Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis

Related academic and independent research
I have now included a quotation from De Waal to demonstrate what should be obvious namely that, since the Hardy paper onwards, the wading hypothesis is viewed, and not just by its proponents, as a fundamental component of AAH. Therefore research papers and commentaries pertaining to it are valid content for this article in the section Related academic and independent research. Almanacer (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems incidental and irrelevant, especially in the synthetic puffed-up way you included it. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It would help if you could clarify your objections rather than just restating them. The Wrangham paper on bonobo wading is referenced in the bipedalism article so explain why it is suitable there but “seems incidental and irrelevant” in an article with the specific focus on: the “Proposal that humans evolved certain features due to filling a semi-aquatic niche” (edit summary).  And what’s the problem with including de Waal referencing “Hardy’s aquatic ape theory, or at least the part that links bipedalism to wading in shallow water” in relation to research on bonobo wading behaviour ? Almanacer (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because you're taking one incidental mention and padding it with your own fanciful editorial. Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve been editing on WP long enough to know how to summarise and present material according to WP guidelines. So I take your accusation of editorialising as a lame attempt to avoid presenting any substantial argument demonstrating the irrelevance you claim.  So let’s try with the de Waal again for a start :


 * Primatologists have studied the behaviour of bonobos in the the seasonally flooded habitats of Zaire. Frans de Waal reports of observations of bonobos feeding in water consistent with “Hardy’s aquatic ape theory, or at least the part that links bipedalism to wading in shallow water.”


 * Any issues with this? Almanacer (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Intro relevance
Added "relevant?" tags to specific areas of concern in the intro after trying to improve the text and facing some reverts. As written, the para says Morgan wrote a book about AAH (ok, great), then lists book reviews for some other book she wrote. Why do reviews of her unrelated works matter? It also credulously includes her claim that some other scientist was using "male science," which, ok, I take no position on whether that charge is accurate or not, but why does the reader of an article on AAH actually care? If that guy was in fact guilty of "male science" does it suddenly make AAH true? Why/how? Also Morris is a living person. If Wikipedia is uncritically restating claims that his research is biased we should ensure the prose is in line with WP Living Persons and take extreme care. If we can verify that he himself agrees he promotes "male science" then ok, this seems fine. If not we should adopt NPOV and verifiability. In good faith, I'd assume someone familiar with Morgan's arguments truncated them here in a way that makes sense for someone who read her works, but something is really lost for the new reader. Seems totally appropriate to include references to Morgan's work if she's a major figure here, but the sentences as written are hard to follow for a newcomer, and at worst might libel another author. --Thomas B (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems appropriately sourced and so fine. Especially for WP:FRINGE topics like this we need the mainstream view for context. Bon courage (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your response but I'm confused. I'm not concerned about the sourcing it's about the relevance which is unclear to new readers. I'm not trying to bury any particular view, mainstream or otherwise. --Thomas B (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * More specifically can you address why book reviews of some author's unrelated works should be discussed here? The article doesn't even say what that second book is about. And please address specifically why you're unconcerned about WP living persons so I can better understand your argument. --Thomas B (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They're not unrelated. The topic of this article is AAH and the books are on that. Bon courage (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop reverting the page until we have resolved the disagreement here. Should we request a third opinion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion Thomas B (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, post at WP:FT/N for expert attention. Bon courage (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a third opinion - the statements are obviously relevant, and explained in further detail in the body of the article. MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For reference to any other editors, this was my proposal to avoid the WP living persons issues, maintain both points of view, and make it easier on the reader to follow the reasoning of the intro.
 * The hypothesis was initially proposed by the English marine biologist Alister Hardy in 1960, who argued that a branch of apes was forced by competition over terrestrial habitats to hunt for food such as shellfish on the sea shore and sea bed, leading to adaptations that explained distinctive characteristics of modern humans such as functional hairlessness and bipedalism. The hypothesis was further advocated by writer Elaine Morgan in The Descent of Woman. Anthropologist John Langdon has criticized it as containing unresolved inconsistencies. Many others have also criticized it as pseudoscience. The hypothesis is thought to be more popular with the lay public, even though it is generally ignored by anthropologists.
 * Would welcome clarifications about what exactly is lost here so I can better understand your pov. --Thomas B (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then (a) the article should say that the second book is all about the AAH, but (b) the sentence effectively said that some people liked the book and some people didn't. What value does that add for the reader? Thomas B (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Lets them know it's controversial. But I see the goalposts are now shifting. Bon courage (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So why don't we just write that her views are controversial? "John wrote book X on some topic. John wrote book Y that got mixed reviews." If you're just trying to say her views are controversial, that's a confusing way to do it. I'm not trying to "shift the goalposts" to attack anybody or any view, let's just work together to figure out what exactly you're trying to say and find the best way to say it. Thomas B (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Have a look at MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Please consider that the article, including proposed revisions, notes that THE THEORY ITSELF has both proponents and detractors, and comments on expert and lay acceptance. Why/how do her second book reviews specifically, which like all books included some people who liked it and some who didn't, inform readers on this issue? --Thomas B (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We should mention Morgan, because she more or less kept this issue alive through the 70s and 80s. I suppose her follow up books are mentioned because her first book on the subject is the worst reviewed and the lead section would shift in tone toward the negative if we only discussed that one. As always, keep in mind that the lead section summarizes the article and is not really standalone. MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My proposed edit above still definitely mentions Morgan. If you want to avoid shifting the balance, totally reasonable, then just note that there are proponents and detractors for the theory, don't get sidetracked into evaluating secondary materials. The reason I feel reviews of secondary materials are less relevant is because those materials might be positively/negatively reviewed because of the theory itself, but could instead be positively or negatively reviewed because of writing style, or reliance on some outdated piece of info, or from unrelated character attacks or factions. So a reader just gets less information about the theory itself from hearing about (3) reviews of (2) books about the (1) theory than just reviews of the theory itself. --Thomas B (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * just note that there are proponents and detractors for the theory - that would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE, we can't do that. This is a theory that is really only in the public consciousness at all because of a series of books published for a general audience. Omitting mentions of those books, the feminism advocated therein and how they were reviewed would be very strange given the history of the topic. MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're saying we can't note there are proponents and detractors for the theory, but we can and should note that there are proponents and detractors for a book about the theory? Why doesn't false balance apply to the book? This is a confusing position. --Thomas B (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that reducing the text to a line about proponents and detractors isn't going to work. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, agreed we shouldn't include sentences that just say something has proponents and detractors. Now, based on that same reasoning, let's remove the sentence about proponents and detractors for the book for the same reasons you stated. --Thomas B (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't find the two to be equivalent. I know it is tempting to argue with strawmen, but it doesn't actually help you convince others your position is correct. MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. The OP seems to have wandered off their initial query, but now I think we're done here. Bon courage (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like "wandered off their initial query" is charitable. I've consistently stated I am trying to improve the style of this section, which I believe is highly confusing to new readers, in part because of the relevance issues. As you've made points in favor of certain positions, I have tried to adjust my recommendations to compromise to meet you half way. I have received none of the same courtesy. This is not "shifting the goalposts" it is honestly trying to find middle ground. Since we are at an impasse, and since both you and MrOllie have repeatedly misstated my views and not assumed good faith, I recommend we request additional help to review the discussion. If you are confident in your position you should take no issue with this. --Thomas B (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why there's a noticeboard thread where you can get an audience of hundreds. See WP:FT/N. (The thread is so titled because AAH comes up at the noticeboard so often!) Bon courage (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend a strawman, I genuinely don't understand your point of view. Please assume good faith! --Thomas B (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by --Thomas B (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC): Current intro is poorly written and non-encyclopedic. It's weakly sourced, has tangents, dives into criticisms using jargon rather than clearly stating relevant views, making it hard for readers new to the topic to follow. As a secondary but related issue, the intro possibly maligns a living person based on one source. It suggests Morris is biased and conducting "male science" based only on Morgan's views. This worries me with respect to WP:Living Persons, but I'm admittedly less certain and welcome independent review. Scientific positions and debates should be preserved. However, commentary on Morris's personal biases should be undertaken with care. A compromise that preserves the link to Morgan's feminism would say something about how she promoted AAH as a feminist theory in contrast to "other views in the field" without mentioning any single living person by name. A better intro might simply say that there are contrasting opinions at a high level, then still deal with the specific claims and counterclaims in depth later in the body of the article.


 * Viewpoint by (other editor(s)): Proposed changes are purportedly stylistic but actually impact content because even small changes can shift the delicate balance of positions in a fringe science article. [This was my best good faith attempt at summary. Please feel free to overwrite this section completely if I have misstated your views. --Thomas B (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)]


 * Third opinion by voorts: ....

"not considered to be a classic example of pseudoscience"
Is not considered to be a classic example of pseudoscience really what was meant? It would seem to be opposite the meaning of the cited sources. MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a particularly unfortunate mistake, as discussed at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah that was on me. Missed three letters. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Vernix caseosa
How relevant is that section? I can't help but feel that "two mammal species give birth in similar ways" is not all that surprising, and I'm also not seeing much context for the discovery beyond the fact that it happened. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Simple question, do any of the sources link this is the hypothesis? Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the section is entirely sourced to primary sources, namely the guy's bio, Attenborough's own show, and what looks suspiciously like the scientific article that made the discovery. So that's not a great start. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Removal seemed apt. Bon courage (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Lets give it 24 hours to see the counter argument. But right now it seems to be wp:synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to clarify the article text by quoting directly from the article for the avoidance of any doubt re. wp:synthesis viz. "These are the first data demonstrating the production of true vernix caseosa in a species other than Homo sapiens. Its presence in a marine mammal supports the hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans". I'll add the Rhys-Evans book (The Waterside Ape) as a secondary source. Hope that meets your various concerns. Almanacer (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the Rhys Evans book count as a primary source as well? --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree with removal. Even if it can be sourced, it really doesn't seem particularly relevant. Loki (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had some interesting exchanges in my time as a WP editor but never before have I had to argue a scientific paper from a leading scientific publisher which explicitly references a topic (AAH in this case) is relevant to the WP article on the topic.  Almanacer (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First time for everything. The article maybe deserves a passing mention somewhere else in the article, but it certainly doesn't deserve its own section where the fringe claims of the author are unquestioningly repeated. That's where notability requirements and due weight come into play and I don't see how this article is remotely notable enough or due enough to have its own section. Web of science tells me it has been cited a grand total of eight times none of which quote it for the claims about AAH. All of those citations are low-impact papers about the internal chemistry of the human vernix carneosa, and indeed, Scite tells me most of them are just passing mentions. As it is, the section clearly violates WP:DUE. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE would apply, reasonably enough, if the content appeared in an article covering mainstream topics in human evolution. But where it appears in an article on a fringe topic (AAH is clearly designated as such) which it specifically references and meets WP:RS it is notable in that context, especially given that there are, as pointed out in the article, very few scientific papers which reference AAH. There is no reason not to have a separate section for Vernix (its not exclusively for the paper itself, the Attenborugh documentary is cited)  as there is for diet, diving. etc. This is simply structuring material in a comprehensible and accessible manner. Almanacer (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is not worth a mention. As "intriguing" findings go, this is decidedly weak sauce, as the kids on my lawn say. A random two-sample correlation from among a pool of tens of thousands of species does not a viable result make. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion of relevance – bizarrely so because “support for the hypothesis” is clearly stated in the paper – not the merits of the science for which we are required to rely on the judgement of the editors at Nature not those of individual editors, especially those sharing “what they can’t help but feel”  etc.  The previous consensus on this section took over a week to form and out of respect for that editorial work I am restoring the content the removal of which after a few days is disrespectful and unacceptable. Almanacer (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. It was pointed out then and I will do so again now that this is not a nature paper, and the actual findings are only connected to the AAH by an extremely spurious claim from the authors --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Living Persons
Per WP Living Persons: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."

The intro uncritically restates a critique of Desmond Morris as engaging in "male science" without meeting this standard, wikipedia shouldn't take a stance on whether a scientist is sexist using zero to one sources, if at all. Proposed minimal revision would simply replace his name with "other scientists." Adding a discussion topic here since prior adjustments to this sentence have been reverted, with extensive discussion, but with none of those discussion points addressing living persons specifically. Posting here so other editors have an opportunity to address the living persons critique and policies specifically, separate from other discussions about readability and relevance. Welcome other compromise solutions that help preserve the intent of the authors here while bringing the page in line with policy. --Thomas B (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry what? Who's saying anyone is "sexist"? Bon courage (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure what dismissing something as "male science" meant at all at first, it contributed to my concerns about readability. Just science that happens to be done by a male? When I tried to learn more, other sources say that by calling his work "male science" what she was doing was dismissing him as sexist, that's what that phrase essentially means. For reference see "The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?" in Human Biology (Vol. 65, Issue 6), where it says Morgan was looking for a "nonsexist" alternative to Desmond Morris and dismissing his work as sexist. What is the other meaning of the phrase, that has nothing to do with Morgan's critique of Morris's alleged sexism, if there's some other meaning?  --Thomas B (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not saying Morris is a sexist, it quoting something that Morgan said in her book. The book is cited in the body of the article. We can repeat the citation in the lead, though, that's no problem. MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "quoting something that Morgan said in her book" uncritically quoting a takedown of a living person is not an excuse for violations of WP living persons. Why not just replace with "other scientists," why is his name in particular critical here? --Thomas B (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If we can source it and attribute the view, it is not a BLP issue. If you've read the book in question, she goes back to Morris over and over. 'Other scientists' doesn't capture what she wrote. MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that I finally get what the complaint is I agree with MrOllie here. (Though it's good that we added the exact quotation.) Quoting someone criticizing someone else is almost never a BLP issue about the subject. (It can be if we're quoting someone doxxing someone or accusing them of a crime, but simple criticism isn't.) Quotes can be a WP:BLP issue about the person being quoted, if the sourcing for the quote is weak, but that's not the case here.
 * Furthermore, WP:BLP does not mean we can't include negative information about living people. It means that information we do include about living people, positive or negative, needs to be sourced to a very high standard. But our sources here are great, they're literally Morgan's own book. Loki (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, we can include negative info if well sourced. But if sourcing requires a "very high standard" doesn't it mean we need more than one source? Also how does it help the reader understand the AAH to know that Morgan thought Morris was sexist? It's not clear here how his possible sexism is related to the validity of the theory at all. Any explanation of that from those who have studied this in more depth would be helpful. Why does Morris's possible sexism tell us that humans had an aquatic origin? --Thomas B (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It helps the reader understand that Morgan's promotion of the theory was based on (at least partly) her belief that previous anthropological theories were rooted in sexism. MrOllie (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well put, I like your formulation here and it would have made the article much clearer for me on first read relative to the current text. "Morgan promoted the theory at least partly based on her belief that previous anthropological theories were rooted in sexism." I think that would be much clearer and help avoid confusion for new readers while avoiding delving into any of the specific personal disputes. --Thomas B (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Normally, yes, a very high standard would be more than one source. However, one obvious exception is when the claim is the BLP subject said a thing, and the source is that person's autobiography where she said the thing.
 * I'm not against paraphrasing the claim if you think that would be clearer, though. Loki (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The photograph of the conference
Who is the man in the photograph highlighted with a ring of black pixels? 62.199.10.140 (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think only can answer that. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)