Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 7

POV tag

Cmeiqnj, can you please explain why you added a POV tag to the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

See the section above. Clearly several readers disagree that the tone of the article as it currently stands is consistent with NPOV. The third paragraph of the lead seems obviously problematic: it presents opinions as undisputable fact ("the evolutionary fossil record does not support any such proposal"), throws around words like "simplistic" and "non-experts", and relies entirely on two evidently partial sources.

The AAH is one of many hypotheses attempting to explain human evolution through one single causal mechanism, but the evolutionary fossil record does not support any such proposal. The notion itself has been criticized by experts as being internally inconsistent, having less explanatory power than its proponents claim, and suffering from the feature that alternative terrestrial hypotheses are much better supported. The attractiveness of believing in simplistic single-cause explanations over the much more complex, but better-supported models with multiple causality has been cited as a primary reason for the popularity of the idea with non-experts. Advocacy for the AAH has been labeled by commentators such as science writer Brian Regal as being more ideological and political rather than scientific and hence, pseudoscientific.

References

Also, the Langdon 1997 reference is cited no less than eighteen times in the text as it stands! That article is not a disinterested review of the evidence for and against the theory; it is a position paper which merely uses the aquatic/waterside ape theory as part of its rhetorical ammunition in pursuit of a broader point. Somebody seems to have given WP:UNDUE weight to sources arguing along a particular line. (A quick Google search turns up a couple of direct rejoinders to Langdon's paper, neither of which is cited in our article [1][2].) Given that there are such problems even in the lead, and given the discussion above, I think it is appropriate to alert the reader that the article may have some issues with neutrality. Cmeiqnj (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The present paragraph re the recent BBC programme is not remotely neutral. Considerations are "being at last given the attention they deserve", uncited. "showed how much new research is increasingly swinging scientific opinion" is someone's opinion of the radio programme. It can't possibly be cited _to_ the programme. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This wasn't neutral either so I've removed the entire paragraph. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thirded, full of editorializing and undue weight to Attenborough who is not an authority or a representative of scientific consensu.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

In describing the theory, the lead says only that it is the "idea that the evolutionary ancestors of modern humans spent a period of time adapting to a semiaquatic existence". The rest is secondary. The lead should contain more about the theory, and leave the rest till later. Arrivisto (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm unsure why somebody who has devoted his life to the study of all life forms in the world should be regarded as "not an authority" on evolution. Attenborough has physically met gorillas, chimps, orangutans, which is more than can be said for most of us. And AAT relies heavily on comparative anatomy between our closest great ape relatives and aquatic mammals. Therefore as it stands, Attenborough seems the best qualified to comment on comparative evolution of humans, but that's just my opinion

Furthermore, the Radio 4 piece was extremely well researched, and cited a number of recent research papers, including ones from Nature. Genuinely curious whether either NeilN or Maunus have listened to both full shows?143.210.74.147 (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Lastly, such heavy reliance on one 20-year old criticism (Langdon's) suggests a weak argument from the anti-AAT camp. There have been no rebuttals to the latest research mentioned in Attenborough's show. Surely the point of science is to progress with new information, not to hang on to old ideas of the past? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.74.147 (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Restructuring

I've started a new section on paleontological evidence, because it seems that most of this article is back to front. It starts off in the lead claiming a scientific consensus (for what it's actually not clear) by quoting only a contentious opinion book, and mixes up conjectures and evidence and judgments all the way through. Scientists are characterised throughout as "proponents" and thereby implicitly dismissed along with the non-professional Elaine Morgan.

The fact that there are already many peer-refereed papers, some by notable scientists, cited in this article would be easy to miss altogether. It's obvious that real scientific support for the idea has only emerged in the last few decades because ideas are easy, but proving them can be very difficult indeed. I notice that Savannah theory redirects directly to bipedalism even though that article says there are at least 12 explanations for this (others list up to 30).

Some of the supporting evidence such as auditory exotosis and vernix caseosa was never claimed by Elaine Morgan at all and may be better characterised as a test of the theory. It's clear that the central thesis (that humanity was shaped by proximity to water) might be true whilst many of the claimed effects (descended larynx, finger wrinkling?) might have nothing to do with it. Cause and effect may have been muddled in presentations but shouldn't we be trying to steer clear of this? Probably if the hypothesis is eventually accepted, there will be one or two clear reasons for it and all the others will then be re-evaluated. Chris55 (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no "real scientific support" for the theory, and its proponents are just that - proponents. I have removed the section on paleontological evidence. Evidence for exploiting wetlands or lacustrine resources are not evidence for AAH or for the wading hypothesis. The surfer's ear claim is a single primary source and we would need some good secondary sources to claim that it actually supports a wading scenario. Also H. erectus are several million years after the evolution of bipedality, so how H. erectus fossils in anyway can support the AAH is a bit of a mystery to me. The section is giving undue weight to primary sources aand to minority views, and also seem to be misrepresenting the first source - it cannot be included in this form. Please do not reinsert without first having a consensus that the material is in line with policy (NPOV).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

To delete properly published scientific articles because 'There is no "real scientific support" for the theory' sounds to me like pure prejudice. Have you tried reading any of those articles? I've provided an abstract for the second–I've read other stuff by the same author. Chris55 (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I am deleting it because it appears to violate NPOV and misrepresent a source. If there is a consensus that it conforms to policy it can be reinserted. A theory that has real scientific support is not repeatedly rejected by specialists writing in specialist journals. That proponents of a theory claim they have evidence does not mean that that their theory now has scientific support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing violating NPOV nor do I believe it misrepresents a source. The additions do not try to prove bipedality as you claim and NPOV demands that minority views be represented not censored as you are trying to do. Chris55 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You seem to suffer of some misunderstandings of our basic policies. Please read WP:BRD. It matters not whether you believe I am right or wrong - it matters if there is a consensus to include. There is not at this point.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This looks like synthesis to me. Where are the cites for the opening paragraph? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the entire paragraph is written from an unabashed "pro-AAH" POV which is of course not acceptable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph is actually rather sceptical of the AAH and is the main reason I have not in the past considered myself a "believer". Interesting idea, yes; what actually happened, who knows? I find the papers mentioned here and a number of other publications some of which have been excluded from this article in a similar way, rather more productive. It's a pity the mind police here have so made up their minds that they ban any positive addition to the article. I expect I can find an appropriate citation given a little time. Chris55 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

So, no cites for "The absence of supporting evidence from paleontology has probably been the major reason why scientists have given little support to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Because the majority of the claimed effects are to soft tissues, evidence has not been forthcoming to either confirm or deny them", just your opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• If you have a DOI for the Rhys-Evans and Cameron paper I would appreciate it. I strongly doubt it mentions the AAH or claims to support it, given that it is a paper about Homo erectus a species that lived several millions later than the time period covered by the AAH. This also goes for the Joordens paper. It seems to me that Chris55 is not adequately distinguishing between support for AAH and " any evidence of hominins being in contact with water"·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You clearly delete things without even looking at them. The abstract that is linked from that paper mentions it explicitly. Let others have a look at it too. Actually you are quite wrong in your claims about the period covered by AAH. H. Erectus is one of the first species to show conclusive encephalization and that is very relevant to a shellfish diet. Chris55 (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

no, but there's a perfectly good citation. Actually I thought that was Maunus, unless you are the same person. I answered your question above.Chris55 (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"a perfectly good citation" does not mean that you get to include the material if it is contested by others. Two people have questioned it. I suggest you self revert your ltest reinsertion of the contested material. How can water be responsible for both bipedalism and encephalization which developed several million years apart? That would require that all human ancestors for around four million years have lived in an aquatic environment. Is the hypothesis you are proposing really that unreasonable?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually NeilN only questioned the non-cited part. When you show some inclination to consider the cited articles (I didn't need to go to a library to get them) then it might be worth discussing it. I don't believe that another editor has the right to delete material just because of their preconceived opinions. And if you think you're too busy for that, then maybe you shouldn't be so active here. Chris55 (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the non-cited part is blatantly non-neutral apart from being uncited and most likely uncitable. And I questoined the other parts because you gave them undue weight (both being primary articles) and likely misrepresented because of the chronological discrepancy. And yes all material that is not cited or which is cited but contested can be removed untill there is a consensus to include it. I cannot get the Rhys-Evans article through ebsco-host which is why I asked for the DOI.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4 Documentary 14th/15th September 2016

Having just listened to the two-part mini documentary series from the BBC on this subject, isn't it time this page was updated a little to make it a bit more positive?

Please can impartial readers listen to the documentary and make some appropriate amendments?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07v2ysg#play

AlgisKuliukas (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why should the BBC documentary have any effect on wikipedia's coverage?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Because more compelling evidence was presented. The BBC is not the same as The National Enquirer or Fox News. JMcC (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

BBC and other news sources are not very reliable sources for science topics, especially not for the scientific standing of controversial theories or hypotheses.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a broadcast is not a suitable reference for a topic of this type, but it was very useful in pointing to good RS sources, particularly the publications of Richard Wrangham and the 2014 special issue of the Journal of Human Evolution. It was also useful in drawing attention to a far better name, 'waterside ape'. The current name comically exaggerates the claims of the theory, and has always put me off it. It would of course be necessary to check how generally the new name is now used before proposing any move of the article name. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The increase in the number of [visitors] to this page does show that there is a real requirement to bring the article up to date, with for example a name change, which as DM says is a better name and reflects the hypothesis some what better.Edmund Patrick – confer 12:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The name change is impossible, the waterside/wading hypothesis and the AAH are different things - that some former AAH supporters are trying to shift the goalposts to frame their theory in a way that is more acceptable is not reason to change it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It might be possible to have an article that could be titled something like "the role of water in hominin evolution" that discusses both the AAH and the wading hypothesis. But it wouldnt be very different from the current article since none of the water-related adaptation scenarios are commonly accepted·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC).

I think name change is premature and not too important. Sure the theory is changing but it is recognizably the same. To answer an earlier comment, the name of David Attenborough should be enough to add some weight to the Radio 4 programmes. But the article itself is dated and leaves out many lines of argument that have been brought in over the years. Chris55 (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, Chris. The name change is key for me. The "aquatic ape" was supposed to be an ironic term (of the apes, which are most definitely not aquatic, we are the most aquatic) but it would appear that the irony flew over the heads of an entire field. It seems they are determined that it must actually mean something extreme and ridiculous. It is, of course, the worst kind of straw man argument, but if we change the name it shows we are serious about this point. Elaine Morgan and I wrote a chapter in the 2011 book "50 Years after Hardy: Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution" on this very subject where we defined the new label which is, note, in the plural. [Kuliukas, AV , Morgan, E (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M , Verhaegen, M , Kuliukas, AV (eds.), (2011). Was Man More Aquatic In The Past? Fifty Years After Alister Hardy: Waterside Hypothesis Of Human Evolution. Bentham (Basel)]

Alice Roberts cites Foley & Lahr as some kind of refutation but it clearly fails to understand this point as it seems to deliberately obfuscate and muddle arguments from different ideas. (See my published reply to that... [Kuliukas, AV Removing the “hermetic seal” from the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis: Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution. Advances in Anthropology 4:164-167, (2014).])

This latest episode in this long running saga - the BBC documentary and the response to it - shows how narrow minded and entrenched anthropology has become on this. More fool them. I think it is turning into a scandal of Piltdown Proportions and egg will be on their collective faces when the truth on all this finally comes out as it inevitably will. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"The name change is impossible" - what? Who are you to tell the proponents of an idea what they can or cannot call it? The "AAH" is a subset of Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution, so they're not very different, really. Because people like you never got the irony of the term (of the apes which are not at all aquatic, we are the most aquatic) some of us decided long ago that it should be re-labelled. The "shifting the goalposts" allegation is nothing but a slur. Not a good sign from someone who is pretending to be impartial.

Kuliukas AV, Morgan E, (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte M, Verhaegen M, Kuliukas AV, (eds.), (2011). Was Man More Aquatic In The Past? Fifty Years After Alister Hardy: Waterside Hypothesis Of Human Evolution. Bentham (Basel)

AlgisKuliukas (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If you actually had an interest in participating in our collective goal of improving this encyclopedia you would know that the naming of article follows our naming policy which states that we must use the most commonly used name as the title for articles. The fact that you have tried to rebrand the theory by proposing other names for it is therefore irrelevant as long as these names have not caught on in wide usage by other scholars. For the name change to be possible you would have to demonstrate that the proposed name is more common than the one it currently has.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. But there are many subjects that have multiple names and Wikipedia seems to be rather elegant at handling those. You wouldn't have a vested interest in keeping the name the same as it can be more easily dismissed that way, would you? Pretty much every comment you make here is a negative one, so it wouldn't surprise me. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That aspersion is somewhat humorous coming from you who has invested your entire career and reputation in defending a controversial hypothesis. What vested interest is it that you are insinuating I might have? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't like this idea. You've railed against it here for years, I'd say obsessively so. That's reason enough, I'd say. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-permitted material

I tried to post this material on the page but two editors ganging up on me means that it will disappear instantly. I would therefore like to know why it should not be permitted. From the discussion above you will see that none of my basic points have been addressed. The citations include a Nature article which is designed to be read by the general scientific public and papers given in conferences that have been well publicized.

Paleontological evidence

The absence of supporting evidence from paleontology has probably been the major reason why scientists have given little support to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Because the majority of the claimed effects are to soft tissues, evidence has not been forthcoming to either confirm or deny them. However there have been more recently several lines of supporting evidence.

1. The preponderance of shells associated with early human sites demonstrates that sea food formed a large part of their diet. Re-examination of these remains has recently led to the discovery of cut marks on the bones of catfish found at the Koobi Fora sites in Africa, as well as evidence of fish procurement in Olduvai Gorge. This had the effect of providing the brain-selective nutrients (DHA and [Arachidonic acid|AA]]) which fuelled encephalization. The food remains of Homo Erectus from the holotype site Trinil, Java have been shown to be largely sea shells and show early signs of engraving.
2. The identification of surfer's ear in remains of homo erectus and neanderthals shows that they spent considerable periods of time in cold water. These bones develop gradually in the ear protecting the ear drum during swimming and diving.

Refs

Chris55 (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete the first two sentences and maybe you'll have a better case for inclusion. The discussion above indicates that you still haven't addressed the WP:SYNTH concern brought up by NeilN. Right now, that is the main reason this text is being challenged. clpo13_(talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The second sentence might be more of a point of view, but I don't see why the first sentence is in any way controversial. For maybe 30 years nobody did present any paleontological evidence that these theories were true and why would any scientist worth their salt touch it whilst that was the case? If a Wiki admin won't accept that, they certainly won't consider the possibility that the situation is changing. Chris55 (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The absence of fossil evidence is such a commonplace criticism that it's pretty easy to produce citations going back to the coiner of the term, Desmond Morris (The Naked Ape, 1967) "It demands..the acceptance of a hypothetical major evolutionary phase for which there is no direct evidence" (p30), La Lumiere's 1981 Royal Society paper (Evolution of Human Bipedalism, A Hypothesis About Where it Happened, (Phil Trans vol 292, no 1057, p103) "So far, the aquatic hypothesis has received little acceptance because no supporting fossil evidence has been adduced." It is even found in the main source for this article, Brian Regal's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (a tertiary source incidentally): "The major problem of her work is that she offers little or no physical evidence to support it." (p26)

Perhaps more interesting is the comment of Phillip Tobias, 3 times nominated for a Nobel prize for his work in the paleoanthropology of Homo habilis and Sterkfontein: "Hardy’s work was largely ignored by his contemporaries, but Elaine Morgan (1982, 1990, 1997), Marc Verhaegen (Verhaegen et al., 2002), Michael Crawford, Stephen Cunnane, Leigh Broadhurst, and others have revived interest in the fundamentally sound merits of aquatic diets and habitats, especially for the brain." (Human Brain Evolution, Wiley-Blackwell 2010 pxi) It doesn't sound as if he considered it a pseudoscience as the dominant editors of this page believe. Chris55 (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Tobias was the only major authority of paleoanthropology to ever say anything positive about the AAH (as far as I can tell Wrangham does not himself refer to the AAH in his wading hypothesis of bipedalism) and even so he clearly states in the introduction to Cunnane's book that it is not the AAH that is likely to be correct but rather a more limited proposal about the role of aquatic environments in encephalization and or bipedalism. And yes, the absence of paelontological evidence is well known. Which is also why it is a major breech of NPOV to claim unqualified that there is now such evidence, based only on a single primary source that claims that H. erectus fossils spent time in water but shows no actual supporting evidence for any adaptations to aquatic environments. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

So you can dismiss him because you don't know of any others?. Convenient.

I didn't quote the two sentences before the bit I quoted from Regal: "By the late 1990s, Morgan's work was receiving some positive reviews by the mainstream. It was pointed out that not all her ideas were completely off the mark." This is not the impression one gets from the cited passages from this work in the lead. Get real Maunus, this is 2016 and things are moving forward. "Evidence" is not "proof" so back off about NPOV, you're not showing much of it yourself. Chris55 (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No I will not back off, you are misrepresenting science and that is something I don't take kindly to. Things are indeed moving forward regarding our knowledge of the complexities of human evolution, and AAH has absolutely nothing to do with that movement. Tobias cannot be dismissed, but he does not represent a mainstream perspective in this case, neither does Wrangham - and the article need to make that clear. The mainstream view is and has always been that AAH is bunk - even if a role for water can be established in the evolution of a few specific trait (which it has not been, in spite of claims to the contrary). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I care about science too. Please do not insult me by accusing me of misrepresentation when all you have done is to claim that nobody has the right to say anything positive about AAH and have not faulted what I've written. Also I can't see why it is relevant what the author of the "Delta Hypothesis" should think about AAH. Chris55 (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That is clearly not "all I have said" or indeed even a part of what I have said. I have provided specific sources from a top journal (both of which reject the hypothesis and neither of which you bothered to read). And I have pointed out that the vast majority of top researchers in paleoanthropology do not consider the AAH to have any scientific support (if it did they would write about it in their literature reviews, textbooks, and articles, but they do not). IN the face of such a situation it is very much a misrepresentatoin of science to claim that one or two articles that claim to provide evidence for the hypothesis are in fact doing so. Nobody is talking about "proof" since we are not discussing mathematics. But no discovery is "evidence" for any hypothesis untill there is a general consensus in a scientific field that it is indeed "evidence". In this case there is no such consensus that surfer's ear in H. erectus support the AAH or that encephalization required marine resources that could only be found in an AAH type scenario. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"Bothered"? I don't happen to have free access to either of those articles and will have to travel 40 miles to a library to read them. I will try and do that when I can but don't make assumptions. Chris55 (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a myth that the fossil evidence doesn't back the so-called "AAH" (better labelled in the plural "waterside hypotheses of human evolution" Kuliukas and Morgan 2011). Practically every hominid fossil found was from depositional substrates. Much of it is unequivocal. In addition to the three citings offered above, I'd also include...

1. Vignaud, P., Duranger, P., Mackaye, H., Likius, A., Blondel, C., Boisserie, J., de Bonis, L., Eisenmann, V., Etienne, M., Geraads, D., Guy, F., Lehmann, T., Lihoreau, F., Lopez-Martinez, N., Mourer-Chauvire, C., Otero, O., Rage, J., Schuster, M., Viriot, L., Zazzo, A., Brunet, M. Geology and palaeontology of the Upper Miocene Toros-Menalla hominid locality, Chad. Nature 418:152-155, (2002). Possibly the earliest evidence for a putative biped - found slap bang in the middle of paleo lake chad in a stratigraphic layer called the anthracotheriid unit because of the predominence of those hippo ancestors found alongside it. Of course, we are told that doesn't count. Bovid faunal remains are cherrypicked and given primary importance.

2. Johanson, Donald C; Taieb, Maurice (1976). Plio-Pleistocene hominid discoveries in Hadar, Ethiopia. Nature Vol:260 Pages:294-298. Yes even this critical and famous paper basically placed Hadar in a wetland for about a million years. "Fossil preservation at this locality is excellent, remains of delicate items such as crocodile and turtle eggs and crab claws being found." (p 296.)

3. Brown, F., Harris, J., Leakey, R., Walker, A. Early Homo erectus skeleton from west Lake Turkana, Kenya. Nature 316:788-792, (1985). Another landmark paper. Another lakeside habitat. Turkana Boy - hello?

4. Marean, CW , Bar-Matthews, M , Bernatchex, J , Fisher, E , Goldberg, P , Herries, AIR , Jacobs, Z , Jerardino, A , Karkanas, P , Nilssen, PJ , Thompson, E , Watts, I , Williams, HM Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene. Nature 449:905-909, (2007). Probably the earliest evidence of fully modern humans, and it's by the coast.

5. Walter, R., Buffler, R., Bruggermann, H., Guillaume, M., Berhe, S., Negassi, B., Libsekai, Y., Cheng, H., Edwards, R., von Cosel, R., Neraudeau, D., Gagnon, M. Early human occupation of the Red Sea coast of Eritrea during the last interglacial. Nature 405:65-69, (2000). And another.

These are just a few of the better known ones. It's scandalous how almost an entire field can continue to pretend all of this doesn't count. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It is your job to change that by publishing more convincing evidence. And my guess is that you will not make more scientists believe you by complaining about censorship on wikipedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Who are you to tell me what my job is? Who are you anyway? What makes you think you can act as the guardian of the truth here? AlgisKuliukas (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You are the one going on and on about truth. I am the one trying to tell you that Wikipedia reports the scientific consensus regardless of whether you or I think it is true.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Look, of course I am not opposed to Wikipedia reporting the scientific consensus. I do the same thing when I teach my students. I would be on your side on this on almost every other matter and I think you do a great job - usually. I do not even deny that most anthropologists are hostile to what they think this idea is. All some of us are arguing for is that the article needn't be so dismissive and hostile. I guess my main beef is this: What evidence do you use to determine that the field actually are against the idea? Is it just chatting over a coffee? Aren't we supposed to do this sort of thing through the scientific literature? If you search that the number of papers open to the idea (from people who are not even proponents) outnumber the critiques by about 8:1. If one includes papers written by proponents it's much higher even than that. That's hardly a strong case for a rejection. We know anthropologists don't like the idea but they've done a disgracefully bad job of doing any science or even writing anything in the literature to tell us why. The fact you cite Foley & Lahr "A very high quality source" (!) says it all. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The interesting number is not the number of articles that critique it, but the ones that do not mention it. AAH and watersifde arguments are generally ignored in evolutionary anthropology textbooks, in reviews of the literature on bipedalism, in reviews of the literature on hairlessness, in reviews of the evolution of encephalization etc. IF the community eventually considers the theory to be promising or gaining support then we will see this change. And that is when we start revising the way we present the theory in Wikipedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This is really all i have been arguing. Personally I can be sympathetic to individual aspects of the wading hypothesis, and also acknowledge that given the vital nature of water to mammalian existence it has not been sufficiently studied as a factor in human evolution. But personal beliefs matter not in this case.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

A very high quality source that should get a very good amount of weight

This source is extremely good because it gives an assessment of the status of different waterside hypotheses relative to eachother, and to the mainstream land-based scenario. It is a secondary source published in a highly respected journal - one of the best possible kinds of sources for any scientific topic.

Foley, Robert, and Marta Mirazón Lahr. "The role of “the aquatic” in human evolution: constraining the aquatic ape hypothesis." Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 23, no. 2 (2014): 56-59.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really. It's unscholarly (it doesn't draw from the latest scholarly publication on the subjects by the authors of these ideas themelves, not even the chapter in the book that is exactly pertinent to the subject of their paper) and peddles the usual mix of misunderstandings and (I suspect deliberate) obfuscations. Classic straw man. That "Maunus" rates this paper as "very high quality" is very illuminating. If you are going to cite this paper, why not my reply?

Kuliukas, AV Removing the “hermetic seal” from the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis: Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution. Advances in Anthropology 4:164-167, (2014).

www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=48899

It gives more credence to Jim Moore's (not the anthropologist, the amateur self-styled journalistic investigator) web site than it does to a scholarly work written by a majority of professional scientists. If a student did that in an essay it'd get a red line through it. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we rank articles not according to how much they agree with us or whether they cite research we like, but according to the degree of professional review they have been subject to, and the status of the publisher (whether publishing house or journal) that has published them. "Evolutionary Anthropology" is one of, if not the, primary journal for studies of human evolution. This can be seen from its impact factor for example 2.4. "Advances in Anthropology" which published your response, is not in the same tier with an impact factor of 0.40. One might ask why your rebuttal wasnt published in the same journal as the article you are responding to?I assume that you did submit it there.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, one might ask why and the answer would be rather obvious. The editors at Evolutionary Anthropology, like you, clearly don't like this idea ether. Like you, they'd rather wish this idea would just go away. Like you, they clearly also didn't have a problem that it gave primacy to Jim Moore's (not the anthropologist) web site than a scholarly textbook. Just like the last "great refutation" Langdon (1997) which also failed to draw anything from Roede et al, published six years earlier. Who needs scholarliness when you can distort a perfectly plausible hypothesis with distortions and misrepresentations and know you'll still get published in the top journals? AlgisKuliukas (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, that is all we need to know. If the editors and reviewers at the top evolutionary anthropology journal did not find your rebuttal or critique convincing or meritorious of publication, then neither should wikipedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you read my critique of Foley & Lahr? You haven't have you? All you care about is that there's (finally) some attempt to reject the damned "AAH" and the impact factor of the journal that published it is higher than the one that replied. So, why don't you agree to citing Joordens et al paper? Nature has the highest impact factor of all. Suddenly, the rules change, right? That's different. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:8540:B300:9CCB:F5EA:C687:4B5A (talk)

• Another article from the same issue studies the "sinuses for flotation" hypothesis. Rae, Todd C., and Thomas Koppe. "Sinuses and flotation: Does the aquatic ape theory hold water?." Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 23, no. 2 (2014): 60-64.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The abstract reads "How many fields of science have two entirely parallel communities that essentially are hermetically sealed from each other?" It inevitably reminds me of the situation in Plate tectonics before the 60s. Here was a theory propounded in 1912 as "continental drift" which turned out to be essentially correct but was totally dismissed by most geologists until it was finally shown beyond doubt. Ok he didn't propose a mechanism but that had been filled in by Holmes by 1942. And even Holmes didn't get it precisely right. But the basic issue is that it was dismissed by the vast majority of scientists for more than 50 years. Could happen again you know. Chris55 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to read the rest of the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Also replied to in the paper above. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Distinguish between AAH and other "water related" scenarios

The "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" has generally referred specifically to the idea that all or most of the traits that set humans apart from other apes can be attributed to water - or in the very least the idea that our ancestors were so aquatic that they acquired a suite of adaptations specifically to a watery environment. The wading hypothesis of bipedalism is distinct from the AAH, because it does not propose a suite of traits, but only one. This is presumably why it has accumulated somewhat more support than the AAH proper. Support for the wading hypothesis as such is not support for the AAH. And in the same way evidence of consumption of marine resources is not support for the AAH. We can see this from the fact that Wrangham proposes wading as a factor in bipedalism - without claiming to support the AAH or citing Morgan. And we can even see it in Tobias' foreword to Cunnane et al. where he clearly distinguishes between the AAH which he considers unlikely, and specific water related proposals such as a role in encephalization or bipedalism. The article should do a better job of distinguishing the AAH (which is widely rejected, even by some of its proponents who now favor "waterside" scenarios) and the possibility that hominin ancestors acquired one or more specific adaptations through interaction with water.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth including Tobias's proposals so that others can see what he is and isn't saying:

1.  The role of waterways in hominid development highlights a real problem that needs to be addressed. We need new investigations such as by fresh, open-minded research students and post-doctoral fellows.
2.  I am not yet convinced that all of the traits included in the original Aquatic Ape Hypothesis can be reasonably attributed to that hypothesis. Research on those traits should be updated.
3.  We should not telescope too many phases and characteristics of hominid evolution into a single, over-arching hypothesis.
4. Above all, let us keep our thought processes open to changes of paradigms, and especially to the change which would be necessitated with growing evidence of the role of waterways in hominid evolution.
5. Finally, the role of water, while long appreciated and emphasized by ecologists, has been sadly neglected by human evolutionists.

Certainly my earlier proposal is quite consistent with this. The Aquatic hypothesis is generally taken to be the effect of water on the development of humans and afaics Morgan has lists of effects some of which may be proved and others disproved so it isn't a single hypothesis. Maybe some people believe that they should all be taken as a bundle: I see no reason for this. I think her list has varied over time (though I'd have to check this to be sure). Certainly she doesn't much emphasise brain size and there seem to be serious disagreements in the "AAT/H community" as to the timescale of these developments. If we started from here then maybe we could improve the article without the ideological wrangling. If you want to start a new more generalised article to avoid the "stigma" of the AAH then we may have to show that there is indeed a more general movement - as measured by conferences, journals etc. At present it still seems to be centred around the AAT/H theme. It's a pity Tobias died 2 years after writing the above. Chris55 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for copying Tobias' text, very useful. He clearly defines the AAH (which he traces not only to Morgan, but to Hardy, Wood and Westenhöfer) as having a number of trait, and he also states clearly that he is not convinced by all of them - the AAH is not just any effect of water, it is a broad proposal involving multiple effects (which is exactly why critics reject it as an "umbrella hypothesis", and exactly why Tobias himself warn against telecsoping too many traits and phrases into an overarching hypothesis - [the question of bipedalism and encephalization for example invole completely different species and a distance of several million years - even if they could both be explained by water it still would not be the same hypothesis]). The umbrella hypothesis is not the same as individual hypotheses which can stand and fall on their own merits as evidence is produced - taht is why the umbrella hypothesis and the individual sub-hypotheses need to be separated conceptually in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You say "the AAH is not just any effect of water, it is a broad proposal involving multiple effects" but I don't think Tobias's comment supports that. He says "I am not yet convinced that all of the traits included in the original Aquatic Ape Hypothesis can be reasonably attributed to that hypothesis." So he's identifying the water hypothesis as basic. Clearly umbrella hypotheses are very difficult to verify but given that the orthodox view identifies human development as occurring on the savannah this has been the only view arguing for the place of water. Morgan argued back from effects to a cause (right or wrong) and it's the cause that is basic. Chris55 (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think he clearly proposes that the "original AAH" included too many traits and that the pursuit of an umbrella hypothesis is not going to be fruitful. That by the way is not because umbrella hypotheses are difficult to "verify" but because they are extremely likely to be wrong due to the way evolution works, and simultaneously extremely likely to circumvent the scientific process by presuming a certain cause instead of asking "what is the cause?" - this latter problem, the problem of presuming the conclusion, is what pushes umbrella hypotheses towards pseudoscience, and why a serious schlar like Tobias of course warns against telescoping too many hypothesis under the same umbrella.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

We're getting closer to agreement and I don't think anyone will be surprised that Morgan is not following good scientific methods. It could be an opportunity for WP to clarify these things from proper sources. I know it was not you that introduced the "pseudoscience" idea into the lead, but the references to Regal's book have been incorrectly used to support all sorts of things and maybe it's time to remove them altogether from the lead. As I pointed out he accepts that Morgan's ideas have been getting more positive notices from the scientific community. Looking at the edit which introduced it with its phrasing "by intermingled male and female parenting efforts" it looks as if the author had a particular axe to grind. The earlier quote from Regal was better. Chris55 (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just been rereading Regal's piece about AAH and cannot find anything that can justify the line "Advocacy for the AAH has been labeled by commentators such as science writer Brian Regal as being more ideological and political rather than scientific and hence, pseudoscientific". Certainly he underlines that Morgan's original line was pure feminism, but after the semi-favourable quote above, nearly a quarter of the article is taken up with a discussion of her more recent response to Steven Pinker's book "Blank Slate". The odd thing about this is he gets Pinker's argument 180° wrong. He says "Steven Pinker of MIT, supported the idea first put forward by Enlightenment philosopher John Locke of a tabula rasa. Pinker arged that the human brain was essentially blank". He then mocks Morgan for opposing him. But anyone who's ever read any of Pinker's work will know that he argues for a "Language Instinct" (the name of his most famous book) and indeed made Chomsky the Cartesian change his position on the topic. A glance at the blurb on the book will confirm Pinker's position. ("For Pinker, the belief that we are all born as "blank slates" upon which culture places its decisive imprint is not only wrong but dangerous.") Any competent editor would have picked up this error, which calls into question whether this can be called in any way a reliable source. Since it is anyway a tertiary source the above sentence needs to be removed. Chris55 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I read it also, and was surprised that he would misrepresent Pinker like that attributing to Pinker the very idea that his book is a critique of. I think Regal maximally can be cited for his critique of Morgan's work (not of any of the more recent work) and for the "pseudoscience" label.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

So you support this labelling of "pseudoscience" despite the fact that he admits her work is "receiving some positive reviews by the mainstream" and that the article looks as if it was dashed off after a long night out? And because of that you feel justified in saying "the entire paragraph is written from an unabashed "pro-AAH" POV which is of course not acceptable" (even though the major part of the paragraph repeats criticism of AAH made since Desmond Morris)? Chris55 (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Morgan's work clearly is pseudoscientific in its bent - a few positive reviews suggesting that maybe it is worth looking into the evolutionary effects of water does not change that. Regal, regardless of how badly the article is written, can be used simply to note that some have described her work as pseudoscience. That was not the paragraph that was written from a clear proponents POV, that was the paragraph in which you used a couple of semi relevant primary sources to suddenly claim that there is established empirical support for the hypothesis - even though most anthropologists disagreee and do not consider either of those to be evidence for AAH. But we cannot begin stating that there is "evidence for the theory" until such a time when we can report that there is a wide consensus that the findings claimed to be evidence for a water related scenario indeed are evidence for just that. Untill then we can talk about claims, arguments, proposals and hypotheses. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It is no more "pseudoscientific" than Ardrey's Killer Apes or even Desmond Morris' "The Naked Ape". It's popular science. See the Tobias comment. You people really have got the wrong end of the stick here. The irony of the label just flew straight over your heads, didn't it? "Most anthropologists" don't even know what "it" is. They don't even know that "it" is a "they". The literature critical of the so-called "aquatic ape" is pathetically weak. They exaggerate, misrepresent and distort. The classic straw man. And you are doing the same here. It's very illuminating that the latest "refutation" by Alice Roberts (https://theconversation.com/sorry-david-attenborough-we-didnt-evolve-from-aquatic-apes-heres-why-65570) cites Foley and Lahr as some kind of evidence from literature of why waterside ideas must be wrong. If this is the best, the latest arguments you have - it's time to give up. You are fighting on the wrong side of history. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The only dog that I have in this fight is Wikipedia's mission which is to represent the scientific consensus, which is not favorable to any of the "waterside hypotheses" currently. Let history do its job, and when it has we will report it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe, frankly. Ok, so let's take language origins, for an example. The Wikipedia article lists about seven hypotheses. How did the editors decide which ones get in there? What's the mainstream "consensus" there? I bet there are anthropologists who are proponents of some of those ideas who attack others' as vehemently as some "mainstream" anthropologists attack what they think is the "AAH". Again, it's just ad hoc. Admit it, you simply just don't like the idea - and I suspect it's because you've been arguing against it for so long, with so much smug self-assurance, you know you're going to look like a fool if it turns out to have been right all along. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Language origins is a quite different case. There are many theories, and no consensus - other than the common sense consensus that it was not any single factor that lead to the evolution of this complex faculty, but rather a convergence of multiple factors (since languages benefits the species that has it in multiple ways sociality, improved conceptualization, transfer of knowledge etc.). The article on language origins was written by Anthropologist Chris Knight who is himself a proponent of a controversial theory of language origin, of which I think he is about the only major supporter. He was however able to write a fairly balanced article that describes all the different theories without unduly promoting his own. This however is not really relevant for this article at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah... it's different. What a surprise. Always is. It's anthropology's dogma: Hardy was wrong, all else follows. It's relevant in that you say you need consensus, except you don't. Incidentally, did you know Chris Knight is a friend of waterside ideas. "Blood Relations" gives it a very fair hearing, unlike you. The cognitive science department at Memphis too, are very interested in waterside ideas in helping their models of language origins. That's just another aspect of these fascinating ideas you have managed to bury away with your closed-minded negativity. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I do know that he is a capable anthropologist, who unlike you realizes when his ideas have not been met with general acceptance and does not cry out "censorship!" "I am being oppressed by the silverbacks" on public internet sites as you do. And if you cant see the difference between explaining one phenotypical trait through mutiple factors and explaining multiple trais by a single factor then that goes a way towards understanding why noone takes your work seriously. If you were made of the same mettle as Knight you would be improving our article on Human evolution and the volution of bipedalism to write a thorough and balanced review of the literature - even if that meant writing negatively about the way your own favorite theory has been received. Knight has contributed immensely to improving the encyclopedias content on the evolution of language. You on the other hand seem to be here primarily to promote your own view over those of others - and in doing so you would be doing a disservice to Wikipedia's readers. That is why I am generally being negative towards you and other editors who will rather spend their time by pushing their own views than on improving the encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See, that's because language origins is different. What are you on about? Do you think there is a law that says multiple traits cannot be explained by a single factor, then? If hominins started living by the coasts and (I know it's crazy!) occasionally went swimming and diving, what do you think would happen? Only one aspect of physiology would change (if so, which one?) or several? I have contributed to the article on bipedality both here and elsewhere, and I've been very fair and critical of all models, including wading, actually. (see www.tinyurl.com/BipedalModels) No-one has ever attempted to do a critical evaluation of all bipedal models as far as I am aware. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It is odd to me that having read what you have you don't understand that an argument that seeks to derive all major human adaptations from a single environmental factor requires vastly more evidence than an argument deriving a single adaptation from a combination of a suite of factors. As for a review of all bipedal models, maybe you should start by doing that then and see how the preponderance of the evidence falls before claiming to having a patent on Darwin's own truth? Personally, I would have expected such a review to be chapter one in a dissertation on wading hypotheses.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Why does it need "vastly more evidence"? That's just typical wishful thinking on the part of an aquaskeptic. Each trait - say, e.g. the evolution of the human hair pattern - needs just as much, no more no less, evidence to argue it is explained by swimming, sexual selection, sweat cooling, parasite detection, or any other idea - including a combination of them. I did that, thank you. My PhD thesis starts with 4 chapters which are basically an introduction to hominin bipoedalism and a thorough review of all the literature about the subject. Approximately, 150 pages and 60,000 words. As far as I aware (and I've been studying this for 20 years) it is the most comprehensive literature review of bipedalism ever. Now, I'm sure, you'll come up with a different argument now as to why waterside arguments must be wrong. I have no patent. I just think the evidence for the wading hypothesis is head and shoulders above the others. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:8540:B300:9CCB:F5EA:C687:4B5A (talk)

Some of us have been trying to relabel these ideas for years.

Kuliukas, AV , Morgan, E (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M , Verhaegen, M , Kuliukas, AV (eds.), (2011). Was Man More Aquatic In The Past? Fifty Years After Alister Hardy: Waterside Hypothesis Of Human Evolution. Bentham (Basel).

There are several specific hypotheses of human evolution that propose that wading, swimming and diving through water may have affected our phenotype, compared to chimpanzees. They are entirely evidence-based, in tune with the theories of natural selection and plausible. Just because an entire field seems to have failed to get the irony of a catchy label (of the apes that are most definitely not aquatic, we are the most aquatic) science has been largely paralysed in terms of researching these fascinating areas. This is not being deliberately nebulous to obfuscate or moving the goalposts as we are often accused of. Morgan never really changed her mind on her "U-turn more aquatic, then not" idea till the day she died. Verhaegen's "aquarboreal ancestors followed by a most aquatic phase for Homo erectus followed by more terrestrial H sapiens" has been fixed for about 16 years at least, as has my "River Apes ... Coastal People" model.

Just because a simple idea has great potential explanatory power, it doesn't mean it must be wrong, contra Langdon (1997). The wading hypothesis is head and shoulders above the other ideas in terms of evidence and plausibility but clearly it is different from the other waterside hypotheses as it came much earlier, perhaps even before the Pan-Homo LCA, and also likely occurred ina different environmental scenario (perhaps rivers and lakesides). If one postulates that a population of hominins started making their living from coastal habitats (incredible to some, I know!) and so occasionally went swimming and diving for food, it is exactly what one would expect that they'd start to phenotypically diverge away from any other hominins that did not do so. As long as one remembers that we are not postulating mermaids, but merely some, slight, selection from swimming and diving the cluster of peculiar traits seized upon by Morgan are exactly what one would expect to see. What on earth is all the fuss about?

The best Tobias quote on this was on the BBC/Discovery documentary on the "aquatic ape" in 1998.

"I see Elaine Morgan, through her series of superbly written books, presenting a challenge to the scientists to take an interest in this thing, to look at the evidence dispassionately. Not to avert your gaze as though it were something you that you hadn't ought to hear about or hadn't ought to see. And those that are honest with themselves are going to dispassionately examine the evidence. We've got to if we are going to be true to our calling as scientists." (Tobias 1998).

Please stop this ridiculous censorship. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

In the six or seven years we have been discussing this here on the talkpage you have come across as anything but "dispassionate". A dispassionate researcher confronted with scholars who are unconvinced of their evidence do not scream "censorship!", they do not try to influence how wikipedia or popular media depicts their theory - rather they do out and collect more evidence. An encyclopedia is conservative in its depiction of the standing of knowledge within any field, so this is the comletely wrong place to be trying to convince anyone. Go and convince your colleagues, and when there is a general consensus in favor of any aspect of the AAH or wading hypothesis then I will be more than happy to single-handedly change wikipedia's depiction of the theory to say so. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I have just spent the last 17 years doing a Master's and PhD. I've had several papers published and co-edited a book in which I wrote two and a half chapters. But, of course, you'll find some excuse to dismiss all that too. The counter arguments are always, as Dan Dennett wrote, so thin and ad hoc. The simple truth of the matter here is that you are just very biased and extremely closed-minded on this subject, like most physical anthropologists. I really can understand why. It's not going to look very good for people like you, even those that hide behind secret pseudonyms, when the tide finally turns on this and the simple, powerful, elegance of these waterside ideas is generally realised. The word "Piltdown" comes to mind. No one expects anything here but a fair portrayal of the evidence and an open-minded approach that does not look like it is run by a bunch of priests clinging to an old religion. My passion for the subject is irrelevant. AlgisKuliukas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It is very relevant that you come across as someone who found the conclusion long ago and is now looking for the evidence to support it. I understand of course that it has to be frustrating that the scientific community does not find your work convincing, but that really is of zero relevance for wikipedia whose job it is to report the consensus of the community of scholars. If wikipedia had been written in 1920 we would have described the Piltdown hoax as genuine, yes. If in 20 years science considers your work to be groundbreaking and to have provided most likely explanations for human evolution, then that is what we will write then. Be patient, provide more evidence. Publish more. This is not the right place for you to fight your battle with the paleoanthropology establishment·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well the wading hypothesis is rather obvious to anyone who has seen a chimp in waist deep water. It's not my fault that anthropologists ignored this idea, handed to them on a plate 56 years ago, or that I was the first to actually do some of that thing (it's called "science") to test the various predictions of the wading hypothesis. How much more do we have to publish? How many more years do we have to do research on these matters? The evidence from you and your fellow bouncers over the years is that no matter what we do, no matter who we find that says anything positive, there'll always be a negative repost. And you accuse me of coming to a fixed conclusion and sticking to it! That would be you, sir! AlgisKuliukas (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not coming to any conclusions, since I do not work in paleoanthropology, I am reporting the conclusions reached by the scientific community - because that is wikipedia's job. I cannot tell you how much more you need to publish for other scholars to find your work convincing, bu if you have published over 17 years and still find people unwilling to accept your argument you may want to change your basic approach.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So you're not just a closed-minded bouncer, you're an unqualified closed-minded bouncer. Who appointed you into this role? Ever heard of Thomas Khun? I just need to read Foley and Lahr for five minutes to realise that the problem of approach does not lie with waterside proponents but the stubborn closed-minded silver backs in positions of authority in anthropology. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

No, but I've heard about Thomas Kuhn. Let the paradigm change and then see if you come out on top. Your claims that history will vindicate you are somewhat pathetic. I am qualified to determine how scientific consensus assess the "waterside hyppothesis". Given that you clearly very passionately believe you have found the truth, the whole truth and nothing but Darwin's own truth so help me Morgan, I think the one who is unqualified to carry out Wikipedias mission, which is to represent the scientific view on this issue, is you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the typo correction. Sneering isn't what one expects from someone who pretends to be an impartial referee on these matters. I have openly disagreed with most of the other waterside proponents on some thing or other actually, even Elaine, so your are (again) inaccurate in your interpretation of this subject. If you are so well qualified for this role, how come you advise people that a paper that gives more credence to an amateur's web site than to a scholarly book is a "very high quality source"? If a student did that in an essay, they'd get a red line through it. But never mind that, eh? It's against the damned "aquatic ape" so it MUST be good. You are the one who's slavish faith in received wisdom is pathetic. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You may want to go back through your own prior posts and redact any instances of "sneering". Or ad hominem attacks, or aspersions, or speculations about motives or namecalling of scholarly opponents. At least if you want to have a chance at being considered a serious scholar instead of an obsessive hypocrite.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please tell me more about Foley & Lahr's paper being a "very high quality source". Can you justify that, other than the impact factor of the journal it was published in? Do you agree they were right to give more credence to Jim Moore's (not the anthropologist) web site than our scholarly book? Do you think they were right to back Henry Gee's creationst slur? Why am I asking? They are the mainstream so they must be right. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to give my own opinions of this in private conversation on my talkpage or elsewhere, but here it is irrelevant whether I personally agree with Foley and Lahr. What is relevant is that their critique was published in the most respected evolutionary anthropology journal, after passing review by a panel of the most respected experts in the field. That is why it should be given more weight than your rebuttal and your book published by Bentham Press, known for their less than rigorous peer review. It is irrelevant whether the mainstream is "right", but if we can both acknowledge that the AAH or waterside hypotheses are not currently mainstrea, then the decision is easy. Wikipedia policies forbids us from representing it as if it has significant scientific support, untill such a time when it has become mainstream.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And there you have it: The mainstream are right because they are the mainstream. Sad, but true. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not really sure how, having read Kuhn, this can be a surprise to you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The surprise (and disappointment) is that the one scientific field who one would expect to understand this problem and not allow it to happen to them, are anthropologists. It's shocking how closed minded they have been about this for 56 years and continue to be today. I was banned from the Facebook "Public" Group "BioAnthropology News" after I posted a video clip of orang utans wading asking "Can anyone point to better evidence in support of a model of hominin bipedalism?". I expect you'd defend that too, right? AlgisKuliukas (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:8540:B300:9CCB:F5EA:C687:4B5A (talk)

Changes to the lead

I agree with the removal of content by Chris55 as the non-specialist source has been demonstrated to be unreliable (see above). Moreover there is no reference to AAH as pseudoscience in the article and this alone disqualifies it as appropriate content for the lead. Almanacer (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Surely the answer to that is to refer to it as pseudoscience, since it is pseudoscience and that is readily citable. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That would be to step further into rather than, as Langdon advises, out of the “us vs. them” mentality. Almanacer (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The AAH has its own entry in Regals encyclopedia of pseudo science. John Hawks, describes it as such as well after consideration. It is a notable view that needs inclusion in the article and the lead. Wikipedia does not need to concern itself about "us vs. them mentality", we just need to neutrally describe the status of the theory within the relevant field.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are tertiary sources which are generally discouraged apart from general outlines. This appears to be a specific use. If there's another good source why not use it? I've googled it and found lots of forum discussions but one of the few citeable was from a newspaper: "The Aquatic Ape theory seems to have become one of the folk myths of American universities, a pseudo-scientific dream of prelapsarian paradise by a warm Indian ocean: "The sort of place where deadheads would feel at home," one graduate student wrote contemptuously on the Net." (Andrew Brown, Independent) I found that quite insightful and can imagine how annoying professors find it if they have no response to make. But that is not about the topic but rather about the way a certain section regards it. And you agreed that the only post-90s section of the article was rubbish. Chris55 (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You are abusing the sourcing guideline here -the policy does not state at all that tertiary sources should be avoided. Being a tertiary source an encyclopedia is precisely an excellent, perhaps the most excellent, source to demonstrate the prevalence and notability of a particular view. The facxt that the theory can be found in an encyclopedia of pseudoscien ce, but not in an encyclopedia of human evolution is a major sign about how wikipedia should describe the theory. John Hawks is a major expert and his blog is entirely citable as well (indeed Elaine Morgan herself (mis)cites it.).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Maunus, why not read what I said, rather than what you think I said. I used the guidelines as you have not. The current quote says that it is "more ideological and political rather than scientific" and to argue that he had to draw on a book that Morgan had written about a totally different topic and which evidentally he had not even read a precis of.

So your other source is a blog. If you think it's notable, use it. He clearly labels pseudo-science as something social rather than to do with the issue itself. Morgan clearly wanted the issue to be treated scientifically. If paleo-anthropologists have not been able to test any of these hypotheses let them admit it openly and explain the reasons (which he doesn't). The blog seems mainly to repeat Langdon's parsimony argument which I find self-serving and not particularly compelling. Chris55 (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur re. Hawkes (and since when have blog posts been acceptable sources) and Regal. Here is what he says in his Encyclopedia's Introduction (p. vii): "This book is meant to get the reader thinking about what pseudoscience is and to question whether the various topics included here are worthy of the name.... Whilst most of the categories included here are pseudoscientific, not all of them are, or at least they should be rethought." Neither sources appear to support the recently added content to the Reception section. Both are arguably outdated. Almanacer (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That is an absurd statement. If we cannot state that something has been labeled pseudoscience when it has a friggin entry in the encyclopedia of pseudoscience then we have no chance at representing scientific topics fairly. "There is no evidence that the statements are outdated or have been retracted. Hawkes has updated his blogpost regularly. You two are editing clearly tendentiously, tendentiously misrepresenting arguments and sources on a topic that is under discretionary sanctions to push a small minority POV. I will start an RfC about including this material, and I will notify the Fringe noticeboard. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The AAT is also included in a second Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience by William F Williams which has entries for both Hardy and Morgan[3].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Checking content added to the article against the cited sources and noting discrepancies/misrepresentations is neither absurd nor tendentious but useful editorial work designed to improve the article's NPOV status. Almanacer (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please tell me again how excluding the notable mainstream viewpoint that AAT is in anyway compatible with even a single sentence of WP:NPOV?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts and more support

We know that bipedalism in hominins came before the development of larger brains. The "Savannah hypothesis" would suggest that scavenging, and later hunting, played a vital part in the evolution of human characteristics. In this view bipedalism developed through pressure towards tool use, tool carrying, thermo-regulation by sweating and increased stamina for walking/running large distances. However, surely the tool-use of very early, small-brained, hominins, though bipedal, was not much in advance of that of chimpanzees. How would they, small apes as they were, face down other scavengers such as hyenas? The involvement of a water-based interval helps matters hugely. Modern apes naturally adopt a bipedal stance when entering reasonably deep water, when fording streams for example. A habitually wading ape might be expected to be placed under selective pressure to become more adept at bipedal locomotion. Also, a small hominin with primitive tools could access a very substantial food-source in crabs, bivalves, gastropods and possibly the slower-moving fish (or fish stranded by seasonal droughts). Moreover, this food source would have been very rich in fatty acids, a necessary precondition for the expansion of brain size. Cracking open a mussel with a rock is a much less demanding route to a fat-rich diet than chasing off a hyena, or many hyenas as they are social animals, and cracking open a gazelle's skull or long bones. Ultimately, this is testable; a seafood-rich diet affects the composition of bones, if hominin remains of the right date can be found and tested for their composition the nature of their diet could be ascertained (this has been done for Neanderthal remains, and far from being obligate big-game hunters they, or some of them, apparently also ate aquatic provender). Urselius (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

A talk page is for improving the article, not to be used as a general forum. Chris55 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Do not be prematurely dismissive, it is not helpful. The above is a starting point for improving the article. It reflects the content of the recent BBC Radio 4 programmes on the subject. Obviously, supporting references would be required before any change to the article. I'm a professional biologist, this sort of subject I class as 'work' and I do not usually edit work-related articles as Wikipedia editing is a hobby. However, the archaic content of this article pained me, so I have contributed a few comments. Urselius (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Urselius, I appreciate your several comments, but I think you will find most of your points here explored in the references on this talk page as well as the article. We do need proposals, and indeed I've been working on one. So I guess I'd better get on with it. Chris55 (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aquatic ape hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elainemorgan.me.uk/page9.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605110213/http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/my_critique_of_morgans_aquatic.php to http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/my_critique_of_morgans_aquatic.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion. Should the lead and reception section mention that the theory has been described as pseudoscience, based on the inclusion in Regal's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and John Hawks' blogpost in which he labels it such? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Survey Support inclusion in lead and reception section The evidence is more than sufficient for mentioning this, and when it is a prominent view that an ostensibly scientific idea is pseudoscientific we are under obligations to point this out to the reader. Inclusion in two distinct encyclopedias of pseudoscience is about as solid a source that we can get for the fact that the view is prominent enough to include. John Hawks is one of the best respected paleoanthropologists and his blog has even been cited by proponents of AAH - so it is both notable and an RS.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose: Lead no Reception yes. To be scientific, a claim must be capable of being disproved or falsified. For example, the statement that there is an elf in the room who cannot be seen, heard, smelt, felt, or observed by instruments cannot be proved false; such a statement is therefore not scientific. The claim that gravity bends light waves, on the other hand, can be tested by experiment. If it is false we can prove that it is false. It is therefore a scientific claim. The biggest problem this theory has is that early in its development it portrayed itself as a complete universal event, which it is not, and there are later scientists that for their own agenda, continued to promote this as proof that it is wrong. As wikipedia is an encyclopedia as and such this should be in reception section. And to rehash my many discussions with fellow museum service members - A paleontologist called it (Continental drift / plate tectonics) “Germanic pseudo­-science” and accused Wegener of toying with the evidence to spin himself into “a state of auto-intoxication.” Edmund Patrick – confer 13:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose. Read the previous discussion. All sorts of legitimate water-related research is being branded by inclusion under a single banner. The author is not and has never claimed to be a scientist but did adjust her views when scientific evidence became available and was open to refutation. Chris55 (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose. The term pseudoscience has derogatory implications, not warranted here. The hypothesis was supported by Hardy, who was a professional zoologist and a Fellow of the Royal Society. Recently, there were two half hour radio programmes on the BBC by Sir David Attenborough, reassessing the hypothesis in a positive light, based on recent primary research, some of it published in "Nature". It was proposed that there would exist a testable measure of the hypothesis, and one has recently been found. The greasy covering of new-born humans, vernix caseosa, was thought to be unique to humans. It is certainly not found in other primates, however, it has been recently discovered that a similar coating occurs on new-born seals. The greasy coating of seals has been analysed by mass spectrometry, and was found to be essentially identical to that covering human babies. This is a definite connection between aquatic mammals and humans that does not occur in other non-aquatic mammals. Urselius (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Support in both lead and reception. The AAT is bunk; it's widely accepted to be bunk. It started with a legitimate hypothesis from someone without the background to see why their hypothesis was implausible, but over the succeeding decades it's become an exercise in finding (or simply making up) facts to suit the theory. In particular, it is this later exercise in starting with the conclusion that has made it pseudoscience. We should not mislead the reader into thinking it is taken seriously. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose. The “growing evidence of the role of waterways in hominid evolution” (Tobias) is now an area of scientific research significant enough to dispense with the charge of pseudoscience as of contemporary relevance. None of the sources cited to support the charge are substantive. Blog posts not linked to peer-reviewed texts by the same author cannot be assumed to be reliable. Almanacer (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose. The label has been used by writers who thought that the theory was being supported by some people on spurious grounds. That is no justification for labelling other proponents as pseudoscientists who are simply putting forward scientific arguments which may or may not be correct. I disagree both with editors who support because they think the theory is bunk or oppose because they think it is a valid theory. Both views are POV. The issue should be that the article should explain the arguments on each side, not quote abuse. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose - For us to declare something pseudoscience in Wikipedia's voice, especially in the lead, it has to be a widely-held view. The sources presented are not compelling. A personal blog is not usable at all. The Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience does not seem to be regarded as reliable. I can't find a book called "Regal's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience". Perhaps the OP means ""Pseudoscience: a critical encyclopedia" by Brian Regal, which is cited in a few other publications, but not to the extent that it would be considered authoritative. - MrX 21:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC) No one is argueing it should be declared in Wikipedia's voice. The argument is about whether to include the view at all - with attribution. The questoin is simple: is it a significant notable view that AAH is pseudoscience. If if is then NPOV requires us to include that view. You are now argueing that in spite of being included in two distinct encyclopedias of pseudoscience this is not a significant view. Frankly I find that argument absurd and in contravention of Wikipedias most basic policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Then the question posed is ambiguous. When you wrote " based on the inclusion..." perhaps you meant to write "attributed to...". In any case, attribution would not make it any more appropriate for the lead per WP:DUEWEIGHT and my comments about the quality of the sources still applies.- MrX 13:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Support per OP. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose The lead already says, and probably takes too much time over it, that the theory has little support and is not supported by evidence. TFD (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC) OpposeNo in the lead. Yes as a point of view in the reception section. fyi I see there is still debate on the hypotheses. The Waterside Ape-Attenborough, Sorry David AttenboroughCuriousMind01 (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Support both Of course it's not falsifiable, but what else from that period of our evolution is? It's described as psuedoscience and it is very definitely fringe. On that note, perhaps the language of the lede could use a little tidy-up. Do we really need phrases such as "in depth" and "mainstream"? --Pete (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Support as largely pseudoscientific, should be mentioned as such. KingAntenor (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose - from the 1930s would predate the Modern synthesis so seems more one of the Superseded scientific theories or thesis that did not pan out, not something current or even pseudoscience. By all means just follow the cites and convey what they say in due WP:WEIGHT, but also be clear on the timing. The reception section should state what the reception was in the 1940s and clearly seperate that from if it got revisionism or relabelling in the recent past. Markbassett (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Support both as so described. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose: No in the lede, but yes to a mention under Reception. The theory is clearly not supported by the available evidence or current scientific consensus, but just being wrong doesn't make it inherently pseudoscientific. --tronvillain (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC) RfC comment. Given the history of how the theory came about, it seems more like bad science than an idea that developed independently of science. As such, "pseudoscience" is not unreasonable as a way to describe it, but not quite the most precise term. I would say that fringe would be more precise. The theory does seem to have come about via a sincere attempt to employ scientific methods, but it has been so widely rejected as to put it outside of the mainstream. That's really what "fringe" is. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose. The current lead makes it quite clear there is not widespread acceptance of AAH, as well as little physical evidence to support it. Let us not conflate merely bad or incorrect science with pseudoscience. Furthermore personal blogs should almost never be cited for matters of science. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose, but per Tryptofish, a qualifier like "fringe" or stronger wording indicating its widespread lack of support (popular and evidentiary) is merited in the lede. Heterodidact (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose, including opposition to the use of terms such as fringe, and speaking as one who rejected the AAH idea from its original proposal. The AAH proposal began as a serious suggestion and evidence was presented for its support. The fact that the theory had holes does not mean that it was pseudoscience nor even fringe science, and to call it that in the lede does dishonour to the people who proposed it and to WP. The fact that by now it is hardly rationally supportable and that fringe and beyond-fringe writers have embraced it is another matter, and to mention it in the lede without making it clear that this is independent of the arguable merits of the original idea would be irresponsible. But to put the whole story in the lede would be cumbersome and unnecessary. Put it in the body in a properly balanced discussion. JonRichfield (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Strong oppose-There is a basic difference between the AAH idea and ideas like psychokinesis which are at the heart of Pseudoscience.The theory no doubt is extremely flawed and going by the mountain of evidences put forward against it, it could be only irrationally supportable but the theory uses proper scientific phenomenon to build it's case.It's regretful that the theory could not stand the scrutiny and it proved to be a case of incorrect deductions from correct science. On similar terms the Plum pudding model was heavily flawed and it's discrepancies could now be detected even by a high school student, but that does not deem it to be classified under Pseudoscience.To summarize-"Pseudo-science is always incorrect but the vice-versa rarely holds"!Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 13:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose -As far as anthropologists are concerned, it's an interesting if rather far-out hypothesis with some explanatory power, plenty of evidence against it, and which could possibly be accepted if new evidence came to light. That's pretty much how Copernican cosmology began. It may be right or wrong, but it's not simply to be labelled as pseudo. If there's good reason to mention the accusation in Reception, go ahead of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose. In brief, the current lede already makes the consensus clear, the sources aren't reliable enough to warrant the inclusion in the lede, and wrong science isn't the same as pseudoscience. All of these points have already been discussed in detail by other editors. Arathald (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Weak oppose As others have stated, there's a distinction between pseudoscience and a flawed argument that failed to attract consensus in a given research community over time. That difference is difficult to articulate in a brief format, but it certainly hinges in part on a lack of rigor in the empirical process and a refusal to accept contravening evidence. To that extent, contemporary support for the theory might be fairly described as having elements of pseudoscience to it, but much of this article is concerned primarily with the historical development of this theory, from an era three-quarters of a century back when the state of science on the evolution of human physiology was substantially less developed and when theories were more speculative--not from a lack of scientific rigor necessarily, but because the record was less established, the evidence less substantial, and the research tools more limited. That's not bad science, per se--just outdated. Now, I do believe the lead could use a considerable amount of work, and certainly could be clearer as to the fact that this theory has insubstantial support as a tenable theory in the modern day, especially considering the tone of the article in general. But to describe the existence of the theory itself as a product of pseudoscience would be highly misleading, I must agree with the emerging consensus there. All that said, the most important consideration here is the fact that we have to take our lead here from the sources--and I don't, on the measure of either A) the quality of the sources proposed for the "pseudoscientific" label, nor B) their WP:WEIGHT when compared against the sources collectively, view the proposed wording as consistent with a verifiable and neutral claim. Snow let's rap 06:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Strong oppose. The sources are not all reliable and IMHO absolutely insufficient to warrant an inclusion in the lead. Clearly untenable arguments. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose. Sources are not strong enough to warrant inclusion. Andrew327 14:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose. I see no unscientific claim in the hypothesis. A reference to the contrary does not make it so. Dougmcdonell (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose. It's a scientific hypothesis. It happens to be wrong (probably), but that doesn't make it pseudoscience. And it's "included" in two encyclopedias of pseudoscience – but we aren't told (and I don't have the means to check) what they say about it. Maproom (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose. There are valid discussions to be had about waters edge habitats influencing human evolution. Branding a whole set of them with the disparaging term pseudoscience is not helpful to human understanding which is what we are trying to enhance. Lumos3 (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Oppose, or Lead no Reception yes per others above. Calling it pseudoscience is fringey. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Discussion @Chris55: Any chance you could enhance your argument with a policy based rationale for why the word "pseudoscience" should be excluded from a topic that is included in two different encyclopedias of pseudoscience?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Urselius (talk · contribs) and Almanecer (talk · contribs)the same question for you: Any chance you can refer to a policy that allows us to exclude the term pseudoscience from this topic given the high quality sources that labels it as such? (a reference to the alleged paper in nature would also be nice). Please remember that arguments that are not based in policy can be disregarded by the closer. How can the reception section disregard three notale publications that classify this theory as pseudoscience and simultaneously follow WP:NPOV and the findings of the arbitration committee regarding pseudoscience? You really have to address this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Your suggestion that an entry in a book about Pseudoscience is sufficient to qualify for the label is curious since the Williams book for example also includes articles on Francis Bacon, Arthur C Clarke and Martin Gardener among other well-known names. Are we to label them similarly? Surely we should pay some attention to what is written there. My objection to Regal’s treatment is that he is mainly concerned with the polemic nature of Morgan’s early writing and despite suggesting that the theory is receiving more mainstream notice returns to a book about an entirely different subject to press his claims. Williams simply concludes that as her “ideas have still to find some basis for acceptance” it remains pseudoscience. This might be ok if pseudoscience was not used by a certain section of Wikipedia editors (of which you are an example) as a means of banning any favourable material about a topic in the name of “NPOV”. I think the argument goes “science is by definition NPOV. Therefore a viewpoint that is opposed to the general consensus is not NPOV.” If we named “general consensus” as Aristotle, we might see some similarities with the schoolmen of another era. I, with an unfortunate liberal bias, think that all viewpoints should be fairly represented and critiqued. Chris55 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC) "all viewpoints should be fairly represented and critiqued" is a familiar sort of phrase when one of the viewpoints is that the earth is 6000 years old. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the gratuitous personal attack. Your logic however fails because if all viewpoints should be fairly represented and critiqued then why do you think that the clearly notable viewpoint which is that AAT is pseudoscience should precisely not be described or critiqued in this article? You are contradicting your own !vote.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Who wouldn't often never describe themselves as liberal. Chris55 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Another point that should be made is that at least 10 of the scientific papers cited on this page date from after 2010 whereas Williams is 2000 and Hawks not much after. Scientific opinion can change faster than street reputations. Chris55 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Ahha...which is why we should trust journalist Attenborough (whose knighthood is apparently relevant while his lack of academic credentials is not) over the papers published in Evolutionary Anthropology in 2014. When the reputation of AAT changes Algis Kuliukas and his friends will be able to publish in reputable journals which currently they are not, and the theory will be mentioned in textbooks about Human evolution and not in encyclopedias of pseudoscience, which currently they are not. Also Hawks latest writing on AAT in which he defines it as pseudoscience is from 2009.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC) There's a lovely quote in the Foley, Lahr 2014 which you regard as "very high quality". A shriek on p57 which says "How can we carry out research on “water stuff” in prehistory without either being dismissed as charlatans or used as props for the AAH??" Since they seem to be scared of their fellow scientists and the problem is all of their own making, it's hard to have very much sympathy. Chris55 (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Attenborough read a natural sciences (Zoology and Geology) degree at Cambridge, he is an FRS (they don't hand fellowships out like toffees), so he is not without academic credentials. What he has done to further an interest in natural history and biology in the eyes of the public speaks for itself. The number of species named after him also speaks for the high esteem he is held in by academics. He is hardly just "a journalist" in this context. There is a sea-change happening in the academic world concerning the aquatic ape hypothesis and this article is becoming dangerously archaic, it may soon be laughable. Urselius (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC) You are using the authors to argue the opposite of what they are actually argueing by selectively qupoting them out of context now. That is a very old pov-pushing technique. You really need to read the Arbitration case on pseudoscience, because next step after this is going to be arbitration enforcement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Now it's you talking rubbish. The rest of their paper is a design for how to do "water related research" without appearing to go along with the AAH. It is to be expected that they minimize the papers which appear to support the AAH but it seems to consistent with their attempt "to keep clear blue water between that and the AAH". I have been been in scientific research long enough to know how the community works, as well as reading a lot of scientific history. None of this is new. It's happened endless times before. Chris55 (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Oh the wonders of wiki-world. I agree whole-heartly with ·maunus that the fact (and it is one) that a large porpotion of the scientific world sees this theory as pseudoscience is important to learning about the theory and upholding wikipedia's goal of being a encyclopedia! IMHO it should be in reception section - to further improve this article through communial discussions (!) should we introduce a RfC on this question alone? Edmund Patrick – confer 06:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Regal's does not say that the theory is pseudoscience, but "Morgan's continued critique of "Tarzanists" in evolutionary biology is less a reasoned scientific discussion that a distracting pseudoscientific politicizing of an important issue."[4] In other words, it is not the theory itself that is pseudoscience, but the approach taken by its chief advocate against the mainstream. The theory itself has its origins in mainstream scientists advocating an original hypothesis, which is not pseudoscience, but actually how science operates. It only becomes pseudoscience when its advocates ignore evidence and impugn the motives of their oppoents, instead of concentrating on scientific argument. TFD (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC) I agree with a lot of what you say, TFD. But since 1982 in 4 books, Morgan attempted to separate the scientific aspects from the polemic. To find any current evidence, Regal had to reference a book Morgan wrote counter to Pinker's Blank Slate, in the process of which he demonstrates complete ignorance of those issues. Having taken a stand against AAH people are forced to defend their position by increasingly irrelevant arguments. What we need to do is to find a way out of this pointless stalemate. Water is important in human history and has been systematically ignored in evolutionary theory. One can blame Morgan for making the idea popular with the public without proper scientific evidence but to use a Wiki article purely to support the status quo is indefensible. Chris55 (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Maunus Your comment placed inappropriately in the Survey section has broken the numbering and threatens to turn the section into a mess. I suggest you move it to the discussion section. Chris55 (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC) @MaunusTo clarify the policy issue: declarations of pseudoscience (or anything else for that matter) are only acceptable if they can be found in reliable peer-reviewed sources and sources are accurately represented in the proposed content, in sum " a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". The currently proposed content on the pseudoscience charge is deficient in both respects as has been demonstrated in some detail and without challenge in on this page by several editors. Almanacer (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Comment on RfC design: the point of numbering !votes is so that they can be easily counted. The right way to do this is to have separate sections for "support" and "oppose". Then a glance can tell the current tally as well as the total. As it stands we can tell how many people have !voted, but we can only tell that "oppose" is coming out ahead because the margin is (currently) relatively large. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Comment: TFD expressed it so thoroughly and succinctly in passing, that I repeat it here as an accent point, clear of surrounding digressions: "...it is not the theory itself that is pseudoscience, but the approach taken by its chief advocate against the mainstream. The theory itself has its origins in mainstream scientists advocating an original hypothesis, which is not pseudoscience, but actually how science operates. It only becomes pseudoscience when its advocates ignore evidence and impugn the motives of their opponents, instead of concentrating on scientific argument." JonRichfield (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Comment: Nuclear though TFD's point is, its discrimination is not well suited to the lede, particularly if we are to avoid charges of WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR, so, until someone produces a precis sufficiently concise and to the point, I reckon that the body is the right place for it. It might be worth considering making these key points more explicit in the reception section. JonRichfield (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC) It is not synthesis, I quoted the source: "Morgan's continued critique of "Tarzanists" in evolutionary biology is less a reasoned scientific discussion that a distracting pseudoscientific politicizing of an important issue." The source is not calling the Aquatic Ape Theory pseudoscience, on the contrary it is an "important issue." It's calling Morgan's approach pseudo-scientific. There is a parallel with extra-terrestrial life. It is legitimate science to speculate about and search for extra-terrestrial life, but a lot written about it is pseudoscience. I was not suggesting by the way that we put this information into the lead, but that we not say in the lead that the hypothesis is pseudo-scientific, since among other things the source does not say that. TFD (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC) There seems to be a clear decision here per WP:SNOW to OPPOSE this proposal. Could someone not involved please do the honours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soft tissue?

Several times (at least 4), this article mentions that AAH is mainly concerned with "soft tissue" adaptations, but it never says what those adaptations are and the article itself seems to focus on everything but soft tissue adaptations (except for one paragraph about subcutaneous fat). I get the impression that either (1) there is a significant chunk of information missing from the article, or (2) the statement that AAH is mainly about "soft tissue" adaptations is wrong. Kaldari (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Soft tissue just refers to essentially that which is difficult to fossilize. That's mostly from them bones. jps (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

And 'soft tissue' implies those claims that are hard to be verified in fossil records -- the main methodology used in paleoanthropology. So except bipedalism and tool use, all others are 'soft tissue' adaptations so to speak. Chakazul (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Have linked the first of the two mentions to the corresponding article. Chris55 (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Auditory exostoses, being bony and therefore fossilisable, may be a useful means of testing the AAH; at least for well-preserved hominin remains from populations in reasonably temperate zones, where cold water would be expected. Urselius (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Is a picture of a gorilla wading relevant to the article?

I added a picture of a gorilla wading to the section "Wading and Bipedalism" a few days and it has been deleted three times: once by jps (aka 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS) with the comment "not an article on wading gorillas" and once by an ip saying "gorillas aren't bipeds". On another page the same user (jps) claimed "None of the sources mention gorillas wading as somehow being relevant to AAH."

I've just looked at the scientific papers cited in that section. Niemitz (2002) mentions gorillas 16 times, Niemitz (2010) mentions them 22 times and Kuliukas (2010) has 24 mentions of gorillas. All of these papers are evaluations of the different explanations for the bipedal nature of humans and both of the authors from their research back the explanation of Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan that wading in water was a crucial step in bipedalism.

This article is about the differences between humans and the other hominids so the demonstration that many of the latter will walk on two legs when in water is extremely relevant to the article and I can only assume that jps has never read any of the articles he claims to have. The most recent deletion says "I don't think this picture is helpful." I disagree, I suspect that the reason for its deletion is that it is too helpful. There are still at least 20 different explanations for bipedality doing the rounds in the literature so it seems that the issue is far from settled. My cautionary note "Despite many theories, the reason for human bipedalism has remained elusive" has long since been deleted along with a number of other cautions. Do other users think this picture merits inclusion? Chris55 (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that humans aren't gorillas. The hypothesis is that humans had evolutionary pressures put on them by spending time in the water. The sources reference gorillas because gorillas bear some similarities to human ancestors, and demonstrate traits in the wild that can be used to illustrate the hypothesis. So the image isn't directly relevant, only indirectly relevant as it illustrates something which is, in turn, an illustration of abstract concepts stemming from the hypothesis. That's pretty indirect, and I agree with the concerns about using it.

If this were a mainstream, accepted hypothesis, I would be okay with using unrelated photographs to illustrate the concepts. But with this being a fringe article, that's a little too much like an endorsement. I'll tell you what. If you guys give me some time, I can produce some illustrations. I used to volunteer at the graphics lab quite a bit. Better yet, if someone is willing to track down a vector artist (I can do it, but I prefer to work with rasters), I'll happily collaborate to produce two or three illustrative images. There once was a vector image used to illustrate here, but again, that was not directly relevant to the AAH, just an illustration of pre-paleolithic humans. I'd be happy enough to bring that one back, as I think actual illustrations don't carry the same implied weight of endorsement that photographs do. However, if we do this, I can probably whip up something more relevant than that one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect here. The image of the gorilla is directly relevant, as the sources are using the behaviour of modern great apes to project backwards in time to the hypothetical behaviour of human ancestors. The fact that the gorilla is not human has no bearing on its relevance in this case, because the sources are not directly commenting on the behaviour of humans, they are directly commenting on the behaviour of modern great apes. A photograph of a modern great ape exhibiting this behaviour is, therefore, entirely cogent. Urselius (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue that the gorilla wading photo is relevant to the section because the sources explicitly used primate wading as a direct argument (comparative primatology) in their theses, saying it's irrelevant would be an interpretion by some editors here.

But I do not agree to put it here because there're already so many photos in the Evidence section.

By the way I see the lede image of Pinnacle Point has been removed, I agree the image is not directly related, and at least one of the leading archaeologist working on that site (Curtis Marean) is mildly critical of the AAH. But then the lede image became the 2-skull that's a bit strange. I suggest to use an image of Seafood because an aquatic diet is so far the most important argument in AAH and Waterside models. Or alternatively an image of Freediving because it's the most iconic to AAH, though less emphasized in recent Waterside models Chakazul (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not going to get behind an otherwise unrelated photograph being used for illustrative purposes. Even that seafood image looks an awful lot more like Wikipedia is doing more to help the reader understand the details of the hypothesis than outlining the subject holistically. I've already outlined how the sources mentioning gorillas is still not directly relation to the AAH, so I'm not sure what you expect to achieve by repeating to me why it's indirectly related. As I said, I'd be happy to work on dedicated illustrations, but I'm afraid you're not going to see much support for using these photographs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Well, the thing is that humans aren't gorillas." Well noticed, MjolnirPants. But this article is precisely about why humans are different from gorillas. There are some signs that they are (like chimpanzees) actually getting more like humans (particularly if knuckle-walking is seen as an intermediate stage) though there are exceeding few gorilla fossils and the species will, sadly, almost certainly be wiped out by human pressures before any more changes take place. So your point out "unrelated photos" fails on two points.

Chakazul, please don't confuse the relatively frequent use of photos in the research section by pointing to the absence of pictures in the lede. There's still only one picture per section which is much less than many articles. I know it's difficult to find lede pictures that are acceptable, but putting pictures like this there would draw even more objections. Chris55 (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

But this article is precisely about why humans are different from gorillas. No, it's not. It's precisely about one particular, not-well-received hypothesis which attempts to partially explain how humans are different from the common ancestors we share with gorillas chimpanzees. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This part of the article is about the evidence that some researchers have produced for one theory of bipedality. Knuckle walking is not now generally thought to have been inherited from the LCA (of humans and gorillas) but is thought to have evolved separately in both gorillas and chimpanzees and thus humans may have taken a different route. Chris55 (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Again we should estimate the relevance of an image not by our reasoning but by what the sources said, especially when the source is a peer-reviewed secondary review. Fig.4 & Fig.5 of Niemitz 2010 depicted 6 different species of primates wading bipedally, and used this as an argument for the wading hypothesis, so it's a comparison between human and other non-human primates, not just human and gorilla. Similarly, if someone put a baboon image in Bipedalism as a comparative argument for the postural feeding hypothesis, it also makes perfect sense. Chakazul (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Again we should estimate the relevance of an image not by our reasoning but by what the sources said That's hard to argue with, and I'm not going to try. However, the image in question is not one of those images you just linked to, which have been used for this exact purpose. Find an image which has been directly linked to AAH, such as those you just linked to and I can get behind that, photograph or not. But we're not just going to ape the methods (pun intended, thank you) used by researchers, because that original research. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

How to treat this subject

Please have a look at the article Nazi eugenics. Here you will see the reporting of the discredited application of a discredited anthropological theory and movement. Does this article have to moderate every sentence when reporting what was believed, written about or done in support of this entirely discredited, and indeed vilified, movement? No it does not! The simple act of reporting something does not require the ridiculous lengths of secondary and tertiary source support that some editors are advocating as necessary here. Please try to act in a reasonable manner. Urselius (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, how many proponents of Nazi eugenics are there editing WP? In the past few months, there have been a number of editors with a pro-AAH POV editing this article. To be clear, that includes myself, although I will say without my usual humility that I at least seem to be making a concerted effort not to let my POV shape the way this article is written. If you think the arguing on this page is bad, try Talk:Acupuncture and it's archive pages. In comparison to many other fringe theories, this talk page is a paragon of lockstep agreement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Your insinuation that anyone "pro-AAH" is "POV" and unbalanced is exactly the opposite. Where statements are not properly referenced it is normal to request a citation not to assume that they are simply expressing a biased personal opinion not backed up by research. Chris55 (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Your insinuation that anyone "pro-AAH" is "POV" and unbalanced is exactly the opposite. Are you kidding me? I made references to my own POV and you have the unmitigated gal to try and respond as if I'd cast aspersions on another editor? Seriously, fuck off. Nobody has the time or patience to deal with this sort of ridiculous tripe. If you can't stick to discussing the subject, go edit another article. Your constant, incredibly hypocritical assumptions of bad faith on my part are really getting old. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Your boast that you didn't allow your POV to shape the way the article is written implies that it was not true for others. Chris55 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I really don't give a shit what you read into my comments. Discuss the article or get lost. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

"sweeping changes"

Chris55 Point out where any experimentation or testing is even mentioned in those sections you restored. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

To avoid ambiguity I changed the section title to "Testing efforts and further research". Only some of the research produced actual experiments and tests, but most efforts are on reviewing the existing literature and building new foundations, because investigating water-related ideas was difficult or simply impossible in the former terrestrial-only frameworks. This section should be more general on these efforts, as long as they're directly related to AAH. I don't mind slimming some of the texts to make it less bulky, like the Hardy/Morgan section. Even better, we should supply criticism whenever available. Chakazul (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Niemitz in his 2002 paper reviews 15 accounts of bipedalism in humans and proposes his "Amphibian Generalist" theory after comparing multiple factors; in his 2010 paper he additionally surveys 49 monkey and ape species in relation to water usage and upright stance in water. Kuliukas (2012) extends this to 42 variant explanations and in addition records the results of experimental tests using volunteers on the energy efficiency of walking with straight and bent legs on land and in water (p58). Kuliukas (2016) in addition includes a detailed analysis of the hip bones of an Australopithecine arguing that they are consistent with a side-to-side motion that would be expected in an animal used to wading through water. In neither of these cases is it argued that these are conclusive or widely accepted, but to deny they are attempting to test the explanations or show experimental techniques appropriate to the field would be hard to maintain. Chris55 (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The auditory exotosis section is supported by the archeological evidence adduced in Rhys Evans (1992) and Rhys Evans and Cameron (2014 section External Ear Exosotoses–Archeological Populations) as well as that by Okumura et al (2007). Chris55 (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Do I really need to explain the difference between a test and a review? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Response section

I think the simple bipartite split of this section into ‘public’ and ‘scientist’ responses is unfortunate for a very good reason. The response of paleoanthropologists was almost universally hostile and dismissive. They had vested interests in other scenarios, having subscribed to an up-to-then largely unchallenged status quo, and resented the intrusion into 'their field' of outsiders. In contrast, other scientists, zoologists, physiologists, evolutionary biologists etc., were much less hostile, in general. It would be useful for this to be reflected by the re-introduction of sub-sections. Urselius (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This segregation of reception between (paleo)anthropologists and other scientists seems obvious, it's in my statistics, but I'd love to see if any secondary review pointed this out. Chakazul (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

A possible source is p232 of Dunking the Tarzanists by Erika Lorraine Milam, pp223-238 of "Outsider Scientists: Routes to Innovation in Biology, Ed O Harman, M. R. Dietrich, U of Chicago Press, 2013. It makes the point directly. Chris55 (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, it only mentioned Ellis and Verhaegen, but not other biologists/biochemists/physiologists/physicians/archaeologists out there. Chakazul (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Just like those dastardly climate scientists being vested in the climate change model, eh? 2600:1017:B019:80A2:FA2B:EDD9:A935:9BC (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The comparison is apt and not unnoticed by critics. jps (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I see JPS rearranging this section into "silence + negative" and "positive" reactions a clever treatment, better than the previous "anthropologist vs others" dichotomy that implies some kind of secret society on either side (establishment vs rebels??), and better than sorting it in chronological order as I once thought. Chakazul (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

15,000 years?

I am concerned that the pseudoscience enforcers are insisting on some very outdated views. When one of them included the sentence "archaeological evidence suggests that maritime adaptations and sea-faring developed within the last 15,000 years" I very modestly changed it to the past tense as it represents a 40 year old view, but it was reverted with the comment 'I don't see anything in the sources to support the assertion that this is "outdated"'. Table III in Erlondson (2001, p311) contains dates up to 800,000 for travel to the Indonesian island of Flores, which homed the more recently discovered homo floriensis, as well as 40-60,000 for the arrival of AMH. Now Flores is not only an island but part of the Australian plate which has always been separated from the Eurasian Plate by deep water. Recent re-enactions of this feat actually failed even though the same team had successfully crossed from Timor to Australia (using less authentic techniques). Erlandson also talks about Australia, "which we now know was colonized by boat at least 50,000 years ago". Although the gap was probably much less than the current 700 miles from Timor due to sea level differences, it was not less than 70. There are other examples mentioned. Erlondson comments that "The proof that seafaring extended well back into the Pleistocene requires a fundamental paradigm shift, not yet fully realized". Chris55 (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"not yet fully realized" is key. I don't think that there is any consensus whatsoever that there is solid evidence for seafaring 50,000 years ago let alone 800,000 years ago. 15,000 years may be an under-estimate, but it seems a standard age even today. jps (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The phrase quoted doesn't say "There is a scientific consensus that..." It says "archeological evidence suggests..." I doubt you'd find an archeologist these days who would support that one. (There are for example plenty of sites of humans in Australia much older. How did they get there? Fly?) So, wikipedia readers will be misled until the paradigm shift is finalised. It's a bit like the story of plate tectonics. It was proposed in 1912; Holmes and others provided the mechanism in a number of publications between 1928 and 1942; but it took till 1955 for most scientists even to entertain the idea. Once the scientific community has made up its mind it finds it very hard to change it. I find it depressing that one is not allowed to discuss alternatives sensibly. It seems that for some Wikipedians, pseudoscience = any theory which contradicts the general consensus, even if there are no impossibilities involved and the pros and cons are presented fairly. Chris55 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Frankly it's too early to say AAH would be another continental drift or is destined to be a dead-end. A paradigm shift cannot be known until it's done (or almost done).

For that statement about 15,000 years, the source Erlandson 2001 was talking about "the general perception" that the author disagreed with and thus calling for a paradigm shift, and it did happened, after this influential paper, much evidence has been unearthed in support of more antique coastal exploitation in the Pleistocene[5] up to the earliest times of our species[6] (while seafaring evidently occured much later, it's a more advanced form of technology possibly derived from earlier coastal living). Therefore this excerpt is both misused and outdated here. The seconds source Erlandson 2002 was talking about "peopling of the New World" and thus not relevant. Also both sources didn't mention AAH being supported or refuted. I'll just remove this part. Chakazul (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• it seems that for some Wikipedians, pseudoscience = any theory which contradicts the general consensus, even if there are no impossibilities involved and the pros and cons are presented fairly. The word you're looking for is not "pseudoscience" but WP:FRINGE. And yes, that is exactly how we're supposed to treat them. Even Loop Quantum Gravity gets this exact treatment. "But MPants!" You say, "The LQG article doesn't read anything like this one!"

Well, that's because LQG has lots of supporters who actually have degrees in the relevant subjects and publish peer-reviewed articles on it fairly regularly, so there's a wealth of information, including the barest minutiae, about how it works and what it is, versus relatively little information about rampant criticism and dismissal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Section: Testing efforts and further research

I'm still not seeing anything in that section resembling a test of the hypothesis. Does anyone here have any evidence that anyone has ever tested any prediction of the AAH? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Some studies described in this section can test AAH:

• Biomechanical experiments may find that the wading model is unfavorable per energetic calculations.
• Archaeological and paleo-environmental studies may find that human ancestors were never exclusively lived near water bodies or coastlines, or rarely engaged in diving activities, that could allow specific adaptations to happen.
• Dental wear and isotopic studies may conclude that aquatic diet were never significant for human ancestors.
• Nutritional studies may find that terrestrial food sources and metabolic convertibility are sufficient to provide the DHA, iodine, etc human needed.
• Studies in human swimming/diving abilities (e.g. performance, diving reflex) may find that human is actually no more capable than other apes/primates.

These studies are onging by proponents or other unrelated researchers, negative findings can disprove part or the whole of the AAH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakazul (talk • contribs) 05:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that this is a original research argument. You think that they can do this, but there is no third-party source saying that they actually do. jps (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asking about studies that can test it, I'm asking about actual testing of it. If I don't get an answer, I'm renaming the section to something better and pruning it up. This is the second time I've asked for someone to point out how this section is not misleadingly titled (which is a rather blatant NPOV violation), and not gotten a straight answer in response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The vernix section is a prediction made by the theory that nobody had considered before. Nobody in the sciences knew that any marine mammals had similar coverings as newborns until it was confirmed, first in Canada, then in California in two different species. And the explanation appears to confirm other arguments about fatty acid demands in foetuses. If you're expecting the type of laboratory testing that occurs in physics, I think you need to examine more work in this domain. The work of Kuliukas certainly involved quite a bit of 'lab work'. The work of Stewart, Joordens, Munro and others is classical archeological field work. All of this was within the framework of research stimulated by the AAH. Much of this has been drawn together and commented on in several conferences. The name of the section has been changed several times so if you want to propose another, please do. Chris55 (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... Once again I find myself asking you a question with a very specific format: Do I really need to explain the difference between a test and an observation? You could chalk that up as weak evidence in support of the theory, but it is not by any mean a deliberate attempt to test a prediction of the hypothesis. Indeed, the section makes it rather clear that Morgan didn't predict other aquatic mammals would have it. So it was put forth as extraordinarily weak evidence, then later found to be not-so-weak by Attenborough when he examined some of the literature. That's a far cry from a test of the hypothesis. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't name the section. If you have a better name for it, please let's hear it. Morgan wasn't a scientist and never did any "scientific research". That is the point of separating out this section. Chris55 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I'm quite ok with the title you've chosen. Chris55 (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Those I listed are actual tests for the AAH. The archaeological/fossil ones may need decades of data accumulation, the others (wading efficiency, DHA convertibility, apnea responses) are actual experiments that have been performed and can be readily repeated in vitro or in situ. They gave some positive results that proponents used to advance their hypothesis, and other scientists can work on similar experiments to falsify them.

Anyway the currently title is just right to avoid confusions. ChakAzul (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Lede image (again)

File:Diving Bajau kid 1.jpg

File:Diving Bajau kid 2.jpg

I've uploaded 2 photos of Sama-Bajau kid diving under water, taken by Swedish researchers who are studying diving physiology & ethnography and are moderately supportive to AAH / Waterside model. The first one was chosen as the lede image. I believe the photo and the caption are neutral and relevant to the topic. Chakazul (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

connecting either of these images with AAH is bald original research. I have removed them per WP:BRD. jps (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

These images of freediving tribal modern humans (e.g. Sea Gypsies, pearl divers) were often used by the advocating scientists, both in imargery and in text, e.g. p.121, p.130, p.166 in their works. The photos there are copyrighted so I obtained free ones instead. Since they are explicitely used by the sources, not by me, how can they be OR?

Please don't get me wrong if I want to use some nice images to promote AAH. It's just that freediving is the most iconic defining feature of AAH, be it right or wrong. And it's the best to show such characteristic by a real photo of tribal humans, instead of atheletes equipped with fins/snorkles or abstract diagrams. In the same way, a hunting Khoisan or a running Tarahumara would be perfectly suitable for the Hunting hypothesis and the Endurance running hypothesis. Chakazul (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the section above: If you can propose an image that has been directly tied to the AAH (not just an image similar to images which have been directly tied to the AAH), I can get behind that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That is a piece of false reasoning. Consider that you were writing an article on the 'Assasination of Abraham Lincoln' and wanted to show an image of the gun that killed him. Your reasoning would exclude an image of the type of gun used, insisting that only an image of the particular gun used in the assassination was relevant. Similarly, an article on great white shark attacks on humans could legitimately use stock images of great white sharks, it would not need to use an image of a particular shark that had attacked humans. Your insistence on this point is unreasonable. Urselius (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not 'false reasoning', it's your analogy that fails. If there were a fringe theory that the gun that killed Lincoln was actually a Henry rifle, then I would insist that an 'illustrative' photograph of a Henry would be wholly inappropriate, just as I have done here. If someone got their hands on an image which had been purported by reliable sources to be the actual gun used, then I would get behind that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

We may be moving somewhere useful here. To take your analogy further, I would be quite happy with two images, one of a Henry rifle and one of the type of small derringer actually used, for comparison's sake. In the context of the article under discussion an image of a bipedal wading ape could be twinned with an image of a bipedal ape in a terrestrial setting (perhaps carrying food). There would be no bias of imagery in that case. Urselius (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Depending on how it's handled, I think I could live with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Possibly useful image of a captive female chimpanzee walking bipedally, while carrying a large stick/small log, in a terrestrial environment

Urselius (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrt the example you gave (in the hypothetical article about the "Henry rifle hypothesis"), I'm okay there. But apes still aren't our ancestors, and this article is about our ancestors and early humans. I think the two images Chakazul found below are better suited, as they show actual humans (photographs of human ancestors doing anything but fossilizing tend to be very difficult to come by). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Apes are our ancestors, but our ancestors are not identical to any living ape. We share ancestors with the living great apes, and these common ancestors were also apes. I would challenge your assertion that, "this article is about our ancestors and early humans"; no it isn't, it is about a hypothesis which draws on fossil evidence very sketchily, but relies on comparisons of modern humans to modern living animals, aquatic species and apes, for most of its evidence. Anything that is relevant to the hypothesis is fair game, it does not have to be relevant to the fossil record at all. From what you said earlier, I assumed that your objection to an image of a wading bipedal ape was that it might assert a false legitimacy on the relevant assertions made in the hypothesis. By including an image of an bipedal terrestrial ape, this would overcome your objection. However, you seem to have moved the goalposts, and moved them on very shaky reasoning. BTW I do not want either bipedal ape image as the lead image - just together, paired, in the text at a relevant place.Urselius (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Apes are our ancestors, but our ancestors are not identical to any living ape. The apes in the image are not human ancestors. And humans are apes, too. I meant "gorillas" in my last comment, but I assumed you would understand what I meant based on the context, and "ape" is easier to type than "gorilla". Those images are of gorillas, and those are not human ancestors or humans. As I said below, I'm happy with the images of swimming children. As I said above, I'd be happy to produce or help produce an image to illustrate one of the key features claimed by the AAH, as well. But my concern here is what jps outlined earlier: we can't take random photographs and use those to illustrate something, because that's original research. That wouldn't apply to the hypothetical Henry rifle example, because we can get images of an actual Henry rifle, and compare them to images of the actual Deringer used. Translating that to this article struck me as a very good idea, but as I thought more about it I realize that we still had the problem of ascribing features to the subjects of the photos (that they are human ancestors or early humans) that are neither true nor verifiable. Even if we're doing so implicitly, it's a problem. Let's stick with what we have for now, and if you would like me to produce some illustrations (I used to work as a comic book illustrator, and I have done medical illustrations, and have many years experience as a CAD technician and a full graphics suite on my computer with all the "goodies" an artist might require), leave a note on my talk page and we can figure out what that would be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Frankly it's hard to say which kind of image is "directly" tied to a hypothesis. I'd argue that if the idea (i.e. Sea Gypsies used as an extant phenotype model of the evolutionary past) as well as the imagery (my photo is nearly identical to this one) are used in the sources then it's directly tied. Note that we can't use the same image because of copyright issues. Perhaps AAH is too controversial, as an analogy, if we apply the same to a mainstream model say hunting, will it work? Chakazul (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Frankly it's hard to say which kind of image is "directly" tied to a hypothesis. This is where the disconnect between us is coming in: I'm not referring to kinds of images, but to specific images. That being said, I see that the one you added to the article is directly tied to the AAH through being retrieved from https://theaquaticape.org/, which appears to me to be as reliable a pro-AAH source as we can get, and so I'm quite happy with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

These photos were not ripped off from the website, but obtained directly from the group of Swedish researchers who went to study the Sea Gypsies every year, published works on the anthropology and physiology of these lovely people. There are other "similar" photos [7] [8], some of them captured underwater foraging (even more relevant to the topic), but they're all copyrighted. Chakazul (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't particularly care how you got them; they've been directly linked to the hypothesis through being used on that site. I'm a little confused now, because you seem to have switched over to trying to give me reasons to oppose their inclusion. But I'm okay with these two. These two meet the criteria I specified earlier. So unless anyone else has a good argument as to why they can't be used, I think you're in the clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Good that we agree on this. I also don't care how this image was used else where, someone could just rip it off from WP from now on and uses it to promote mermaid is true, but it's not our concern. Chakazul (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry to be a wet blanket, but I'm not of the opinion that a website such as theaquaticape.org is what we should be basing our lede image choices on. The current lede "image" is one of the human timeline, which I think is quite nice. An image used by a site that is essentially trying to propagandize does not appear to me to be WP:NPOV unless we contextualize it, and since the website aquaticape.org doesn't seem to be subject to, say, rigorous review it's not a website we should be using as a basis for declaring a high-quality and neutral lede image. jps (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Captioning the diving child

TBH, I would prefer using an image of Elaine Morgan as the lede. It makes the most sense to me as she is the one most famous for promoting the idea. Sadly, except for the really terrible group photo, it looks like there are no free images available for her. Would someone be willing to contact one of the people who own some of these google images and ask them if they'll release them to wikimedia commons? Even if we don't end up using it as the lede, such an image would definitely benefit the project. jps (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to moving the timeline image up and moving the two swimming child images down. I don't really agree with your concerns about using images from that site as the lead image, but I'm not vested in the idea of using them there. I am opposed to excising them from the article, both for meta reasons (we have to give a little, that's what compromise and consensus is about) as well as for a concern over the article (it would benefit from having some appropriate photographs in it).

I'm not a fan of using an image of Morgan (or Hardy, or any other proponent) as the lead image, though I suppose I could live with it if that's what the rest of you all decide on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you point to a single neutral source which indicates that the images of these children diving are indeed related to AAH? Or, even better, is there any source which discusses the use of these images at theaquaticape.org (one of many AAH-proponent WP:BLOGS, none of which, as far as I can tell, has editorial oversight or review)? jps (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:YESPOV says that we don't need a "neutral" source. And it's a matter of easily verifiable fact that these images were directly connected to the AAH by being used at theaquaticape.org, which may be a blog, bug is a blog by an individual with a masters in social anthropology who has published in a peer reviewed journal (albeit one with a low impact factor). I'll be the first to admit that it's not ideal, but it's easily an expert WP:SELFPUB source, and it's not even being used to make claims of fact, merely to attribute the author's opinion that these images are illustrative of certain points of the AAH. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This is problematic, though, because we have seen plenty of anti-AAH blogs excised from this page by the pro-AAH crowd. Blogs, I would add, that are maintained by similarly credentialed individuals who make salient points that are just as illustrative as a social anthropologist taking pictures of diving children. I would like at least to give us an opportunity to use images associated with them. E.g. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/28/oh-no-not-the-aquatic-ape-hypothesis-again/ seems like a perfectly good source to me, and, look, there are great images of a mouse skull which show that the "humans have sinus cavities" argument is a little odd. jps (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Or... if that's too far afield for ya, why not some of the images used here? jps (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This is problematic, though, because we have seen plenty of anti-AAH blogs excised from this page by the pro-AAH crowd. Blogs, I would add, that are maintained by similarly credentialed individuals who make salient points that are just as illustrative as a social anthropologist taking pictures of diving children. This blog and blogs by similarly credentialed individuals being used for claims of fact is something I'm not entirely comfortable with, either on the pro-AAH or anti-AAH side (wrt the anti-AAH side, I don't see that as a loss as there are blogs from individuals with better credentials, and of course, sources like Langdon which are ideal). But we're not using it for claims of fact.

Or... if that's too far afield for ya, why not some of the images used here? I'm fine with them (and the PZ Myers blog images) for the same reasons I'm fine with these two. My only concern is that they're properly licensed to be used here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

So how do we write the caption? "This image was taken by a proponent of AAH. He thinks it is supportive of the hypothesis." That seems like a terrible justification for a lede image. At least with the mouse skull we can say, "This image was posted to PZ Myers blog showing that mouse skulls have a similar topology to human skulls. In so doing, Myers rebuts the arguments that AAH proponents make wherein they proposed sinus cavities were strong evidence in favor of AAH." jps (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

So how do we write the caption? "This image was taken by a proponent of AAH. He thinks it is supportive of the hypothesis." No, I think a simple blurb that doesn't directly describe the image, but describes what the image illustrates is better. The caption Chakazul gave it was right on point, IMHO:

A child of modern Sea Gypsies demonstrating their diving behavior and ability, often used by proponents as an argument for a "more aquatic past".

I think the same thing goes for any images taken from the anti-AAH sources, so if we were to use the mouse skull image from the Myers blog, something like:

Sectional views through a mouse skull show that mice have similarly large sinuses, despite not being claimed to have adapted to an aquatic environment.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't like that caption for the diving child at all. First of all, where do the proponents make such an argument? It is on the blog, for sure, but is it published anywhere? We need to be responsible here with our explanations. "Often" is basically a WP:PEACOCK term and the "argument" in question is not well-elucidated -- neither by the image nor the proposed caption. In short, if the image is not WP:OR, the caption sure is! As for your proposed caption for the alternative image, I'm fine with that. It at least passes the verifiability test, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't like that caption for the diving child at all. First of all, where do the proponents make such an argument? Umm, if you read the pro-AAH stuff, it's shot through with this exact claim. That claim is about as close to summing up the hypothesis as one can get. Any of the Hardy or Morgan sources should support this, and be rather easily verifiable. I wouldn't mind changing to caption to something like the following, though:

A child of modern Sea Gypsies demonstrating their diving behavior and ability, which has been pointed to as evidence for a "more aquatic past".

You could even add "claimed" or "supposed" in front of the word "evidence" in that, and I'd be okay with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have read the pro-AAH stuff. This is what I would write: This picture of a child of modern Sea Gypsies demonstrating their diving behavior and ability was taken by a social anthropologist who believes in the AAH hypothesis. AAH proponents like him argue, on the basis of a kind of hasty generalization, that because this ability is seen in a few less technologically developed peoples that humans as a whole had a "more aquatic past". Now, that's obviously not WP:NPOV, but it at least makes it clear what the argument actualy is. The other caption does not. jps (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, as you said that's obviously not NPOV. But strip out the parts that make it a POV-pushy statement (the analysis of the argument and source, and the overly-specific attribution), and it's saying the same thing my suggested one did. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Crucially, the caption you provided, doesn't explain what the argument is. If you can rewrite my caption so that it explains the argument in a neutral fashion, please do so. But as I see it, simply providing that the existence of diving behavior and ability in modern humans is evidence for a "more aquatic past" is totally opaque. Why is it evidence for a more aquatic past (than present, I'm assuming?) Also, the neo-colonial essentialism contained in the choice to illustrate the image with a child from the Sea Gypsies instead of, say, an Olympic diver implies that we are looking back in time which is, of course, completely and rather repellently fallacious and not NPOV in implication. On the other hand, focusing on Olympic divers instead of Sea Gypsies would also be systematically biased. The answer, of course, is to try to make some sort of universal claim (which I think is the crux of the reason why this AAH is shaky) -- but damn if you can do that in a single image. jps (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is it evidence for a more aquatic past (than present, I'm assuming?) That's what the body of the article is for; providing more detailed descriptions of the subject than a simple caption on a picture. We don't need to fully explain the photo in the caption, as the reader is expected to read more than just the image captions. They'll get the specific arguments from the section detailing the AAH.

Any sociopolitical aspects of the images are beyond the scope of this article, and thus I'm not too worried about them. We're Wikipedia, not Conservipedia: we present information in a clinical, detached way. As long as we do that, then whenever content has mildly offensive connotations, that's a problem with the reader not the article.

And I have the same problem with the image below that I had with the wading gorilla image: It's not directly linked to AAH in any way except by it's use in this article. With photographs, I see us as needing some very specific photos if we want to illustrate anything. If we are to use non-photographic images, I think it's okay to relax that a bit. But photos imply evidence. We've all heard the arguments that UFOs must be real because people have photographs of them. I understand that logically, the existence of a photograph in the article doesn't imply that there's any proof that the AAH is true, but I also understand that people will see an article with photographs, and their mere presence will make the article's subject seem more real. That's not what we're trying to do here, so I think that for a photograph to be due enough to include, we need to establish a direct link between the photograph and the AAH. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, image captions really should be stand alone. WP:CAPTION makes that clear. We cannot just provide vague descriptions and hope for readers to read the text. jps (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you should read the first section of that page, which doesn't say anything like that. It says the caption should clear identify the subject, be succinct, establish relevance, provide context and draw the reader in. It even goes on to say However, it is best not to tell the whole story in the caption, but use the caption to make the reader curious about the subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You entirely miss the point. The caption you support is horrible. It doesn't explain the connection to AAH in the least. It does NOT draw the reader in. It WP:ASSERTs opinions as facts, claims to make an argument that doesn't exist, and uses a quotation that contains no antecedent that I can tell. I have modified the caption in the text to at least conform to WP:V which your supported version failed rather spectacularly. jps (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't explain the connection to AAH in the least. That's not even remotely true. The caption I provided explicitly stated the the depicted behavior is pointed to as evidence of "a more aquatic past".

It does NOT draw the reader in. As opposed to your offered version, which beats the reader over the head with a POV statement about the qualities of the argument and those who made it? My version pointed to the central claim of the AAH. Yours simply passes judgement. Your is a conclusion, which is pretty much the opposite of something that might draw a reader in.

It WP:ASSERTs opinions as facts It absolutely does not in any way, shape or form. It only asserted that unspecified people have "pointed to" the behavior "as evidence". That is not an opinion, but a fact which can be verified in the article. Even if it were untrue, it would not be an opinion, but a false claim of fact.

claims to make an argument that doesn't exist, I'm honestly a little aghast at this. Are you suggesting that the AAH is not the hypothesis that humans had a "more aquatic past"? Because if not, then this comment makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Your arguments here bear no relation to what I've said, and indeed, flatly contradicts it. It's as if you're arguing with someone else who is making entirely different claims about the image and suggested an entirely different caption. Add to that you insistence that MOS:CAPTION said the opposite of what it actually says, and your dismissal of my correcting you on this as somehow me missing the point, it's really making me question whether you're more interesting in documenting the subject or pushing the POV that it's complete bollocks. If you are correct about it being bollocks, then documenting it should be enough to make that abundantly clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting discussion here. I'd reiterate that the sole reason for including the diving kid photo in the lede is the fact that nearly identical photos were used in published accounts elaborating AAH, especially in the studies of Sea Gypsies ethonography, physiology and underwater vision. It's nothing to do with [theaquaticape.org] which happens to be the photographer's website, and surely we will not refer to this or other personal websites failing WP:RS.

Some proponents may say such imagery provides some kind of "photographic" evidence for AAH, but the actual logic behind is much more complex, as modern behaviors doesn't necessary imply past activities, and tribal behavior/ability doesn't necessary apply to all humans (though there's some hints for pleistocene diving and universal ability). The good thing with the diving photo is that it encapsulates a large portion of the AAH claims in one photo, call it remarkable or superficial, it's definitely iconic IMO. Chakazul (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If the image is iconic, then you need to explain why. The claim is that the image has nothing to do with the website, but this is the very reason that MjolnirPants is okay with the inclusion. As I can understand his logic, we need to be clear that the connection to the hypothesis comes because the photographer is a supporter of the hypothesis. The image itself says absolutely nothing about AAH and if there is much more "complex" logic behind the connection between the image and AAH, then it is not a good idea to include the image at all. I'm not in favor of polluting a page with images that have impenetrable captions and the insistence on a caption which does not explain the connection of the image to the idea (and there is also no corresponding discussion of such images in the text, so it is not simply possible to just rely on that as a way to cover the confusion) makes me unable to support inclusion of this image until such time as a caption is made that offers the reader an explanation as to exactly how the image is connected to the topic.

I also cannot fathom how a user would claim that the image was not from a blog. It clearly is.

jps (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

As I can understand his logic, we need to be clear that the connection to the hypothesis comes because the photographer is a supporter of the hypothesis. No, any photograph which has been used in a verifiable capacity to address the hypothesis is enough for me. It doesn't need to come from a supporter, but can come from a detractor as well. I would prefer one which was connected to the AAH in an unambiguously reliable source such as a peer-reviewed article, but I'll settle for one which was connected in a source that's only usable for the source's views.

I also cannot fathom how a user would claim that the image was not from a blog. It clearly is. Indeed it is. Chakazul may have found it elsewhere, but it was unambiguously used on that blog, and the image page claims that the source was that blog. An image from a peer-reviewed source would be much better, and as I said before, I'm still open to using one of the ones you earlier offered. In fact, I'd prefer the mouse skull scan images over this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

See this page for "Sea Gypsies kid diving" photos (and other freediving compositions) used in AAH-related sources. The text describes how the authors think such activities are related to AAH. There are other usages e.g. in books written by Jacques Mayol or Michel Odent. The usage by this photographer in his blog is only one (if you have to count it) so I don't see why the caption should only mention his usage but not others. A summarizing caption with references to these explicit usages (perhaps including the blog) should be sufficient. In case you want to argue that this particular photo is just "similar" to the ones shown, I would like to point out that the mouse skull image suggested above is copyrighted material taken from a research paper (perhaps OK to use in the blog but not in WP), if you're going to find a free one that would be inevitably a "similar" image. Provided that published sources are almost always copyrighted, insisting to use the "exact same image" will be unrealistic. Chakazul (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

A child of modern Sea Gypsies demonstrating their diving behavior and ability, used by some proponents^[1][2][3] as hints of a "more aquatic past".

Would this be a better caption? Chakazul (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

An improvement, but still problematic. First of all "some proponents" is desperately asking for whom. If we are going to attribute, we should attribute to someone. Secondly, the "more aquatic past" presumably is a quote. The quote comes from whom? Finally, it seems that this caption is a bit leading in its description. It is not at all clear that such behavior and ability "hints" at anything. So describing exactly the way it "hints" is important. Does it imply something about the way society was organized? Evolution? Traditions that are ancient? If so, why? jps (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

From WP:CAPTION: However, it is best not to tell the whole story in the caption.... I don't see any policy based reason why we can't be vague in the caption. I understand your point about the quotation marks, and suggest we remove them. But the "some" in that proposed caption refers to AAH proponents generally, which is very clear from the context of it being in an article about AAH. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the caption itself has to answer all those questions. But those are the questions that the caption provokes and I don't see any way to answer those questions in the text either. What are the hints? Why are they more convincing than, for example, the number of drowning victims? The sources that are linked do not really describe why the behavior and the ability is a hint, nor is it clear who exactly is making the claims about diving being a key hint. If I knew the answer to these questions, I might be able to help draft a caption, but as it is, I still really feel like the caption is a soapbox for the idea of, "hey, look, humans can dive so AAH is legitimate!" which, I hope we all can agree, is not a reasonable message for Wikipedia to send even by mere implication. jps (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I see the captions as saying "Some people say 'Look, humans can dive so AAH is legitimate!' " which, as you can imagine, is okay by me. But I have an idea: let's make it even more vague. Something like:

"Proponents of the aquatic ape hypothesis point to human's ability to dive as evidence supporting the hypothesis."

I can't really imagine a more neutral way of wording it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we're getting even closer now. The begged question is, "WHY?" Proponents of the aquatic ape hypothesis point to human diving abilities as evidence supporting the hypothesis because []. It's the BECAUSE that I cannot answer. In all the sources the claim is that the diving ability is evidence but no one explains why. EVEN IF WE DON'T INCLUDE THE EXPLANATION IN THE CAPTION, the answer to this question needs to be discoverable before including text like that, IMHO. Even if the answer is (as I suspect), "because the people who believe in AAH haven't thought carefully about how current human behaviors do not necessarily contain any information about past development". jps (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

In all the sources the claim is that the diving ability is evidence but no one explains why. You'll get no argument from me on that point. But I think the lack of a solid explanation might be something we could point to, provided we can find a source that comments on it. I suspect that somewhere out there is an RS that essentially gives the same answer you give at the end of your comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The classic polemical takedown is, of course, aquaticape.org [9] (a website which has been systematically eliminated from this page, unfortunately, in spite of WP:PARITY being satisfied, I would argue). But this is an even more general point which I find to be difficult to explain. If WP:FRINDs do not notice the argument itself, I think it's not a good idea to include the image which can only be referenced to such arguments. jps (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand jps' concern because there is no text in the article describes the proponents' reasoning on this issue. To answer your question here are their published arguments (by Erika Schagatay, Anna Gislen, Erik Abrahamsson and their team):

• Diving reflex in human is stronger than land mammals, at the same level as semi-aquatic mammals.
• Underwater vision is achieved by innate accommodation in Moken kids, also demonstrated in European kids.
• Their daily diving pattern is convergent to sea otters.
• Diving ability exist in broad ranges (likely universal) of age, ethnicity and gender, and maximum performace can be achieved in short periods of training.

I could think of drafting a small paragraph in the "further research" section because this aspect fullfills my "solid research + explicit reference" criteria and was reviewed in Attenborough 2016. I'm still finding critiques on this issue, better from experts with similar background.

And I'm OK with Pants' revised caption. Chakazul (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Unfortunately, I don't see much in the way of independent confirmation of the bulleted points to people who are not AAH-supporters. Is that correct? If so, these are controversial points to base our text upon in any case and third-party discussions would be best. More problematically, I still don't understand why any of these points support AAH. Why would a stronger diving reflex necessarily indicate an aquatic past? Why would training improving diving necessitate a more aquatic past? These facts, if they are well-supported, may be interesting without being at all relevant to AAH. What makes these claims AAH evidence? It's a basic question but still one I don't see answered. Again, we don't even need to answer it in the caption, but we do need to be able to have the reader discover these answers. jps (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're going too far here. But these are very good questions to ask regarding any kind of evolutionary hypothesis -- Why would the development of human's foot arches indicate adaptation to running (but not, say, jumping or treading water)? Why would the existance of feathers in some dinosaurs imply its original usage as flying, gliding, or keeping warm, in the corresponding hypotheses? If you ask them the questions, I wonder their answers would be just as unsatisfactory as those AAH advocates. My thought on this is that biology, especially evolutionary biology, is not that logically rigorous like physics or mathematics. When you get a proof in maths, get it verified step-by-step by other mathematicians, then it becomes a truth, Q.E.D. In evolutionary biology, you need to promote your idea, find as many tiny pieces of evidence as possible, but no matter how you declare your logic as foolproof, there will be still "why" or "how" questions that cannot be answered.

Back to the photo, I restored it and used MPants' catpion, and just added "Diving behavior and performance" subsection which would support how this photo is relevant and notable. Chakazul (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think since detractors have noted the universality of the diving reflex, it behooves us to include that point in the caption as well. I think with that, our caption provides adequate framing. It also inspired me to fix the relevant section in the text. jps (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

While a common critique is that diving reflex is in fact universial, the Swedish studies distinguished different levels of diving reflex in terrestrial and semi-aquatic mammals. Before more sources could clarify this issue, both points are valid. Just that the caption became a bit wordy. Chakazul (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the Swedish studies, though, don't seem to be peer-reviewed on that point at least. There are pretty big gaping holes in the sense that ranges are not well calibrated as far as I can tell. And the source cited went to a book that wasn't peer-reviewed, so it appears to be WP:SOAP violation. jps (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That's why I'd like to see more sources to clarify on this issue. Declaring a universal existence of something is no more sophisticated than starting to identify layers and mechanics within that universal existence. Though I'm OK with your photo caption to keep it simple.

Concerning the source in particular those chapters cited, they are arguably RS per WP:SPS that the authors are "established expert[s] on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". ChakAzul (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you find someone who is not a proponent of AAH who agrees that human beings' diving reflex converges to sea otters? This is a claim that seems based more on single sentences than rigorous comparison. It get the impression that there may have been no third-party review of this point. jps (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Swimming children

Children swimming in a pool. Those who believe in the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis believe that activities in bodies of water were more common in humanity's past than they are today.

In discussions above, I thought of another option for an image. jps (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Nutrition and Health

One of the occupational hazard of dealing with fringe fields is that certain seemingly mainstream journals can actually turn out to be fringe journals. I am concerned that our reliance on the journal Nutrition and Health which is already contained within the somewhat hazy field of "nutrition studies" and is further edited by an AAH proponent is not what I would count as reliably peer-reviewed. We have come up against this issue in other WP:FRINGE areas where a journal controlled by an advocate gives favorable papers a pass because of the predilection of the editor. My inclination would be to never use citations from Nutrition and Health. jps (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you mistaking Nutrition and Health with a number of questionable popular magazines with similar titles? This journal is published by Sage Publications, a respectable American and British academic publishing source and is properly peer-reviewed. In fact there was originally just one citation from that journal and there now appear to be none. Chris55 (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm with Chris on this one. N&H is not on Beale's list, and it has no tarnishes on its reputation than I'm aware of (I'm sure there are some, but none that rise to the level of common knowledge among well-informed laypersons). If you have more specific reasons to suspect this publisher than you've given above, then let us know and perhaps we will agree with you. But absent that, the case for reliability is pretty well met. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear: an example of the sort of specific problems I'm referring to: If you have good reason to believe that the article which you recently removed (and I undid) was reviewed solely by the pro-AAH editor you mentioned, I could understand that, and would likely agree with it. But absent any specific information of the sort, I think the reliability of N&H is well enough established. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Nutrition journals in general are highly dubious endeavors, as we know from looking at fad diets. This particular article seems to have undergone no peer review which is a possibility since the author is also the editor. I have contacted the publisher to ask whether there is independent review of the editorial policies for this journal (which, incidentally, does not indicate that there is always third-party review of articles), and will let you know of the response. jps (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked at it and went over it briefly, I didn't read it in depth. But I'm not going to make a judgement about publishing circumstances based on the contents because that's circular reasoning and a li'le tooo scootish fir meh ("No truly independent scientist would publish a paper complimentary of the AAH, so any such paper must have been pushed through the process by pro-AAH types"). Like I said, if you can come up with a good reason to believe there was no review, I'm open to discussing that as a reason to exclude this. But until there's some specific information about improprieties, the evidence says this is a good source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, this morning I just received an e-mail back from the publisher confirming that there is no editorial board review for submissions to this journal and that reviews are conducted entirely on the basis of the judgment of the editor-in-chief. This is a conflict-of-interest par extraordinarie. It means that there is zero oversight as to how papers are reviewed. In high-quality journals, the editorial board is tasked with making sure that controversial papers are reviewed by at least one independent reviewer. In this case, the sole person making the decision is the editor-in-chief.

This isn't the first time we've had to deal with this. For example, IEEE Transactions are handled in a similar way and we had to exclude the primary source work from plasma cosmology on that basis. Low-impact, low-quality fringe journals should not be used for primary claims such as this. It's very irresponsible.

jps (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you forward on that email? We've exchanged emails before, so you should have my address. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing! I first need to confirm with the person with whom I'm corresponding that they do not mind me forwarding the e-mail to you. There is a confidentiality note on the bottom I missed, but I imagine that they'll be okay with it. jps (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No rush. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see it too please. As I don't currently have access to the editorial board as it was presumably in 1993 I'm in the dark about this one. That you regard IEEE Transactions in equal suspicion will come as a surprise to many in that field. Chris55 (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Be sure to email jps so he can forward it on to you: the WP email page doesn't allow for forwarding. Also, I doubt anyone would be surprised that IEEE transactions shouldn't be used as references in an article about a fringe theory in physics, nor that the WP community (not jps himself) came to that conclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate the efforts to clarify N&H. If it's a doubtful source it should not be used. ChakAzul (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Have done. Agreed that IEEE Transactions are inappropriate references for fringe physics theories. Chris55 (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Subsection: Diving behavior and performance

Re JPS:

Can you find someone who is not a proponent of AAH who agrees that human beings' diving reflex converges to sea otters? This is a claim that seems based more on single sentences than rigorous comparison. It get the impression that there may have been no third-party review of this point.

Schagatay's chapter itself is an independent secondary review of the subject matter. It cited various peer-reviewed research findings and ethnographical records to examine Hardy/Morgan's speculation on diving. We should avoid labelling every one who expressed some sympathy or support as a "proponent", and refuse to acknowledge the academic independence in their works. In this sense there can never exist an "independent" supportive work. Demanding a tertiary review on a secondary review here will be too much, similarly I won't demand a review on Langdon's 1997 review for it to be useful.

On the reliability of Schagatay's chapter, I repeat it is appropriate to be used here per WP:SPS, in that Schagatay is an established expert on the subject matter (diving physiology) with peer-reviewed publications. This is the same reason that I welcome the use of John Hawks blog post here.

More details have been added to the subsection. I've added Landgon's counter-proposal, though not as logically sound as Schagatay, but for the sake of balance. ChakAzul (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop it. Schagatay is clearly an AAH proponent. That is so far from being "independent" that it is rather ridiculous that you would even pretend to be making that claim. Lagdon's review is independent. Schagatay's is not. If Schagatay is an established expert, it should be easy for you to find someone who is not a proponent of AAH saying that Schagatay is an established expert on this subject vis-a-vis AAH. I have found nothing. I further have not seen how anyone can take the claims that human diving is convergent to sea otters seriously. There is no real attempt made to compare the two as Schagatay makes no effort to actually compare trained sea otters to trained humans (or trained humans to any other trained diving animal). If I compare human high-altitude endurance records and claim they "converge to mountain goats", that's a specious claim (excuse the pun). It's worthless unless you compare humans who haven't trained to goats that haven't trained. jps (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that Schagatay can hardly be an independent source on Schagatay, I challenge the repeated insistence that every argument in this article be independently verified by an "anti-AAH" scholar. Wikipedia does not claim TRUTH but verifiability: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." "In Wikipedia's sense, material is verifiable if it can be directly supported by at least one reliable published source." The issue of whether Schagatay's publication is a reliable source is entirely independent of the issue of whether she is pro or anti the point in question. To demand that you personally can be convinced of the truth of every statement is going well beyond the rights of an editor of Wikipedia. Chris55 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP. Novel claims do not get to be covered just because they are made. Our goal is to explain AAH and contextualize its dramatic marginalization in paleoanthropology. Our goal is not to provide an apologia for a fringe theory unless that apologia has been noticed. The much bally-hooed claim that AAH is "more accepted by biologists" has not stood up to scrutiny. Rather, it seems that biologists are actually just more generally critical of much of the paleoanthro Just So Stories. It is irresponsible for Wikipedia to push these stories beyond their WP:WEIGHT in the academy, which is what is being attempted here. WP:FRIND is a guideline for a reason. jps (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well that's good. I presume that you accept that Langdon is an independent source. Since he has discussed the issues in this article extensively, as well as many other critics, he's given them a right to be heard in Wikipedia. Chris55 (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing and no-one has a right to be included on WP. That being said, being pro-AAH is not necessarily an indicator of a lack of independence, and being anti-AAH isn't necessarily an indicator of independence. That being said (again), jps has other complaints about Schagatay that should be addressed before including his claims. To be explicit: Schagatay's claims need to have made some sort of impact on the field. Their publication indicates reliability, but it says nothing about WP:WEIGHT. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I'm glad you mentioned weight. The guidelines say "each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Now Langdon gives 19 lines to the issue of breath-holding and speech and 10 lines to the issue of the diving reflex. Now I'm not sure how many complete papers Schagatay has given to these topics. There is her paper in the 1987 conference and the one in 2014 which mentions 7 other papers, all published in refereed journals (apart from her PhD thesis which according to the odd view here is not regarded refereed at all). So by this metric, Langdon should be limited to a total of a few lines in this article whereas he is given the lion's share in many sections. The issue of prominence might adjust the scale somewhat but I'm not in that field so I can't give an opinion on that. Now I am not getting on a soapbox for Schagatay. I'm pretty indifferent to her claims one way or the other. But none of the arguments that have been made suggest she must be excluded from the page. Chris55 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"prominence" != "word count per author". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It's astonishing to see how a number of researchers/works were labelled as "proponent" and therefore not independent, while the critical ones were automatically treated as independent. How about Carsten Niemitz, Curtis Marean, or Reneto Bender, who have published works that could support AAH while also critizing it as a whole, and how about all the authors and co-authors who never took side and just do their science? Should they be counted as "proponents" or "opponents"? This kind of labelling may be OK in casual talks, but is unnecessary and often inaccurate within Wikipedia and academia. It is especially unwanted if used as a double standard, that a higher bar is set on the "proponent" sources, requiring an additional layer of "independent" (i.e. critical) secondary/tertiary reviews, and a lower bar on critical sources that permits even low quality sources, and since they are already independent and matters of fact, no further confirmation needed. This is not a new problem here, but has been affecting this article for some years. What I suggest is to stop this kind of POV pushing by means of false labelling and double standards on sourcing. ChakAzul (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It amounts to a form of scientific censorship. There are the results of several conferences of scientists that have been published but are being systematically deleted from the article on the basis that they are "Pro-AAH". Already a straightforward description of the claims made by Hardy and Morgan has been deleted on spurious "primary source" grounds, which overrides the clearly stated guidelines. These censors are so used to waving the appropriate flags they obviously don't realise how much their heavy handed tactics are approaching the types of censorship that have been used in religious and political domains for centuries. 1984 anyone? Chris55 (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm... I wouldn't say there is censorship because WP has no authority or central government to censor any topic, it's just that everyone has his/her own preference or bias, we need to minimized and overcome this bias by using guidelines on a fair basis. ChakAzul (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no easy way to determine who are the experts, but as you see in Google Scholar that Schagatay has a couple of peer-reviewed papers with high citation rates [10], her research findings and viewpoints are certainly qualified here.

Langdon is a peculiar case here. With AAH's alleged overwhelming rejection one would expect there're multitude of detailed criticisms out there we can cite, but there is none, except Langdon's reviews which are still relatively brief. To live up with the expectation that AAH is absolutely debunked, we have to somehow put Langdon in heavy use (sometimes I've to cite his half-sentence critic to make the paragraph more balanced). It doesn't mean I don't find his critics logical and often thought provoking. Just that we have no choice here. ChakAzul (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

"With AAH's alleged overwhelming rejection one would expect there're multitude of detailed criticisms out there we can cite, but there is none...." This doesn't describe how WP:FRINGE works. Part of the big issue I'm having with the last section is that it relies a lot on primary sources which is extremely problematic. The rejection of fringe theories typically happens because of ignoring them rather than any published rejoinders because people don't find the work compelling enough to comment upon. Wikipedia shouldn't be including work that hasn't been discussed in the context of AAH by people who are not AAH proponents. This is a right great wrongs kind of scenario. I think a great culling of material is going to have to commence where we basically remove any primary-sourced material that has not been noticed as connected to AAH by WP:FRIND sources. Expect a much more truncated section soon. jps (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This depends on whether we consider Attenborough 2016 as a proper WP:FRIND secondary review on these lines of primary research. Again if we say David Attenborough is a proponent -> his review is not independent -> need extra review -> that extra review was done by a reviewer who agreed with Attenborough -> need further review, it's surely not helpful. As far as I know those aspects laid out in the last section are all in the scope of Attenborough's review, other aspects (e.g. water birth, baby swimming) which "are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles". ChakAzul (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that I, like many other editors (many other editors) immediately tune out and stop caring what comes next when I read an accusation of censorship in a comment on a talk page. It's unhelpful, it's untrue and, frankly, it's a ridiculous claim. We have different ideas about what's best for the article is all. Accusations of censorship are a form of casting aspersions on other editors (and other people in general) and do not help the discussion at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this topic is that "AAH's alleged overwhelming rejection" is just that: alleged. In fact it is has been overwhelmingly ignored by the scientific community (whereas the public liked it). There are pretty good reasons for this, up to the last 20 years. Hardy (who was an FRS) preferred to devote his retirement to religion rather than science; Morgan expected that her publicizing his views would lead to a serious examination of the issue by scientists, but it didn't. And it's not hard to see why. Paleontologists believed that Africa, where the homo genus eventually emerged, was a savannah as it is today and subscribed easily to the myth of man the mighty hunter. By the time it became obvious that climate changes were far more complex in Africa, they had publicly dismissed the idea, which made it hard to reconsider it, and the spread of several species throughout the world in a variety of environments confused the issue even more. Those who found fruitful leads in the idea were generally not anthropologists or paleontologists and were therefore easily dismissed. Things are changing but the dust is far from settling.

That the scientists who were interested have been forced to use any publication method they could find has definitely run it foul of Wikipedia's normal criteria for fringe articles. I don't know any way out of that dilemma. The Human Brain Evolution book and the JHE issue represent one step, but it only covers one aspect. A basic problem is the name of the article: it's based on the name of Morgan's most recent general book and is what the general public recognizes, but everyone accepts it isn't a single hypothesis–Morgan creatively explored a large number of possibilities. It may be that in the future science will view her efforts differently, but at the moment we have a number of scientists who acknowledge her lead and are working out the possibilities. To cut those out would misrepresent the whole topic. Chris55 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

jps has already explained that the rejection of a theory by the scientific community usually takes the form of scientists ignoring it. This is an extremely common occurrence throughout pseudoscience and fringe science topics, and itself is very well documented. You're creating a false dilemma. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Algis Kuliukas

We cite Kuliukas quite a bit in this article. I notice that the citations are all to contributed book chapters from the AAH perspective and to a PhD thesis. I'm not particularly enthused about that. Typically we would want to see some peer-reviewed work instead of this kind of grey literature. I am thinking of taking it out since it doesn't seem to have much in the way of citations by third-party sources either. Please discuss. jps (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've to agree that we're in some gray area here. PhD thesis can be used but with care per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Kuliukas' PhD thesis was reviewed by recognized expert in the field like Niemitz, among others, so it could be considered reliable depending on context. I'm reviewing the section to see what could be improved, perhaps more emphasis on Niemitz's works which treated wading as a legitimate and competitive hypothesis. ChakAzul (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving up a level to Niemitz would be a step in the right direction. It is a bit difficult evaluating the text that is sourced solely to Kuliukas right now. I have the impression that there are some holes that may not have been addressed given the novelty of many of Kuliukas's suggestions. My impression is that our use of those works may run afoul of WP:FRIND/WP:PSTS. jps (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Kuliukas has a number of peer-reviewed articles available in full text through Researchgate, mainly on wading biomechanics.

Correct, which is why it is all the more frustrating that we include only the non-peer-reviewed stuff in this article. This is the occupational hazard of WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed much of the text from the bipedalism section sourced to Kuliukas, but added a point about timescales made Henry Gee who we quote in the article earlier. As far as I can tell, I don't think AAH proponents dispute his observation. jps (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The proceedings of the conference "Human Evolution: Past, Present and Future", which were published in Human Evolution in 2013,14 were peer reviewed in the normal way and indeed open to anyone in the normal way. If it were not so, how come that the second article is by John Langdon who is not a noted supporter of the AAH? It seems that discrediting this proceeding and the contribution of Kuliukas is entirely POV. I agree that it isn't too normal to cite PhD theses, but this dates from last year (2016) so give the poor fellow a chance to get it published properly! Anyway, if you are so concerned with sources, how come that one of your group has inserted an opinion (Hawks) supported a blog post? You then challenge a picture that has been used in a blog post as if its source is in turn a blog. Chris55 (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Conference proceedings are not peer-reviewed. jps (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the bar for a conference is as high as for journals, but there is always some vetting by a conference committee. The Wikipedia guidelines nowhere require peer review and are written in permissive terms: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Even the fringe theory guidelines are cautious: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas." They say "it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review" but there are plenty of peer-reviewed citations in this article. I'll add a couple for Kuliakis. Chris55 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I would welcome any addition of citations that were to peer-reviewed journals not controlled by AAH proponents. jps (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the timescale, the general consensus now is a recent (late Pleistocene) coastal seafood consumption, possible interactions with water bodies e.g. lakes/rivers as well as trees and grasslands in the Miocene (mosaic paleo-environment), and also the origin of bipedalism in the Miocene. In all published accounts, modern waterside research including Niemitz, Kuliukas, Cunnane all agree on these consensus, so no dispute here. Only Hardy/Morgan's out-dated timeline (Miocene semi-aquatic phase) disagrees. ChakAzul (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that what is important to identify is that the basic claim of a long period (~ millions yr) of aquatic or wading context for hominids had to occur in both the current rehabilitated as well as the Hardy/Morgan treatments. That there is no evidence for such prolonged water-based history of humanity is key. The point is that the strong evidence for serious shore habitation only goes to 200,000 years ago. jps (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There's growing evidence for lakeshore use of fish far further than that. Kathy Stewart who edited the 2014 Journal of HE special section on freshwater and marine resources, has traced the use of Clarias at Koobi Fora to around 1.5m years and in Oduvai Gorge to between 1.85 and 1.2m yrs, recovered in association with stone tools. Of course these aren't the first signs that water resources were used: the consumption of sedges and other C4 foods go back much further. I'm not saying there is any general consensus on this but the sources are definitely there with good citations and she's not alone. Chris55 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Eating fish is not the same thing as an aquatic/wading context for hominids. Coastal dwelling is much more straightforward an identifier, obviously. jps (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Either there is a connection to AAH or there isn't

Descriptions about research done by AAH proponents have been removed with the claim that some of the co-authors don't believe in AAH. That may be true, but in such cases where AAH is not mentioned in the source and there is no explicit connection vis-a-vis the authors then, we must remove the text. jps (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The section is about research which concerns the main issue of the article, which is the controversial idea that humans have a more aquatic past than has been generally assumed in the recent history of anthropology, not about the claims of a party of 'proponents'. For many years the speculations of Hardy and Morgan received no attention from scientists so for me at least it's a good thing that is now receiving attention, whether or not they thank Hardy or Morgan, and it's a potential opportunity to show people how science works. Where is your argument for this line that 'we must remove the text' if they don't? Chris55 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to "show how science works". It's the place to report what reliable sources say about a topic. The topic here is "aquatic ape" which is indelibly tied to Hardy and Morgan. Sources which make no reference to Hardy and Morgan/aquatic ape and cannot be directly connected to the subject of the article but for the original research of the editors here must be removed until such time as secondary sources make the connection. jps (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is, as far as I know, about a couple of papers in which a known "proponent", Schagatay, was one of four authors (and another with 3) but as far as we know the others are not proponents. So there is definitely a connection. You're making up rules all the way along about what may or may not be included in the article and how things must be described which have no basis in Wikipedia policies. Chris55 (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not the one arguing that we cannot say that the article was written in part by proponents. Rather that was Chakazul. If the connection is Schagatay and her support of AAH as an inspiration for the research, we should be able to spell that out in the text. If we cannot say that in the text, we should not include the text. jps (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added more accurate descriptions of how those works were related to AAH (better than generalizing as advocates doing this or that). Hope it's clearer now. ChakAzul (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, you did for the bipedalism section, but the diving section was simply reverted. I removed the co-authored material again and tried to contextualize Schagatay. jps (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

All the materials, including Lin's, have been reviewed by Schagatay 2011, and further by Attenborough 2016, in their explicit support of AAH. In turn, Schagatay's review has been reviewed by Langdon as mentioned at the end. Provided these secondary/tertiary reviews, there's no single reason to remove the materials, which also leaves the "in reviewing the abovementioned findings" and Langdon's statement point to nowhere. ChakAzul (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Whether a text is reviewed by Schagatay or Attenborough is irrelevant to whether or not Wikipedia has adequately explained the connection of the text to AAH. Either we can say that the material is connected to AAH or we cannot. You first removed the characterization of certain materials as being associated with the AAH because you were concerned that the co-authors were not AAH proponents. Now you are saying because pro-AAH proponents have reviewed these materials, we can describe them in Wikipedia. No, that's not how it works. If you want to discuss Attenborough or Schagatay, that's one thing, but Wikipedia cannot go on about other sources that they cite without explaining their connection to AAH. jps (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The connection: These research findings you want to remove, and also Lin's findings that you've added, were all used directly in the review in discussions and support of AAH, its diving argument, and other minor points like nose shape and body shape, and directly cited Hardy, Morgan, and Lin. Is it clear enough?

Or if you insist, why is the following sentences not removed, according to your criteria? (I agree to retain them)

The diving reflex is present in all vertebrates ever studied, including terrestrial ones.[81] There are differences between humans and other diving mammals, which include humans' slower attainment of maximum bradycardia response and the occurrence of hypertension during dives.[81]

Again please don't remove the content before you can explain why the reviewed findings were not connected but the green ones were connected. ChakAzul (talk) 07:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It's fine with me if you want to remove Lin too, but it doesn't bother me much one way or the other. I'm happy to have a single sentence about Schagatay and Langdon. jps (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I won't remove Lin and Langdon because they balance the paragraph quite well, and are directly connected to AAH. ChakAzul (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I would agree since the point is rather obvious. What's less obvious is why the training of humans to dive is at all relevant. The only relevance I see is that this idea is studied by AAH proponents. That seems to be the connection, but currently our text just describes the research without explaining its relevance. jps (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Didn't expect that I have to quote from Schagatay 2011 to prove the connection... but we've often do this kind of cross-check anyway, here we go (bold = source used in main text)

The diving response is sometimes said to exist in all species, including terrestrial ones [48 Lin 1982]

The diving response provides protection for the oxygen craving brain and heart, and has been shown in both laboratory and field experiments to be efficient in conserving oxygen and to lead to prolonged apneas in humans [13, 49]. It is equally efficient in conserving oxygen if the apnea is performed during work [50 Andersson et al. 2002, 51] or during immersion [52]

Diving was done with wooden goggles as the only equipment (Fig. 1) and in some areas a modern rubber diving mask, but no fins, suits or weights. Most children were diving without any visual aids (see also Chapter 10 [Gislen et al. 2003 used as the main evidence] ).

Our observations showed that harvest dives done to depths of 5-12 m lasted in average 38 s (SD 8 s), with resting intervals of the same duration as the dives, thus 50% of the total working time spent submerged (Fig. 4) [7 Schagatay et al. 2011].

For the no-fins disciplines, which may be the most interesting from a natural human diving perspective, the world records for horizontal distance swimming are 218 and 160 m for males and females, respectively, and for deep diving the records are 101 and 62 m (Table 1, see also www.aida-international.org).

[Conclusions] Humans in general seem to be well equipped for repeated diving to depths of 5-20 m to engage in underwater harvesting for several hours per day, with at least half of the diving time spent actively working on the sea floor. [...] The apparent reserve capacity displayed by some competitive elite-trained divers may indicate that humans were more aquatic in the past, as suggested by Hardy, already 50 years ago [68 Hardy 1960].

Here are the connections to AAH, I hope you appreciate. ChakAzul (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Then the content should say, "AAH Proponent Erika Schagatay believes that the ability for humans to dive is evidence in favor of AAH." We can remove all the rest of the useless text in the section. That's the conclusion. The rest is filler as far as I can tell and adds nothing to the understanding of AAH for the reader. jps (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Article slanted against people living near bodies of water

The article still tries to push against the idea that people in the past lived near bodies of water ( just like most do today ).
That causes inconsistencies in the article.

Two article statements for an example:

"though evidence for seafood consumption by humans is, at oldest, from 200,000 years ago.[50]"

To extend to ten times that amount of time in the same article:

"Microscopic analysis of fish food remains extending back to 2m years from the Olduvai gorge has now shown cut marks indicating butchery.[81][73]"

somitcw (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.7.24.45 (talk)

No, it doesn't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but is this the ten minute argument, or the full half-hour? Urselius (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Shut your festering gob, you twit! You people really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Say no more, a nod's as good as wink to blind bat, or an ape underwater. Urselius (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Nudge nudge, know what I mean, know what I mean? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Blogs

If you want to remove blogs, we should remove pictures that are included here simply because they appear on AAH-supporting blogs. I actually don't mind using blogs as WP:SPS, but I will not abide by a double standard of removing blogs but keeping the pictures. jps (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If the blog is removed, then the link between the image and the subject is broken, at least as far as the article goes. I could see someone arguing that the fact that the link is still there, just not documented on WP is sufficient, but I personally don't buy it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The claim was made that the picture was somehow indicative of other pictures that were non-free in published works directly mentioning AAH (perhaps Schagatay's papers?). But that strikes me as an entirely WP:OR claim. jps (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It is an act of good faith by Chakazul to remove the blog citations and I think it should be accepted as such. The connection with the article doesn't depend on the blog and the photo is taken from an academic publication. You seem to be arguing here that it should be removed because AAH supporters have used it (elsewhere) whereas in a previous section you argued that material should be removed because not all of the authors had declared themselves as supporters. You seem to want removal for any reason. Chris55 (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, what academic publication is the photo taken from? jps (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, my mistake. It's taken by someone who also runs a blog. Where is the requirement in Wikipedia:Image use policy that pictures are from reliable sources? Chris55 (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

jps didn't state that the photo needs to be from a reliable source. In fact, he previously agreed to include the photo, knowing it came from a blog. It was you who just stated it was from an RS, to which jps asked "which one?" Attempting to now make it seem as if jps argued that the photo must be excluded because it didn't come from an RS is a transparent debate tactic. Both jps and I have argued that the photo should be excluded because there's no documented connection between it and this subject on wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Absent any indication of a connection here on WP, then for the purposes of this article, there's no connection. That's an almost tautological statement, so I'm all for either getting rid of the images or bringing the blog back in. If we can demonstrate in the article or through citations that the author of the blog is a credible expert, then the latter shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise, we should just drop the images. The very problems we've been having with sourcing show that this subject is not an overwhelmingly notable one, so even if the article ends up with no pictures, that's really not that remarkable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

As I see it there are two options here:

(1) include blogs and include the image from a blog. (2) exclude blogs and exclude the image from a blog.

Does anyone object to this dichotomy? I actually don't care that much whether we use (1) or (2).

jps (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It's only you that claimed such a dependency of the photo on the personal blog, and only you that inserted the link. I have explained otherwise the photo is illustrating the exact same subject as the photos used in published accounts.

photos

File:Diving Bajau kid 1.jpg File:Diving Bajau kid 2.jpg File:Gislan & Schagatay 2011 fig 3.png File:Schagatay 2011 fig 10.png lede image another candidate in Gislen & Schagatay 2011, caption: Figure 3: Sea Nomad children diving. Two children from the Bajau tribe dive without any equipment. in Schagatay 2011, caption: Figure 10: The human body has low drag compared to most terrestrial mammals due to its ‘linear’ appearance, absence of fur and to its fat padding. a) Bajau children swimming under the surface; b) ...

They are all (1) photos taken by the a team during their scientific excursions, (2) depicting Sama-Bajau children diving in the Southeast Asian coast, usually naked, without any equipment, eyes opened, (3) used in discussions of AAH both here and in the sources. The only difference is the later two are copyrighted. Please explain if you disagree. ChakAzul (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is the relevant difference: The final two are images used in papers that support AAH, so if we use either of those images, we could say that. The first two images are only connected to AAH via the blog, so if we use either of those images we can explain their connection via their use on a blog written by a proponent of AAH. That's the relevant difference as far as Wikipedia is concerned. jps (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the connection is photo of exactly the same subject and condition (location, ethnicity, age, activity, purpose of usage) were used in sources discussing AAH.

1. Are you suggesting to infringe copyright and use the later two?
2. Please explain any difference of the subject of these 4 photos?
3. Which WP guideline stated that we can only use the exact same piece of image? Say, our topic is Unpeeled Californian Red Apple, can we use a photo of an unpeeled Californian red apple here when other pieces of unpeeled Californian red apples were depicted in sources?
4. It that we can base the photo on a blog post, but not base on a pulished review which is of higher reliability?
5. If this image is "not connected", why the other suggestions (swimming pool, mouse skull) are connected by applying your same criteria?

Don't dodge my questions, before you can explain clearly, don't remove the photo, pls. ChakAzul (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

1. The latter two can be connected to AAH. I would be fine using them. If they cannot be used for licensing reasons, that's not my problem.
2. They're fucking different photos. The difference is that they are not the same photo.
3. This is not an article on diving. It's an article on AAH. Photos that appeared in articles supporting AAH are worthy of inclusion. Photos that appeared in blogs that supported AAH are worthy of inclusion. Not telling the reader that this is why the photo was included is basically soapboxing.
4. I don't care which of these photos you want to use, but if you use a photo that is sourced to a blog, we need to reference the blog. And if you reference a blog, by WP:PARITY, expect the blogs to start being included in this page (especially the excellent anti-AAH blogs you keep removing). Either we use blogs or we do not. It's your decision. Decide wisely.
5. I'm on board with Mpants's idea to use images that are ONLY connected directly. Swimming pool is out. Mouse skull is in, but, remember, BLOGS!

The ball is in your court. If you continue to insist on keeping the image, expect the article to start containing a lot more references to blogs. Or you can find a different image. Or no image at all!

jps (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I've explained the photo is directly connected. You still haven't explained which guideline tells us to use "the same photo". It's akin to insist that only the same wordings can be copied from sources and cannot be rephrased or summarized to mean the same thing. In such case there will be no content in Wikipedia because everything is either copyrighted or not the same. The mouse skull is out too, because you can only use the exact same photo here. ChakAzul (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The photo is directly connected because it's from the blog of an AAH proponent. That's the connection. If you're fine with that and us letting the reader know, expect an introduction of blogs! jps (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I hate to not assuming good faith, but your reasonings above make me suspect that you're using the non-exist "same photo" argument (neither logical nor found in guidelines) so that blogs like aquaticape.org can be re-introduced. Please, no. ChakAzul (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It's really quite simple. If you want to use resources from blogs, then we can include the image. If not, then we can't. I don't care either way, but I'm clear that by WP:PARITY there will be use of aquaticape.org if we use blogs at this page. I get the impression you don't like aquaticape.org which is why you don't want to see that resource used. Since there is a good argument to be had that we can stick to literature other than blogs, I don't mind taking out everything that is from blogs, but you must take out everything then. Everything. jps (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please show some hint from the guidelines that pictures used to illustrate articles must have been directly produced and/or used by proponents of the topic of that article. There is no such policy. Other pictures that you have removed from this article have been so used by proponents so you don't even stop at that. You are making up 'policy' just to suit yourself. Chris55 (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind if you use the picture, but it is vitally important that we let the reader know it is sourced to a blog. By WP:PARITY, if we use content sourced to blogs, we will include all sorts of such blogs. jps (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

JPS, you - still - haven't - provide - which - guideline - only - the - same - photo - can - be - used. ChakAzul (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Because I never made such an argument. The photo which is currently being used is from an AAH proponent's blog. That's important for the reader to know and it constitutes the inclusion of content from a blog. That's the fact of the matter. If you want to include content sourced to a blog, that's fine. Just expect other content sourced to a blog to be so included as well. jps (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it was put on WikiCommons by the same person who made the blog. If we start questioning material that has been used (maybe by the same author) in a blog, you would be effectively stopping any author who writes about their work in a blog. Chris55 (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It was uploaded to commons by Chakazul. Either Chakazul is Erik Abrahamsson (in which case there's a huge WP:COI problem with him editing this page), or you're just making stuff up.

For the record, just because a situation is not covered by policy doesn't give free reign for editors to do whatever they want. They are still expected to abide by consensus, and right now there's no consensus for inclusion. Me and jps are trying to form a consensus with you two, but you seem to be of the opinion that resources from blogs which are supportive of AAH are acceptable, whereas resources from blogs which are critical of AAH are not, which is not a tenable position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. Other pictures in the sequence were, but not that one. Chris55 (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Go to the file histories (none have been edited, so each is just a table with a single small thumbnail of the image, near the bottom of the page, just above the file usage section) and you can see that Chakazul is the original uploader for all four of them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Chris55 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

After some thought I won't persist to use this photo. This kind of image, as relevant and valid as it may be, could be seen as emotional manipulation or promotion. I'll leave it for more suitable images (most WP articles don't have suitable images anyway). ChakAzul (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just for the sake of discussion that what images are suitable for WP:FRINGE topic: Refering to MPants above "the photo should be excluded because there's no documented connection between it and this subject on wikipedia", I then showed that (1) a few sources connected the diving behavior of Sama-Bajau children to AAH, (2) this connection was documented in the article, and (3) a photo was added depicting the diving behavior of Sama-Bajau children for its documented connection to AAH. Which part does not fulfill MPants' criteria? If the diving kid photo doesn't fulfill, what makes the Clarias photo or other potential images fulfill?

My impression is, when (1) was not met, I added citations to the caption; when (2) was not met, I added a paragraph to document the relevant research findings; when the source was questioned, I provded details to support its validity (as an expertise SPS); then, after a documented connection was demonstrated, step by step, it's suddenly not about a documented connection but all about its usage in a blog post (which doesn't hamper the connection). It all seems to me as moving the goalposts, the only conclusion I can make is that this kind of image is unwelcomed, despite its validity according to MPants statement. ChakAzul (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If the blog wasn't used as a source, then I fail to see how the connection was documented. If the article made reference to a paper that also included them (a paper which you have said multiple itmes was copyrighted), then they are non-free images and need to be reduced in size and have their usage parameters updated. If they are not used in that article, and the blog is not used as a source and no sources cited mentioned the blog then there's literally no way to document this outside of pure OR, which I think we can all agree is no good. I'm with jps on this: I'm perfectly fine with using the blog as an expert SELFPUB source. Note that I'm also okay with jps citing blogs from other experts which are critical of the AAH. Hell, there's one I would dearly like to cite, myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

So, just to clarify the logic, how could the Clarias photo, the exostosis photo, the vernix photo, or the swimming pool photo and mouse skull photo (provided a free version) be considered valid, when these images are not used in any source? Would their usage be OR as well?

For the personal website you're referring to, its author is by no mean a published expert, and its contents always disappoints me -- the half AAH-critic inside me -- that it suffers from many logical fallacies and really didn't kill AAH. If Elaine Morgan is pseudoscientific, the website is pseudoskeptic. Langdon, Hawks, Bender et al. did much better jobs. ChakAzul (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The mouse photo was the only one of those I supported, and I did so with the implicit caveat that the blog it was pulled from be used as a source. As this is not a medical issue, we don't need MEDRS sources, so the current removal of blog sources is unnecessary. In fact, I cannot imagine a rationale for removing it other than attempting to establish a precedence by which blogs critical of the AAH can be excluded. Note right now that me and jps are arguing for the inclusion of relevant images and the inclusion of relevant pro-AAH sources and anti-AAH sources. I'm really not seeing how excluding this material does anything but harm the article by painting a false picture of a theory which has more scientific support than it factually enjoys. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Mpants. The situation seems to me to be that litigation of this idea happens more on message boards and blogs than it does in the traditional academic press. I am still waiting for the contact at Sage to get back to me as to whether they don't mind me spreading their gossip around, but basically I'm coming to understand that pro-AAH academics tend to write papers that are supportive of the hypothesis without mentioning AAH more than obliquely (occasionally with a nod to Hardy/Morgan, but often not even that). We currently include a lot of papers that fall into this category which is far more WP:OR-game-y than it would be to just allow blogs and personal websites which seems to me a reasonable approach to the topic given the status quo.

But consensus is consensus. If the game is exclusion, I'm okay with that. Just gotta exclude then!

jps (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

JPS: True that litigation of the AAH exists only in laymen discussions and non-RS reviews, also true is that certain aspects already exists in academic discourses and even textbook grade materials e.g. MOCA. But I agree with you that either the source have explicit connection to AAH, or the authors have explicitly claimed to be pro- or anti-AAH. What I do not agree is mass removal of relevant details just because they contradict your own understanding of the topic. In the same line, I won't support to mass remove details from criticisms like Langdon even I may not entirely agree with them.

MPants: It doesn't need to be a medical issue to exclude personal websites, WP:V is very clear that SPS should not be used in any topic, with the only exception of self-published expert sources, which Hawks' blog post and Schagatay's chapter fall into this category. So things are exactly the opposite, it was an attempt to establish a precedence to include unwarranted personal websites, and to place it at the same level as RS/expert SPS. ChakAzul (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

validity and suitability

I still haven't got a clear answer of which kinds of image can/should be used. We may treat validity and suitability as seperate issues, my understanding is:

• An image (I) is valid if there is documented connection, i.e. the subject matter (M) of the image has been explicitly linked to the topic (T) in published sources (S).

By this definition (correct me if I'm wrong), a swimming pool photo is valid (M=human swimming, S=Hardy/Morgan), a free version of mouse skull photo is valid (M=sinus, S=Myers blog), a Clarias photo is valid (M=catfish, S=Cunnane & Stewart 2010), a diving kid photo is valid (M=diving performance & physiology, S=Schagatay 2011,Gislen 2011), a wading primate photo is valid (M=primate wading, S=Niemitz 2010). This should be true for the entire Wikipedia, including fringe topics.

Even an image is valid, we also talk about whether it's suitable, for example some photos may be susceptible to emotional manipulation or promotion, making the article less subjective. I'm totally comfortable with this logic and say an image is valid but not suitable, and I believe most editors would agree.

Excuse me for long-winded, but it's important to sort out the basics that editors, especially inexperienced ones, could follow and improve the article. ChakAzul (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no blanket rule for what images should or should not be allowed. I think that it is reasonable on this controversial page where images were being used in the past to ill-effect to only use images that can be directly connected to the topic. jps (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite tag

Fama Clamosa‎ has put a "rewrite entirely" tag at the top, it would be great if Fama can give more information why a rewrite is needed, or which elements e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V need to be drastically improved. The current situation is most issues can be fixed by editing the current article, like what we're doing now, and in general the POV is well balanced, with one-third of the article documenting facts like history and the thesis, one-third about its overwhelming rejection/silence, and one-third about further research -- all supported by and traceable to secondary/tertiary RS reviews. ChakAzul (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That tag shouldn't be used on articles currently being actively edited and discussed on talk. I've removed it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)