debatable whether it is the best one to use for the idea(s) "it"self. It is certainly the term most people would use to describe what is usually conceived of as "this idea." However, I think it is pertinent to the subject to at least mention that there has been a debate as to what to call this thing.

The first material point is that it is not an "it" at all. There are actually several ideas with quite distinct time frames, proposed ecological niches and degrees and regimes of selection. The second point is that most of these ideas do not preclude the genus Homo from being under 'more aquatic' selection - and so the using the term "ape" is not really appropriate. Thirdly, the word "aquatic" itself is heavily loaded and subjective, invoking ideas of mermaids in some minds. The majority of related hypotheses do not propose anywhere near as much selection as would usually be associated with "aquatic" mammals. In short, some of us think "aquatic ape hypothesis" is not a very good label for these ideas. I have proposed "waterside hypotheses of human evolution" and co-authored a chapter with Elaine Morgan which defined it as...

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

Ch 6: Aquatic Scenarios in the Thinking on Human Evolution: What are they and How do they Compare? (pp 105 - 119) Algis V. Kuliukas and Elaine Morgan in: Was Man More Aquatic In The Past? Fifty Years After Alister Hardy Waterside Hypothesis Of Human Evolution Eds. Vaneechoutte M., Verhaegen M., Kuliukas A. eISBN: 978-1-60805-244-8, 2011

Now, clearly, there is no consensus on this label, even among proponents, but a scholarly and balanced account of the idea should at least mention that there is some debate about the label and suggest that the label most commonly used might not be the most appropriate. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

We use the terms found in reliable sources, and when discussing this fringe hypothesis specifically, these sources use the term "aquatic ape hypothesis". Langdon's 2012 reply discusses the lack of a true unitary hypothesis, and mentions three main time frames. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and does not attempt to guess what theory will be found right in the future. Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning it does not list every single scientific hypothesis. Finally, wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, but does give due weight to the mainstream opinion. Your ideas here are your own interpretation (with some merit, I agree the AAH is hopelessly fragmented and ill-defined) but to represent them on the page would give too much weight to a fringe theory with little mainstream credibility and acceptance. I do not support their inclusion beyond what is already present. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The latest scholarly book on this subject includes "Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution" in it's title, not "aquatic ape hypothesis".

All I am urging is that the page include a small section entitled "the 'aquatic ape hypothesis' label" where the problems surrounding its naming are briefly mentioned. I do not see how mentioning the fact there is some controversy about what to call the thing in any way lends it more "weight" - quite the contrary. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A recently published book of question scholarly appeal and weight does not change how the idea is named overall throughout the world. Put another way, that book is not the be-all and end-all of what the AAH means. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the page be renamed, or even the several references to "aquatic ape hypothesis" within the article. All I'm requesting is the fact that there is some argument about what the thing is called should be discussed as a small part of the article. Why on earth would anyone object to that, unless they had an agenda to encourage the first reaction to the idea was to be to sneer at at it? Can you not see why these determined and persistent objections to modest requests are going to be perceived as bias? Algis Kuliukas (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Article unscientific

Just browsing this topic, but I would point out that the article is fundamentally unscientific since it presents the counter-argument to the aquatic ape hypothesis BEFORE properly explaining the hypothesis. This reeks of a prejudiced (unscientific) evaluation of the argument being made, the desire to convince readers it is wrong before they actually get to the claims and evidence presented by the hypothesis. Whoever wrote the first section of the article, please correct and re-evaluate your approach to scientific ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have just edited the article as it should be presented. The entire over-long first section on Langdon's critical response now comes AFTER the presentation of the hypothesis. It now follows standard wiki presentations of topics. As can be seen, Langdon is heavily cited in this article - in fact clearly over-cited, it seems to be more about this author than the actual topic, which strikes this reader as dubious. The article needs some critical revision and pruning of references to one critical author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have just reverted - please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. And while you are at it, read WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia articles are not formal scientific papers, and are written to standards arrived at by consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not a sufficient answer. The topic addresses a scientific hypothesis and yet is being treated here in the wiki article as a crank (disputed, potentially dangerous) theory by an excessive amount of criticism in its lead paragraph. As you will note, if this paragraph is relocated to where it should be, the amount of references to one particular (critical) author are over-loaded. I am not an expert in this area and thus have no intention of attempting to rewrite. However the article structure shows a clear bias and thus a non-neutral point of view. And by the way, you are not a consensus. Please refrain from undoing work without due consideration of arguments and proper justification for your own edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, there can be no question that the aquatic ape theory is 'fringe' - it has no acceptance within the relevant scientific mainstream whatsoever - and per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policy it is expected that the article will make this entirely clear. 'Neutrality' does not require Wikipedia to present fringe and controversial material as having equal weight as overwhelming scientific consensus, this is an encyclopaedia, presenting accepted scientific theories and facts, rather than a platform for unverified speculation. And no. I am not 'a consensus' - but this article has been been the subject of much discussion, and a single individual cannot simply overturn the results of such discussion and then walk away - per WP:BRD, if an edit is contested, it is normal to revert to the prior state and then discuss changes on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. There is absolutely no need to provide a lengthy counter-argument to a scientific hypothesis PRIOR to presenting the hypothesis in question. I can see that this issue has been recurrent. So I present my impression as an interested but impartial reader. AAH is clearly a hypothesis based on scientific methodology, hence it deserves the respect of being CONSIDERED in a proper scientific manner. Instead the article - frankly - appears to be preloaded to persuade readers the hypothesis is wrong. This is completely unnecessary. The article should present the hypothesis in its opening, indicating very briefly that it is contested, then properly explain the hypothesis and any related background, and THEN present the challenges to the hypothesis. As it stands the article appears severely imbalanced. I would also add that the 'overwhelming scientific consensus' that you cite is largely based on indifference of the scientific community to a hypothesis that has so far received little investment. This is not evidence against a theory. As for the edit, you will note that I immediately discussed the change I made and gave a justification. You were the one to undo the change without explanation. If this is just going to be a battle of who stays here longest, let me know. Otherwise consider the argument I am making, specifically (a) the structure and balance of the article, and (b) the amount of content on and from one critic in particular compared to the amount of content on the actual hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You wrote above that "I am not an expert in this area". Now you are claiming that "the 'overwhelming scientific consensus' that you cite is largely based on indifference of the scientific community to a hypothesis that has so far received little investment". If your first statement is true, how do you know that your second is? Anyway, as I have already explained, this is Wikipedia - and we report the scientific consensus as such. It isn't a forum for the uncritical publication of fringe topics with no credible scientific recognition, regardless of 'investment' or lack of it. If you want the hypothesis to receive wider recognition, you will have to promote it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Restored previous version until a new consensus is reached. Vsmith (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I could restore the new version until you explain how we know when a new consensus has not been reached. Consensus among whom? The fact is that the article is imbalanced with the second paragraph atypical to most wiki topics and as I have argued - and others above - unnecessary. Readers can reach the counter-arguments a few paragraphs below without the sense of being told the counter-thesis before reading the thesis. I repeat I have no investment in this scientific issue. Please yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is to be neutral, not scientific (and calling it "dangerous" is flat-out silly). A neutral page discusses the topic in proportion to the degree found in the scientific literature. The AAH has very little respect amongst real paleontologists. You may think this is unfair or wrong, but it doesn't matter. Until the scientific community accepts the AAH as a valid explanation for the divergence of humans from their common ancestor with chimps, this is not the place to promote it.

Langdon's article is one of the few that ever seriously discussed the topic in a respected peer-reviewed outlet. That is why it is used so heavily. Some other minor points:

• There is no one AAH, just an endless series of speculations and splintering - so there is no "one hypothesis" to include
• "Human evolution had something to do with water" is not a hypothesis, but that's the extent of the uniting theme to the AAH
• The AAH isn't contested, it is a popular theory that has minimal mainstream support (not "no support", Carsten Niemitz and Colin Groves have ventured a testable hypothesis and explicit support, but not enough support to portray it as an accepted hypothesis)
• As Langdon's latest article says, the AAH is still basically an exercise in (superficial) comparative anatomy and an assumption

Anyway, no new sources provided to indicate a sea change in the acceptance of the AAH, so no reason to change the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Again you willfully avoid my argument concerning the balance and structure of the article. On this basis, you and others are forcing a version of the article without providing adequate justification for why this imbalance is acceptable. My point is that the article is over-weighted from its outset (first paragraphs) by arguments against the thesis PRIOR to explaining to the reader WHAT the thesis is. This smacks of dogmatism and academic politics rather than neutrality, yet alone science. Address this point. Incidentally, the argument that AAH is not one hypothesis is spurious: if so, how can you also claim that AAH is not accepted as a valid explanation for certain aspects of human evolution? Focus on the point I am making and cease projecting motivations onto my edit and reasons. This is bad faith and unacceptable. I am not treating your intervention or anyone else's on the basis that they have some ulterior motive. Ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally I intend to re-insert my edit unless you and/or others adequately address the point of why a 6-line first paragraph introducing the hypothesis has to be followed by an 11-line paragraph rejecting the hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you do not understand our policy on neutrality. We do not provide "balanced" articles, we provide "neutral" articles. See specifically the section on undue weight, where it opens with "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources...In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view...Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." I will also refer you to the guidelines on fringe theories, specifically here, and draw your attentiot to the following quote: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." The AAH is not a significant viewpoint within the paleoanthropological community and it should not be portrayed as such (and this ignores the fact that there is no "hypothesis", it is multiple, competing unconfirmed hypotheses that have no uniting theme beyond "water, sometime, somewhere"). We are not exhibiting bad faith, we are calmly and civily explaining why your edits are unacceptable, with reference to policies and guidelines. I am quite familiar with how the AAH is treated within the scholarly and popular community, and I am also quite familiar with the policies and guidelines. If you feel my interpretations and reasoning are unacceptable, you are free to take them up in the appropriate venue. You can try the fringe theories noticeboard, NPOV noticeboard, and for specific sources the reliable sources noticeboard is an option. You could try the dispute resolution too, but it will certainly be rejected for being premature. I have no doubt the interpretations you are getting here will be upheld. The resons why we have reverted your changes essentially come down to WP:UNDUE, and if you continue to revert then you will be reported for edit warring and the page may end up being protected from editing by IP addresses. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

'We are not exhibiting bad faith': interesting use of the collective. In this case you are agreeing to speak for AndyTheGrump who immediately accused me of wishing to promote AAH over and above consensus. This is assuming bad faith. I repeat: I read this page as someone interested in a hypothesis and was struck that I was being told its flaws before being told its assertions. Threat to attempt to block the page from edits duly noted. However if I do decide to revise this page, be warned that I will not be deterred by your attempt to assert undue authority and privileges in the wiki environment. THINK CAREFULLY. My edit deleted nothing but merely suggested a re-structuring of the article. The vehemence of the response to this suggestion is quite bizarre and points to non-neutrality. My change is intended to improve the article by allowing the reader to understand the hypothesis, then read the criticism. I have no objection at all to there being criticism, only to the incomprehension caused by placing this first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing uncivil in his comments on this section, nor do I see any rational or sources that support a policy or guideline-based reason to change the page. Also, you are, in fact, promoting the AAH over consensus - I see three editors willing to revert your changes, all in line with years worth of talk page postings discussing the page. So yes, you are promoting your own interpretation over WP:CONSENSUS. Per WP:STRUCTURE and WP:LEAD your edits were inappropriate. The vehemence is due to the frustration experienced editors feel when, yet again, some new account or anonymous IP editor decides - with no awareness of the policies or guidelines and a biased awareness of the relevant reliable sources - decides the direction of the page is flawed and needs to be changed. We've seen this before. On this page. Many times. You are bringing nothing new, yet still insisting you are right. You don't know what you are talking about. You might try looking up something Andy mentioned in his first revert, what a lede (also known as lead or WP:LEAD) is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

'You don't know what you are talking about.' Wonderful, total disqualification of a contribution made in good faith. Again the accusation of promoting AAH. Again the failure to address the specific point: over-emphasis given to contestation of a hypothesis prior to its explanation. I see nothing in your collective responses that reflect a proper consideration of my point and a lot of harassment to ensure this distortion prevails. I have read what the lead should be like and disagree that this article matches that description. Wiki does not prevent me from contributing from an anonymous IP so REFRAIN from deciding for yourself how edits should be made just because they do not reflect your view. You do not own this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"You do not own this site." True. Neither do you. The Wikimedia Foundation does - and they largely permit (subject to obvious legal constraints) policy on what goes into articles and how articles are structured to be determined by the consensus of Wikipedia contributors. You have repeatedly been given links to such policies. I suggest you study them. You are of course free to argue for such policies to be revised, in the appropriate place - but this talk page isn't that place, and unless and until such policies are revised, they apply to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You're assuming that you're interpretation of these policies, or those responsible for maintaining the article as it stands, are correct. I am arguing that they are not and that the opening is clearly imbalanced. You neglect the fact that many people, including myself, regulary use wikipedia, even if they are not editors or contributors, and therefore have user experience of how articles are structured. Clearly, though, a proper rewrite is needed to offer as a replacement for the current opening section of the article. Let's see if this is possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to make proposals for revisions to the article here: but before you do, I recommend you read the policies already linked to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

To settle this point anon, even if you were correct in your interpretation of the policies (and you are not) there is an obvious local consensus that your edits are inappropriate. You can go elsewhere to seek the larger consensus of the community (which will agree with us) but you are pretty much done here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

WLU, you did have the chance to just keep quiet you know. Interesting display of 'authority' when I had already said I would propose a new opening for consideration. Just to make clear, if I have time I may well offer a rewrite. So I am not done here: if I return with a new version, this will be assessed by other contributors in the normal fashion, OK? I note that all the references to wiki policy are combined with the absolute presumption that you are right PRIOR to any wider collective analysis of this issue. No good I'm afraid, democracy doesn't work through such assertions, as you will find out. This is merely empty posturing designed to intimidate a contributor differing from your own opinion. Be assured that if I work on a new version and it is dismissed in this form with harrassment and threats to block me in any way for a simple edit, without addressing the issue at hand, these strategies will be exposed. Understood? When you've quite finished with the empty power waving, I once again invite you to address the specific issue of imbalance identified above. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Something else for you to read: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Have a nice day... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh look, here's one for you all: Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Persistently responding to my appeal to address the issue of imbalance in this article with a deluge of pointless links intended to show 'I know how this works, you don't' is clearly a form of harrassment and intimidation. Except it's not working, is it? As you may have noticed, I have suspended any interference with the page and am now merely seeing where 'you' protecting the current version of this page are likely to go with any subsequent changes I may make. It's been educative in terms of the resources you use, though largely predictable in its evasion of specific issues. Anything else you want to send before the tedium becomes too much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

To return to the original issue: my view is that the second paragraph critical of the AAH is too large compared to the first paragraph introducing the hypothesis. I proposed and made an edit, placing this criticism lower down. This was undone. However the point was not addressed. Instead the response has been assertions of some kind of authority (which I fail to recognize de facto and de jure) and precedence over the contents of this article. I have repeatedly asked those objecting to the change and insisting it should stay in its present form to debate this point specifically rather than presume to tell me 'how wiki works.' This has been ineffective. So I propose - if I have time - to offer a new version to be discussed, modified or rejected, but after due consideration. Otherwise I will presume that those involved are refusing, in fact, to achieve any kind of consensus or constructive improvement of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As I have already written, you are of course welcome to make proposals for revisions to the article here: but before you do, I recommend you read the policies already linked to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You have the chance to respond to the substance of my points and consistently fail to do so, resorting instead to rhetoric. Your comment indicates you still do not understand the purpose of the lead section. I'm sure it makes you feel better to keep complaining and ignoring our reasoning, but this garners no consensus for your changes, is tendentious, and merely serves to demonstrate further your unwillingness to understand wikipedia and its processes. Please do not try to alter the main page against consensus, and if you continue to do so the page will be locked from editing by anonymous accounts. There is no point in discussing with you further, so I won't bother. Again, we've all seen this before, we know where it is going. Please note that my further silence does not indicate consensus, merely that you've introduced nothing new to the discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrinkly wet fingers

Recent research (http://www.nature.com/news/science-gets-a-grip-on-wrinkly-fingers-1.12175) shows human fingers becoming wrinkly when wet improves gripping in water. This would have been of no use to our ancestors on the savannah but would have been in ponds or shallow water and as such supports the AAH, no? So worth a mention in the article somewhere? SmokeyTheCat 04:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's called original synthesis. Wait and see whether reputable external sources make that same connection. (Quite likely they won't, if it's not even a uniquely human trait. Also, be aware that the mainstream theory of human divergence involves woodlands not savannah, and also does involve proximity to water sources.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed from the page and removed from the see also section. Original research. Also ignores the fact that wet, wrinkled skin is much, much easier to puncture. Given that we have skin is to keep the outside world away from our inside, logically suspect. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The involvement of the nervous system is very curious though, which does lend plausibility to the adaptivist interpretation. The story seems to have been widely picked up in the media, but the science behind it seems to be very immature (i.e., the researcher has only gotten as far as phoning some primate labs to learn that nobody yet has looked to see whether they share the trait, but seems to be speculating its common to all monkeys). Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't put it on the page nor in the See Also section. I know it's OR. Just thought it was worth a mention here. SmokeyTheCat 05:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source for the reception of that idea among biologists.[6] Also, here is a more technical source regarding the savannah hypothesis.[7] Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

New section

I have added ten lines which meet my requirement. I don't think that this small addition could be described as a mess. The fact that these ideas have been proposed is undeniable and their removal would be censorship. We can't remove information on the grounds that it simpler not to include it. Please indicate below whether you support it or oppose it. If it meets general disapproval, I will disappear again for a few years. JMcC (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have reverted. Please read archives 3 and 4 of the talk pages that discuss this section. In addition, I take considerable issue with the massively unbalanced nature of your additions. If those ten sentences are taken from the old version I linked to, within that version are sources which explicitly criticize these very hypotheses. To include these apparent "proofs" of the AAH without including the numerous sources that point out they are not actually proofs or support seems extremely problematic, and I can't see a reason for it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly hope that JMcC stays with this topic and does not disappear for a few years as threatened.

Perhaps the reason why the "Specific claims" section is seen as so objectionable is the form it takes, dominated by claim and counter-claim. If it was imbued with the spirit of WP:NPOV it might be more attractive and more readable. I suggest that each point should start with the common ground, describing the feature to be considered and the problem of its origin in a way that everyone must agree to, and only then outlining the mainstream explanation, the AAH suggestion and rebuttals.

The section might be better entitled "Specific significant features" and the "Bipedalism" subsection replaced by something like this:

Locomotion and the skeleton

Humans and other apes have markedly different options for moving, with corresponding skeletal differences. In contrast to apes, humans have a uniquely-shaped non-prehensile foot appropriate for flat surfaces, long strong straight legs, a pelvis creating a straight body, and comparatively short, weak arms. In the trees apes can brachiate or stand on a branch while gripping it, whereas humans need both the foot for support and the arm for balance. On the ground apes move by knuckle-walking, standing upright only when needing to reach up or when wading, whereas humans can only walk, run, or crawl on hands anad knees. Humans can swim, whereas apes can't/never voluntarily do so (??).

Starting from knuckle-walking, evolution of a fully upright stance allows more efficient running, but the flat foot and weak arms diminish skill in the trees. The standard explanation is therefore that speed on the ground was the more important factor in human evolution. The AAH would introduce a facility in the water as a factor, since a straight body is better for swimming or wading. The standard response is to see that as unnecessary and unsupported by fossil evidence, and the human ability to swim as a fortuitous development.

This certainly needs improvement and proper sourcing, but it's the tone that I think is important, and which may allow us to co-operate in writing something which achieves genuine consensus. If people think this is helpful I'll draft versions of the other subsections. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing (if you can find them) and weight would be vital issues to consider, but my overall objection continues to be that within the relevant scientific community, the AAH is not seen as a credible theory of human evolution. This leads, once again, to extremely long claim-counterclaim sections with considerable original research since you would have to find out what the paleoanthropological community actually drove human bipedalism (and hairlessness, descended larynx, encephalization and so on). Spending several paragraphs explaining in details why AAH proponents think human bipedalism is due to water, followed by "but no genuine experts really believe this" just seems like a bad idea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The point of what I am suggesting is that starting out with a statement of the common ground can greatly diminish the need for claim-counterclaim. In the sample section that I have given above, which I'd like you to read, there is no mention of the AAH itself until three-quarters of the way through. What you describe as a "bad idea" is indeed a bad idea, but bears no resemblance to what I am suggesting.

But we certainly must try to state what the paleoanthropological community actually thinks drove human bipedalism etc, since the alternative is to concede the AAH case, which you rightly say we must not do, or suppress those AAH arguments to which the mainstream has given no clear response, which would be simply dishonest. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"we certainly must try to state what the paleoanthropological community actually thinks drove human bipedalism etc". Not necessarily. There are multiple theories on the subject, and there is no particular reason for them to be mutually exclusive - the dismissal of the AAH isn't based on any particular 'alternative theory of bipedalism', it is based on the vagueness and unfalsifiability of a 'hypothesis' that cherry-picks all sorts of 'evidence' to 'prove' an 'explanation of everything' unsupported by anything but previously cherry-picked 'evidence'. Paleoanthropology isn't the science of 'proving the AAH wrong' any more than geography is the science of 'proving the flat-Earth theory wrong'. Frankly, that proponents of the AAH put so much effort into trying to persuade Wikipedia that this is a credible hypothesis, rather than actually trying to persuade the mainstream paleoanthropological community of the same thing seems to me an indication of just how weak the arguments really are. If AAH proponents want Wikipedia to treat the AAH as more than the fringe hypothesis it is, they will have to do so by winning the scientific arguments - and such arguments cannot be conducted on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be hard work arguing with a flat-earther and having to say "the earth is not flat but I don't know what shape it really is", and historically, nobody ever tried to take that position. Occasionally it is justified to contradict a hypothesis in the absence of a better alternative, but usually in science it's only when there's an improved theory that the other idea can be dismissed; Phlogiston was a good idea until there was a better theory of combustion. In this case we're proposing to consider four (or perhaps more) features held to be relevant in the evolution of humanity from ape-like ancestors. I'm suggesting that in each case we should start with a description of the contrast in the feature between ape and man, in an entirely neutral way. (We do walk upright, at least I do, and chimps don't.) Then we should give some idea of the mainstream explanation. This needn't be definitive or unanimous, but I don't believe there is any feature where the mainstream view is to throw up its hands and say it's inexplicable. At this point we introduce the AAH suggestion, which may in turn not be unanimous, and responses to that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No. You are proposing that we engage in original research and/or synthesis to 'refute' the AAH ourselves. This is neither necessary, nor proper. The AAH has been rejected by mainstream science for the reasons given by mainstream science - it is not up to us to go through every last bit of vague and unverifiable waffle ever proposed to support it and 'prove' it wrong. We don't have to provide evidence that it is wrong. We have to provide evidence that it has been rejected by the mainstream, and explain the grounds on which the mainstream rejects it. We do this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly not saying that we should refute the AAH ourselves and I don't see how Andy can infer that from what I've said. I agree with his penultimate sentence above, but "We do this" is an exaggeration at best. But I'd be grateful if WLU and Andy could comment on the main point I have been trying to make. There is currently a section called "Specific claims", which is there as a result of painful and extensive previous discussions. I've made the suggestion that the subsections there should always start with the common ground, before then going into the competing explanations offered by the mainstream and the AAH. I've proposed a draft showing how this might look for a section on locomotion. This seems to me to help the issue to be described more clearly, and also I think to lower the temperature of the discussion, which is an essential characteristic of NPOV. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect there is a PhD for someone on the topic: "Why Man never acquired any adaptation for hunting in water during 5 million years in the periods when an inquisitive animal would have improved its survival chances considerably during periods of food shortage". The problem is that some adaptations suggested may be complete baloney while others, such as the wrinkly fingers, may be true. To accept some ideas as possibilities doesn't mean you have to believe in every idea as well as flying saucers and the Mayan end of the world. There are alternative explanations for adaptations in other animals and usually both get published. JMcC (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, both mainstream thinking and the AAH contain differences in opinion and alternative hypotheses. And there's Carsten Niemitz, for example, who apparently disavows the AAH label but whose ideas clearly have something in oommon with it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Evolution of the article

The wrinkly fingers story prompted me to return to this article after a very long break to see if it had sparked off another debate. I don't propose to get involved again but it struck me that the version back in August 2010 had many more apparent adaptations that were cited by proponents than are mentioned in today's version. Some may have been disproved and disowned by proponents, but they should not have been excluded by subsequent editors. I wonder if all articles should be checked against a version about three years ago to see if they have been improved by constant adaptation. JMcC (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry JMcC, you seem to have mistaken Wikipedia for an encyclopaedia. This AAT article is not about informing people about the AAT, it’s about informing people that the AAT is wrong, apparently.Yloopx (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There was an extensive and lengthy discussion on several pages about that list. The problem was having a lengthy list give the impression that the theory was well-supported and valid, giving undue weight to it, when really it was merely a list of proposed adaptations without any research indicating aquatic adaptations were the actual reason. It was too easy to add in a new "proposed adaptation" but was much more difficult to find an appropriate example of why it wasn't an aquatic adaptation (because there's very little actual discussion of the topic in real scientific venues). Therefore a decision was made to restrict it to a small number of representative arguments rather than the lengthy, sprawling, partially-rebutted list that took up a massive amount of space to ultimately say either a) "look, there's tons of evidence that the AAH is right" (when really it's just that no scholars bother to rebut it because they don't even pay attention to it) or b) "look, there seems to be a lot of evidence, but ultimately it's flawed or outright wrong".

So, the list was replaced with a very small one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You talk (with apparent authority) about "the AAH" as if it were one idea, WLU. "It" isn't. If we can't even get this, most basic, point discussed in the article, what hope is there that anything about it is accurately reported here? Algis Kuliukas (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Langdon's book review mentions the three that have the most academic notice. However, the most important point is that none of the three have a tremendous following or overall respectability. I have no intention of numerating the hairs of all the angels dancing on the head of a pin.

However, if you manage to convince a substantial portion of the paleoanthropological community of the validity of your ideas, demonstrated by a large number of recent sources (and textbooks) seriously discussing the AAH, I will happily change the page. The limiting factor is, and has always been, the number of publications that take the AAH and all its slippery variants seriously. The diversity of hypotheses is not a strength. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea that less data is a good thing is a curious one. It should be possible to list things that people have suggested just like any other article such as proposed methods of interstellar travel, without commenting on the feasibility. However I can understand WLU's caution because guesses could be mistaken for evidence. Perhaps the list of suggested characteristics could be included by adding a section starting with the sentence "There has been speculation that other human characteristics may be explainable by AAH. In some cases other explanations have been advanced which do not involve an aquatic adaption. For other claims there has been little, if any, academic investigation and so their validity remains unproven." JMcC (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That idea was the source of discussion across several pages, including Jimbo's talk page. The last version that included a large number of ideas looked like this. It was an ugly, sprawling mess with several unanswered objections - because anyone can think up an idea, it takes considerably more work to test it or to document why it is not really proof, and often the sources were lacking. If you want to return to that version, you will have to seek consensus, and I for one will object. I believe the current, short list of the most prominent claims is adequate, I do not think we need to explore every nook and cranny of speculation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is one of those where the arguments have gone round in circles for several years. Who is going to wade thro 6 archives? Not me. I am generally a proponent of the theory and so am not happy with the present version but I can live with it for now. Scientific ideas will not thrive or decline because of their Wikipedia pages. We only report on developments, collate and condense. Deriders of the theory should note tho that nearly all advances in science (plate-tectonics, evolution and heliocentrism to name but three) were fringe theories once. Time will tell. SmokeyTheCat 17:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and there were many other fringe theories that remained fringe theories until their proponents died off or accepted that there was inadequate evidence to support them - phrenology, Lamarckian evolution, caloric theory - as well as theories that are still fringe today - homeopathy, creationism, cold fusion. Plate tectonics, evolution and heliocentrism were all accepted as mainstream and this fact became vividly demonstrated within the scientific literature. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Greg Laden’s Blog posts demonstrate AAT paradigm shift

Dear fellow editors of Wikipedia, we have heard a lot on this ‘talk’ page about the importance of popular and scientific agreement and consensus. There seems to be a shared idea amongst a group of active editors (chief among them, as far as I can see, WLU), that popular scientific and wider community opinion is that the terrestrial model is well supported by the available data, whereas the aquatic model fails to have any support.

Editors here have made it clear that for this page to change from an ‘AAT is wrong’ page, to a page simply outlining what the history of the idea is and the arguments for and against it, it would need to be shown that the idea was being included as part of the popular scientific discourse, and have a degree of popular support.

Well, since Laden’s ‘Science Blog’ posts have been considered here ‘reliable sources’ for some time, I would like to submit two of his posts and their subsequent discussion sections, as well as a recent guest post on the Blog by Marc Verhaegen, as evidence that popular sentiment may have just shifted. It seems, judging by these posts and discussions, that there is as much if not more support for the AAT than against, and although alternatives have been offered (drift and terrestrialism), these have not been substantiated and seem to be poorly supported (both in terms of evidence and adherents).

I think these web blog posts and discussions should be linked to in the article, and used as justification to start using this page as a platform to communicate the latest developments and up to date ideas in the field (for example Verhaegen’s guest post), rather than a page dedicated to informing readers that the AAT is wrong.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/30/common-misconceptions-and-unproven-assumptions-about-the-aquatic-ape-theory/

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/06/aquatic-ape-theory-another-nail-in-the-coffin/#comment-108212

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/05/elaine-morgan-on-the-aquatic-a/#comment-108239

Yloopx (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PARITY, the standard is deliberately one-sided. Blog posts are adequate to criticize fringe theories, they are deliberately not permissible in promoting fringe theories as justified. Two of those are comments, they are only valid to indicate the opinion of the commentor, which is only meaningful if the commentor is notable.

Wikipedia does not assume a false dilemma; that is, if the terrestrial model (if there is such a thing as one terrestrial model) is rejected, that doesn't mean the aquatic model is automatically valid (I suppose logically it does, but irrespective). The AAH stands or falls on its own merits, so please concentrate on reliable sources that indicate it has increasing acceptance in the anthropological community.

Also note that we do not take a "tell both sides and let the reader decide" approach. We depict the topic as found in reliable sources, to the proportion found. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit depressing. A few points:

• WP:PARITY is not a "standard", it's a guideline introduced with important caveats.
• It doesn't say anything as crude as "Blog posts are adequate to criticize fringe theories, they are deliberately not permissible in promoting fringe theories as justified." which would clearly contradict WP:RS and WP:NPOV.
• To say that we can cherry-pick from the same blog on the basis of what it says is POV-pushing to an almost comical degree.
• WP:NPOV means that we concentrate on indisputable facts, supported as necessary with WP:RS. Where interpretations differ we go on to state what those interpretations are, duly sourced. We do not give a wikipedia interpretation, and we certainly should let the reader decide. The alternative can only be POV-pushing'
• POV-pushing, whether or not of the "correct" view, is obvious and counter-productive. What we write here has negligible effect on the status of the AAH. We don't dontrol that. What we do control is the reputation of wikipedia as a source of reliable, fairly stated fact. Double standards in use of sources just makes wikipedia look biassed and stupid, which is a pity. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As it stands the current article has bias. Regardless that is is a fringe theory, the article should still remain neutral. If it is impossible to remain both neutral, and show the correct proportion to prominence then the article should simply be removed. As it stands the current article is unacceptable. ```

Adding Bender et Tobias' "The Savannah Hypothesis: Origin, Reception and Impact on Paleoanthropology" in Reception?

Do we add a note about Bender et Tobias' "The Savannah Hypothesis: Origin, Reception and Impact on Paleoanthropology" and their comment on the aquatic models? As summarized on: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23272598 This was mainly seen as valid at the end of section "Reception." CEngelbrecht (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that we have reached the point where we have to ask permission of the "owners" of this article.JMcC (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's tough, when some segments of us have this strong need for this wet concept to be nuts what ever the variation, while in an unbiased presentation of it, it doesn't come off as that.CEngelbrecht (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't be able to comment until I can see the actual paper, does anyone have a version they can e-mail me? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No idea how to do that. Check temporary link: (redacted) CEngelbrecht (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You can't e-mail attachments directly from wikipedia, one of us would have to e-mail the other and then reply. I've removed the link because of copyright concerns, but if it has some sort of license that allows it to be publicly posted, please feel free to replace it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a very good paper. There's a surprising section called "New Evidence on Water-Contact in Non-Human Hominoids" which tends to weaken the AAH by showing that swimming by humans isn't so unique after all. But mainly it's about the history of the Savannah theory, with references to the AAH where relevant, and it describes and to some extent explains the way in which the AAH has been dismissed rather than answered. It should be cited in "Reception" at least. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Poor reference in paragraph on encephalization

I'm struck by this current wording in the paragraph on encephalization:

"Further, the "best fats" for human brains are found in oily fish swimming in cold waters very distant from the tropical climate where humans evolved." The reference here is listed as Jim Moore's aquaticape.org, the page "Omega 3 fats and the brain". You can't list Jim Moore's site as a credible source in this, that entire website is one big biased distortion designed to discredit any aspect of the aquatic ideas. And Moore certainly don't have the credentials to act as a decisive authority on such an important issue.

Also the listed "fact" is completely wrong, the best fats for human brains (in terms of e.g DHA and Iodine) are found in shellfish as e.g. along the coasts of East Africa, this referenced by Stephen Cunnane's works. The current phrasing leaves the reader with a completely wrong impression on the issue of human encephalization. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair point, removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Listing the contemporary consensus on human evolution

I need to bring up the second paragraph with the current wording: "AAH has not been accepted among the mainstream explanations of human evolution. Scientific consensus is that humans first evolved in East Africa in a period when the climate fluctuated between wet and dry, and that most of the adaptations that distinguish humans from the great apes are adaptations to a terrestrial, as opposed to an earlier arboreal, environment. Few paleoanthropologists have explicitly evaluated AAH in scientific journals, and those that have reviewed the theory have been critical. (...)" (My bold.) It's wrong listing the anthropological consensus in this way, because right off the bat, it gives readers the false impression that AAH should somehow be in disagreement with large parts of that, e.g. in terms of location in East Africa. The main point of divergence between AAH and contemporary anthropological consensus is the habitat in which humans evolved (e.g. littoral versus savannah), while disagreeing with very little else, e.g. in terms of the phylogeny of the known fossil archive, this as listed by Vaneechoutte, Kuliukas et al (2011). Listing the contemporary anthropological consensus is relevant for the article, but not at this particular location. It would be more relevant at the beginning of the section "The hypothesis," as a good introduction prior to listing where AAH differ. The above in bold could be removed from the second paragraph and this paragraph would be comprehensive as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CEngelbrecht (talk • contribs) 09:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the lead section, which should summarize the body (and may not currently) but should also, per WP:FRINGE, give due weight and contextualize this fringe theory within the scientific mainstream (i.e. should refer to what the mainstream accepted explanation of human evolution is). I have adjusted the wording to place emphasis on the environment rather than location, since it is environment (not location) where the AAH diverges from the mainstream. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Acceptable.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good, please raise any other issues or suggestions you have. While some of your edits had some problems, in general they are definitely improving the page. Naturally you are free to edit the page directly, but you might get reverted and it's sometimes easier to give context on the rules I'm likely to cite. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

COnference including this

I just saw Human Evolution conference call which includes a bit about this hypothesis. Don't suppose it'll change anything here but someone just mght produce something citable. Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sceptoid article, might have something useful

http://skeptoid.com/episode.php?id=4357#bottom Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Fringe SPS being used to undermine mainstream position

Fringe SPS are being used to undermine the mainstream position here, so I have removed it: [8]. After removal I saw there had been an edit war about the removal previously. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

So basically what you're saying is that two of the main contemporary proponents (Morgan and Kuliukas) of these hypotheses are not allowed to publically recant this grossly distorting and, incidentally, also self-published source by the private person Jim Moore. Mainly because they are endorsed on, incidentally, also self-published blogs by a couple of academics, who obviously don't have the slightest problem with Moore not having a single source notation in his clearly negatively biased, pseudoskeptic writings on this topic. You're okay with Morgan being character assassinated by Moore without allowing her to say anything in return.
There's only word for that, sir. Censorship. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. That's basically what our policies say. See WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

De gode græd og de onde lo. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an english encyclopaedia and you'd be better off getting something showing some reliable source has noticed and commented on your source. WP:5P is a quck summary of the principles of Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel like Jackie Robinson in a Carolinean airport. This is plain wrong. Whatever paragraph you're citing cannot possibly be designed for allowing some smuck to depict Darwin as a chimp, while silencing Darwin's rebuttal. (And Wikipedia is hardly an English encyclopedia alone.) --CEngelbrecht (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This Wikipedia is the english version of Wikipedia then. If Darwin's theory was only in blogs and the church's was in reliable sources that that is exactly what I would support. See Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat for various other good arguments for including fringe stuff and what the usual replies are. I think my main problems here are that they are in the forms of cites whereas they are references that were said to be good in cites but I don't see a good way of marking them as such. Dmcq (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, the above is still a stupid argument. The blogs of Hawks, Myers and Laden endorsing Jim Moore's site are equally as self-published as Morgan's and Kuliukas' blogs denouncing it. This is complete and utter pigheadedness. Y'all are fine listing self published sources, as long as they confirm the false dictum, that the aquatic ideas are obvious pseudoscience. If you want to be consistent (as in not full of it), then you'll remove the entire line on aquaticape.org due to it being indifferent to the topic. And that's fine with me, 'cause Moore's site is already not worthy of mention in this debate at all, being this vicious, distorting presentation of any of the aquatic ideas.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Just go and find some reliable source saying the stuff is good rather than giving your own opinion will you please. Dmcq (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

But you do see the discrepancy in accepting self-published sources that endorse a derogatory (also self-published) site, while rejecting other self published sources that states a rebuttal. This is as blatant a negative bias as they come.

Look, let me say, that Jim Moore's site has had so much (IMO destructive) impact on this aquatic ape debate, that not mentioning him in the article would indeed leave out part of the full story. But conversely, listing his contributions as if they are completely unchallenged (which is definitely not the case), that is also not the full story. Therefore this discrepancy reeks of veiled censorship.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

ScienceBlogs aren't just random blogs, it's invitation only with experts from relevant fields, so the opinions from it have a good amount of due weight attached to them. SPS doesn't apply to ScienceBlogs, because anyone can't just write for one of their blogs; you have to be chosen, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah. How convenient.

And yet I found a printed quote to list as an RS for that subclause about how Jim Moore's "contributions" to this debate is being challenged by the contemporary chief proponent of the hypothesis, as requested here. And what happens? STILL it's just deleted, this time with the PERFECT excuse: "Obvious bias." Who in the hell has bias here? The AAH-naysayers will use any damn excuse to commit only slightly veiled censorship to shut up this Welsh pseudoscientist! Any wording that dares not giving the impression that this hypothesis is nuts, is aparently biased!!! 'Cause the naysayers sure as hell don't want a neutral, encyclopedic presentation of this topic, 'cause then it doesn't come off as the rampant insanity they for some stupid reason need it to be! CEngelbrecht (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This really isn't the right place to discuss Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are a number of noticeboards around where one can complain about specific policies being applied, for reliable sources I believe Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would be the right place. I really don't think you'll get any satisfaction there though either. I think your general argument is that weight is wrong, if you go to WP:WEIGHT I don't think you'll find that to your liking either. Neutral point of view does not mean treating everything the same irrespective of the reliable sources. p.s. I'd lay of the scandalous etc it just makes any argument you make sound weaker as just based on strong assertion Why are you so insistent on extra being added here? The article does describes the theory and it really is considered fringe so it is all fairly reasonable from the neutral point of view perspective. Dmcq (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Then delete any notion of Jim Moore's aquaticape.org. Or, acknowledge Morgan's printed perfidy-comment on his contributions. Otherwise you're full of it, mister.

And suddenly, all pictures "doesn't add anything" to the article. That's rich. You seriously don't see how this article is being continously sabotaged? Trust me, the article does not currently reflect the AAH consensus of Hardy, Morgan, Niemitz, Verhagen, Kuliuskas, Cunnane, who have you. Not even close. There are not just four main points of specific claims, there're at least 12. But I have seen people for years trying to make proper edits to that paragraph with sourcing, and bam, those are just deleted, too. And at the same time, users are being harassed, blocked from editing beyond reasonable measures, even though they only seek to instill a more encyclopedic entry, while unfortunately being heretics not decrying AAH. Only common denominator is that those edits, which would better represent the AAH consensus, would render the presentation too strong. And heaven forbid, that people should read the article and get an accurate impression of what AAH is talking about. 'Cause then it doesn't come off as pseudoscience, does it? And that's just heresy, isn't it? That's what all these destructive edits reek of.

If AAH really is such blatant pseudoscience, then why this thinly veiled censorship? Wouldn't it be obvious just from a proper presentation? What are the naysayers afraid off? CEngelbrecht (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I said it was fringe science, not pseudoscience. See WP:WEIGHT about giving due weight. Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make allegations against editors do that at WP:ANI, otherwise stop disrupting this page with the conspiracy theories and straw man arguments, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is what the guidelines say on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories: "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea". In agreement with this, I have no problem with the fact that the article titled "Human evolution" does not mention the aquatic ape hypothesis at all. However, the article being discussed here is titled "Aquatic ape hypothesis", and I do find it difficult to see how it gives AAH undue weight to explain what AAH is on a page that people supposedly consult when they want to know what AAH is. Now the article dedicates more space on criticizing AAH than on explaining what AAH is, which is not what I'd expect an encyclopedia to do. Unfortunately it seems that trying to contribute to this article is just a waste of time. Cricetus (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. You are so right about that, in every respect. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me quote the couple of sentences before that quote:

Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources.

this article does describe the theory and it describes the reception. I agree it is much more criticism than description but that is accord with that and in accord with the prominence in reliable sources. I'd be happy for a few more reliable sources describing the theory but they haven't been found. That is no excuse to start sticking in unreliable sources. As I said before a long time ago on this the only thing I think you could really dispute here with the slightest chance of success on the reliable sources noticeboard is some of the criticism citations. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't stop at the first paragraph. Read the entire guideline. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I must contest that, this article currently doesn't describe AAH to even half its current consensus. Key specific claims by Elaine Morgan and others about infant adiposity and water birth are not represented by one word. The whole spectrum of human ethology, e.g. habitat affinity and bathing behavior, are also completely left out. And I have seen edits including that, with proper sourcing, and it just gets deleted again and again for no damn reason at all.

At the same time, articles about traditional fringe and pseudo ideas, like inteligent design, the Bermuda triangle, "holy blood, holy grail", what have you, they don't see such a blatant censorship of key elements of those hypotheses' claims. Because that's not necessary. Aparently that's necessary for this article, and why is that, exactly? CEngelbrecht (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You can take this plaque as an example of just how malrepresented, the many arguments in AAH and its derivatives are in this article:

http://www.hornshire.com/aah/Poster-amphibious%20human%20blueprint%202.pdf --CEngelbrecht (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not quite as good as [9]. Don't you ever wonder a little about their saying for instance omega 3 and iodine are necessary when millions of people have living far away from the sea all throughout history? Dmcq (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The coupling of AAH and pseudoscientific mermaids makes about as much sense as coupling Charles Darwin with Nazism (or though that has been done!). The first to refute the mermaid coupling has always been Elaine Morgan, but aparently that doesn't matter, does it? Who cares what she actually says or write, right? But whatever, let that coupling be mentioned too. Just stop censoring a neutral presentation of the argumentation.

And people haven't lived "far from the sea", and still doesn't. Wiki's own world map of the human population density [10] illustrates a clear tendency for us to clutter around rivers, lakes and sea coasts. At least that is also presented as an argument by Morgan et al. And all of that aparently is not allowed to be mentioned in this article either. Again, I see people add it, and it's just deleted for no valid reason.

It's akin to the censorship creationists do to articles presenting darwinism. Aparently it's repulsive to present the actual argumentation of the idea, because it's not as easily refutable as a lot of people really, really, really need it to be. Suddenly the idea has to be coupled with pseudoscientific ideas about dolphin apes, Aquaman and mermaids that has never been part of the hypothesis. You just did it. Why this distortion? Wouldn't an accurate presentation be adequate to show that it's so obvisouly nuts? What are you so afraid of, human? --CEngelbrecht (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of people live by the sea, but lots don't. That's the point. We do not need to be by the sea so the argument as given about omega 3 and iodine is bunkum. When you look at anything else the same pattern follows. People looking to find confirmations as in that poster you pointed at is no way to do science and is little better than the Daily Mail article. You see the people living near the seashore rather than wondering about all the people not living by the seashore. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyway as far as the article is concerned you should stop talking about censorship and look for reliable sources or, as I have twice said above, contest whether some of the criticism was from reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't see the forest for all them damn trees is the way. 90 percent of the world's population lives in 3 percent of the world's land mass, that land mass being alongside rivers, lakes and sea coasts. At the least, that's a standard AAH-argument now, a claim of coastal preference for extant Homo sapiens. But is that allowed to be presented, with proper sourcing? Of course it isn't.

And I did find sources for this and that particular detail, that's what this talk section started out with. But was that good enough? No, of course it wasn't, 'cause it didn't help declare the entire AAH spectrum heresy. And aparently that's the most important task for this article. Heaven forbid that people will get an understanding of what the idea is about, 'cause those are all the elements being deleted for years now. Why is censorship necessary, if the idea is nuts?

And while on articles like Theory of Evolution suffering from similar panic psychology, something is actively done to prevent good ol' censorship, here nothing is done. The censors can just run rampant. And why? 'Cause AAH is not supported by contemporary anthropology, therefore it's okay to ignore all Wiki standards. We all know the world is flat, so why prevent the clergy from burning Giordano Bruno? --CEngelbrecht (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no additional material relating to improving the article in what you said. I can't figure out why you bothered typing all that in, there must be better ways to spend your time. If you have to spend time on this article then try and find some WP:RS for what you want to stick in. Your complaints make for difficult reading when I try and find some substance in what you say. There are noticeboards like WP:NPOVN to complain to if you feel people here are not following neutrality about the article or WP:RSN if you think some sources should or should not be included. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Then you have your eyes wide shut. Which doesn't surprise me, 'cause anthropology has had that exact problem for half a century, mainly because they don't like acknowledging valid contributions from some armchair scientist. Faced with that, aparently the scientific method can be freely flouted, so why not Wiki's standards? --CEngelbrecht (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have pointed you at the noticeboards to go to if you believe the policies are not being followed. This is not the place to change the policies and guidelines, the talk pages of the relvant policies and guidelines of the WP:Village pump pages are the place to try doing that. Dmcq (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed some of the repetition about how this is not "the mainstream position".

Really now, a great deal of the article already was overstating the idea that this is not accepted by scientific consensus. But the bit where we finally get to the actual hypothesis, and to have to preface this with what amounts to:

"Now remember kids, this is NOT the mainstream view. ALL of this can be explained in other ways."

again, just seems so bizarre and in my view shows an irrational sort of paranoia and attempt to force a view as being the correct one. Then we get to the "reception" part where it's all repeated again. Some joke, some people have serious mental issues if you ask me. Anonywiki (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

How about just getting on with it without the insults thanks? I'm happy enough with what you did and I'm all for having some decent copyeditor come along and do a good job but starting off insulting people is not a promising first step in my view. It is the way it is because people keep coming along sticking in rubbish and then you get the defenders of science jumping in and ordinary editors who might improve how it reads are driven away by all the conflict. Dmcq (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of the editors attracted to the article are either hypothesis supporters, who have an interest in representing AAH in a positive light, and hypothesis deniers, who have an interest in representing AAH in a negative light. But who are the ones most rewarded here? All I see here is that the deniers are allowed to freely delete all edits that doesn't support their personal opinion. Behaving exactly the same way as creationists on Wiki articles about darwinism and theory of evolution. The difference being that Wiki doesn't do anything to protect this article from such censorship, because AAH is a stigmatized hypothesis in the academic consensus. We all know the world is flat, so why prevent the burning of Giordano Bruno?

And I think we have severe differences of opinion on who are the defenders of science here. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether it is right or wrong. It is what do scientists in general say. And as you say they in general dismiss it. That is what Wikipedia has to go by for weight. If the science in general said the world is flat then yes that is what Wikipedia would say whatever arguments Giordano Bruno put on the talk page for the round earth hypothesis. Dmcq (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And by the way Giordano Bruno had nothing to do with any flat earth business, more to do with thinking the stars might be like the sun with other planets circling them, and his burning for heresy had very little to do with that. And people in Europe have known for two thousand years before him that the earth is round. Dmcq (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This page has been controlled now for years by a cohort of web pseudo-scientists determined to cast a perfectly valid theory as some kind of affront to science in general, who knows why. Their actions are simply fascistic. They will use every available wiki regulation and resource to ensure this article remains laughably distorted with the arguments against the 'Aquatic Ape' theory appearing before the actual theory. This is completely insane for any kind of article, but you will be told it's 'reasonable' given the 'scientific consensus.' You wonder what scares these people so much about a simple and thoroughly scientific hypothesis... Contest their actions and you'll get reported, IP blocked etc. Still Darwin probably would have suffered from this gang too. They're narrow minded dogmatists and internet bullies with no understanding of how science actually works.

Again, you're full of it. Scientists in general also dismiss a hypothesis like Jesus bloodline (Dan Brown and stuff), but such an article is not being restricted in presenting its argumentation (renaissance artwork and whatnot). Articles about creationism isn't being censored in its presented arguments. Articles about Bigfoot or Nessie ain't. The Bermuda Triangle, ancient astronauts ain't. Because it's not necessary.

Suddenly with this article, that principle of informing what a "crazy" thesis is talking about, that is indifferent. It's aparently much more important to keep saying, "EVERYONE SAYS THIS IDEA IS PSYCHOTIC! NOBODY TAKES IT SERIOUS! DON'T THINK ABOUT THIS IDEA! IGNORE IT, IGNORE IT!" And then keep sabotaging a neutral, sourced presentation, 'cause aparently people don't have to be informed about this particular stupid idea. That is all that's been happening to this article, for years. And I wonder why?

No, actually, I fully understand why. It's the paradox of having a strong psychological need for a concept to be nuts, while not being able to argue that case. Not through the scientific method, parsimony, not even by silencing or attacking its proponents. In other words, the same psychology hammering ideas like the heliocentric universe or the theory of evolution, even ideas like single African origin or plate tectonics. A lot of people get insulted by presented arguments that can't be easily refuted, and straight out of hysteria, they resort to simply censoring it. And here, they can freely do that.

Following this topic and this article seriously bums me out. We haven't moved a single step since Copernicus. We're still an arrogant, panicky, dumb little ape, which are ill-prepared to study our own place in the universe. 200 years ago, natural scientists said without batting an eye, that man was created in the image of God. Today they say instead, that humans are the peak of evolution. Monitoring just this article and this topic, I'd say that both those exclamations are equal ammounts of bollocks! --CEngelbrecht (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Coulld you lay off all the invective thanks. It isn't doing anything constructive and drives away editor who might improve the readability of the article. They just want a quiet time rather than arguing with people. Dmcq (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Trust me, those editors were driven away a long time ago. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say again that I agree with what CEngelbrecht says above and agree with the way he/she put it. I got something in my email today from a website entitled "why evolution is true", and this sort of pushing a belief on other people is incredibly ridiculous. It seems to me, based on the evidence I know of, that evolution IS true. However the forceful nature of some people with their "beliefs", makes me think that in another time they would be religious zealots. You should just talk about the evidence for something, not ever tell someone whether it's true or not, that is for them to decide for themselves. Whether they decide "correctly" or "incorrectly" is up to themselves. While I "believe" in evolution, the sentence "evolution is true" seems a bizarre way to put it, it should be "the evidence for evolution". Anonywiki (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion

CEngelbrecht's latest edits have sufficiently irritated me that I have started a discussion on the ANI, here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

quote from Naked Darwinist

An edit war about this material has developed. The disputed sentence seems to be quite inconsistent with the known views of Elaine Morgan. Could those who want to include it please give a page number and/or a direct quotation from "The Naked Darwinist" which is supposed to be the source for the sentence? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at my analysis of the diffs here. I don't think anything more needs to be done, I've already reverted to a clean version. This is pointy disruption, not a content issue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, up to a point. That does explain the spurious sourcing. Nevertheless this is a content issue, and ought to be resolved by a more thorough exercise of WP:AGF and WP:NPOV on all sides. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Censorship of topic

I think you'd be deaf, dumb and blind, if you can't see, that this topic is being blatantly censored by certain users. "Undue weight to unreliable sources." "Images doesn't add anything." Any and all excuse is valid to prevent a balanced presentation. I suppose sources are unreliable and images doesn't add anything, as long as it doesn't fulfill the wishful thinking, that AAH is blatant pseudoscience. So, anybody interested in stopping this? Or are y'all just gonna keep waving it off, because AAH isn't mainstream and probably wrong anyway, and what ever grants you sleep at night? Right now, Wikipedia is indifferent.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Rants are not discussion. Your edits violated multiple WP policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:RS. You MUST propose your changes here, and back them up with REAL reliable sources and WP policy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

How the hell would that have worked exactly, when so much was wrong with the page? I would rather just show you how the page should be. And I note, that you cannot have spend adequate time even reading this version, you just delete it. And you seem to assume, that any and all sources arguing for this hypothesis cannot possible be REAL reliable sources. You haven't read a single comma of these sources, have you? Because they're heretical, aren't they, we all know that, don't we? Why is that your kneejerk reaction, I wonder?

But congratulations, I'm sure the good lord will grant you a place along his side in the heavens for doing his work so splendidly. For once creationists and mainstream science can finally agree on something: Keep the commonfolk from understanding the aquatic ape hypothesis.

Somebody, how do I report Dominus Vobisdu (there's another clue) for vandalism?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation: "I have no reliable sources. I have no policy basis. I spit on consensus. Anyone who disagrees with me is a vandal." Prove me wrong, using reliable sources and WP policy. Otherwise, you're just trolling. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Those sources are real. You just don't want them to be real. Regardless of whether you want to quelch them into oblivion, those are the sources to AAH. And you haven't read them, have you? So how are you even qualified to denounce them as "unreal" sources? Because you assume that they are, because you want them to be. It's classic religiousity. It doesn't matter what people say or write in the face of such pigheadedness. But don't feel bad, professional academics do exactly the same, now even denouncing David Attenborough on this issue.

Incidentally, Elaine Morgan for the Darwin-Wallace medal.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to revert it again. Give that version 48 hours without deletion, let people read that setup in full and comment on it here. 48 hours, untill noon GMT on June 26th, that's all I ask. We can't reach a consensus without people knowing what can come instead of the present short-handed version. If the consensus then still is that it must go, then feel free to can it. If you really are for achieving a concensus, let's try to reach one. And stop denouncing sources, only because they argue for this hypothesis.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WOW! It got one minute! Talk about a bench of bishops.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolute not. That's not how WP works. The burden is on YOU to discuss your changes backed up with reliable sources and WP policy and get consensus here on the talk page FIRST before re-adding. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

CEngelbrecht's proposed additions look problematic to me since they contain unsourced claims and original research. Since the AAH is a fringe theory counter to the scientific consensus, material promoting it needs to be super solid. Procedurally, it is also not a good idea to perform a massive controversial edit all at once, but to advance positions more gradually with smaller edits, so that the Talk page has the "bandwidth" to cope with any detailed discussion that ensues. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you had followed this article and talk page, you'd understand that there's not gonna be a consensus, 'cause you can't talk sense with creationist users. And please define "super solid material" in this context, is any material in any way supportive of this "crazy idea" ever gonna be considered super solid? Because this hypothesis is still heavily stigmatized by mainstream science (regardless of whatever people like Desmond Morris, Philip Tobias and David Attenborough has to say about it), otherwise scientifically minded people are allowing the vandals to run rampant. It's a disgrace on Wikipedia how this article is allowed to be continously brutalized.

Incidentally, Elaine Morgan for the Darwin-Wallace medal.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

For super-solid solid sourcing, I'd expect (to take one example) evidence that one suggestion your edit inserted – that a descended larynx in certain creatures lends plausibility to the AAH – had been entertained by at least a significant minority of high-quality sources; and even then it would need to be contextualized. I am sure we will be able to reach consensus on this article: the relevant guidance for helping us get there is in WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but listen, this has actually been done repeatedly in the past by many users, exactly what you say, but then those sources too are just rejected as "unreliable," "fringe," or whatever term can be made up. It doesn't matter what is presented, because there're ulterior motives at play, and that is to censor this idea by any means necessary. Those vandalizing users don't care about the spirit of the Wiki systems, they only wish to exploit them to overrepresent their personal distaste with the hypothesis. And the users trying to instill a more encyclopedic entry are scared off from editing, because the Wiki systems can't or won't protect them from these hecklers.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We describe fringe theories based on what reliable independent secondary sources say, not on the writings of fringe proponents. Aspects of the "theory" that have not received substantial treatment in independent reliable secondary sources cannot be mentioned in WP articles, per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Non-peer-reviewed, self-published e-books by disreputable vanity presses do not meet our sourcing requirements by a long shot. Personal attacks and crying "censorship" and "vandalism" greatly undermine your credibility, and just make you look plain silly. On WP, reliable independent secondary sources talk, and BS walks. If you are unhappy about our policies, you know where the door is. There are plenty of other venues out there for you to present your views. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

See what I mean? Any wording that can make it sound, as if sources are blatantly discredited, it doesn't even have to make sense. A collection of AAH articles (Bentham 2011), which included a contribution by Phillip Tobias, that dug out half the South African fossil archive in his life time, that is suddenly "self-published e-books by disreputable vanity presses", unquote. Those are the kind of deceitful users, Wiki is currently rewarding on this article.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked back in the Talk page archive but, in general, proceeding based on the assumed motives of other editors is unlikely to be fruitful. As I suggested above, the big edit you made was highly problematic in my view. If some editors are behaving improperly, then Wikipedia has a variety of dispute resolution mechanisms that can be used to widen consensus if necessary. However, ultimately the consensus achieved through doing this will be more-or-less in line with Wikipedia policy & norms and I think it's reasonable to say that those lead – yes – to fringe views being sidelined in articles. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but right now, this is the only hope for improving this article. Aparently, this divisive topic instills some kind of panic in most people, and they'd rather censor it into oblivion, as if these presented arguments don't exist. That's completely violating Wiki's NPOV.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Images

It is purported that there is a consensus about the irrelevant images in use in the article. Can people please outline their positions here, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

These were discussed a couple months ago. — kwami (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Something being discussed and something achieving consensus are not the same thing. You claim there is consensus. Who is involved in this apparent discussion? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally dislike the images and think they grant too much weight to the page; images carry a lot of impact, and both the images are essentially of points used by proponents of the AAH to promote their beliefs. There is no equivalent image for "fat chimpanzees look just like fat humans" or "look at this human swimming poorly and getting eaten by a crocodile" or "check out how hairy this otter is, even though it is aquatic". I actually wouldn't mind pictures like these being included. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with IRWolfie and WLU. The images are irrelevant and skewed to support the fringe side of the debate. They should be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The topic of the article is the aquatic ape hypothesis, and both photos illustrate specific aspects of that hypothesis. In their published texts, the proponents of AAH have repeatedly referred to the breath-holding ability of humans and the tendency of non-human primates to walk upright in water. Therefore both images are highly relevant to AAH and hence also to an article about AAH. If you want to balance them out by adding photos that illustrate the arguments made against AAH, e.g. an obese chimp that shows similar fat distribution than an obese human, that is fine with me. Cricetus (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

They do illustrate specific aspects of the hypothesis, and in a non-fringe article, I think I would agree to include them. Here, though, I think they still give prominence to a fringe POV, which needs to be addressed. This is especially true for the picture of the baby, which the human mind is tuned to respond favorably to (it's essentially an appeal to emotion, even if it's not intended that way). I think removing just the baby picture would deal with most or all of the problem. Besides that, better pictures would probably include an artists' depiction of the aquatic ape hypothesis/of swimming prehistoric humans, or a picture of one of the AAH's proponents. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem being, of course, that I don't happen to have a fair-use image of an obese chimpanzee. Nor do I have a picture of a drowning baby. What about this?

Mammals recently adapted to aquatic environments like the otter show dense, insulating fur, in contrast to the relatively naked skin of humans

Here is another option, though the current body text doesn't specifically discuss hippos.

Animals who have adapted to semiaquatic life over millions of years and have lost their insulating fur, like the hippo, develop large, barrel-shaped bodies that readily conserve heat; humans show no such adaptations

And for a final option.

Dolphins, mammals adapted for fully-aquatic life in oceans, are completely hairless, but show strong adaptations of skeleton and soft tissues that streamline the body to enable fast swimming

I've looked for material that could substantiate some of the other lines of evidence, fossilization, bipedalism and encephalization, but naught came up. A diagram of how fossils form in water would probably work, as would a sketch of a brachiating or scavenging ancestor, but I couldn't find anything on commons. Any other suggestions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if a picture of a diving baby is too emotional, replace it with a picture of a diving adult. Below are some I found in wikimedia commons. Unfortunately none of them is technically as good as the photo of the diving baby.

As to the photo suggestions by WLU: I think the otter photo is irrelevant, because Morgan has specifically written that small aquatic mammals keep their fur and make it waterproof, whereas large aquatic mammals lose their fur. Since the otter is much smaller than a human, mentioning that otters have remained hairy does not disprove any aspect of AAH. It could perhaps be included as an illustration of a particular claim made by a particular opponent of AAH, but then a citation to that source is needed. Similarly, AAH proposes that the subcutaneous fat layer in humans (which can make fat people remarkably barrel-shaped) is an aquatic adaptation, so if the hippo photo legend claims that humans show no adaptation towards barrel-shaped bodies, a citation needs to be added to some source that has said so. Cricetus (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a picture showing scuba gear is a good idea, since that might confuse the issue. I would support WLU's photos (as long as the points they make are sourced, of course), but they don't necessarily have to be in the lead. Like I said, I would probably be fine with just the gorilla image in the lead (baby image removed from the article). I'm actually not sure about including it alongside another image (e.g. one of WLU's) as a balance, because that could set up an implied false equivalence. The image choice and caption wording would need to clearly indicate (logically, not just by assertion) which is considered the scientifically valid position, i.e. if there are two images then the second picture should contradict/refute the gorilla image. Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no scuba gear in the pictures below, all divers shown in them are holding their breath. Of course, I agree it would be better to use images where the divers don't have even masks and snorkels, but the only underwater picture of that kind I came across in WM commons is the diving baby that is used in the article already. Anyway, the proposal that voluntary breath control evolved as an adaptation to diving is such a central argument of AAH that I think it merits to be illustrated. The same goes for the proposed origin of bipedalism as a result of habitual wading. I hope someone knows a recent authoritative review on human evolution that spells out the paleoanthropological consensus on how these traits evolved (I haven't seen one) to allow explicitly comparing the AAH and mainstream explanations. Cricetus (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to outline this consensus as best as I can in the other section "New version II," with sources.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

New version II - section "Hypothesis" + pics

Didn't know the talk pages allowed for full programming. The below version was my original extensive edit from June 23rd of the "Hypothesis" section, with pics. Edited in are the relevant changes made since that version, except redundancies. This is what I propose put in instead of the current section. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

... Additional talk comments here? ...

... Additional talk comments here? ...

... Beginning of new "Hypothesis" section draft ...

New version

Might as well try again, though have no hopes, 'cause the censors rule here. Here's my suggestion to a much better article (and if it wasn't being censored away, you could see that setup now).

• A properly illustrated version with images from Wiki Commons.
• An added paragraph about the anthropological consensus on human evolution, to illustrate what this hypothesis is challenging.
• An added paragraph about the basis of AAH, listing the AAH-consensus and key differences of opinion amongst its contemporary proponents.
• Dividing claims into three subsections: Physiological and biochemical claims; ethological claims; other claims, to much better illustrate the spectrum of observations.
• Delete the repetitive "most of these traits have an explanation within conventional theories of human evolution" (which is a quite poorly weighted claim, by the way) in paragraphs, where they are not relevant, keep it to "theoretical considerations".
• Also delete the nonsense, "Hairlessness is only an advantage for aquatic mammals such as whales and dolphins that have spent millions of years adapting to aquatic lifestyles," which completely ignores the existence of hippos (but whatever, only the pro-AAH arguments are subject to scrutiny, it seems, and then should still be deleted, 'cause readers must not know, what the aquatic ape hypothesis is arguing in an article actually bearing its name, do they?).

This new version can be uploaded right now, reverting from a previous draft (the one deleted by the censors). All you gotta do is say yes. Now, wait for the donkeys. Go ahead, invent reasons as to why we still have to censor this topic.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Really, nothing? If no one says anything, I have to assume that there's a consensus for it. (Let's give that 48 hours, untill noon GMT, June 27th, but then I'll upload that version)--CEngelbrecht (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You would assume wrong. And your version will be deleted again, and you will be taken to ANI for disruptive editing. There is clearly not consensus for it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup. No consensus for this proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

CEngelbrecht's proposal seems to be a great improvement. There is no consensus to retain the previous version. As for "you will be taken to ANI for disruptive editing", that's a silly, empty threat. This is a content dispute. Try the effect of intelligently discussing content. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

When an intelligent proposal based on reliable sources and conforming to WP policies is advanced, it will be considered. So far, this hasn't been done. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Dominus, I am basing it to its fullest extent on the reliable sources available. I can't help you, if your religious tendencies leave you despising these scientific sources, but then you're ill-qualified to define which sources are reliable for a purely scientific topic anyway. And if you'd even lower yourself to read the proposed version, you'd see that I'm quite fair towards the listed criticism of AAH, even though I personally think it has been poorly weighted so far (to put it mildly).--CEngelbrecht (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, nothing? Dominus, I'm directly questioning your credibility as an NPOV capable editor, which is based on your editing history here and your notifications and contribution history so far. I now even see, that you enforce an undermining, smearing paragraph of Bentham Science Publishers, which published the key contemporary AAH-source in this context, which make you look petty. My assumptions of your good faith you have punished repeatedly during this editing process by conducting censorship. I see you as ill-qualified to argue the exclusion of sources, because of your severe negative bias against this topic.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has mechanisms for addressing POV-pushing. However the request for an "intelligent proposal based on reliable sources and conforming to WP policies" looks unimpeachable to me. Is there a specific edit being proposed here? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The one two marks back, from 10:00, 24 June 2013‎. The one you yourself reverted. I'm sorry, I see that as much more fulfilling the demands of an encyclopedic entry than the current mess. I'm not claiming it's perfect, but it would've been a step in the right direction. And many users here have repeatedly shown an unwillingness to accept a balanced, NPOV presentation of this topic, and aparently it's not beneath them to attempt to discredit sources they don't "like."--CEngelbrecht (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Trying for such a large edit on a controversial article in probably reckless in itself, but specific problems included the removal of well-sourced content and insertion (e.g.) of material backed by an archived copy of a briefing document for a press release from stoneageinstitute.org - not a great source. The way this article can change is through edits "based on reliable sources and conforming to WP policies", and I (again) suggest making any edits bite-sized so they can be discussed meaningfully on the Talk page if necessary. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The content I removed was ill-supported, repetitive assertions that were listed in the wrong paragraphs. The editors in question were over-representing their personal opinion. The additional additions are indeed based on reliable sources and conforming to WP policies.

Making bite-sized, gradual edits to improve the article has for years proven a waste of time, 'cause the censors insist on denying them all, simply because they don't like the topic. If the article on the theory of evolution had been butchered like this article has for years, such a huge edit would've been welcomed.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been here for a while, but the images that are being deleted from the lead had consensus, so I'm restoring them. CEngelbrecht's organization is also superior. (The writing needs copy editing, but that's a secondary concern.) Now, if there are POV or WEIGHT problems with specific claims, we can address those, but an article on the hypothesis should be about the hypothesis, not an op-ed piece about how it's right or wrong. (I think it's probably wrong, but what do I know?) — kwami (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There are major problems with sourcing and NPOV. You must resolve those before re-adding any material. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't resolve unnamed problems. What are the problems specifically? — kwami (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources were deleted, and unreliable sources were added, especially Venechoute's non-peer-reviewed Bentham e-book and press releases. Many other sourcing and POV problems, especially GEVAL. Make one small proposal at a time, backed up by realiable independent sources and consistent with our policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So now you're saying, that those two images currently in the heading actually had consensus? And some naysayer just deleted them anyway. Why doesn't that surprise me? "Cause they're off-topic," I seem to remember the nonsensical excuse was. And Domi keeps claiming that the Bentham volume is unreliable, as if it becomes empirical truth the more s/he repeats it. I would love to assume good faith, but this article is rampaged by good ol' fashioned censorship by users that flout the Wiki standards, except for abusing them to promote their personal opinions.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So far, I'm counting two users con to this update, three users pro, and one neutral, of the ones posting in this section. Or does it need to be more formal than that? How is a consensus reached, when a consensus can't be reached?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not a numbers game. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, not when more people disagree with your personal POV, I suppose.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu rightly insists that the article should be written in accordance with WP policies. However:

• The reference to WP:GEVAL is misplaced since that is clearly concerned with the introduction of minority views into articles on mainstream subjects. Thus if there was a proposal to introduce the AAH into Human evolution, WP:GEVAL might be relevant. No such proposal is beng made, and WP:GEVAL cannot possibly be interpreted as limiting the discussion of a minority view in an article specifically about that minority view, so it has no relevance here.
• The request for an "intelligent proposal based on reliable sources and conforming to WP policies" is indeed unimpeachable, since it is a motherhood with which we all agree. We disagree as to what it means in practice here.
• No complaint about reliable sourcing can be convincing unless and until the same stringency of standard is demanded for all sources in the article, irrespective of which side they are on.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PARITY and WP:REDFLAG. Like it or not, the deck is very much stacked against fringe proponents here on WP, just as it is in real life. And WP:GEVAL applies to all articles, most especially WP:FRINGE ones. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:FRINGE. I think the key to understanding Wikipedia's perspective is this: "Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs". The simple fact is that the AAH has been rejected my the academic mainstream, in as much as it has been considered at all, and as a consequence any article that failed to make this clear would be contrary to guidelines and policy. If and when academia accepts the AAH, so will Wikipedia - but meanwhile, proponents of the hypothesis would be better employed engaging with the academic mainstream, rather than fighting battles over a Wikipedia article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGEis not a policy at all; it's a guideline, and the distinction is important. Policies are binding, while guidelines are advisory. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV. As I said above, WP:GEVAL cannot possibly be interpreted as limiting the discussion of a minority view in an article specifically about that minority view. AndyTheGrump's quote above "Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas ..." might be relevant in a AfD debate, but if we're going to have an article on the AAH at all, we have to present what the AAH says. Of course we make clear that it has been rejected by the academic mainstream; no editor has attempted to say otherwise and CEngelbrecht's version make it quite clear.

WP:NPOV prohibits advocacy in any direction. Though editors may legitimately be proponents or opponents of an idea they should edit in a way that does not display their views. The statement "If and when academia accepts the AAH, so will Wikipedia" is contrary to policy. As long as there is any disagreement at all, Wikipedia in its own voice should neither accept nor reject the AAH. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Policies are binding, while guidelines are advisory No you are wrong. Policies are standards/principles, guidelines show standard practices. Policies are not some sort of bumped up guidelines. For example, FRINGE is the guideline which stems from WP:PSCI policy. Your argument is wikilawyering 101. These guidelines have teeth as well, fringe science and pseudoscience articles are under discretionary sanctions, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of noise right now skirting the issue. My proposed re-arrangement of the article stands. But I'm also depressed as to any progress what so ever, because of the divisiveness of this particular topic. How is it possible to reach any kind of consensus here, when negatively biased users do not shy away from being indifferent to previously agreed upon consensuses?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have the unfortunate habit of mixing discussions about one subtopic with those of another. Stick to the points under discussion, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm so glad we agree about the evils of wikilawyering. I hope that you and other editors on this page will take note of that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Just in case you confuse yourself at a later point, quoting and adhering to relevant guidelines is not wikilawyering, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Far too many of the changes seemed to be based on what CEngelbrecht found convincing. Certainly the criticisms were not based on editor opinion, but rather drawn from reliable sources that explicitly discussed the AAH. The "fullest extent of the sources" does not mean "every source I can find that supports the AAH", it means "given the field as a whole, what is the stance on the AAH? One must look at major books in the field, textbooks and the like, and see what sort of treatment the AAH is given therein. When last I checked, very few (in fact none) of these sorts of sources discussed the AAH in a serious fashion. There are some secondary sources which briefly mention it, but it's certainly never included in any lengthy overviews of human divergence from chimpanzees as a major factor. The Bentham book is an isolated source produced by proponents in a publisher that I consider questionable; I'm still on the fence whether it is an appropriate source to draw upon for proponents viewpoints, but I would not say it is an appropriate source to peg the mainstream opinion on. Certainly it would be nice if we could draw from peer reviewed journal articles to make these points, they would be less controversial as sources and further, show greater acceptance of the hypothesis. But, those sources are lacking. Per WP:PARITY, the use of blogs from nonspecialists to expand on the AAH is certainly not a good idea, and lecture notes are also not a good source IMO (particularly since that lecture is not in any way about the AAH; note that I believe PARITY applies, in response to Samuel's comment about equal standards - I don't believe an equal standard applies for FRINGE hypothesis and I believe the AAH is one of them and thus falling under NPOV's WP:PSCI heading). Drawing from the radio broadcast for BBC's special "Scars of Evolution" is also a bad idea, again IMO.

I have serious concerns over the version CEngelbrecht put in place. The consensus on human evolution is probably unnecessary but at minimum is overly detailed IMO (and tellingly, mentions neither the AAH nor Morgan - though of course that's not firm proof of anything). The sources for the "crucial distinctions of humans from chimps" - furlessness, bipedalism and more, tilts at a bit of a straw man (the savannah hypothesis) while relying on poor suources (as noted - a press release rather than a journal article. It would be nice if we could work with mainstream sources regarding human evolution that contextualized the AAH (but again tellingly, they don't mention it that often).

Also, at minimum, the Dutch sentences ("Morgan peger derudover på unikke træk ved både...") and mis-spellings (cups instead of cubs, abe instead of ape) would need to be cleaned up. In the past we had the "laundry list" of claims for the AAH, and after lengthy discussion it was decided to pare it down to a short discussion of a smaller amount. I still think this is a good idea, as it means you don't have to play whack-a-mole with new, non-mainstream claims and you can restrict the page to higher-quality sources. In the spirit of this, I think "humans like to shower" is a bad section to include.

And finally, I disagree that the page should "present both sides". I think that the AAH is not taken seriously as an explanation for human evolution, and I think it is a disservice for a reader to land on this page and discover all the convincing evidence for it unless there is a clear sense that this evidence is, overall, not taken seriously. Last point - CEngelbrecht's propensity to label his dissenters as creationists and naysayers should be discouraged. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"I think "humans like to shower" is a bad section to include." Yeah, I know, 'cause that's when people'd get the illusion, that this idea may not be that crazy after all. Then it's better the kids don't know about it, right? I'm sorry, I still see analogies between Galileo and Morgan in this debate.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I see analogies with David Icke. I guess we see what we want to see, :) IRWolfie- (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How in the (...) does that analogy apply in any way??? --CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What's the outcome of all this?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No consensus for changes. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with IRWolfie. You've failed to gain consensus for your proposed version. Your version still makes use of unreliable sources, and does not conform to WP policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree the entire article should be rewritten. It sounds like the opponents of the AAT are just angry that something so obvious is making them look ... you know ... not bright. Why can't someone just put the AAT hypothesis out there without the challenger's commentary inline, then write another section that addresses each point? It took me like, 5 minutes to find a bulletized list of the AAT claims. I can't find anything that addresses it. I've yet to see what exactly the opponents are advancing as a challenge to it. Maybe it's there but it's hard to read and vague. The only argument I gathered was that the traits would have to be favored twice, an argument I don't think succeeds so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.5.205 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up the prose, etc

I spent some time yesterday and today attempting to fix up the prose in the article. In many places the prose was rather garbled, as if it had been carelessly edited, or perhaps originally written by someone for whom English was not their first language. As a result the meaning of many of the sentences was obscured. I would appreciate it if someone would read through and make sure I have not accidentally distorted the intended meanings while I was cleaning up the messy sentences.

One more thing: in the section about skin and Hairlessness it should be added that in The Naked Darwinist Morgan does not only discuss human skin being mostly hairless, but also discusses human's having subcutaneous fat (especially in small babies), another characteristic of aquatic mammals which is (apparently) not found in other primates. I believe she also discusses our capability to sweat very large amounts, as being a feature which is not found in other primates and which requires us to have frequent access to freshwater, at least in hot climates.

Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your changes also changed the meaning of many sentences, which included several attempts to hide the status of the hypothesis. You also used non-neutral language, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And those two pics actually had consensus. This is what I mean by censorship, 'cause those two pics in themselves speak a thousand word about this hypothesis. Aparently it insults some people that AAH is presented in the article that bears its name.

And Wikipedia can't or won't stop the censors. So, right now, Wikipedia is indifferent as a source.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence of consensus for those images, and the images have nothing to do with the topic of this subsection. Can you please stop with the "oh no everyone hates AAH, boo hoo" whining and focus on making valid relevant points, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I will leave the in-fighting to others. I really don't care either way about AAH or anti-AAH, but will someone please clean up the prose, a lot of which is quite bad and very hard to understand. If I changed the meaning of some sentences it was accidental; the changes were made to try to clarify what was being said, because the prose was so poor it was hard to tell! At the top of this thread I did say "make sure I have not accidentally distorted the intended meanings". But reverting all of my changes is not addressing the issue, which is that in many places this article is very poorly written and needs to be either rewritten or thoroughly copy-edited. Invertzoo (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

CEngelbrecht, you may feel slighted and it may make you feel good to call people who disagree with you "censors" or worse, but please cease. It's hard to take you seriously, it's even harder to react with anything approaching fairness to your comments, when you so consistently belittle and disparage your fellow editors.

Discussion of of the images should probably be relegated to the section below.

I didn't have much of a problem with the changes made to the prose. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just try to understand my paranoia here. Back in November '12, when I started to take a real interest in what was happening to this article, I noticed an extensive edit by an AAH-hostile user, that included an alteration of this sentence:

Morgan and several other authors have suggested that the encephalization of the human brain was a response to increased consumption of fatty acids and iodine found in fish and in seafood.

Along with many other details, that sentence was changed to:

Morgan and several other authors have suggested that the encephalization of the human brain was a response to increased consumption of fatty acids found in fish and in seafood.

Notice the difference? The two words "and iodine" were taken out, for no aparent reason. It's not irrelevant to mention iodine, DHA and other fatty acids are never mentioned alone by AAH-proponents, but always along with iodine.

Here's the circumstance, the observation is that DHA, AA and iodine are crucial micronutrients for the "lubrication" of the human brain machine. AA (an Omega 6 fatty acid) can be found in many terrestrial foodchains as well as seafood, while DHA (an Omega 3 fatty acid) is rare, but can be found in terrestrial foods, as well being abundant in seafood. Iodine is so extremely rare in terrestrial foods and abundant in seafood, that today it's one of the strongest arguments in AAH, because human encephalization is extremely difficult to imagine without human ancestors making a transition to large quantities of seafood.

And suddenly that mentioning of iodine was very important to delete in the cover of a multitude of other edits. In other words, somebody out there knows that argument, and understands how strong an argument iodine is in this context. And decides to just get rid of it. And the user in question can't get away with deleting the entire sentence, 'cause that would be too obvious, so he settles with just the two words.

This is what I mean by censorship. This is the kind of covert activity that plague the articles related to Darwinism and the theory of evolution. Why is that suddenly happening to a "silly" idea about splash-splash apes?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Again trying to fix up the prose

Today I have once again made a few tweaks to the prose in an attempt to make the prose clearer and more correct in terms of English grammar and style. Please do not automatically revert all of these edits! I am certain these edits are neutral in tone and do not influence the argument pro or con the AAH. If simple prose changes are reverted once again I will have to assume we have a case of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles here, and that is always a serious problem. No-one should try to "defend" an article against simple copyediting. If my edits are again reverted, I will certainly ask someone from WikiProject Copyediting to go through the article instead. Invertzoo (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've not made significant contributions to this article, so good look claiming ownership issues; how about we assume good faith instead. Your edits I reverted (just now) 1. lead to a confusing first sentence. 2. adds unnecessary verbiage for no apparent benefit. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Elaine Morgan 1920-2013

In case any of you cares. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23291733 --CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the article. If you knew her, I am sorry for your loss, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Aquatic apes

Caught on film. Interesting. Maybe not useful, but still. [11] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The irrelevance of Wikipedia

Wikipedia boasts of being a valid, open source encyclopedia for the good of mankind. What a sham, I say.

You struggle so hard reaching as consensus on a for some strange reason divisive topic, and when one finally gets it spend so much time and energy writing a balanced presentation, beyond POV-standards and seeking the best of encyclopedic standards.

And what do the hecklers of this idea resort to? "There is no consensus. I don't care about encyclopedic standards, 'cause I simply don't like this topic. How dare you write a coherent presentation, when I wish the idea to be nuts? I'll just delete it all again, and that's free for me to do. I'm just gonna piss out over Wikipedia, 'cause nobody's gonna do anything about it anyway, because the majority thinks, this idea is pseudoscience." And how can they be any wiser? They sure as hell can't get wiser by seeking out Wikipedia as a source.

Congratulations, you have finally scared me away. I will waste no more time on this humbug of an online source. You are all an embarassment to the efforts of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CEngelbrecht (talk • contribs) 11:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious, where is this consensus you refer to evidenced? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Look up. But I reckon you can't see, but you won't see.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Triple user names for same user

Ok, this is brilliant. Users Fama Clamosa, IRWolfie and Alexbrn is actually the same user, seeking to overrepresent his personal distaste for AAH. In order not to get penalized for edit warring, he just switches between user names to keep reverting an updated version of the article, this to keep censoring the topic. That's as lame as it gets. But none of you are gonna do anything about this, 'cause we all know this topic is pseudoscience, ain't it?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If these three accounts are the same person, why do you say "none of you"? If you believe socking is taking place (hint: it's not), then raise a query at WP:SPI. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

U-huh. How come you have the same IP-address, then?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That's about as plausible as the AAH! This is off-topic here - WP:SPI is the place for it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

CEngelbrecht, I suggest that you either file a sockpuppetry report, or withdraw the allegation immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. How do I do that?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. However, I'd think very carefully before you do so - Wikipedia tends to look down on accusations made without valid grounds. And regarding IP's you will of course have to explain how you could possibly know the IP of a registered user. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I used one of Wiki's own systems for that. Odd thing is I can't find it now, but I'm also blocked from editing, because I'm "edit warring", aparently. And why have we only heard a denial from one of the three users I mentioned, I wonder? This system is a joke.--109.58.190.222 (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides no such 'system', except for a limited number of individuals who investigate sockpuppetry claims. I shall of course report your block evasion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand that, I clicked into such a system no problem. But I can't find it again now, so maybe it was a glitch. And block evasion? Shove off, it's your system.--109.58.247.128 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Amusing. I note that CEngelbrecht was blocked for a week for evading a block despite warnings, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, hilarious, isn't it, Jim? Congratulations, you've made might right once again. We might as well give science back to the catholic church.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Human Evolution Past, Present & Future, May 2013 - videos

Human Evolution Past, Present & Future, May 2013 - videos Footage from a human evolution conference held earlier this year in London, dealing e.g. with the contemporary AAH.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone posts some random link ridiculing AAH, right? I didn't hear a peep out of you, when someone posted a link about the "connection" between AAH and mermaids here a while back.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a point here - an edit being proposed? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Jim, maybe my point is that you'd do good to listen to somebody who's actually informed about this topic, before fondling yourselves during your censorsh... I mean edits.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Science vs pseudoscience

I offer the following as something to keep in mind when editing this and other articles of a controversial nature in a scientific realm:

Science	Pseudoscience
Willingness to change with new evidence	Fixed ideas
Ruthless peer review	No peer review
Takes account of all new discoveries	Selects only favorable discoveries
Invites criticism	Sees criticism as conspiracy
Verifiable results	Non-repeatable results
Limits claims of usefulness	Claims of widespread usefulness
Accurate measurement	"Ball-park" measurement

Not all rows are applicable in all cases. In this case, rows one, two, and four seem most applicable. Please keep these in mind when working on this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to UtherSRG for volunteering his ideas. A few comments on rows one, two, and four are perhaps in order:

• Willingness to change with new evidence: In the fifty or so years that the AAH has existed, the main new evidence on human evolution that has emerged has been the DNA studies, which have clarified the lines of descent, and the discovery of new fossils, which have often taken everybody by surprise. In neither case has the new evidence either appreciably strengthened or weakened the AAH argument.
• Fixed ideas: A common criticism of the AAH is exactly the opposite, namely that the various proponents have been inconsistent and differed amongst themselves particularly as to the timing of the proposed aquatic phase, and the degree of aquatic adaptation suggested.
• Ruthless peer review: In my experience the type and quality of peer review can vary markedly according to who one is and where one works
• No peer review: To say there has been none of the AAH is simply false. The AAH proposers do complain that there hasn't been enough, because they have simply been ignored
• Invites criticism/Sees criticism as conspiracy: The AAH people have repeatedly invited criticism and informed discussion of their proposals. Insofar as they have seen any conspiracy, it has been a tacit conspiracy of silence.

The relevant Wikipedia policies are WP:RS, applied consistently, and WP:NPOV. Please keep these in mind when working on this article. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I pick no side in this debate. I merely offer these dichotomies as points to examine. And yes, WP policies are good and strong. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am curious. Where does this table come from? It does not appear to fully capture examples of pseudoscience I am aware of, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

From a Facebook post. It struck me as being potentially useful here. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant. So you offer a table someone dreamt up and posted on facebook as a useful filter of criteria to determine whether AAH is real science or not? It's ridiculous. You're presenting a pseudo-sociology of scientific production, not an evaluation of scientific claims and evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.230.153 (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The AAH is fringe science, but it's not pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No response to suggested new version

Why doesn't that surprise me? So is there a consensus to splot this version in, or what? Or are y'all just trying to silence the hypothesis to death as usual?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus, obviously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Then please explain how in the hell the above is POV-pushing, so it can be corrected. 'Cause the current version of the article is grossly inadequate.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It hard to see what the proposed changes are with 'show changes ', which is how I compare texts when I'm tired of a seemingly endless debate . — kwami (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You know, you can easily compare those of my recent edits, that keep getting censored by people, that doesn't bother reading the edit.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem of bias in CEngelbrecht's proposed version of the article; furthermore it is more informative of the topic than the current effort. Bkobres (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. What's that got to do with anything in here?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Engel, if you want to move the conversation forward, propose specific changes rather than wholesale changes. There are issues of an over-reliance on primary sources. Propose one specific paragraph change at a time, and then give time for it to be discussed (please don't paste them all at the same time). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose the above version. There's no over-reliance on primary sources in that, at least no more than Wiki have on articles on evolution. But are you suggesting, that we start removing all Wiki references to Charles Darwin's On The Origin Of Species? That's the only way your request makes any sense. That would make creationists really happy.

No, Jimbo, the only issue here is that you and other Homo sapiens seems to have some strange psychological need for this idea to be nuts (like creationists do with evolution, incidentally), and aparently that leaves y'all terrified of allowing a coherent presentation of what the "aquatic ape hypothesis" is talking about, not just in here. 'Cause with a neutral presentation, it doesn't appear that nuts, does it? And that's aparently sacrilege for y'all. If these arguments really are bonkers, you'd think that it didn't matter to present Hardy's and Morgan's and whatever nutball's silly arguments about beach apes in human evolution. I don't see people censoring articles on "humans descending from ancient astronauts" or "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" or something, like they do on this one, and using really stupid excuses, if I may. 'Cause they don't have to. People can see that those ideas are nuts just from a neutral presentation. With the aquatic ape "nonsense," it seems to be an entirely different story. Here people somehow don't need to know what the arguments are. Why is that?

You don't care about primary and secondary sources, or any other encyclopedic principles. You're simply accustomed to the belief, that this idea is utterly wrong and pseudoscientific, but in a neutral presentation, your wishful thinking doesn't come through. (Even if it is wrong, which is not bloody likely these days, what with the Iodine argument.) And then you start to fish for excuses to keep censoring this topic, 'cause somehow you have winded up hating this idea. You won't even allow people to read, that it's not arguing for the existence of mermaids (bloody Animal Planet ...). I'm sorry, man, I see you as a censor on par with Pope Urban VIII. And you probably mean well, too.

And in order to cut through all that human panic and stupidity (we haven't moved a single step since Copernicus, have we?), I propose the proper article above. And you refuse to even read it. Then I can't help you, ape.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, anything? If you really want to compare the proposed changes, compare e.g. the revisions of 11:03, 8 September 2013 and 13:20, 8 September 2013.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to proceed one bite-sized edit at a time, particularly with controversial edits to a controversial article. The practicalities of needing to achieve consensus on a bandwidth-limited online forum (such as Wikipedia) dictate that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

All right, whatever. Look, all I'm proposing in the above is two things: 1) A new paragraph detailing the anthropological consensus on human evolution, this to form a background to illustrate what AAH is challenging (and especially what it's not challenging). Elaine Morgan based a lot of her work on what she perceived as shortcomings to that consensus, straw man arguments and whatnot, therefore it's relevant here. And 2) an expansion of the description of the hypothesis/ses, which is severely inadequate as of now. This includes as many of the relevant counter arguments I'm aware of and can source, and also Morgan's repeated rejection of AAH arguing for the existence of "mermaids," which seems to be a wide misconception of AAH (damn Animal Planet ...). The additional paragraphs are more or less untouched except for reformatting of references and such.

And stop refusing the sources from Morgan. I just checked the article about the Priory of Sion (which I consider pseudoscience, something to compare with, if AAH is somehow that), and that doesn't exclude the key sources from Richard Leigh and such. 'Cause that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? That people actually peddle that argument here with sources from Morgan in my book just further illustrates the tendency to censor AAH. And in the weird case that AAH is not pseudoscience and actually on to something (perish the thought, right?), seeking to limit Morgan's voice in an article summarizing HER DAMN IDEA ... it's not that far from what the catholic church did to the works of Galileo, is it?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Why not just focus on (1) as a first step. A new paragraph. Let's see what that would look like (BTW, the fact that other article have problems isn't a reason for anything that happens here, and talking about Galileo is out-of-order for Talk page discussions which need to focus on the article text). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm out of order? You are out of order! This site is out of order! All of Academia is out of order!

...

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)--CEngelbrecht (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a forum that can't affect that one way or the other, so raising it just wastes everybody's time. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but ... What Wiki's supposed to do is support neutral presentations of complex (and sometimes aparently divisive) topics. Non-POV and all that. And here I see that being rejected by people actually arguing their principles, simply because once an idea is labeled pseudo, it'll be hell and high water, before it can leave that drawer, regardless of the scientific method. People still just do the three little monkeys if somehow an idea becomes inconvenient.

I'll try to present that consensus paragraph seperately. It shouldn't be controversial, 'cause most of it was lifted from other Wiki articles, using their references. Bear with me, I'm a working man.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes

|}

--CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, just a wall of silence. I'm doing what you're asking me, but I constantly get the sensation, that you'd rather just silence AAH to death. Because from social pressure, you're expected to denounce it as pseudoscience, but that you can't do that with a straight face from the presented material. So you'd rather just do the ostrich.

See no, hear no ...--CEngelbrecht (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a paragraph, it's a giant wodge of text! You reference the Human evolution article, but to state the consensus nothing more need be done that summarize that. The paragraph about "heavily debated" looks undue and not supported by the source. The stoneageinstitute.org source looks poor. I think if you want to state what the academic consensus is you need do nothing more than borrow from the lede of the Human evolution article and point to it using the "main" template. Anything else would put Wikipedia out of sync. However, since we already state the scientific consensus in the lede, I'm not sure why we needs further expansion here when other areas of Wikipedia cover this topic. What is the purpose? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I still think you want to smack down on random commas, but okay, let's try to get somewhere. I'm not sure how to shorten it, as it's relevant as the background for what Morgan was challenging (basically, the only thing she was challenging in the above was the habitat in which humans would have evolved, coastal versus grassland/mosaic). And I didn't call it a paragraph, I called it a section, now that we're humping commas.

The "heavily debated" part and references, I must've lost an earlier reference by Huxley during some editing, it's been reinserted in the above. "Heavily" may be construed as a tad subjective, whatever, it's out.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but my chief question is: why do we need to say what the consensus is when other parts of Wikipedia already do that? It's just background and probably needs no more than 3 sentences at the most, if we point to Human evolution as a main article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• The sources don't directly mention AAH so this is a WP:SYNTH. Huxley is being used as a SYNTH and Lovejoy seems out of date and it is in a popular science magazine (and where abouts does he mention "A wide range of difficult to corroborate hypotheses have been presented"?). Also the last two sources are problematic: [12] a SPS, and using [13] which is inadequate for an academic treatment, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Cont'd (can't edit beyond the collapsed suggestion for some reason)

Quote: Yes, but my chief question is: why do we need to say what the consensus is when other parts of Wikipedia already do that? It's just background and probably needs no more than 3 sentences at the most, if we point to Human evolution as a main article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it acts as the background to especially Morgan's contributions. We can add the word "Background" to the section's title.

The elements are that A) reconstructing the human past is traditionally based on fossils, more recently also on genetics (and not as much Morgan's comparative physiology of extant forms, say). B) That humans are apes with such and such relatives and extinct forms (which forms also Hardy et Morgan's background). C) That there really isn't a consensus as to why we differ as much as we do from the other great apes, even though it's an old question (AAH is just one suggestion as to why, or though somewhat umbrella-hypothetical). D) The paleogeographical context of humans evolving in Africa (which Hardy et Morgan follows as well). And E) that there has been occuring a shift in anthropology away from focusing on grasslands as humanity's sole original habitat (not that that indicates water). All that is necessary to understand, before one can present the actual hypothesis/ses. I'm not sure how to shorten this.

Damn. And I thought this was the least controversial section. It's not the only Wiki article to phrase backgrounds to complex ideas as long as that, most times it's longer. But we don't have to follow precedence with an unpopular idea, I suppose.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so this is not really setting out the consensus, but laying out some anti-consensual argumentation by way of background. The trouble here is how can we know what the "background" for the AAH is? Unless what we're really saying is "these are the bases on which Morgan based the theory" - in which case it should be more straightforwardly sourcable, surely? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"Straightforwardly sourcable," what do you mean?

Knowing the background for AAH (I called it "The basis" in the above full suggestion) would follow in the section after this one. But you wanted to take the subsections one at a time. Or should we discuss whether it's the right approach for an updated Hypothesis-section? First a summary of the current consensus as a background for AAH, second a summary about the foundation of the hypotheses and third, detailing the various core arguments. Those three are sort of interdependent.

Or are you maybe just dragging this out as much as possible, untill I get tired and leave it alone? Are you Johnny Cochran?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, so much for good faith. If there is a "basis" for the AAH there will be some reliable source that says "the basis for AAH is ..." and we don't need to confect a background section. Is there such a source? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Morgan ain't such? She's the Galileo in all this.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

But okay, what ever. How about the 2012 paper by Phillip Tobias and Renato & Nicole Bender, "The Savannah Hypotheses: Origin, Reception and Impact on Paleoanthropology"? That summarizes AAH, as both expressed by Hardy and Morgan. Will you accept that as a source? Do you trust Phillip frickin' Tobias? Or has he become one of the heretics now, too?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm just one editor, but this looks on the face of it to be a reasonable source. If more background is needed, could it not go into the "History" section? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, what the hell are we discussing right now? Whether one can list or not what the hell the aquatic ape hypotheses are about? That sounds like a really strange problem. Again, "humans descending from ancient astronauts" or Bigfoot or whatever we can agree is nonsense, it's not like the Wiki articles on those suffer under the same demands. Or, am I wrong?

Anyone else, feel free to join in. Believe me, I understand the concern to end up with a "propaganda" article for some kookjob idea, and I have only ever sought a non-POV in here.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Huh? You proposed a source, I said it looked okay and suggested where something from it could go. Here's a suggestion: perform one edit at a time where the definition of "one edit" is a single statement which is clearly sourced. If you want to make progress this incremental approach is the way because then I, and other editors presumably, will be able to work with the content (and you) to move forward. If however, you just want to vent on the Talk page then that just wastes everybody's time including, probably, your own. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

For crying out loud. Right now you're asking me to clean the horse's stall by removing one dropping at a time using a fork, instead of shuffling it all up in the cart and get it the hell out of there. Why can't we just make it right all at once?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, utter silence. Look, is this suggested change for the Hypothesis section acceptable? First establishing the background for Morgan's approach, which is a summary of anthropology's consensus on human evolution. Then listing the basis for the aquatic hypotheses, based from that consensus, what from Hardy's original few observations later elaborated by Morgan and later again others, this divided into three categories, anatomical arguments, behavioral arguments and "other" arguments.

Ok, so we need to go through each subsection (and probably sub-subsection) one at a time, to reach some consensus about sources and whatnot. I guess we have to go the long route.

The current presentation of the actual hypothesis/ses is still hopelessly inadequate. Come on, this would update it. Why the hell are people so bent against keeping this article updated? If AAH is so nuts, what are you afraid of?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this is fucking bullshit. When you try to make the article more coherent, people just delete your contributions saying "there's no consensus". Then when you invite people to try to reach said consensus for the good of the article, they're silent as the grave. How can I not conclude that y'all just want to silence this idea to death? That you have some strange psychological need for AAH to be nuts, but you can't argue that case from what's actually being argued? And then you'd rather just censor it instead, like Pope Urban not looking through Galileo's telescope?

Is this how Wikipedia works? 'Cause then it's a sorry ass excuse for a knowledge base.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Come on, what do we do here? I still present the above full version, focusing primarily on updating the Hypothesis section, but aparently I can't update the article without some schmuck just deleting it all, because "there's no consensus". WELL, HOW IN THE HELL DO WE REACH A CONSENSUS, WHEN NOBODY'S RESPONDING HERE?!--CEngelbrecht (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It should be apparent by now that there is a consensus: the article is satisfactory and no change is required. Of course that might change if some proposal was seen as an improvement. However, you unwillingness to work with other editors in making reasonable proposals that can be discussed, your preference for a giant swap-in of a new article, (or large sections thereof) and your generally abrasive attitude are helping to ensure that no progress is made. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it has proven difficult to assume good faith when it comes to this debate, AAH seems to instill hysteria before anything else even in well-educated people. Which I'm sure is usually fed the "mermaid" version of AAH instead of the semiaquatic consensus. And how can they be any wiser? They can't reference Wikipedia, that's for sure.

I must contest, that the article should be satisfactory at present, it is nothing of the sort, especially being short in its presentation of the actual hypotheses, which still mirrors negative POV-pushing at present. I don't see the above proposal as unreasonable, I see it as a more fullfilling, non-POV summarization of what all this hubbub is about, "controversial idea" or not.

Again, I propose a change of the Hypothesis section of 1) Establishing the background for Morgan's approach through a summary of anthropology's consensus on human evolution. Then 2) listing the basis for the aquatic hypotheses, based from that consensus, from Hardy's original observations elaborated by Morgan and others, while summarizing the AAH-consensus with its differences of opinion amongst proponents. And 3) the individual key arguments divided into three categories, anatomical arguments, behavioral arguments and additional arguments.

And yes, that is a large edit. And so what?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Short full protection

I have fully protected this article for 3 days in order to halt the current edit war. CIreland (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary diagram

I have added a diagram as a summary of the arguments proposed under the AAH. This is to supplement the main text since some people complained there is not enough description of the hypothesis itself. I've added the caption to avoid misleading the readers that they are facts. Comments and suggests are welcomed!

I've also uploaded a similar diagram in the Endurance running hypothesis page.

A few notes:

• The diagram demonstrates the arguments proposed in the aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH) and related water-based models (e.g. the shore-based diet model), that swimming, diving, and a semi-aquatic lifestyle may have influenced human evolution, caused numerous adaptations in human morphology, anatomy and physiology.
• This diagram is a plain description of the hypothesis and does not provide any support nor criticism to the arguments.
• It must be noted that the points listed are not facts, but hypothetical claims that require further scientific investigations to verify their accuracy, falsifiability, and relevance to human evolution.

Chakazul (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not happy with diagrams like this. They are hard to edit and present things without citations. Diagrams set up by editors should illustrate what the text says. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, You may notice that all points in the diagram are cited, referring to the reference list below. I expect there is no significant difference between the diagram and the text, or else something may be missing in either side.

Please tell me if you have comment on any specific point or the overall presentation, I will try my best to edit it. Chakazul (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

My objection is about the whole concept of such diagrams in Wikipedia. We shouldn't have things which give a whole lot of facts in a picture and are hard to change. And no I don't want you around to do the changing. This is just against the idea of an encyclopaedia that everyone can edit. Also a picture gives undue weight as in a picture is worth a thousand words. The words and citations are what should be important and the illustrations subsidiary. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look around to see where I can register my objectio nproperly as doing so on a particular page is not the right way to go around such things. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have raised my concerns at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Infographics Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is much need of editing the diagram, since these are the original claims of the hypothesis, either future search will endorse or reject any of them, they will remain as the original claims. Unless there're typos or wording problems which would be easier to edit. Anyway, let's discuss in the noticeboard. Chakazul (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider also the accessibility implications of such images; how is their content made available to, for example, blind people who have pages read to them by assistive software? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Blind people can just read the main text. This diagram is a kind of visualization, the content is expected to be the same as the text. Chakazul (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I was assuming all the points were also in the text. The main problem I feel as I've said at the NOR noticeboard is that it is an overall synthesis which advances a position rather than just being an illustration of a point. I have a numbe rof other objections as I say above about being hard to edit but this business about SYNTH is why it is raised at the OR noticeboard rather than the NPOV one. Even if it wasn't a fringe topic I'd still feel this advanced a point of view with a synthesis. This is mainly why I disagree with this illustration but don't object to the other illustrations like the baby in the water at the top which illustrates particular points. Dmcq (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears that a "big picture" or synthesis is making a favor for the hypothesis, but not necessary... some consider this a weakness as being an "umbrella" hypothesis that trying to explain too much. As in Endurance running hypothesis, even I personally don't endorse that hypothesis, such a diagram helps me to evaluate it as a whole and easier to find something. To put it more extreme, we can certainly illustrate what creationists / ID proponents claimed into a beautiful infographics, and appreciate its level of absurdity at the same time. Chakazul (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It is undue though, where is the big picture for the mainstream? And it is hard to link each point to the particular point and its discussion in the text. When individual illustrations are used they are just beside the relevant text with the discussion of them to ameliorate the undue part. The synthesis pushes just one point of view. Dmcq (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Chakazul, what I think you have done is created a WP:POVFORK of the article, and encapsulated it in a form which makes it very difficult for anyone except you to edit. (I think your work, and info-graphics generally, would be appreciated at other venues, like IFLS to name one example, yet is against the spirit of wikipedia. Besides, such a huge quantity of text - regardless whether you try to name it a "summary" - should be laid out in a table since nobody can read the thumbnail version, many people also won't be able to read a larger version either for accessibility or display-device-resolution reasons, and in effect it is circumventing our Manual of Style both generally and also specifically: WP:MOS#Avoid_entering_textual_information_as_images.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

How do you measure the neutrality of an article? User Fama Clamosa (which has expressed heavy anti-AAH sentiments, but what ever, I express positive ones) has added the headline of "Neutrality disputed" (without opening for discussion on the Talk-page, I note). As I see it, there's a difference between POV-driven phrasings of a divisive topic; and then expecting ridicule of a topic, but not finding that supported in a non-POV presentation. Is this dispute just Fama's personal opinion, or an actual issue? 'Cause I suspect, that Fama is fine with neutral phrasings of the opposition to AAH, but not neutral phrasings of the actual argumentation (that's usually where the laughter stops on this topic, ain't it?). --CEngelbrecht (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Given this edit, I've removed the tag. Any editor can put it back of course, but please actually stick around to have a discussion and defend your views. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)