Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 3

hairlessness
''No sources, lots of acrimony, not worth keeping open. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)''

I have deleted two sentences that cite broken references(Jablonski2008 and Vanstrum2003). Furthermore I have removed two other statements that only cite secondary evidence contrary to explanations AAH proponents give for human hairlessness. Mokele, this wikipedia article is not the place to debate the evidence for the AAH. Might I suggest you focus on consolidating the research and speculations made by credible sources directly regarding the AAH, rather than synthesizing an argument against the AAH based on your own research. Soached (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.22.227 (talk)
 * Those two references are only broken because someone removed the sections that contained the actual references. You can seee in this version that both are present and therefore your objection is moot.  Jablonski isused thrice - humans lacked the physical and immunological defences to protect themselves from water-based predators and parasites, and that hairless skin is only useful for diving anmials that undertake long-distance migrations. Jablonski is explicit on these points, relating them directly to the aquatic ape hypothesis and criticizing the theory with them.  They should all remain.  Vanstrum is used to verify very similar text, land-based predation and that most aquatic mammals are actually quite hairy.  Also a reliable source and also explicitly criticizing the aquatic ape hypotheses.  Both are perfectly acceptable, should never have been removed in the first place, and should be replaced as soon as protection expires.  In fact, I would suggest expanding their use.  I would suggest the use of Vanstrum, 2003 to replace Sharp & Costil, 1989, as well as Krüger et al 2000 and Sokolov, 1982 as I don't believe they are necessarily explicit about the AAH (though if someone has access and could check, that would be useful).
 * In short, a full text revision is appropriate, though the actual sourcing could be adjusted, per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:PARITY. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jablonski 2008 isn't broken, it's a book. The fact that you might have to go all the way to the library does not make it broken, it makes you lazy.  The saltwater wilderness is also fine, and is on google books, where you can search straight to the relevant passages.  Both explicitly mention AHH in the context they're cited.  Now if you're through being ill-informed, our useless admin can remove his silly attempt to force your changes for his own biased reasons on this subject and restore the properly cited text.  Mokele (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, anon was editing this version, where both are indeed broken because Soached removed them utterly without justification. Irrespective, the page should be reverted to the version with Jablonski and Vanstrum in place, there is no excuse.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you give a timestamp of or link to that version? — kwami (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Right here: . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokele (talk • contribs)
 * The version Mokele linked to is a diff between the last "good" version and the current. The diff where Soached removed the references can be found here.  The next edit is the anon removing Jablonski and Vanstrum's remaining references, as well as the other sources I mention above.  I'm not sure what you're looking for otherwise, the raw url can obviously be found by clicking on the link in question.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mokele was part of the dispute, and I didn't want to take sides. I see this is the same version as you mentioned below; I'll revert to that. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Protection is only 24h and almost over, I see no real risk to simply waiting for it to expire so the full set of changes can be made (replacing the dubious refs with concrete ones). But YMMV.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Undent. If I broke those links then I apologize. I am not as familiar with wikispeak as most here. I had no intention to break the links then remove the section as an act of sabotage. This entire article seems less like it describes the AAH, and more like it describes the debate surrounding the AAH.

The bulk of the article is dedicated to the refutation of the AAH and this clearly indicates author bias, regardless of fringe status. Perhaps a second article is in order titled "AAH Debate" or "AAH criticisms". This particular article is not the venue for a debate. Sentences like this: "Generally the evidence provided for the AAH is equally well accounted for by land-based adaptations without needing to posit an aquatic phase of human development." (at the end of the anatomy under criticisms) smacks of synthesis. It is not the duty of the author to 'generalize'. Again, this article is about the AAH. NOT the AAH Debate.Soached (talk) 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Under astrology, we note that there's no reason to believe any of it is true, and a lot of reason to believe it's BS, because that's the academic consensus. Of course, astrology is fringe, whereas the AAH is merely an unproven hypothesis, but nonetheless we have a duty to inform our readers if an idea is generally rejected in its field. That said, the criticisms should actually address the AAH, and not be sythesized by us; also, the pros should also receive our attention. I haven't read the article in half a year; perhaps I should look it over again. — kwami (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "we have a duty to inform our readers", [... what 'we' know to True!] therein lies the conflict of interest. cygnis insignis 03:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, just the opposite. We have no duty to inform our readers of the 'Truth', but of scientific consensus. The consensus seems to be not that the AAH is wrong, but that it's not supported by any evidence, and does not explain well what it purports to, at least if we take Langdon as representative; there is minor lit exploring whether it might shed light on some details of human evolution, but such lit is on the sidelines. We should be clear about that, and we can't use a crystal ball to see if it might be better accepted some time in the future, but that doesn't mean using amateur sites attacking the idea either. — kwami (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:POVFORK - such an article is often desired by proponents of fringe theories (kwami, I disagree that the AAH is an unproven hypothesis, I think it's clearly a fringe theory at this time - but that's a discussion I don't think we need to have ), but are not considered appropriate within the community's rules, mores and guidelines. This article is not a venue for debate, wikipedia is not a forum.  We cite verfiability, not truth, in proportion to the weight given in the scholarly community.  Put bluntly, the AAH is not accepted as a valid theory by most scholars who study human origins.  It has large popular appeal, but little scholarly appeal, and simply refuses to die.  The statement you cite isn't a synthesis, since it is sourced to Langdon, 1997 - the best source we have since it is a scholarly discussion of the AAH that refutes, in detail, many of the claims made for it.  We can not synthesize.  We can, however, cite secondary sources that summarize the debate for us.  In fact, we are encouraged to do so.  The statement you quote has a  at the end of it, that links to Langdon.  Unless the sentence it sources is an inaccurate summary of that particular article, there is no issue here.  I doubt it is inaccurate, I believe I wrote the sentence in question and I'm usually a stickler for sources.  Feel free to review the article but pay close attention to the abstract and first paragraph on page 481.
 * Simply put - we do not spend large amounts of time "proving" the AAH because it is not considered proven by the scholars; such an approach would give undue weight to the proponents of the fringe theory at the expense of what the scholarly community actually believes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the AAH refuses to die because there is a lack of a more convenient theory for the drastic anatomical differences between apes and humans?


 * If this article is not a debate, WHY is it structured like one? If you don't see how this article is structured like a debate then I guess this discussion is pointless. When you dedicate more of an article to disproving the subject at hand than describing it, then it is a debate in my book. There are sources not noted in the article and references. Clearly someone has dedicated MORE time to disproving it than simply describing the ideas. This article is written with the purpose of influencing reader opinion. Again, I am at a loss for how you can not possibly see how this entire article is a debate already. Someone has a personal bias against the AAH on grounds beyond scholarly inquiry and honestly my best guess is that sexual repression comes into play here. See ya. I give up. I'll be at the beach with all the horrible health impairing parasites and dangerous predators. Soached (talk) 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Because fundamentalists loathe anything that challenges their narrow views. Giving up seems wise, or so I reckon, this article is owned by a user who probably prefers the Boy's-own fable of Fox and Tiger to the first theory to challenge that. They have have invested an inordinate amount of time in attacking living people, editors, and their contributions to preserve their bigoted essay, and acquired a Masters in edit-warring. Discriminating readers would recognise this article is garbage in the blink of eye, that is probably the best that serious editors can hope for. cygnis insignis 03:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, because editors insisted in putting in the "evidence" for the AAH. Per our policy on undue weight we are required to apportion the text according to its mainstream status.  If I had my druthers, it'd be a history and reception section, with the ridiculous "proofs and no, they're not really proofs" sections removed entirely.  Proponents continue to insist in the "proofs" being included, necessitating the actual explanations used in the anthropological community for the same characteristics to be included.  The article does not "influence reader opinion".  It accurately summarizes the scientific consensus - which rejects the AAH.  It may have popular appeal, but it doesn't have scholarly credibility.  This is amply demonstrated.  The fact that many true believers refuse to accept that it's just not taken seriously means we have to spend time explaining why.  You will see the same thing on many fringe theory pages - creationism, flat earth, 9/11 truth movement, moon landing conspiracy hoax, bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, colon cleansing, satanic ritual abuse, autism and vaccines, astrology, homeopathy.  Frankly, it's quite exasperating and one of the weaknesses of wikipedia - we have to spend a lot of time correcting popular misconceptions about what real scientists believe.  Even more frankly, if you want wikipedia to "prove" that the AAH is true, you need to get a degree in paleoanthropology, research the fuck out of it, and change the mind of the paleoanthropological community.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  We are not a crystal ball.  We report verifiability, not truth.  Whining that the page is "unfair" means you don't understand how we actually work - we don't report the revolution until it happens, and we certainly don't make it happen.  The real issue here is that proponents are consistently unable to demonstrate significant acceptance for the theory within peer-reviewed journals, but still refuse to let it go.
 * Don't like it? Go dig up some bones indicating humans underwent aquatic adaptations at some point in their evolutionary history.  It may take about 20 to 40 years to cause the paradigm shift, but when it happens rest assured wikipedia will report, with great fanfare, the acceptance of this theory.  Until then, quit complaining because it's not our fault.  In the meantime, I suggest getting your hands on Langdon, 1997 - as he points out, the main appeal of the theory (parsimony) is actually false.  It's simply not considered a good explanation of human evolution.  It doesn't fit the facts as we know them.  Not our fault, and I'm damned sick of having to have this conversation again and again.  All the attempts to convince us with primary research and citations are for nothing because it's up to the researchers to change.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know what the definition of 'Hypothesis' is WLU? That is why it is called the AAH, not the Aquatic Ape Objective Absolute Fact Truth. This article is an article about a hypothesis. If you are going to dedicate more of the article to criticism and refutation of the hypothesis, then you should create a new article. If someone said that the AAH is mainstream and that scientists as a majority believe it, of course they are wrong. Yes, the burden of proof is on the AAH. However there are no more convenient proofs for any other theory of human evolution. So I agree with you that the word 'proof' should be used very carefully regarding origins. Of course the article influences readers opinion. It dedicates more space to the arguments against the AAH than the arguments for it. But again, it is a hypothesis. This article is not supposed to be a summary of scientific consensus, it is supposed to be about a HYPOTHESIS.


 * You know, that's right, it is a hypothesis. As such, it's not worth mentioning.  I nominate the page for complete deletion, along with all references to AHH, until it's more than a mere hypothesis.  Or, alternatively, I get to create about a hundred new pages on WP for all the hypotheses I'm currently working on (seriously, my current project has over 2 dozen distinct hypotheses, plus my other experiments, this grant I'm helping get preliminary data for, etc.).  Hypotheses are a dime a dozen and not with the paper they're written on without evidence.
 * Sarcasm aside, AA"H" isn't really a hypothesis, nor a theory, nor anything else, since it's not *really* part of scientific investigation - the vast bulk of information on it is Morgan's popularly-published book. We use "hypothesis" since it's more neutral than "crappy idea of a non-scientist that the public still somehow likes".Mokele (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Addendum: WLU if you believe that the AAH is better described as a fringe theory than a hypothesis, then go find scholarly research that references this. Stop letting your personal bias against the label 'hypothesis' influence how you feel this article should be structured. Again, the overwhelming majority of scholars label the AAH just that, the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Consensus is that it is a hypothesis. Therefore this article is clearly biased and designed to influence reader opinion. Soached (talk) 18 June 2010


 * Hypotheses can be discussed, and facts for or against them weighed, even before testing. I'm not bothering to test one in my field because I (and many others) feel that there is a priori reason to suspect it's completely wrong, just like in this case.  Now quit pretending that you actually have a clue how science really works. Mokele (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

All science is hypotheses. Some are mainstream and well-supported. Evolution, atomic theory, HIV causes AIDS, vaccination, the germ theory of disease. These get a frank discussion that uncontroversially discusses the mainstream. The AAH is a fringe hypothesis that is neither well accepted nor well supported. It gets a different treatment from evolution, atomic theory, HIV causing AIDS, vaccination and germ theory per WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG and WP:OR, while simultaneously needing to be in compliance with WP:SOAP. Your specific comments are inappropriate per WP:COATRACK and WP:CFORK. The hypothesis and the criticism stay on the same page. We represent the perspective of the scholarly community to the degree it is found within that community. The other theories of human evolution may lack "proof" (except for being supported by the fossil record, location of the bones found, pollen studies and genetics making your point a bit of a red herring, or just wrong) but they don't lack acceptance. AAH does. The page very much is supposed to be a summary of the scientific consensus and the summary of the scientific consensus is that this hypothesis isn't as great as people make it out to be. Further, the criticisms should be in the page per policy (WP:NPOV and also see WP:CRITICISM) and common sense - why would you have a lengthy page about creationism, followed by a single sentence at the bottom saying "oh, and it's totally wrong"? You don't - you interlace the two whenever practicable.

The designation as a fringe theory is a wikipedia-specific issue. If I were trying to get it placed in category:pseudoscience, then I'd need third-party sources. But FRINGE is a judgement call. I may have a bias (like you, and everyone else does - you like the AAH, so does kwami and AlgisK; I don't, and neither does Mokele) but even better than a bias - I have a ton of sources that summarize, in detail and in volume, a lot of evidence that the AAH is not taken seriously, and it's not a serious contender for an explanation of human evolution. That's what is important. Wikipedia - it's about verifiability, not truth. I an verify, trivially and easily, in high-quality sources, that the AAH has little scholarly support. I've even conceded that there is indications the consensus may be changing, ,. The page isn't designed to influence reader opinion - it's designed to summarize the consensus to let the reader know that the scholarly community's opinion of the AAH is a dim one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You already stated that you feel that the AAH doesn't qualify as a hypothesis and frankly the influence of you personal bias against it even being considered a 'Hypothesis' is clear in the article. You have found the loopholes necessary to influence reader opinion. If you did not wish to influence reader opinion, you would not dedicate more of an article to the refutations of it's subject than to the description of its subject. You and I both know that the best place to list and describe the criticisms is in a separate article. You feel the AAH is not a hypothesis. OK. This article is not about your crusade to get it reduced to the label of pseudoscience. Time will tell. Enjoy your translucent, pale skin.Soached (talk) 18 June 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.9.148 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to adjust the page based on any of this. We're not a forum and no new sources have been presented. That's two hidden conversations in two days. Let it die. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible 'See also'
This web site, and related archaeological reports, while not directly related to this theory, may be worth a note. See article note #2 regarding use of marine environments. WBardwin (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

waterborne parasites and aquatic predators
The article states under habitat that humans lack the defenses for waterborne parasites. This is irrelevant to the AAH because humans lack the defenses for terrestrial parasites as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soached (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The comparison between land vs water parasites is a red herring. What matters is the relative immunity to water-borne parasites shown by humans vs more aquatic or more terrestrial *species*. Mokele (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Without a source that explicitly mentions the AAH and relative defences for or against water or land-borne parasties, that's original research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you provide human susceptibility to water borne parasites as evidence against the aquatic ape hypothesis, you need to cite a source that specifies these particular parasites and goes into detail about how they are more detrimental to human health than terrestrial parasites. There is no such research. I am deleting this section again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soached (talk) 15 June, 2010


 * Or, you could try reading all the way to the end of the sentence and noticing the reference. Do not delete sourced material again. Mokele (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your sourced material does not mention the AAH. Therefore the statements are a synthesis, rather than a citation. If you feel like you need to report me to the administrators, feel free. Until then I will continue to delete sections of the AAH article that do not provide citations pertaining directly to the subject at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soached (talk • contribs) 03:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

UNDENT From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research : "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be easy to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how material can easily be manipulated when no source is provided..." Mokele, the citations you or whomever have made regarding waterborne parasites and aquatic predation do not mention the AAH. Therefore, no reliable source has combined the material as you intend to. Soached (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest you try *reading* sources (both explicitly mention AAH) rather than just making up random claims. Mokele (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There could of course be some work on the relative susceptibility of humans to water-born parasites within the frame of AAH, but outside that frame, it would be OR to interpret any conclusions for the AAH. After all, if the AAH is correct, it's still been a couple million years that we've had to loose any special resistance to water-born parasites. As for predators, yes, if you go into the water, you might be eaten by a crocodile. But then, if you go on land, you might be eaten by a leopard. I actually know people who've had friends eaten by a leopard, and that's now! And people get eaten by crocs anyway, while living on land, just by going to the water to do their laundry. I can see a future historian conclude that people in the year 2010 couldn't have possibly done their laundry in the water, cuz they'd have all been eaten by crocodiles, yet here they are, doing their laundry in the water, with only some of them getting eaten. So, sorry, but no OR means no OR. — kwami (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not an issue of absolutes, it's an issue of relative risk. If you need to go into the water or wash on the shore, you find somewhere without crocs.  If nowhere is available (and crocs are pretty ubiquitous, probably moreso before hunting), you only use the water if you really need to, don't dawdle, stick to large areas with very shallow water (6" or less), etc.  AAH suggest that, in the face of such danger, human ancestors voluntarily spent enough time in the water to substantially affect their evolution, in defiance of every sort of common sense and natural selection.  Crocs don't *prevent* use of the water, but they provide a very, very strong incentive to minimize use, since (unlike land) they cannot make a speedy escape nor detect the predator from a distance (not to mention that the ectothermic nature of crocs allows much higher population densities, far above any endothermic predator, thus posing more risk).  AAH offers no plausible argument for why human ancestors would take such brazen risks so often and for so long. Mokele (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth. Jablonski, 2008, verifies the text.  To quote the section in full for anyone without access to the google books preview:

"Human skin has few defences against waterborne parasites that live in African lakes and rivers. In the African tropics, one of the greatest health risks for people who spend time in and around water is schistosomiasis, a parasitic infestation caused by a tiny worm that can swiftly penetrate and migrate through skin. Many other parasitic diseases are transmitted to humans this way, leading to untold numbers of deaths and calamitous loss of vigor and livelihood for many populations who depend on the water.  If hominid ancestors had lived in an aquatic habitat during the early evolution, the human immune system would reflect a history of assault by such parasites.  It doesn't.  Only in the last ten thousand years or so have we started spending much time in the water, as we developed agiculture and fishing, and our immune systems have not yet been sharpened by natural selection to resist the attack of the nasty organisms that inhabit these freshwater lakes and rivers."


 * More than adequate to source the section, no OR required, and no reason to remove it. This is not the place to debate the AAH, the AAH is not accepted by the scholarly majority (possibly this is starting to change, but it's not there yet) and these specific points are amply supported.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO the text is relevant to AAH here (mention of "aquatic habitat during the early evolution"), but...
 * (1) Please bear in mind that "the AAH is not accepted by the scholarly majority" isn't a permit that you can apply anything against it, even it's a crap.
 * (2) Regarding aquatic parasites, a more relevant and professional opinion from parasitologists: "A surprisingly long list of [water associated] parasites for which human is the only or at least in the cycle of receivable host." and "The most plausible explanation for the binding of Schistosoma haematobium with human is the adoption of a long co-evolution, but which requires an early, intensive contact with water." (Aspöck and Walochnik 2007), which is also mentioned in Niemitz 2010. Should we include this together with Jablonsky's argument? (page is currently locked). Chakazul (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Aspokc & Walochnik's paper is entirely in German, and I don't feel comfortable citing anything just on an abstract. I skimmed it and tried to get what I could from the pictures, but demonstrating coevolution if pretty thorny.  For instance, what if a given parasite previously infected several other mammals which have since either been extirpated or gone extinct, leaving us as the only host?  What if there *are* other hosts, but we simply haven't documented this because it's in a species we don't care much about for whatever reason (non-food, non-pest, non-disease-vector)?  What if it evolved in another member of our genus after we split, then simply jumped hosts?  If someone can translate that and it addresses these issues, fine.  If not, it's poor science and not worth including. Mokele (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Poor science because you can't read it well? Foreign languages are not a barrier to citation. Mokele, we can list tons of "what ifs" for every single point, pro and con. That's why we rely on sources rather than whatever makes sense to us.
 * While we shouldn't take "early, intensive contact with water" to mean an aquatic or amphibious habitat, it is certainly relevant in my opinion. As relevant as much of the stuff in the article, and a direct contradiction of Jablonski 2008. — kwami (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Try reading what I actually wrote. My statement was *CONDITIONAL* on addressing the complexities of actually proving coevolution, something I wouldn't expect a non-scientific layman like yourself to grasp.  Unless someone can provide more information about the contents, we cannot cite it because we have no idea what it actually says.  There are *numerous* difficulties in proving coevolution has occurred, and if the article doesn't address these, it's not worth citing.
 * Never, EVER cite based only on an abstract. EVER.  That's basic scholarship. Mokele (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Unindent.

Mokele, I didn't quote from the abstract. I quote from the main text, part 6, translated with my limited German and online translator (I will ask my German friend to confirm).

The authors explicitly support Niemitz's hypothesis on wading bipedalism (i.e. part of AAH) in the chapter, using their arguments of human water-associated parasites. So it is perfectly relevant to the topic.

They listed 11 species of aquatic parasites which are human specific, and 11 species which are closely related to human, as well as detailed discussions of them. The most remarkable is a "peaceful coexistence" -- they "parasitize humans in decades, and man finds no substantial impairment of his health". Also, all of them originated from Africa -- human's birthplace.

It is their professional opinion, not mine, not yours, that it indicates a long co-evolution in aquatic environment. As parasitologists, their opinions are much more creditable than Jablonsky. (I tempted to replace Jablonsky's point, but I think we should retain both.) Chakazul (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If they think that's sufficient to demonstrate co-evolution, they are poor scientists, end of story. I won't see such lazy, poor scholarship in any article I oversee. No wonder they couldn't get it into any reputable journal.  Mokele (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * They didn't demonstrate, they only suggest. Sorry that I can't give you the whole translated paper here, but they had much more detailed discussion and reasoning there. Although it's not appropriate to judge scientists here, but if you think they're lazy and poor scientists, how about Jablonsky with the text you cited here? Chakazul (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We should be citing what is verifiable, not what is true. Jablonski directly discusses the AAH within a reliable source. A&W is in German - which is fine - but does it directly address the AAH? I can't find it online with just author and year. Including Niemitz is tenuous (since it doesn't even mention the AAH despite sharing essentially the same underlying driver of evolution) and his work is one of the few indicators that there may end up being some mainstream support for water being a driver of human evolution. But it's very, very far from the paleoanthropological community deciding that humans evolved the way we did because of water. It's very easy to support single papers and primary sources that "support" any theory but what we really need are secondary sources that do so explicitly. Jablonski does so. We should be discussing whether the source explicitly supports the point it cites and if it is accurately summarized. We should not be using it to argue for the truth of the hypothesis. I really, really hate having to repeat these points. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FORUM AND ITS CITATION STANDARD IS WHAT IS VERIFIABLE. If the citations are explicit about these points relating to the AAH, they can be used. If not, they shouldn't be. I hate having to repeatedly use the divhide box when everyone should know the rules. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put in a divbox. If you want to debate who is right, go to a web forum.  If you've got a source that explicitly discusses the AAH, start a new section.  No source can be removed because you (whoever you is) think it is "stupid".  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If we should discuss the validity of Jablonsky 2008 and Aspöck & Walochnik 2008, here we go -- Jablonsky 2008 is not a secondary source because she didn't cite any research data for support, it's only her personal observations/opinions. Her claims ("human immune system [doesn't] reflect a history of assault by such parasites") clearly contradict with Aspöck & Walochnik 2008, but since the later ones are real parasitologists giving detailed research, so they more creditable than the unsupported claims by Jablonsky.


 * Also it's perfectly relevant here, simply because they're talking about human's possible aquatic past. Indeed Niemitz did mentioned AAH, even giving certain credit to it.


 * Anyway, since both are relevant and verifiable, I will include both in the article. Let the readers judge. Chakazul (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jablonski's sources are in the references section, rather than in-line citations (which bugs me about books, but nothing can be done about it). A&W's field is not an automatic determinant of truth -  if you ask a general geneticist about frogs, they'll give you much better information than I can, even though I'm a herpetologist working on frogs, because I don't study genetics.  Frankly, I'm not comfortable citing A&W unless I see some real support for their claims, and the sections you mention do not adequately support long-term co-evolution. Mokele (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm even more uncomfortable to cite Jablonsky because there's no detail to support her claim, compare to A&W's 9 page detailed discussion with tables and diagrams.


 * Also, I am irritated by how Jablonsky's opinion is presented as a fact in the article (I added "It was argued that"). The same for many counter-arguments. Since when everything against AAH become established facts and everything for AAH become poor speculations? Chakazul (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Since we started writing an article about the anthropological equivalent of "Aliens built the pyramids!". Mokele (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Mokele, science is not quite the same thing as opinion. There are lots of hypotheses in science that don't pan out. You may feel yourself superior for never having believed them, but they are what is required for science to advance. Even if AAH never goes anywhere, it's no more ridiculous than many of the hypotheses that serious geologists put forward to explain the shapes of the continents before tectonics was developed. (1950's Inflating Earth, anyone? Seriously, the continents split apart when the Earth doubled in size!) And in hindsight, it may seem no more ridiculous than some currently dominant hypotheses, such as String Theory or Dark Energy. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for demonstrating exactly how little you actually know about science. Those of us who do real science *discard* hypotheses that don't fit the data, rather than keep them limping along for 60 years.  And we certainly don't insist on continually paying lip service to them at every opportunity.  The pile of dead hypotheses is massive - AAH deserves no better than any of the rest of them. Mokele (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Another gross simplification, and an ad hominem argument that if I disagree with you, it must be due to ignorance. "Those of us who do real science"--it's rather obvious from your repeated mischaracterizations that you should not include yourself in that group: part of science if being able to distinguish the external world from one's own biases. The hypothesis is still relevant because it's been kept alive in the popular imagination. As for discarding hypotheses that don't fit the data, please. Such things are constantly reformulated, and often maintained even when they can't be reformulated to fit the data. Take the Standard Model of particle physics (quarks etc). It does not fit the data, and no-one can figure out how to make it fit the data, yet is maintained because no-one has been able to come up with anything better. That's how science works. It's a human enterprise. The idea that science is inherently objective is an illusion, and actually dangerous to the progress of science. — kwami (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I dismiss your input based on your numerous poor-quality arguments, and your frequent abuse of your administrator status to press your interest in this ridiculous nonsense.
 * As far as my biases, my bias is *evidence*, which AAH completely lacks. If you think I'm harsh here, you should see the reviews I turn in to journals.
 * And your citation of the standard model further betrays your inexperience - a model isn't the same as a hypothesis. Hypotheses are discrete attempts to determine the reality of the experimental system, tested and either kept or discarded.  Models, on the other hand, are broad concepts which describe the system to some degree, but are rarely considered to be genuine attempts to determine the nature of the system - an extremely common adage in science is "All models are wrong, but some are more useful than others."
 * Finally, the idea that a hypothesis deserves any deference or to be handled with kid-gloves due to popular appeal is laughable.
 * Now I'm done wasting my time with you. This is supposed to be about improving the page, not about how we're so mean to AAH. Mokele (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If I'm abusing my admin status, you should call me on it. I don't see where I have here: I blocked the article for a day to stop an edit war, then reverted to the version WLU suggested as the consensus. Where's the abuse?
 * Of course the AAH lacks evidence: it's a hypothesis. That's why we moved it from 'theory'. If it had evidence, it would be a theory.
 * That may be true of 'models' in general. But the Standard Model is a theory, not a model. It is an attempt to explain the nature of the system. — kwami (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Sweet monkey jesus people. Are the sources explicit on the point? Do the major anthropological organizations, journals and textbooks all state that the AAH has revolutionized the industry? Is it now accepted as the explanation for human evolution? Yes, no and no. So we cite the sources rather than trying to prove it. The whole waterborne parasites thing is obviously a question - both sources are reliable and both can/should be used. Neither should "win". This is a difficult topic since water is obviously starting to be seen as a potential driver of evolution, but until we've got scholarly consensus, we work with the best sources we have and cite them fairly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If we're talking about physics, say a wiki article on Einstein's relativity, we can safely cite all things from textbooks (lucky for us), because this standard theory is both widely accepted and also proven by numerous evidences.
 * Paleoanthropology is a bit different, the situation is less definite as you think. There's never a single proven theory on human evolution, even the widely accepted ones like Wheeler's thermoregulation or Endurance running hypothesis are only smart speculations, no more superior than AAH in terms of evidence and intrinsic possibility.
 * As you guys always said, the majority of academy embrace some standard models and deny AAH, but it is by no means indicate that AAH is already disproven by evidence (indeed there're limited positive evidences) and violates a proven standard model --- there's none. It is only the professional opinions and reasonings on the implausibility of AAH (like most points in the criticism section), and the obvious conflict with their long-held assumptions, but NEVER hard evidences (e.g. fossils, genetics) to prove an impossibility of water influence on human evolution, nor are they able to prove that it must be exclusively terrestrial. As far as it's a valid hypothesis, we should provide more details by add arguments and counter-arguments. Chakazul (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And that's why we forbid original research, use what is verifiable, not true, and do so in relative prominence within the community. If I picked up a textbook on paleoanthropology, would it discuss the AAH to the same degree as these others?  If so - great.  Find said textbook and cite it.  I know things aren't settled regarding human origins, but that doesn't mean the page should defend, or support, the AAH.  How many review articles are there on the AAH?  If we looked into the most recent ones on the primary drivers of human evolution, how many would focus on aquatic models?  At conferences, how many posters and presentations are about water adaptations?  From my skimming of the literature and scholarly books - not much, but perhaps more than usual.  It's easy, even trivial, to find critical, disparaging, or even "interesting but unproven" discussions of the AAH in popular and scholarly books.  Can similar things be said about supporting references?  Even a year ago I would have said "no" but that seems to be changing - with several review articles that mention aquatics though none in really high-end journals as far as I can tell.  We shouldn't be proving or disproving.  We should be summarizing - but very cautiously as it still seems like the theory is at the fringes.  Until we have a new, recent article that conclusively states "the AAH has been vindicated" we can't, and shouldn't, be portraying it as a done deal.
 * People need to stop focussing on proving or disproving the AAH. It's inappropriate for wikipedia and impossible to do given the current state of the art.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. I feel uncomfortable because I see people what to disprove AAH here, or giving an impression that AAH is already disproved in the academy (we can at most say that it's not widely accepted). Of cause we should also avoid to prove anything in a wiki article.
 * On the acceptance, there's a recent conference held at the Royal Society of Medicine about DHA, one of the central argument of AAH. (reported here). The recent review article cited by Mokele (Kempf 2009) is overall positive on water's influence on primate/hominin evolution. I know it's not the majority, but neither predominantly rejected. Chakazul (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Read Kempf 2009 again. In addition to explicitly stating that AAH is rejected by the majority of anthropologists, she indicates that the features it tries to explain arose independently of aquatic habitats and only subsequently led to increased aquatic behavior - a direct contradiction & reversal of AAH.  The author states that primates interact with with water more often and under a wider range of circumstances than is generally known, but that cannot be taken as an endorsement of AAH, especially given her explicit dismissal of it. Mokele (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. One of the main "arguments" for the AAH is that it's the most parsimonious explanation, even if there is no direct evidence for it. An RS opining that these features have non-aquatic origins, even if only documentable to this one source, should be presented as a refutation. (BTW, I've seen swamp guenons swim for considerable distances under water, so they obviously have the breath control that the AAH posits is unique to hominids.)
 * As for the point of "disproving" the AAH, of course that can never be done. All one can do is show that predictions of the hypothesis do not pan out (difficult to do in the historical sciences), that the phenomena it attempts to explain have other reasonable explanations, or that the assumptions it is based on our false, and that attempts by proponents to accommodate these problems do not overcome them. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

page protection
Since we have the new 'pending review' tool, I thought I'd try that rather than fully protecting the article, or blocking people for the latest round of edit warring on this article. You may make your edits, but they won't be visible until a reviewer okays them.

There is a lot of passion for this idea, but very little evidence either way. That's a dangerous combination, and all the more reason for us to adhere to policy on both sourcing and synthesis: RS for anything that's reasonably challenged, and no use of sources for or against the AAH that do not actually address the AAH.

P.S. The page protection is only for 24 hrs. If the edit warring picks up again, I will block people this time. And I probably won't wait for 3RR. If you want to collaborate on a contested passage, past it here, and when it's stable it can be returned to the article. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This page should not be protected at the moment since it is not listed at WP:PCQ. There is a limit of 2000 articles during the trial and I think the intention was that it be used on rather more contentious pages than this. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll switch to traditional protection. Thought it would be interesting to see if it would help an active dispute. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, the consensus version before the edit war was this one. However, given the new editors objections I'll review the removed sources to see if they're use is actually justified.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Patterns of water use in primates
Thanks for the new interesting reference (Kempf 2009 - Patterns of water use in primates), but I can't see any text that implies "...but many [primates] do not display the traits posited by AAH suggesting the traits facilitate aquatic behavior rather than evolving as a result of it". Can someone clarify it?

And although the author explicitly states that AAH "has been widely discredited", many of her arguments are actually supporting a moderate influence of water to the evolution of primates and even hominins (e.g. aquatic diet, tool use), and the general nuance of the article is positive on it, encouraging further research. How the paper is cited in the "criticism" section gives a false impression that it provides counter-evidences against the idea, which is the opposite. Is it justified? Chakazul (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a bit of a fusion of two sentences, if you backtrack to my original inclusion of that source. AAH explicitly states that the traits listed in the page (hairlessness, bipedality, sweat glands, etc) are the product of aquatic adaptations, yet the primates listed in the paper display none of those traits (indeed, most are unique to humans and their immediate extinct relatives).  The author also explicitly states that the traits associated with AAH did not evolve as a result of aquatic behavior, but rather that aquatic behavior evolved because those traits (which evolved due to different pressures) made it advantageous.  The author specifically reverses the "arrow of causality" (her words), which undermines the key contention of AAH - that adaptations to aquatic habitats were a selective force - and is therefore critical. Mokele (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible that my reword caused the problem, if so then my bad and please fix it. I do remember trying to include the "traits led to behavior, not behavior led to traits" point, but it could probably be clearer.  Could someone e-mail me a copy of the PDF?  It sounds like an interesting paper, particularly given the apparent building of support for a water-hominid evolutionary link.  I wonder if we'll end up with a general statement that it's acknowledged that water had some impact on evolution, but not to the degree proposed by Morgan et al.  Time will tell...  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, my original version was pretty excessively verbose. I've made a minor tweak, and sent you an email via WP so I can give you the paper. Mokele (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive
I've archived; perhaps controversially I've archived the recent section on hairlessness that I divhid a while ago. If it was premature, dig it out (or, to my preference, restate the most cogent points, accompanied by reliable sources that are explicit in their relationship to the AAH). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

African's feature
(In Japan) AAH says that long straight hair of women are useful to grip at the surface of water for babies,and humans have much subcutaneous fat... These are not African people's features. Does AAH contain racism? Please tell.--仕事中の (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, biological hypotheses aren't really racist, they're either empirically supported or not. This one isn't, or at least its support is heavily disputed.  Further, any differences in hair texture and body fat that actually exists between two different phenotypes (since "race" isn't a really meaningful term) would have developed well after the alleged aquatic development would have occurred.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the people who came up with AAH had been African, they might not have come up with the long-hair-for-baby-to-cling-to idea. But I don't know--assuming the adult were more fully immersed, a baby might be able to cling better to curly hair than straight hair, considering how easily straight hair can slip through your fingers. As for subcutaneous fat, Africans have it in abundance too. But as WLU says, any such differences are much more recent than the timeframe of the AAH. — kwami (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--仕事中の (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't find argument in citation
Regarding a few recent edits in Criticism section, I agree that they're unnecessary, but that bring out another issue -- I tried to find those claims about interdigital webbing and sebaceous gland in the supposed sources (i.e. Langdon's paper, Greg Laden's blog post), but couldn't find anything similar. That's why they're change to "citation needed".

I believe that those are valid arguments, and I'm sure I've read them somewhere, but we better find out the right citations to make them valid and traceable. (perhaps some of the other points also miss the correct citations, need to proof-read the article someday...) Chakazul (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected. I used Moore's webpage for lack of a better one, it's a reasonable parity source for a fringe page.  The Langdon paper does deal with interdigital webbing but in a slightly different way so I rewrote.  This kind of thing is exactly why I've always thought the "pro/con" presentation on the page is inappropriate - the scholars in question simply don't believe in the theory, to present the "evidence" in any detail gives the impression that there is fire behind this smoke, and there's not.  People are enamored of the theory, yes, but it's not accepted, nor is it a serious hypothesis.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems we're back to the problem of citing Moore's website or not...
 * No doubt that some of the points are very reasonable, e.g. the case of sebaceous gland really suggests sexual dimorphism, but
 * (1) Regarding the point itself, it's hardly an counter-argument or counter-evidence, simply an unproven alternative. Sexually dimorphism per se isn't contradict to the idea of waterproofing, i.e. the possibility of "waterproofing adaptation reinforced by sexual selection". Nor are the functions of waterproofing and sexual attraction mutually exclusive.
 * (2) Regarding the website, that's the issue of original research. I doubt if the claims are actually presented in its sources (most are primary sources on human or animal physiology without mentioning AAH), or are the author's own ideas based on those sources. However reasonable, I'm afraid we cannot cite them as verifiable and free from original research, unless we can identify the direct sources of a claim and cite them instead (which is quite hard since he didn't mark each claim with citations).
 * (3) If we decided to directly cite Moore's website, we should be able to cite other excellent sites as well (e.g. riverapes.com, aquaticapehypothesis.com, shoreline-man.name). But I don't recommend this. Chakazul (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you actually know what WP:OR says? Stuff published elsewhere on the web is NOT OR - it's citeable material.  Is it inferior to scientific journals? Yes, everything is.  But it *still* meets the guidelines for a source, and frankly, it's one of the better sources, since no reputable scientist will touch AHH with a 10-foot pole.  That you disagree with the statement being cited is utterly irrelevant - we aren't here to resolve AAH, we're here to document what's known/said/published. And feel free to use those other sites - they can't be any more stupid than Morgan's original book. Mokele (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's major difference between "OR by a wikipedian" and "OR by an outsider", but anyway. The non-existence of reputable sources doesn't mean that you can cite any source with any quality -- you better cite nothing instead. (See below discussion) Chakazul (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. WP:OR says that no wikipedia editor may make unverified claims.  We can not make wikipedia into a source, we must verify text from outside sources.  WP:RS is what helps us to parse the reliability of sources, and thus if we use them.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please just answer one question: Can you justify/prove that "aquaticape.org is a reliable/published source according to WP standard?" Below I've shown that the opposite is true. Without good reason, your repeated attempt to include the unreliable source should be vandalism. Chakazul (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I will say it again - this is why I do not like the point-counterpoint version of this article. It leads to splitting hairs over what supports, or doesn't support, this not accepted theory.  It gives undue weight to the idea that the AAH is true without being accepted.  I don't want to debate whether or not a point really supports the AAH or not - that is not the purpose of wikipedia.  We are not a forum.  The theory is amusing, interesting, advocated for primarily by a non-scientist, but above all not a real theory of human origins.  So yes, Moore's site is not the best choice, but since we're not taking the better choice of not discussing the "evidence" then it's an adequate parity source for the single claim.  Please STOP discussing whether sebaceous glands have a role in waterproofing, irrespective of their sexual dimorphism.  Please just stop.  We are not here to debate the AAH.  PARITY supports the use of Moore, lacking a better source.  If we have a better source on this point, let's use it and replace Moore.  Otherwise, common sense and PARITY, REDFLAG, FRINGE all support including it.  It's a single point, and Moore is not otherwise overused.  Mokele is correct that WP:OR only applies to wikipedia, not to off-wiki sites.  The relevant policies and guidelines are again, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:PARITY and WP:REDFLAG.  I believe those policies support the judicious use of Moore.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WLU, we're talking about the eligibility of Moore's website as a source, not the degree of truth or acceptance of AAH. If you want to talk about it, make a new section.
 * Even WP:PARITY or other rules doesn't justify the use of unreliable and unpublished sources in a WP article. We have clear guidelines to judge the reliability of a source: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. And according WP:OR "all material must be attributable to a reliable published source". Jim Moore's website is a personal website, the author is not a professional scientist, and this work is not published. On the contrary, TED.com is reliable because it's a reputable website, Greg Laden's blog is reliable because he is a biological anthropologist himself, and so to Langdon's paper because it's published in a scientific journal. I have absolutely no problem with these sources whether they're pro or con, but Moore's website apparently fails the criteria -- It can be at most regarded as a self-published source, but it's "largely not acceptable" in WP.


 * So regardless of your own POV (also mine), the paragraph better leave as "citation needed", unless someone can prove that Moore's website is reliable/published in WP's standard, or even better, find the ultimate reliable citations themselves. Chakazul (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussed repeatedly in the archives is the fact that Moore's site is cited repeatedly as the place to go for a skeptical position on the AAH. See, for instance,, , cited as a reference , .  We're not better leaving it as a fact, it should be removed.  TED is a series of popular lectures, not a scientific venue, and the person making the talk is Morgan, who isn't a scientist.  You won't find reliable sources discussing this - because no-one takes the AAH seriously and no one considers sebaceous glands hold-overs from an aquatic period of development.  The first rule of wikipedia is to ignore all rules if it improves the wiki.  This does.  And that assumes we don't have WP:PARITY to point to.
 * You are misreading WP:OR. It applies solely to on-wiki speculation, such as your first statement.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please make it clear -- cited repeatedly in blogs or forums (BTW your [3] only refers to one sentence about elephant) doesn't make it become a reliable source.
 * In fact there're plenty of reliable sources about AAH, like Langdon's paper, "Fact or Fiction" compilation, publications of various professionals like Desmond Morris, Daniel Dennett, Frans de Waal, Caroline Pond, Phillip Tobias, Nina Jablonsky, to name a few. Feel free to use them.
 * (Doesn't mean that we can't quote from aquaticape.org, but better identify the primary reliable sources of a claim, and cite them directly. i.e. that claim has to be verifiable.)
 * I'm surprised that you use "ignore all rules" to justify any action. So which rules are we going to sacrifice here? Verifiability? Reliability? Is the lowering of reliability an improvement to an article? Chakazul (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've agreed on this before: Moore's out. Blogs and self-published web pages are not acceptable sources for contested claims. Moore doesn't even attempt to be even handed, and we have published, peer-reviewed sources such as Langdon that do. — kwami (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * By that logic, we must remove Morgan's book and Hardy's origin of the idea, as neither are peer-reviewed, and thus unreliable sources. Mokele (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, now you're just being silly. — kwami (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm being consistent. If we're going to exclude non-scientific texts, that includes Morgan's entire body of work, Hardy's lecture and his article.  Either non-journal sources are acceptable (in which case Moore is in) or they aren't (in which case the whole page should probably be nominated for deletion, as there's no scientific journal support making it WP:Fringe). Mokele (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Now we're in the awkward position of having the exact same information on the page, a point-for-point recreation of Moore's page, with no source. Making it an WP:OR problem. So, do we simply have WP:CONSENSUS to ignore all rules and keep the information there anyway?

Have I mentioned that this is why I don't like the idea of an extensive list? Sigh. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm cool with a re-write, but I simply don't have the time or energy right now. Mokele (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Moore's site as a reliable source - RS Noticeboard
Ok, I've gotten sick of the same argument going in circles with the same 5 people. I've posted a request for others to review this issue on the RS Noticeboard. Until this issue is resolved, no more editing. Mokele (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't dictate the article, Mokele. Also, please read WP:Vandalism (for what you're accusing others of; I'm not accusing you). — kwami (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that was useless - seems an even split between 'limited inclusion' and 'no'. Archived at  Mokele (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sabotage!
This page has obviously been 'sabotaged' by someone who is not familiar and hostile with AAH. Numerous opinions stated as fact, and strawman arguments added. As far as controversial subjects are concerned, Wikipedia is ruined really isn't it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.6.71 (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No per WP:V and WP:NPOV it is easily attributed that the AAH is not a real theory. Since wikipedia is not about promoting a viewpoint, particularly a fringe theory and is not a place to discuss topics, your statement has no merit without extensive sources that support the AAH being accepted by scientists.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope Wikipedia is "ruined" as a place for promoters of controversial subjects to use as their platform. That is not what we are here for. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  19:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree Wikipedia should not be about promoting arguments, but it should give balanced descriptions of subjects. I am quite familiar with AAH and the opposing arguments, but I would not suggest this Wikipedia article as a place to get a balanced approach to this hypothesis.  I suggest a re-write by someone who can remain objective.


 * This page does suffer from serious bias, but in the opposite direction than you think - AAH is not and has never been a serious scientific theory, completely lacking any definitive evidence and reliant entirely on post-hoc rationalizations and shifting goalposts to avoid acknowledging its inconsistency with it's own purported evidence. Due to the actions of several persistent and biased editors, this page handles the topic with kid-gloves, when it should be dismissed completely as it is in the actual scientific literature.  If you want it treated more seriously, go dig up some fossils offering actual evidence.  Until then, go cry into your books on astrology and UFOs. Mokele (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine. Present us with some sources. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you seem to have forgotten how science works - the burden of proof is on the claimant, in this case AAH proponents. But then again, why let pesky little formalities like that get in the way of pimping your pet pseudoscience. Mokele (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your sparkling personality is not evidence. If we had RS's supporting the AAH, then it would feature prominently at human evolution. Since we don't, it doesn't; but even if this were about astrology, we'd still need reliable sources for debunking it. Perhaps you'll figure that out when you start writing your thesis. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mokele, I hope you can distinguish between a hypothesis and a theory. Even there's not enough evidence, as far as a hypothesis is derived from subjective observations and doesn't contradict well-established theories (e.g. natural selection, primate phylogeny), it will remain as a valid hypothesis. If there're significant evidences, it could be promoted to a theory and written into textbooks. AAH is the former case. It is surely controversial, but nothing like creationism or astrology, which are by definition unscientific. It's more like the Gaia hypothesis or Watercraft migration to the Americas (they also have marginal supports, but will you claim that they're pseudoscience?). Chakazul (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

comment on content, not contributors. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  22:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are, however, a large number of sources that describe the AAH as something not accepted as an explanation. The best, and most explicit source we have on the subject is Langdon's 1997 paper.  It's not like there is a massive research program underway; there are dribs and drabs of papers, some more recent, that hypothesize water may have some relationship to humans.  But there are many that say quite explicitly that Morgan's hypothesis is not accepted.  There are sources to say this is not a mainstream theory, so asking for them is perplexing.  The page is a constant target, like most fringe pages, from people who want it to be true and to be taken seriously - it should not be, with out a large number of sources indicating it is accepted and talk page contributions along this vein should not be encouraged.  Particularly when they are nothing but emotional appeals without any substantiation.  I never understood why conversations about this page was set up as if it were a serious debate within the scholarly community.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If what you are stating is a valid reflection (and I think it is), I dont think the article's current structure supports providing that view to the reader. I dont really have a suggestion, but someone who is more familiar with what the reliable sources say about this subject may be able to come up with a new way to organize what the reliable sources say. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  16:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically, your statement appears to be the exact opposite of that made by the anon who started this section  Assuming I'm not misunderstanding.
 * How would you suggest changing it? The lead says "the sort of radical specialization posited by the AAH has not been accepted within the scientific community as a valid explanation for human divergence from related primates. It has been criticized for possessing a variety of theoretical problems, for lacking evidentiary support, and due to alternative explanations for many of the observations suggested to support the theory. Morgan has also suggested that her status as an academic outsider has hindered acceptance of the theory."  History says "The idea received some interest after the article was published, but was generally ignored by the scientific community thereafter. In 1967, the hypothesis was briefly mentioned (and dismissed) in The Naked Ape, a book by Desmond Morris in which can be found the first use of the term "aquatic ape"...The context of initial presentations of the idea (a popular work and a political text) prevented the AAH from garnering serious interest or an exploration of its scientific merit.  Despite maintaining some popular and scientific interest over several decades, the aquatic ape theory has not been accepted by a large majority of researchers within the field of paleoanthropology.  A small but active number of promoters working outside of mainstream paleoanthropology, non-anthropologists and the occasional professional still cite and bring attention to the AAH but it has never been completely discredited to its adherents nor fully explored by researchers."  The criticisms and receptions sections are quite clear on these points.  I've suggested simply removing the most of the "proofs" in the "hypothesis" section, and the corresponding text in the "criticisms" section (most of the criticsms are essentially point-by-point refutations of the "hypothesis" points) leaving a much shorter page that spends less time "debating".  So far no-one has bit.  One other possible option is to use exemplars, rather than a list, to describe the page i.e. instead of 20 "pro" followed by the same 20 "refutations", have perhaps two to three examples followed by "but these are better explained via..." or something similar.
 * It's possible you could integrate the point-counterpoint, but that runs into problems. Assuming the reader is reading the full page and not simply the "pro" sections, I don't see how they could come across the page as anything but reflecting the scientific opinion that the AAH isn't great.  Like all fringe claims, the problem is that supporters are voluminous in their contributions, while real scientists don't waste time on it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * May be you will consider deletion or just one sentence "AAH is fringe. Period." is more suitable to this article?
 * Wikipedia is not a place to promote ideas, but also not a place to debunk ideas that you don't like. We're here to state a hypothesis as it is (that's why we've to quote Hardy and Morgan as original statements, not supports), and list out the professional opinions (not personal opinions) from supporting/opposing/neutral sides, with their arguments and evidences.
 * Surely we can find lots of negative reviews, saying that AAH is bogus or pseudoscience or not to be taken seriously, but don't forget that there're also positive reviews, written by prominent and respectful scientists in the fields. You can't just ignore them and claim that the whole scientific community is against the idea. Chakazul (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand comments like this. As I've said before, there are plenty of sources that already state that the AAH is not an accepted, or real scientific theory.  Quoting hardy and Morgan is all well and good in the history section, but there's plenty of other sources that say the theory is not accepted and plenty directly criticizing it.  The positive reviews are, in my opinion, the minority.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * W/o reading all of the above, I agree w WLU that positive reviews are clearly in the minority. I think Langdon got it right: he doesn't present it as crackpot, just as a hypothesis that never panned out. — kwami (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * True that positive reviews are the minority, we all know that very well, but not mean that they're neglectable. There're mainstream scientists like Phillip Tobias, Colin Groves, Frans de Waal, Stephen Cunnane, Carsten Niemitz (in the German circle), etc, with opinions published in RS. They mostly agree to some aspects (e.g. marine diet, wading bipedalism) and still criticize the whole as not well-formulated, but in general they agree to the idea. And of course we can find a longer list of scientists saying "no", but only by ignoring those "yes" or "maybe yes" could we arrive to conclusions like "no scientist take it seriously", which is clearly untrue (Langdon's paper states that some scientists consider it not taken seriously, that is more realistic).


 * What I disagree most is that some editors wish to infinitely diminish the positivie views and exaggerate negative ones, nearly to the point that the whole academic is against it. This is true for evolution vs. creationism, where all scientists adhere to one side. The case of AAH is, interesting enough, most are keeping silent.


 * An example of unbalance is to demand supporting points to be peer-reviewed articles by mainstream scientists (the most reliable of all) while opposing points could be anything from blogs or personal websites (the least reliable). I don't think this is parity, this is a bias. Chakazul (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, of course. That's why I'm adamantly opposed to citing Moore's page, which could hardly be mistaken for science. But no matter how many supporting refs we have, we should be clear that support is in the minority, and the AAH is mostly met with dismissal. Again, Langdon seems to have struck a good balance. — kwami (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Langdon's paper is an unscholarly "straw man" portrayal. It's "good" only in the sense that it's the only paper that tries to refute this idea that was published in a first class palaeoanthropological journal. That it doesn't even draw upon Roede et al makes it unscholarly. That it openly compares humans to "aquatic mammals" shows it's a straw man. Langdon makes it clear that he can hardly discriminate between this, plausible Darwinian, idea and Von Dankien's aliens from space and creationism. WLU et al are just more biased people who are determined to keep this idea in the same camp as ideas as bad as that. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Source
Can someone get me a copy of ? It's used in the hypothesis section but I wonder if it actually mentions the AAH or if it just notes that babies are fat. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems doubtful that it does, based on the first page. Sorry, no can help. (Note that the cite has his name wrong: it's 'Boguslaw Pawlowski' w/o the diacritics.) You might email him and ask. — kwami (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the article, it has no mention of anything aquatic but on cold stress instead. We should remove it. Chakazul (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I support that, removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Hypothesis" and "Support" sections
By the way, I think the "Hypothesis" section should restrict to the original arguments made by Hardy, Morgan (essentially the same as Hardy) and notable adherents. Also suggest a separate "Support" section, list supporting researches/reviews (if any) that explicitly mention AAH, and state that the support to AAH is quite limited. What do you think? Chakazul (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with the first.
 * Who would the 'notable adherents' be?
 * Don't have time to consider the second idea in detail. It would seem like a reasonable approach if we had a reasonable amount of supporting reviews. Do we? — kwami (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For now I don't think of another 'notable adherent', i mean the ones who have defined AAH. (adherents like Marc, Algis would be in Support provided RS)
 * I have a list of supporting RS (e.g. from the mainstream scientists I've listed). Due to parity the Support section should be shorter than Criticism. IMO even there're few they should be clearly listed, at least to show their existence. Chakazul (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We can always use "notable" to mean notable - if they have a wiki page, they get a mention. "Support" is too close to a soapbox or advocacy section for the AAH.  This is like the reverse of a "Criticisms" section and is bad for the same reasons - criticisms and support should be woven into the text rather than as a separate section.  Right now the ostensible "hypothesis" section is essentially a "support" section.  I'd still rather simply remove both and note perhaps minor points but leave the page to be a pithy statement about it not being accepted.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But the AAH sounds quite reasonable. If we merely say it's not accepted, readers will wonder why, so I think it's appropriate to give specific criticisms. — kwami (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there's adequate sourcing for broad-strokes criticisms; it fails to discuss speciation from our chimp common-ancestor, there's no real evidence, current theory supports a mosaic model of human evolution with varying evolutionary pressures at different times in our history rather than a single, massive push to adapt to (and then away from!) aquatic habitats, it's more an exercise in comparative anatomy and a general statement that all the "evidence" provided by Morgan (and other theorists) can also be explained by other adaptations (sometimes better). But that's a substantial rewrite.  The point-counterpoint gives the sense that there was a detailed review of all claims when it's really more of a dismissive observation that it's a rather poor theory based on minimal evidence.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not all scientists think this way, that's why we need a "support" section.
 * There are real studies inspired or dealing with various aspects of the hypothesis, though not proving the whole "umbrella" (more likely they will heavily modify it and disprove some points), they're certainly relevant. Some of the studies are entering mainstream in its own field (e.g. dependency on omega-3, interaction of proto-humans with water), some are highly controversial but having substantial evidence (e.g. wading bipedalism, water birth), and some are still in infancy (e.g. underwater vision). Better for us to present these research and also the positive/negative evaluations on them.
 * The big problem with AAH is lack of fossil evidence, but that won't invalidate the above studies, for that the topic of human origin is too big to be only determined by fossils. Chakazul (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The blog that was just linked was bot deleted, but IMO it's worth keeping. Like Langdon, he presents the AAH as a nice idea that isn't very convincing and has no evidence, but still might have s.t. going for it (as a 'weak' AAH). Many of the responses are also fairly intelligent. — kwami (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

persistence hunting
There are alternative hypotheses, that are worth mentioning here. In particular, the hairlessness (combined with unusual propensity to sweat) allows us to cool down much faster than other animals. It also so happens that over sufficiently long distances, humans are one of the very best land runners. Other animals are faster but cannot sustain speed for as long, e.g., being unable to pant and gallop at the same time (or need to switch between discontinuous gaits, so a relatively moderate speed is enough to preclude trotting and instread demand the dramatically more energy-consuming gallop). We have the intellect to persue one animal around over an unusually long distance. See persistence hunting in human evolution. I've seen at least one documentary credit this with the principle features that the aquatic ape theory seeks to explain itself. Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Need source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources for it as an alternative theory to this one, or sources for the persistence hunting in general? There are sources for persistence hunting in its linked page. At minimum, there should be an 'other links' section listing the theory as related. 72.13.132.120 (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also Endurance_running_hypothesis is already a specific page in the same categories. 72.13.132.120 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources that explicitly link this idea to the AAH. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's sounding excessively picky. In principle if there are sources on each of two topics individually, and they are clearly related subjects, then I don't see why grouping them closely on WP should require an explicit source for that practice. WP is an encyclopedia, and grouping/categorising of content (from different sources and domains that are potentially not even aware of each other) is the one thing that encyclopedias are supposed to do originally (otherwise the thing they would need to cite would be preexisting encyclopedias).


 * Anyway in this case, since AAH is an almost completely discredited conjecture, it seems like it would be worthwhile mentioning here not only the specific criticisms but also to have a section broadly and coherently explaining the alternative theory which is maintained by the mainstream establishment (briefly noting which parts are almost beyond reproach, which parts are still the active topic of research, and including somewhere a brief mention of the place that is or is not held for similarly populist hypotheses such as cooking, persistance hunting, language, clothing, etc. Cesiumfrog (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review our policy on original research, in particular the section on novel syntheses. If we are allowed to link, explicitly or implicitly, two unrelated ideas, we are not writing an encyclopedia based on independent, reliable sources, we are conducting a form of research.  Citizendium does allow that sort of tentative theorizing, but wikipedia does not.
 * As far as I know, there is no single, universally-accepted explanation for all the differences that arise between us, chimps (our closest cousin) and our common ancestor. Humans are a mosaic of features that presumably derive from a variety of evolutionary pressures.  If you can find a recent review article that is explicit about the best and most widely accepted theory for the drivers of human evolution, we could give that idea due weight and mention it extremely briefly with a link to the appropriate main article but we shouldn't engage in a compare-and-contrast unless we have an explicit source that does so for us.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You ought to take a look at the Aikido page, presently categorised among Grappling arts in direct contradiction to authorative sources (and the same could even be said for its characterisation as a "martial art"). This is perpetuated because most wikipedians think encyclopedias should categorise (and worse, that it predominantly be into exactly one category, and from an arbitrary preexisting set).
 * The rule you cite is limited to syntheses that advance a novel position, e.g. "A and B (therefore C)" where C is new. I do not advocate advancing any novel position (not even implicitly). I only advocate that different information on the same topic (scientific hypotheses for divergence of humans from other chimpanzees, esp. for loss of hair) should be presented in the same place (or at least interlinked). I really don't even know what novel conclusion you could think I'm implying? Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If another page is not in keeping with our policies, that is a reason to correct it, not to spread the error to other pages. It is policies that are important, only featured articles are sufficiently "authoritative" to be considered examples for other pages, and even those are "featured" through their references to policies and guidelines.
 * Rather than debating policy on this page, I will ask - do you have any reliable sources you think should be used to add information to the page that you would like to discuss? An abstract discussion is of little use if there's no source to be cited.  Sometimes it is easier to discuss specifics rather than abstracts - it's quite possible I'm not understanding your point and a specific example would be something I understand better.
 * I will also note that hairlessness is one example of a trait the AAH tries to explain, there are many others. Right now hairlessness in the AAH criticisms section has eight references, which seems more than adequate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Category Ghetto
begging pardon if i missed the explanation on the history page (and for the anonymous post; i'm away from my home pc and forgot my password), but why is this article linked under the "Technology" subhead on the AAT disambiguation page? doesn't it more properly belong in say, Biology, Science or one of the other more appropriate categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.198.182 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 February 2011
 * Please use "new section" to add a comment to a talk page.
 * I moved "Aquatic Ape Theory" at AAT (a disambiguation page) to the "Science" section which seemed the most relevant, although it could be argued that it ain't science. Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clearly science. The question is whether it's good science. — kwami (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure theres much question about that either. Active Banana    (bananaphone  23:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-Neutral POV?
The text [bolded] in section 4 Reception is entirely out of place. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for completely unrelated political shout-outs.

Text in question:

The AAH uses negative arguments, pointing to the flaws and gaps in conventional theories; though the criticisms of mainstream science and theories can be legitimate, in this case, as with Creationism and AIDS denialism the flaws in one theory do not automatically prove a proposed alternative is true.

Thedeepestblue (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed it entirely. It may be a legitimate criticism of AAH, but I fail to see how it could explain the appeal of AAH, which is supposedly what it was doing. — kwami (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the point is that one reason for the appeal of AAH (to a non-expert audience) is its proponents pointing out flaws in conventional theories without also explaining the strengths of those conventional theories. (Kind of like how creationists so frequently cite particular gaps that they perceive in the scientific theory as among their first justifications for holding their view. It wasn't appropriate to mention that controversy in the article, but it is the example we're familiar with. Ha, an even more pertinent contentius-example is the anti-vaccine crowd, whose core argument is of this type. Sometimes the perceived gaps are not or no longer scientifically valid. The entire system of argument, investigating the faults of one side without equally scrutinising the other side, is also not a logically valid way of choosing between positions. But regardless, such negative argumentation can apparently be a factor in popular appeal. It is also often a difficult type of argument to refute strongly before a lay-audience because it may still be built on a grain of truth, so that the expert needs the audience to subtly discern between that grain itself and its use in the argument. Picking gaps in the behemoth tends to make more memorable soundbites than the refutations do.) I agree that the wording needed altering. Can someone with access to the cited source clarify? Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, maybe you're right. That wasn't really clear from the wording. I'll put it back in. — kwami (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

X-mass introduction changes
Please provide sources and explain your reasons for your strange addition to the introduction. Meanwhile, I undid your changes because I saw it as biased and unscientific. "evolutionary science is highly contested" - where did you get this from? "these arguments can be reflected in wikipedia especially when the current theory  of human development is challenged  by another such  as the Aquatic Ape theory." - this is not sourced and obviously just your opinion. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Also, read up more on the AAH theory and you will see that it has a very low standing in the scientific community, and it does not, in any way whatsoever, challenge the Theory of Evolution. Johanneswiberg (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, I meant AA hypothesis! Johanneswiberg (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC))
 * No, Johanneswiberg should read up more about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, while X-mass should study WP:RS. The question of whether the AAH theory is true is irrelevant. The whole point of policies like WP:CIVIL, WP:RS and WP:NPOV is that they help editors to agree on the the content of an article even when they disagree about its subject. That way we avoid wars and threats. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I try to assume good faith and I think I kept a civil tone (more civil than many people on these talk pages...).
 * I do apologize for my guesses that X-mass had a hidden agenda, I cannot know that for certain, but if you look at the changes that were made, I'm sure that you can agree that "evolutionary science is highly contested" is biased and goes against everything that Wikpedia stands for. Also, X-mass has a history of editing in a way that refers back to Wikipedia and its ideology, in a way that reminds me of WP:WEASEL.


 * My opinion on whether AAH is correct or not is of no importance and I never said it was, I only pointed out that AAH, even if it went against the Theory of Evolution (which it doesn't since it's based on that very same theory) it wouldn't make "evolutionary science highly contested", because AAH isn't held in high regard.


 * X-mass has now made a third change, which I cannot revert without being banned. Can someone come to my assistance here? I believe many people will agree with me that these changes are not good. Johanneswiberg (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * i carried on the discussion with Johanneswiberg on my talk page it would have been more appropriate if those comments had be reflected here

@X-mass: Your addition include unreliable reference such as h2g2 and wordpress, references no mentioning AAH (e.g. ), and Wikipedia itself. Before adding more WP:OR to the article bring some reliable references and discuss them here on the talk page. Thanks. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to help you out, you might want to start with this article --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * perhaps you should start with Rethinking History by Keith Jenkins and following that with Science in Action by Bruno Latour now I really must get back to working on my PhD on the history of science not editing wikipedia.


 * did you actually check the wordpress article? - its a quote from a published text about the history of science and about how arguments are heated on all sides and between differing schools of thought. The bbc article is about how the aquatic ape model is controversial which is supporting my contention, you only have to look at the rest of this talk page.


 * the point is none of you have attempted to EDIT what I have written, no attempt at CONSENSUS has been made - all your reactions have been to ERASE thought or challenging ideas


 * i was pointing out that AAH is contested area of science, that the article is a reflection of one school of scientific thought even if that scientific school is currently ascendant does not mean that its is "the truth". i referenced articles that supported what I was pointing out, that this is a contested area that they did not directly mention Aquatic Ape is unimportant. My understanding is that wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopaedic not dogmatism based on whatever the current orthodoxy is. i thought that reflecting that their was multiple schools of thought was a good thing rather than simply erasing any idea that didn't fit with the only view of the world permitted.

for people who are interested the original text before it was erased from wikipedia by people who presumably reject the aquatic ape modal is below


 * Current thinking in science is always a contested area, and human development is highly contested; especially when the current theory of human development is challenged by another such as the Aquatic Ape model . Aquatic Ape challenges a lot of the assumptions of the existing models of human development, and like previous challenges to existing models of science: the arguments from all sides are heated, as can be seen in the history of science . It is inevitable that a challenging model such as the Aquatic Ape will have less proponents than the existing model and this will be reflected in how and where the discussion is held . One example of this can be seen in the title of this article: Aquatic Ape Theory is how it described by its proponents, but its opponents see it as the Aquatic Ape hypothesis - a theory without evidence .


 * User:X-mass


 * Your main problem is still finding reliable sources. Wordpress pages are blogs and per WP:EL blogs are not reliable sources. "The BBC article" is found on h2g2; pages anyone can create-- about as reliable as a blog.  The reference I gave you _is_ a reliable source but not a secondary reference.  You could use it as a starting point, just find some more references directly related to AAH.  (And please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages.) --Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason for my deletion was that nothing of what you added had any base in anything but your own conjecture. You did not refer to articles concerning AAH. You cannot refer to "similar principles applied elsewhere" and then apply them on this topic, that goes against WP:OR. "Challenging ideas" which you refer to is not the point of Wikipedia either, it is to present the current scientific consensus. The page already explains what the BBC article says, that AAH is controversial. If you want to add more, you need better sources.Johanneswiberg (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

discussion from my talk page

 * The following text is copypasted from User talk:X-mass by User:X-mass:

-- I'm sorry, but what are you doing on the "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" page? How is this armchair conjecture in any way suitable for an Encyclopedia? Why would you write "evolutionary science is highly contested", when the Wikipedia page on Evolution so clearly states that it is not, backed up with a ton of sources? If you think something is wrong over there, go there and fix it (with peer-reviewed sources) but don't sneak something in on the AAH page. Whether you believe this yourself or not is another matter, but an encyclopedia can't go against itself, agreed? Johanneswiberg (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Your source from "Science and Culture" was a good one but applying that on AAH violates WP:OR. Johanneswiberg (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "i did not sneak into the aquatic ape page, this is not a question about evolution, evolution is widely accepted with science, this is a contest between different schools of thought WITHIN SCIENCE about how an aspect of humane evolution happened. your need to appeal to the higher ground of evolution shows how insecure your arguments are, also the way you ignore and delet fully cited data shows that your prejudiced about how the page is read. I am recognising with the encyclopaedia that these ideas are controversial and that science is not fixed but many parts of it are controversial. Your appeal to peer review is just another example of your lack of argument - which peers? the peers you agree with? the journals you read? i am pointing out that as is recognised by philosphers and historians of science that science is not of one mind, and you would be a better scientist and contributor to wikipedia if you recognised this fact."


 * - why would you write "evolutionary science is highly contested" if it is widely accepted?
 * I haven't deleted fully cited data. See version history on the AAH page if you don't believe me.
 * Science is not of one mind, true. I never said it was. But arguing against scientific consensus is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't about presenting logic or truth, it is about verifiability (WP:V).
 * Peer review has nothing to do with "my peers" or "journals I read". Science is based on peer review in scientific journals, and repeatability.
 * Please refrain from personal attacks, it's not nice and it's against the rules. I will attempt to be civil as well.Johanneswiberg (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * yes your right about evolutionary science - that was bad mistake on my part - I meant to say human development, thought I had corrected it on my read through but clearly had missed it
 * science is not based on peer review, science within schools of thought are based on peer review, schools of scientific thought are argued about in different journals. Again repeatability is a scientific method the problem that can be useful. Another mechanism is to make predictions and look for evidence, Aquatic Ape has done so and found evidence in other species that shows correlation but as we both know correlation is not proof
 * and i am sorry for the personal attack. Please understand how i might feel when my writing is constantly deleted without apparent evidence instead of being edited. I have taken aboard the corrections and have made corrections, but rather than correcting what i have done it has simply been erased from existence, which suggests malice as opposed to academic thought.
 * just for an appeal to higher ground - I did my masters in the history and philosophy of science, medicine and society at birkbeck university of london under the auspices of the welcome foundation. X-mass (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I should have written "the scientific method is based on full disclosure (commonly done through publication in peer reviewed journals) and repeatability". I refer you to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method" for more info. Proof, on the other hand, is not a scientific term commonly used other than in mathematics. You probably mean evidence. If there isn't evidence for a hypothesis, and if the hypothesis can't be falsified, then it cannot become a theory ("intelligent design" is a good example of this).


 * I still don't see how your changes on AAH has a place on Wikipedia. The hypothesis is not regarded as a valid scientific theory by a majority of the scientific community. Your introduction reads like a defense of the hypothesis and a challenge to its status, and that kind of material is not suitable. Read the Wikipedia guidelines if you have any doubt. Johanneswiberg (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Two other users have agreed with me so far and deleted your contributions. Please post your arguments on the AAH talk page before making additional changes. Johanneswiberg (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * their is good solid evidence, new data has been repeated found, however their evidence however is repeatedly rejected and contested by other schools of thought. that doesn't make the theory a hypothesis is merely is a contest around a theory. The wallace/darwin theory of evolution was based on evidence that was repudiated by other schools of thought at the time, it is only now that it is considered ascendant.
 * my understanding of wikipedia was that it job was to be encyclopaedic not dogmatic. If its role is only to reflect the current majority view about a particular world at any one time, then the wikipedia of china would be right to remove all references to multi-party democracy as invalid and flawed idea held by a few anti-republican reactionaries. Equally if wikipedia existed in the eighteenth century any mention of science would have been removed as heretical and a challenge to the truth of gods law. Or for that matter if it existed in the 1950's where plate-tectonics would have been considered a minor theory, with little evidence, to challenge the then accepted model of a cooling earth.
 * The entire article reads like an attack on aquatic ape, so clearly anything that brings it back into a balanced article will read like a defence. My introduction is not a defence, it may look like a defence from your position, I have been strenuous in recognising that this a controversy with more than one view between different schools of scientific thought.


 * I agree with you that the article isn't ideal, and that parts of it might have an undue focus on criticism. But if you want to change this, start by presenting the "good solid evidence" that you refer to. If it is verifiable, then it should be included. If it has been rejected by the scientific community, then it shouldn't be presented in an encyclopedia.
 * A controversy in a scientific sense is not the same as differing opinions. Wikipedia shouldn't present the "flat earth theory" next to the "round earth theory" - even if there are genuine proponents of the flat earth theory who claim that they have evidence and that they have been unfairly rejected (I did not bring this up to ridicule AAH, just to show you that differing opinions can exist everywhere, it doesn't mean they are both equal).
 * All that counts on Wikipedia is verifiability, and for that you need good sources. Once again, check the guidelines. Johanneswiberg (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that by "people who presumably reject the aquatic ape modal", you refer to me. I have no specific opinion in the matter, that is not why I deleted your initial post. I thought it wasn't up to Wikipedia's standards and violated several of its principles. I stand by that, even if I don't appreciate you posting the posts I made to you personally on your talk page as if I posted them here. I don't mind people reading it, but this talk page wasn't meant for a discussion about the scientific method and the like. But it's posted here now anyway so never mind. Johanneswiberg (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The changes by X-mass have been reverted again, and I support that reversion. The proposed text is unsuitable for an article as it involves synthesis by an editor whereby various statements are collected in order to make a case. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Flat earth = savanna model Round earth = waterside model (AAT) Until you guys get that this Wiki page and the discussion that goes with it is useless — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.124.228 (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Essential oils, seafood diet.
The arguments presented against the diet part of the hypothesis is extremely weak. First off, "the "best" fats found in fish" is completely false. Salmon and eels are oily fish that occur seasonally in rivers. There are others, I believe smelt is another. Also, there may not be oil in the flesh of non oily fish, but there is oil in the guts, especially the liver and the roe. I think shark is somewhat oily no? Often found near coasts. Sharks have traditionally been harvested by different societies for the liver which the oil is extracted from. The way this is written it assumes that fish would be the primary food... What about clams, lobsters, crabs, sea urchins, sea cucumbers... all far easier to catch. Also fish eggs are a great source. All other sea mammals are full of good oils, as are sea fowl and water fowl. All ancient societies either caught their own seafood or traded with other peoples for seafood. Seafood is endemic to humans, it's eaten wherever humans live.

Also, the "science" behind what fats are essential and how much we need of them is extremely weak. Also, I am not sure but scientists probably couldn't tell a healthy brain from an unhealthy (for instance mentally insane person) by looking at the brain, so making the claim "Humans without access to shoreline foods also develop normal brains." isn't really provable.

Well, anyways I think that the whole commentary on diet here is unmerited, so I am going to delete it.

--184.9.88.44 (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about "The requirement of the human brain..." in the "The hypothesis" section? If so, I believe the text is part of the AAH and so can't be removed from an article that seeks to present what the AAH says. Some text later in the article (search for "essential fatty acids") provides another view, and that is all that is required. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've rolled it back, it's sourced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

New support
I've not read the complete article and have no intention of editing it, and only just read the warning at the top of this page. Okay, so where IS the appropriate venue for stuff like this? --Pawyilee (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Water’s Edge Ancestors August 13th, 2011
 * Fossil Discovery Could Be Our Oldest Human Ancestor Sep. 8, 2011
 * Human line 'nearly split in two' 24 April 2008
 * I would say nowhere; none of these articles actually mention the AAH or Morgan. The AAH is a quasi-scientific hypothesis that lacks significant credibility.  Attempting to link those references to this page would require original research and ultimately unduly promote the idea that the AAH is the truth rather than a substantially discredited theory.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Bipedalism "criticisms"
The tiny section which attempts to criticise the "bipedalism through wading" idea simply parrots the weakest objections possible from Langdon (1997). This has been done, obviously, because it does actually reflect the "official" critique of the wading hypothesis as it has been reported in the scientific literature but readers should perhaps be alerted to the fact that this very poorly argued paragraph is practically all that has been published to refute probably the best idea on bipedal origins there is. What other scenario will induce an extant ape to move (not just pose momentarily) bipedally for as long as the conditions prevailed, would kill it if it switched to quadrupedalism? Note also that no pro-wading papers are cited here. This web page is simply the result of a majority of pseudoskeptics pandering to what they think is orthodoxy. It can be more openly discussed here: http://www.waterside-hypotheses.com/index.php. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.189.114 (talk • contribs) 21:19, November 10, 2011‎
 * Moved per WP:TPG.
 * Langdon is a reliable source, one of the few that credibly discusses (and debunks) the AAH. Since wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, readers should be aware that Morgan and others' theories about the influence of water on human evolution are not taken particularly seriously within the scientific community.  Per WP:FRINGE, this is appropriate.  The AAH is not a credible scientific theory, and the purpose of wikipedia is not to promote a fringe viewpoint.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Langdon's paper has been severely critiqued in the book below. It's an unscholarly 'straw man' portrayal of the idea. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is insufficient to change the page, and that includes a self-published book. The AAH is clearly a fringe theory with little to no mainstream support.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AAH is not a credible scientific theory
What does the "H" in "AAH" stand for??? --Pawyilee (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the third word in the title of this page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving
Because manual archiving is a pain in the ass, I've activated Miszabot set to every 30 days. That'll get rid of most of the current talk page, leaving about five threads behind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussions to close
Topics inactive for a week, moved to Archive 4. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 06:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Reliable Sources
I want to share a comprehensive list of AAH-related references -- supporting, criticizing, or open towards the idea -- that I've gathered for a long time. Since this talk page is not a good place to dump all the refs, I will place them in my user page User:Chakazul.

The list is meant to be exhaustive. Although being a supporter of AAH myself, I'm also studying its critical reception in the academics, so I'll try to include as many criticism as possible. The refs provided by WLU are also added (mostly Against, some For).

Summary

For: 46 experts (20 notable), number of RS = 117

Against: 27 experts (12 notable), number of RS = 29

Hope you guys will find it useful! Chakazul (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on your talk page but I'll note it here as well. The list has at least some problems, for instance citing this article as "supporting" the AAH.  It is about Neanderthals exploiting aquatic food sources.  It doesn't cite Morgan or mention the word "ape" at all, and "aquatic" is used twice - neither relevant.  This article doesn't discuss the AAH, it couldn't be used on this page in any meaningful way, and from my admittedly cursory review it's simply wrong to claim it supports the AAH in a manner useful for wikipedia.  Using it on the page would be egregious original research.  Similarly, Stewart 1989 is cited as "supporting" but doesn't mention the AAH in a meaningful way as far as I can tell from the search inside feature.  If the argument is "but it shows that humans ate fish in the past", that's again not a conclusion we can draw and use on wikipedia and it doesn't support the AAH.  Humans ate chickens, that doesn't mean there is an evolutionary pressure for flying.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. But Neanderthals are apes (hominins), marine = aquatic. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 12:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't mention the aquatic ape hypothesis specifically, it can not be used as it is against our policy on original research, and would require a synthesis of material to support (or really, promote) a novel conclusion. This is non-negotiable.  Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and to say a book that doesn't mention the aquatic ape hypothesis at all is relevant on the aquatic ape hypothesis page is not appropriate.  Nor is an extension of the AAH to Neanderthals without a source explicitly making the statement.  It looks like you think wikipedia should report the leading edge of scientific thought or potential discoveries.  We do not.  We report the solid, even stolid mainstream.  Please read WP:OR very, very thoroughly and understand that we can not decide a source is relevant unless it is explicit.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for bringing up Chris Stringer. I verified that he's not really a supporter (although he agrees that wading bipedalism is a plausible model), so I removed him from the list.


 * For all other, either (1) the source directly cites Hardy, Morgan, Sauer, Cunnane... which all can be traced back to Hardy's original thesis, or (2) the author had contributed his/her works to one of them. e.g. Kathlyn Stewart, by summarizing her decades of independent research on fish fossil in hominin sites, has recently attributed them as supports to Cunnane's thesis (the human brain as an aquatic adaptation), thus her earlier works on fish fossils should be considered relevant. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 16:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How did you verify with Chris Stringer?
 * No, Stewart's work is still not relevant on this page. You would need to justify why we should ignore our policy on no original research in order to incorporate her work.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion archive
For reference for some of the newer editors, the AAH was brought up at ANI recently, the discussion is here. Not much else, just some context. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal
Since this discussion has carried on for nearly two months now, and since this article was locked down due to edit warring, I propose that various interested parties [ sandbox] new versions of the article. We can then come to a consensus on what is parts of each should be in the "real" version of the article, and what shouldn't, and finally move on and put this discussion to rest. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is a good idea. Although it risks to become yet another tug of war -- proponents tend to present the merits of hypothesis and play down the rejection, and opponents tend to consider it as pseudoscience and ignore its scientific supports. How can we proceed? And especially how can the "real" version, if it could be produced, be mingled from the pro-side and con-side "sandbox" versions? I'm particularly concerning about the unsolved issues of source reliability and the use of "undue weight", which will make the reconciliation even harder. Chakazul (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we not treat it like other articles about ideas? A description of the idea, followed by supporting observations, followed by criticism? If the kids won't play nice in the sandbox, give them two sandboxes.74.14.62.115 (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone can create a user sandbox, see subpage.
 * The issue is that, like many fringe ideas, goalposts move and skeptics must play whack-a-mole with each new data point or reference. Without a general understanding of what neutrality means by the less experienced accounts, the discussion continues to be fruitless.  Proponents wish to portray the AAH as an unjustifiably rejected hypothesis.  Opponents want to drop the "unjustifiably" part and simply indicate it's not accepted.  I firmly believe the latter position is the proper one in line with the policy on neutrality - and "neutral" does not mean "conciliatory", or "kind", or "positive".  Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth - it doesn't matter if water exerted significant selection pressures on humans, what matters is how we can document the reception by mainstream scientists.  Bar a small number of proponents, many of whom are popular proponents that lack academic positions or appropriate qualifications, the idea has no traction.  Despite this, we have a lengthy page that really, really, really looks like it's trying to convince readers it is true because it's got that long list of alleged supporting observations (and has a series of ugly and lengthy follow-up statements pointing out that they don't really support the AAH).
 * For me the bottom line is we must place the emphasis on the large number of indifferent or rejecting paleoanthropologists, not on the small but vocal minority who think it's a compelling hypothesis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with WLU. It is not standard treatment to first describe the idea, then the support, then separately the criticism. Firstly because giving such arbitrary precedence to the support (and hiding the criticism down below) would give a biased presentation of any topic (especially to those who do not read the entire article). Secondly because it is tantamount to WP:POVFORKing: it is not desirable to have two different sections addressing the same exact topic (e.g., "the degree of consistency between AAH and evidence") from multiple distinct viewpoints (e.g., believers and nonbelievers), and only encourages the development of multiple biased accounts (that additionally fail to accumulate all of the relevant facts into either one place, and are redundant otherwise). The whole framing of the issue as "for and against" sets it up as an ideological battle, when we should instead be simply and neutrally asking what is the status of this topic in the context of the pertinent field (and if the answer is "extreme-fringe" then that is what this article should convey; if you are a die-hard proponent of this theory and you think the mainstream are in error, then you are mistaken for thinking that an encyclopedia is the correct forum at which to engage in that argument -- start by publishing a review paper or meta analysis in a reputable peer reviewed journal instead).Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And what, Cesiumfrog, if the answer to your question was that it wasn't extreme-fringe? Say, for example, if it turned out that some of the world's leading, most respected mainstream palaeoanthropologists, such as Phillip Tobias and Colin Groves, thought it was worthy of consideration?Yloopx (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cesiumfrog is correct to say "we should instead be simply and neutrally asking what is the status of this topic" but then goes on to pose the question as a choice between calling it "extreme-fringe" or being "die-hard proponent". This is a ridiculous antithesis, calculated to make it impossible to reach consensus. The AAH is a reasonable hypothesis. It has been advocated entirely within a scientific set of assumptions. It has not been supported by the mainstream professionals for several reasons (it's too totally circumstantial, vague on essential detail, not based on fossil evidence, there are perhaps better explanations for the evidence adduced etc). It shouldn't be too hard to express this in the article. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarities with intelligent design
There are a lot of similarities here between AAH and the issues we face with Creationism / Intelligent design on Wiki. I suggest visiting those articles, and especially Intelligent design since it is a featured article. That should give us some reasonable format to follow. The only concern I have is that AAH has a history, and I fear that the weaker claims are being omitted from the article while the more defensible claims are being highlighted. The hypothesis is evolving, and our job as an encyclopedia is to cover the history and its change through time, not to provide points and counterpoints to help win an argument. – Maky  « talk » 16:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think comparison with Creationism or the like will do any good to the discussion, but only evoke emotional responses. Besides, I'm not aware of such a comparison in any published works -- only mentioned once in a blog post by John Hawks. Chakazul (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Chakazul here - the comparison with Creationism is inappropriate and unlikely to be helpful. THe article needs to be discussed on its own merits, not in comparison to another one on a different subject entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm comparing the controversy with that of intelligent design, not the hypothesis. If you're looking for an example of how to handle a topic on Wikipedia that's considered pseudo-science, that would be a good place to look.  Sorry, but if we can't even discuss how to organize the article and handle the controversy, then there's no point in having any conversation on the talk page.  –  Maky  « talk » 17:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * He hasn't compared it to creationism, he has compared the issues with the article to that of the ID article. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The main reason why I believe the creationism article is is an inappropriate model for the AAH article is that creationism is in opposition to an established and well supported scientific theory, evolution through natural selection. We don’t have such an alternative for the AAH, although the article is written as if there is one. I think this is the main problem with the article as it currently stands.Yloopx (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Creationism is considered pseudoscience because it is (openly) based on beliefs without scientific support such as the accuracy of the book of Genesis. The AAH has no such problem, so comparisons with creationism are unhelpful. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Since there is so much opposition, then please tell me how will we organize the article and weigh our sources? Is there any article that we can model this page after?  Or are we just going to reinvent the wheel here?  (P.S. - Chakazul was right, few people seem capable of looking past their emotional reaction, which suggests no one will be able to contribute constructively to this article without introducing their own bias.  Good luck.)  –  Maky  « talk » 16:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Removing entrenched WP:SYNTH and WP:OR can be a tall order. Maybe WP:DR? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The comparison with creationism is a propos one because it has many of the same issues - committed proponents, experts who are predominantly indifferent to it, appeals directed at popular audiences rather than scientific ones, and ignoring dissenting observations.
 * In my opinion, the issue is very easily handled by referring to the large number of sources that explicitly state some version of the AAH being essentially ignored except for a minority of believers. What we shouldn't do is sieze on the small number of believers and use them to write the page.  They should simply be omitted to avoid the ugly point-counterpoint currently filling much of the page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeated referrals to "believers" is merely being provocative. Coming from the person who has edited this page more than anyone else - twice as many edits as the next most prolific editor - readers should, perhaps, not be too surprised. There are more positive/open references to this idea in the peer reviewed literature than there are ones against it - so much for reliable sources driving the tone of WP articles. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An unaccepted scientific hypothesis which is generally ignored is quite different than pseudoscience which has been repeatedly debunked, or, in the case of ID, found to be fraud. — kwami (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's very nice. I don't think anyone here disputes that.  Now do you mind enlightening us as to which particular ways this article be structured any differently from the ID article?  Seriously... I'm starting to get annoyed here.  Do people really not know how to read?  –  Maky  « talk » 00:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The structure works, in fact from my review it's pretty close already - history, the hypothesis and reception here, and at ID there is history (same), concepts (roughly mapping to hypothesis), movement (a bit like reception), criticisms (missing in AAH but could probably be built - the current "theoretical considerations" would probably be a reasonable starting point), Kitzmiller trial (no analogy in my opinion, I don't think the one symposia in 1991 deserves similar mention) and status outside of US (close to reception, but the AAH was never linked to a specific geographic area in the first place). There are a couple issues though, fewer sources, far more specific claims (and they don't age well) and there's a lack of a political movement supporting it (really ID is a political movement). As Kwami says - whereas ID barely pretended to be scientific, the AAH honestly tries to be one but never got traction. In my opinion, the article needs trimming and perhaps reordering/restructuring rather than expanding.

If we move forward with this concept, probably a starting point for discussion would be the list of claims (the hypothesis/concepts). How many do we include, and which ones? Perhaps the emphasis could be placed on Langdon's article, since it's the most substantive criticism published in a real scientific article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think any suggestion on how to improve the article is welcomed, even from articles like ID. But before we can compare with ID, or making claims like the AAH only exists in the popular arena with only "a minority of believers", we should make clear how the AAH is actually perceived in the academic literature.


 * As seen from my list of refs below (details in my user page User:Chakazul), there's a surprisingly large number of papers -- more then 100 -- talking about the influence of water on human evolution, many explicitly cite and agree with some versions of the AAH (Hardy/Morgan, Sauer, Niemitz, or Cunnane et al). The majority are published in peer-reviewed journals, lead by reputable scientists & teams, and the results are scientifically sound.


 * For example, they found evidence of early hominins consuming aquatic foods, marine resources being exploited by Homo sapiens as a major focus from the very beginning (middle pleistoscene), their significant to the evolution of our brain, and the physiological studies with coastal people still having a semi-aquatic life.


 * What's called a "large number of sources" that refuted the AAH... is actually a minority, mostly consist of short paragraphs and blog posts. The most significant works -- Langdon's 1997 paper, and half of the "Fact or Fiction" tome -- now became out-dated and unable to refute the modern research.


 * Why such a large gap between the common impression and the real situation? We often look at popular texts first -- Elaine Morgan's books, a few popular blogs, and some amateur websites. Academics works are rarely mentioned there, and most people don't have the time to dig in Google Scholar. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 05:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The AAH isn't the same thing as "protohumans ate fish" or "our earliest common ancestor was able to swim" or anything else fitting into a category as vague as "the influence of water on human evolution". In my mind, the AAH means humans developed specific adaptations to water and at minimum if something is truly considered "supporting" of the AAH, it's got to be more than a sentence or two that essentially calls it titillating.  Normally I'd say review articles on the topic, but there's only been one.  Your list may be flawed as well - Stewart 1989 for instance, doesn't cite Morgan and never uses the word "ape".  Using that book on the page would be original research.  And it's never appropriate to simply assemble a list and claim it supports an idea - everything rests on specifics of how each source is used.  Such a list also reveals the problems dealing with a fringe hypothesis on wikipedia.  Proponents can always cite a small number of other proponents, thus claiming there is support for the idea.  However, that support is only found within that small group.  Where are the citations to textbooks, general reviews of the literature and the like?  For instance, this book does not use the word "aquatic" or "Morgan".  Morgan isn't cited in this one, and the word "aquatic" appears three times - none talking about human adaptation.  Nothing in this book.  Nothing in this book.  Nothing in this book.  Nothing in this book.  How do we cite these absences?  The essence of WP:UNDUE is to place appropriate weight on the ideas given the dearth of serious attention - not to mine every single possible source to produce the longest page possible on something that is ultimately only taken seriously by a very small number of people.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * More books from the 21st century that don't discuss the AAH or Morgan at all (search parameters - "human evolution", 21st century, books, with preview; searching for "morgan" and "aquatic" using the search inside feature):
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (does not cite Morgan, does discuss the possibility of aquatic foods contributing to human evolution)
 * (ditto above)
 * (ditto above, but actually dismisses a substantive role of aquatic foods in human evolution)
 * (does not cite Morgan, raises and dismisses the AAH)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * And this one dismisses it:
 * 
 * How many further examples are needed to demonstrate that the AAH isn't a compelling or subtantial explanatory hypothesis within paleoanthropology?  How are these substantial absences to be reflected in the page?  I believe this is among the clearest indications that giving the AAH any measure of credibility beyond popular and minority interest is undue weight.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't confine ourselves to the viewpoint of a particular field. Your sources demonstrated that water's influence (not just AAH) is ignored in palaeoanthropology, that's not disputed. So what is paleoanthropology? It's the study of fossil evidence on human evolution, and there're many other kinds of evidence. (Charles Darwin arrived to his great theory by studying live phenotypes). My reference list proves that there're non-negligible academic interests and activities in those areas.


 * Wikipedia is not a replica of textbooks. You probably won't find the Gaia Hypothesis, the gestural/musical origin of language, or the RNA World Hypothesis in geological / linguistics / genetics textbooks. It doesn't mean they're rejected, it just mean they're not discussed there.


 * There's a new edited volume in archaeology "Trekking the Shore", I recommend you to read the prologue, especially "Coastal Resources in Human Evolution". According to the editors, it's now evident that Homo sapiens has been heavily exploiting marine resources, not as a side track but a major focus, not in much later time but from the very beginning of our species. It cites Sauer and the works of Cunnane et al., making it a plausible scenario of human evolution. So this is the nature of the recent research -- systematic, down to earth (sea?) investigations, arrive to solid conclusions. The modern incarnation of AAH has entered a proto-science stage.


 * Instead of using a predefined "due weight" to screen out the supporting sources and magnify the criticizing ones, should we adjust the due weight according to the real balance of academic literature? Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 08:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That book doesn't cite Morgan, doesn't use the word "ape" even once and "aquatic ape" doesn't appear in it. That sort of book is suitable for original research - which per WP:OR we don't do here.  I have three further points - eating food found on the ocean's shore isn't the aquatic ape hypothesis (and is a particularly useless connection unless the source explicitly links the two), second per WP:NPOV we are expected to summarize the scientific consensus as explicitly demonstrated in sources (not how popular editors think an idea should be, but how the scientific community thinks it is) and third, your list is flawed by the same reason your citation to "Trekking the Shore" is - several do not mention Morgan.  While they might be legitimate sources for writing books about the influence of water on human evolution off wikipedia, they are not suitable sources for the aquatic ape hypothesis page.  That list looks more like a list of primary sources that you think support the impact of water on human evolution - not sources that explicitly say "Elaine Morgan and was right and the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis should be taken seriously".  Please see WP:OR and WP:SOAP - we do not assemble primary sources to promote a viewpoint.  Please see WP:SYNTH, we do not synthesize sources to arrive at or support an idea not explicitly contained in a source already.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you give a very narrow definition of the subject. Elaine Morgan doesn't own the AAH, she's just a popular advocator of Hardy's idea, and Hardy didn't own the idea too -- it has been succeeded by Cunnane's Shore-based Scenario, Niemitz's Amphibious Generalist Theory , Verhaegen's Aquarboreal , Wrangham's Delta Hypothesis , Erlandson's Kelp Highway Hypothesis , Joordens's Aridity Refuge Model , and many ideas that haven't been named. All of them have the exact same essence as the one Hardy proposed -- specific adaptations to water (which you correctly identified above), and the paleo-environments / living styles that make this possible.


 * It becomes a growing net of cross-referenced knowledge. The volume "Trekking the Shore" cites and supports Cunnane's works on shore-base diet, which in turn cites and supports Hardy/Morgan's AAH. The volume also cites Erlandson and Bailey's works on early coastal subsistence. The section "Coastal Resources in Human Evolution" pretty much demonstrates that they're all talking about the same thing.


 * In the same sense, we don't question a source as not supporting the theory of evolution because it didn't cite Charles Darwin's works. Darwin didn't own the idea of evolving organisms. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 12:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My definition is indeed very narrow, as it is constrained by our policy on original research. Feeding hypotheses are not adaptations to water, they are adaptations to marine food sources.  If they are not called "the aquatic ape hypothesis", then they should not be on this page.  I would suggest instead raising them as individual sources on one of the more general pages like human evolution - not here.  On this page they at best deserve a single mention along the lines of "hypotheses have been proposed..."  If there is a growing set of references supporting the impact of water on human evolution, then it should be trivial to document this on the appropriate page - not here.  You can not compare the AAH to the theory of evolution.  The theory of evolution is the firm foundation of 150 years of further development of a now universally-accepted idea.  The AAH is not accepted, and softer variations of the impact of water on human evolution are possibly more accepted (more accurately - now being developed) but are not a firm, unquestioned foundation for anything.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree about creating a new page, say "Water and Human Evolution", or "Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution" (Algis's proposal). There can be 3 possibilities: What do you think, guys?
 * 1) Fork into 2 articles "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" and "Water and Human Evolution" (similar to "Continental Drift" and "Plate Tectonics" as the historical and scientific aspects of the same idea)
 * 2) Use only "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" and add all new findings under it
 * 3) Rename it to "Water and Human Evolution"

Whatever the decision will be, I think it's clear that something have to be adjusted in this AAH article, in particular the due weight. An undue weight was used as a reason to deem the Bentham e-book as unreliable, and promote the blog posts as reliable, but they should be effectively the same under WP rules -- both are self-published sources written by experts in the relevant fields (although I can further argue that the bloggers haven't published anything about AAH or water, like the e-book authors did). This is ridiculously unjust. I don't mean to reverse the weight, because the AAH is still a minority, but I call for banishing such an extreme treatment against the subject and its supporting sources. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 17:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Plate tectonics and continental drift are both well-accepted scientific hypotheses which underscore, explain and are corroborated by enormous amounts of research and observation in geology, evolution and other fields. The AAH is not comparable.  The AAH is not considered a credible scientific hypothesis, which is why WP:PARITY applies, permitting blog posts while not permitting use of Bentham's vanity press publication.  See here.  It's not unjust, it's how we reflect the scientific consesnsus, otherwise we're at the mercy of every crank and nut who thinks they've revolutionized the laws of physics with their latest perpetual motion machine, or any scholar who thinks s/he'll use wikipedia to promote a new idea they have that hasn't actually been accepted by his/her peers.
 * I'll ask the same question I asked below - why should we ignore our policies and guidelines on no original research, no use of wikipedia to promote a viewpoint and parity of sources? If you think of wikipedia as unjust, or censoring ideas, you might have the wrong idea of what we are; we are an encyclopedia that documents what is mainstream within scholarly fields.  If you want to write a page about the impact of water on human evolution within the current scientific mainstream, then it would probably be better to start a subpage in your user space for a draft and present it for review.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Continental drift was a well-accepted scientific hypotheses? Are you sure?


 * In response to your questions:


 * Promote a viewpoint: Certainly we don't promote that "AAH is an accepted idea". We also don't promote that "AAH is a pseudoscience", "No one take it seriously", or "There are only a few believers". These viewpoints are contradicted by at least half of the available published sources.


 * No original research: No worry, I don't think all of the sources I listed should be cited in the article, unless they mentioned AAH or is related to AAH as indicated in secondary sources. The list is mainly used as a proof that the "due weight" should be adjusted, and the above demeaning viewpoints are no longer supported.
 * Talking about OR, it's interesting that many sources cited in the article (24 - 27, 29 - 33, 36 - 37), particularly those used in counter-arguments, did not mention anything about the AAH or water. If we were to take OR seriously, many of the counter-arguments have to be dropped.


 * Parity of sources: Read the guideline. It does not apply to the current topic since there're numerous peer-reviewed / published sources. Non-RS can be used only when RS is not available. You've long claimed that WP:PARITY / WP:DUE permits blog posts and rejects Bentham e-book, but in fact both polices never say so.


 * No one is thinking that Wikipedia is unjust, I'm arguing that your actions were unjust. You may identify the AAH as pseudoscience / not accepted, and wish to contribute to the WP article accordingly, but what if we found that this is no longer true? Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 16:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Polemic
This article currently reads like a polemic, totally contrary to what a Wikipedia article should be I would have thought.

Almost a quarter of the references are from websites and blogs (polemics themselves), that are not scientific or academic and that lack peer review, editorial review and references. There is very, very little of substance in any of the arguments against the idea (and that’s being kind), and none of the arguments for are given anything like a fair airing. Verhaegen, after Morgan and Hardy probably the most significant proponent of the idea, is not even mentioned in the article after the latest round of edits, which do not appear to have been discussed at all on the talk page.

I have no problem with the AAT being presented as a hypothesis that has yet to gain mainstream support, but the way the article currently reads, it’s as if the editor responsible has the impression that the idea was spawned by the devil himself, and is some sort of threat to humanity. I wasn’t much impressed with the earlier version, but the current version is so one-sided as to be beyond a joke. Please, a bit of balance. And at least a bit of discussion before wholesale changes such as these are made.Yloopx (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I must agree with what Yloopx writes above. The article right now is valueless as a source of information about what the AAH actually proposes. For example, some of the human features advanced as relevant to the AAH are:
 * bipedalism - unmentioned
 * replacement of hair by subcutaneous fat - unmentioned
 * descended larynx, breath control, speech - unmentioned
 * No doubt there are good answers to the AAH arguments for the origin of those features, but simply omitting all mention is not helpful to our readers. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been what, 40 years? 60?  And in that time, there has been little to no serious scientific scrutiny.  We shouldn't be arguing for the theory, and we shouldn't be presenting substance because that is a form of advocacy.  In an accepted, mainstream theory we simply present what is uncontroversial.  In a nonaccepted fringe theory, we present it's reception and criticism by mainstream scholars.  Adding in that massive list of everything that someone thought was ever associated with the AAH, or thought that aquatic adaptation was responsible for is egregious undue weight since to give it appropriate weight, we have to put in what mainstream researchers think actually drove things like bipedalism, reduced hair and breath control (each has a mainstream opinion).  In the cases where there is no mainstream explanation, the AAH looks like it somehow "wins" by default when actually it's little more than theorizing without data to back it up.  Having every single minor point that someone ever thought supported the AAH is an enormous amount of undue weight on an explanation that is ultimately not accepted, and unacceptably promotes the idea.  The AAH does not appear in anthropological textbooks.  Its references in review articles are for the most part single-sentence throwaway references.  The lengthier articles are consistently critical, often on the basic scientific grounds.
 * An actual disservice to our readers would be presenting this as some sort of incredibly promising theory that has unfairly been ignored by scientists (i.e. how proponents of the AAH consistently attempt to spin the debate). In reality, the theory is seen as unpromising, is generally ignored in serious discussions, and is promoted by a minority who haven't convinced their peers.  According to our policies on undue weight and neutrality in general, how should we then portray it?  Even those sources that describe it as promising acknowledge that it's not well-accepted.  Colin Groves and David Cameron gives it half a page and basically says it can't be discounted - not that it's well accepted.  Graham, Scadding and Bull, who are not anthropologists and publishing in a book that touches on human evolution only tangentially, seem convinced by it but still state "But the theory is still met with profound skepticism, and needs much more evidence to be thoroughly accepted."
 * We can't rewrite the page because wikipedia editors think the theory is a good one. We write the page according to what most experts think.  Most experts don't even think about it.  The article is not a polemic.  The article accurately describes the state of debate regarding the AAH - it's not accepted, it's a fringe theory, a minorty think it's worth discussing but most experts don't.
 * Yloopx, I'm not sure what version of the page you are looking at. The current version has 29 citations used 58 times.  12 are articles used 32 times, 13 are books used 22 times (or 18 used 40 times if you count each of Morgan's books separately), and 4 are websites used 5 times.  Websites and parity sources are permitted per WP:PARITY as well as the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard (see here).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WLU: Have you really looked at the reference list I presented? Please at least have a skim of the titles, even better, download and read some of them. I can ensure the majority of them cited Hardy, Morgan, Sauer, Cunnane, Broadhurst, or any combination of them.


 * Your above claims can be reached only by ignoring the published sources on the left of my list. The real balance of academic reception, research activities, and evidence support are far from what you've characterized. When you suggested that we should focus on Langdon's paper, perhaps you didn't realize that this paper has only cited 23 times (easily dwarfed by other pro/con sources), or perhaps didn't notice the other good critical sources, like the rebuttals from Raymond Dart and Caroline Pond of Hardy's original thesis back in the 1960's. We don't accept conclusions that is based on only a few selected sources.


 * Yloopx: The article has become even more ridiculous, with now all the specific claims being removed. Perhaps this is a good thing because all the unsupported claims and original research are dropped (unsourced text originally from Jim Moore, counter-claims from sources that don't mention AAH), but in the expense of removing all the details. How can this benefit the readers? I guess this is in fear of leaving the arguments unchallenged... just a guess.


 * The article still have many major problems, the most important being that it doesn't reflect the real academic reception as of today. The overall tone is that the AAH is disputed under all circumstances, but this is done by using low quality sources (blogs, websites, book reviews, student journals) and ignoring the high quality ones (peer-reviewed research papers, edited volumes). Frankly I haven't edited the article much, because I don't know where to start with, and it's "guarded" by somebody who thinks he owns the article. I'm not sure the article can be improved gradually in the current form, or perhaps we need a major reform.... Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 13:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A raw list is of very little help. As I mentioned above, I have serious concerns that many sources don't actually discuss the AAH specifically and thus citing them would be inappropriate per our policy on original research.  Also included in the list are numerous primary sources like this one or this one.  Quotes would be helpful, as would an indication that you actually understand the implications of our policy on original research.  We are not here to argue for the AAH, or point to primary sources we think support it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WLU, you wrote above: “It's been what, 40 years? 60? And in that time, there has been little to no serious scientific scrutiny.” Unfortunately that’s true, and I am more than happy for that to be stated clearly in the article. The fact is though, that the article is about a scientific hypothesis. Now you should know that scientific hypotheses are valid until contradicted by data, experiment or observation. No such contradiction has occurred with the AAH, despite more than 50 years of scientific discovery. Therefore it remains a valid hypothesis and Wikipedia has a duty to treat it as such.
 * You also said “We shouldn't be arguing for the theory,” and I agree, we should simply be relaying to readers what has been hypothesized, by whom, when, and the basic reasoning behind those hypotheses.
 * You also said: “we shouldn't be presenting substance …”. Here I disagree. Surely it is an encyclopedia’s duty to deal with substance. Unfortunately all those web blogs and web sites currently referred to in the article are nothing but unsourced opinion. I have no problem with presenting opposing arguments such as Langdon’s or others that are published in books or journals, but websites and blogs simply don’t belong here.Yloopx (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not how the scientific method is proven. The null hypothesis is assumed.  Theories are not "confirmed" by data, they fail to be disproven.  The AAH isn't magically a valid theory because it hasn't been disproven, it hasn't been tested.  There's an infinite number of potential hypotheses to explain any situation, including but not limited to magic pixies, the power of human dreams, God, demons and selective breeding by transdimensional alien-lizard hybrids who control our leaders and have done so for millions of years.  A hypothesis is not valid until disproven, each test of the hypothesis that fails to disprove it makes it more likely it isn't true, but mere longevity does not magically mean it has merit and is worth exploring.  Light could still propagate through the Ether and all our theories could be wrong, it's just really unlikely at this point.
 * It's not our job to present substance on a mere hypothesis. We don't "tell both sides and let the reader decide".  We're not the press.  We give due weight to the mainstream opinion, which in this case is largely indifferent.  Presenting a whole bunch of speculation and comparative anatomy (most of which have more accepted explanations) then leaving it for the reader to decide is not how it's done.  Merely because a possible evolutionary "just so" story exists doesn't automatically make it valid.  The "savanna hypothesis" is about as valid as the AAH, and about as accepted.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WLU is right, Yloopx. If he hadn't pointed out your flawed view of science, I would have.  But as we have said before, Wiki is not a fourm for debating the merits of this hypothesis or the scientific method.  AAH is not a scientifically accepted hypothesis.  Wiki is not the place to make your case.  This is getting very old that we have to keep repeating the need for people to review WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, and the like.  Dragging these arguments out isn't going to help you win.  Read the policies and guidelines and live by them like the rest of us, please. –  Maky  « talk » 02:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi WLU, you accuse the AAH of “presenting a whole bunch of speculation and comparative anatomy (most of which have more accepted explanations)”. I agree that comparative anatomy is the foundation of AAT, just as it was the foundations of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. There is nothing wrong with comparative data, in fact it forms the basis of most biological sciences. The problem with comparative anatomy occurs when you’re trying to prove that humans evolved on the savanna. As for your claims that proponents present a whole bunch of speculation, and that there are more accepted explanations for human evolution, this is just empty rhetoric as far as I can see. Why don’t you provide some substance, like, for example, what is this assumed null hypothesis you talk of, that explains why humans are naked, have more subcutaneous fat, better diving abilities, the ability to float on their back, large brains, tool use, breath control, external nose etc.Yloopx (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Except the AAH is not the theory of evolution. It keeps getting compared to grand, valid theories that have repeatedly been tested and passed - the AAH has barely been tested. It's exercises in comparative anatomy are flawed, superficial, and often simply incorrect.  The "savanna theory" never really existed, and it's not how paleoanthropologists explain human's divergence from chimps.
 * As I've said repeatedly, we are not a forum for debate, we are not a soapbox for promotion and we can not decide, on our own, what theories are good and promising and what theories are unsupported based on primary sources (no original research). We portray it as it's perceived within the scientific community, which is somewhere between titillating and simply flawed.
 * Have you ever read the criticisms for the AAH's claims? Fat domesticated chimps have the same distribution of body fat as fat humans.  Humans aren't naked (ever seen Robin Williams with his shirt off?), the difference between us and chimps is a matter of hair length and width, not number of follicles.  Our breath control is a result of our forelimbs not being used for locomotion and the corresponding development of speech as a sophisticated form of communication.  Read Langdon's article, and some of the critical articles - many of these features are simply wrong or have alternative explanations.  But again, they don't matter.  The article on creationism doesn't list all the flawed creationist claims.  It doesn't talk about Darwin's deathbed conversion (which was a lie), or the alleged flaws of radiometric dating, or the amount of dust on the moon, or all the other debunked bullshit creationists use to convince their followers.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks WLU, so to sum up the null hypothesis is that humans aren’t naked or fat, and have better breath control because we don’t use our arms to walk on.Yloopx (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's not a discussion forum. Just to note that it seems WLU's knowledge about the AAH is quite limited to a few sources e.g. Langdon's paper and perhaps Jim Moore's website, because the above points are identical to what we found there. Apparently there're many other good sources out there (pro & con) for us to assess the credibility & reception of the AAH. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Laundry list
It is inappropriate to include the "laundry list" of purportedly supporting theories about the AAH. First, it's not accepted by most relevant experts (numerous sources explicitly support this point). Second, nearly every single one of them has an alternative, more accepted explanation. Whenever a proponent proposes a new alleged data point to support the AAH, mainstream scientists almost certainly won't bother rebutting it because they've got real science to do. This presents an imbalance and gives the reader the impression that there is actual support for the theory. We don't "tell both sides and let the reader decide". Our policy on neutrality firmly states that we represent things as they are found and described in the relevant expert community. That community has repeatedly said the AAH is at best interesting but is not a compelling explanation. The list should not be reinserted, any more than we would include and rebut the index to creationist claims found at talk.origins. I've raised this point at the fringe theories noticeboard, here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please notice that the "laundry list" includes all the critical sources, some you've mentioned and some not. It's meant to be a full list to reveal the true balance in the academics, and is way better than the one-sided lists you provided.
 * Have you ever considered any sources that explicitly support the AAH? I suspect not, because you seems haven't search them out, and when presented here, you try to ignore them and keep the usual claims. You should know that both supportive and critical sources are required in assessing the academic reception of a hypothesis/theory. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 06:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No they aren't. We assess the "academic reception of a hypothesis/theory" on the basis of how it is received. Or, in this case, ignored. This isn't as forum for the promotion of hypotheses, theories, or anything else. Palaeoanthropology considers the AAH as wrong, in as much as it considers it at all. So should we. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Why you can say it's ignored when multiple sources can be cited that seriously consider it (e.g. Tobias, Sauer, Niemitz) or even invoke scientific investigations (e.g. Cunnane/Crawford/Broadhurst et al., Stewart, Gislen, Schagatay, Rhŷs Evans)? And why should we only consider palaeoanthropology as the sole relevant discipline while human evolution is a multi-discipline issue, encompassing virtually all areas related to human's present and past? Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 07:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The right way to show that it is influential is to show that it is mentioned in review articles, textbooks and high profile tertiary sources such as handbooks or encyclopedias.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since they reviewed and evaluated at least some aspect of Hardy/Morgan's arguments, aren't they secondary sources for the AAH? WP should utilize mainly secondary sources, as well as primary & tertiary sources a lesser extent. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 02:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We can use secondary sources which refer to the AAH, of course - that is what we want. As for sources which you say "evaluated at least some aspect of Hardy/Morgan's arguments", unless they say they evaluated AAH, they didn't, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand... Do we need such a requirement? Most paleoanthropology textbooks, if they mentioned the AAH, only evaluated a few arguments (perhaps reduced hair or fat tissue) and then dismissed it. Some didn't evaluate at all, just stated that "Most paleoanthropologists rejected it" and then everything is clear. I don't see they fulfil your requirement. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 04:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you cite any paleoanthropology textbooks that actually mentioned the AAH at all? Unless you can, they are of no more relevance to Wikipedia than textbooks that don't mention the Porcine Evolutionary Hypothesis... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that we do not evaluate anything as far as quality of arguments; that is against our policy on original research. Chakazul, your statement that we should use primary sources at all is simply incorrect and indicates a fundamental misunderstanding I have been trying to correct.  We do not evaluate primary sources.  In most cases we do not use them at all.  WP:MEDRS, though not exactly spot-on for this page, contains a very good summary of how we should deal with essentially all scientific topics.  We don't say "X textbook evaluated Y statement about the AAH, but it was wrong".  You must convince the anthropological community of the value of the hypothesis before you convince the wikipedia community.  Wikipedia is not about evaluating the quality of arguments, it's about noting what they are and who said them.  The only time editorial experience and interpretation really comes up is in determining what a reliable source is, how noteworthy the opinion is, and how we summarize it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Opening line
There now seem to be serious problems finding a consensus on the opening line of this article. Several users seem to insist on labeling this idea 'generally unaccepted' (by the scientific community) in the very first sentence.

I hold that this violates Wikipedia's lead standards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LEAD, in terms of presenting a topic from a neutral point of view (NPOV), and merely displays these users' personal distaste for the idea in question.

This is not a proper standard for Encycopledias and is not found in most articles on Wikipedia dealing with what is generally viewed as controversial topics, e.g. 'Intelligent Design' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design, 'Bigfoot' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot etc. Nor is it a standard in presentations of the topic in question in other Encycopledias, e.g. Encycopledia Britannica.

This need to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CEngelbrecht (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Two points. Firstly, there are several sources cited for the AAH being 'generally unaccepted' - indeed, it's supporters themselves have apparently never suggested otherwise. Secondly, your repeated attempts to replace the phrase with the word 'controversial' is highly questionable - where is the evidence for this 'controversy'? The AAH has been dismissed by mainstream palaeoanthropology, and is almost entirely ignored as a subject of serious debate. The lede makes clear what the situation is, based on the sources cited. Contrary to your assertions, 'NPOV' does not imply giving equal weight to all theories, hypotheses, or opinions. I suggest you read WP:NPOV, and in particular take note of this: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief". The suggestion that there is any 'controversy' with regard to the AAH falls firmly into the 'minority views' class, and we should not be suggesting otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And one other thing: I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:3RR - you may very well have already contravened this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A common misconception on wikipedia is that "neutral" means uncritical, positive, conciliatory or "telling both sides". Echoing Andy, it does not.  Neutral means "as discussed by experts, as demonstrated in reliable sources".  It is the opinions of scholars, as explicitly found in scholarly journals and volumes, that matter - not what editors think.  This is a general misunderstanding that is currently responsible for most of the activity and problems on the AAH page these days.  The lead for intelligent design explicitly labels it as a form of creationism with no credible scientific evidence or debate (i.e. there's no controversy to teach).  Ditto the lead for bigfoot which explicity states the mainstream scientific position (at best, "interesting").
 * If you want to know what the standard is for wikipedia, you need to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and guidelines as actually interpreted by the community, not by what you want, or assume them to be. You might have a case that the changes are based on personal distaste, were it not for the large number of references that explicitly verify the fact that the AAH is not accepted.  You may think this is terrible and unjust - wikipedia doesn't care.  Feel free to research and publish in scientific venues until you change the opinion of the scientific community.  At that point, we will document the change.  We will not anticipate it or advocate for such a change.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the best single-line description is -- "The AAH is a controversial scientific hypothesis on human evolution, largely dismissed and criticized in the paleoanthropological / anthropological circle, but has generated limited yet non-neglectable academic interests and investigations in other fields".
 * The sentences like "generally unaccepted" or "generally not accepted in the scientific communty" conceals the fact that it's considered plausible by relevant experts (e.g. evolutionary nutritionists, archaeologists, physiologists) and even some paleoanthropologists (Tobias, Groves, Niemitz, Stewart, Joordens, etc) Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 06:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your version wildly overstates the level of support for AAH within the scientific community, per undue weight, GEVAL. It is a clwear attempt to massage the facts to put a spin on the proponents position. The "generally not accepted" statement is correct. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The previous version ("generally not accepted in the scientific community") extrapolates the opinions of one scientific circle (paleoanthropology) into the whole scientific community. All the sources given have unambiguously point to the rejection in this particular field. Please provide sources to prove otherwise.
 * It also conceals the limited academic interests from outside paleoanthropology, especially underwater archaeology and evolutionary nutrition. The word "limited" is used here to reveal the amount of interests -- minor yet non-negligible. Please provide sources to prove otherwise (that they are negligible).
 * I insist this change because WP should present verifiable claims, not the popular viewpoints. Due weight doesn't support the use of unverifiable or false claims here. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 12:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Chakazul, that read horribly. We shouldn't have an apology for the hypothesis before we even say what the hypothesis is!
 * Also, I removed the refs, which were starting to clutter up the lead and were only there because of the edit war, which is inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So I changed "scientific community" (unverifiable) to "paleoanthropology" (verifiable), is it better? My standpoint is that it shouldn't be portraited better than it should, and certainly not worse. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 16:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No. That greatly understates the level of rejection. Also, you are coming very close to advocacy and POV pushing. Considering your COI, I advise you to back away from the fence. Respect consensus, and allow time for other users to comment on your proposals on the talk page BEFORE you make changes to the article. When you make changes BEFORE you get consensus, you send the message that you don't care about consensus or the opinions of your fellow editors. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Having taught college level Human Evolution recently (doing it again over the summer) I can testify that this hypothesis is not mentioned in any of the many text books I have looked at. This highly suggests that this is considered a non-note worthy fringe theory by the scientific community. Paleoanthropology is the scientific community as far as hypotheiss about human evolutionary origins go.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Textbooks are among the best sources to address questions of weight. They are by nature designed to present the best developed ideas and theories, and only the most prominent controversies.  If textbooks aren't citing the AAH, that indicates it's really, really not on the radar of the relevant experts.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, if you can't find Gaia Hypothesis, Gestural Origin of Language, or RNA World Hypothesis in textbooks, should we conclude that they're rejected and ignored? Or just mean that they're too recent or representing ideas from "outsiders"?
 * My detailed reply is in the next section. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 21:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter for wikipedia purposes. We'll let time decide which theories gain support later. At present AAH is flatly rejected.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please show us published source(s) which state that the AAH has been rejected by the whole scientific community. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 02:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its in the same book where Astrophysicists reject the hypothesis that the moon is made of green cheese...And where historians reject the hypothesis that skeletons fought in the Battle of thermopylae. If it doesn't appear in reviews or in textbooks it has been rejected through by silence. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes - this is a ridiculous argument. If you want to claim that the AAH has scientific credibility, it is up to you to provide the evidence. Or have you never heard of the null hypothesis? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I really mean, please provide sources for the case of AAH, or else it's an unverifiable claim. There's a huge difference between silence and rejection, and there's never silence about AAH in both popular and scientific arenas. Also see the section below that the academics is no longer silent. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 03:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "There's a huge difference between silence and rejection". Possibly. But what kind of argument is that? I once met someone who was convinced that Homo sapiens was descended from the Suidae family. He put up some good arguments: relative hairlessness? Yup. Omnivorous diet? Yup. High levels of intelligence? Yup. Complex social behaviour? Yup. High levels of subcutaneous fat? Yup. And as he pointed out, in many scientific experiments, our porcine cousins have provided excellent analogues for H. sapiens - in forensic science for instance, they are used to demonstrate everything from the effect of gunshot wounds to the rate of decay of corpses in differing environments. Has mainstream science ever rejected this unorthodox take on the theory of evolution? I very much doubt it. Instead, it has remained silent... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The Homo-Suidae connection is very interesting indeed, but has it generated any academic interests, investigations, or even controversy? None. That's the difference. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 04:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a great deal of difference between 'none', and 'almost nothing at all' - unless one is trying to compile an online encyclopaedia, based on (as far as scientific subjects are concerned), currently-accepted mainstream science, in which case, the difference is rather beside the point. Mainstream science considers the AAH as fringe, in as much as it considers it at all. Convince it/them, and you'll have no problems convincing us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that until quite recently, the lead didn't say "the scientific community rejected the AAH", it said two things - that the AAH was "generally unaccepted", and that the few peer reviewed discussions have been critical. I don't think "rejected" is the right word or adjective to use; though the impact on the wikipedia page is the same, a fairer description is "not accepted". The ether theory of the propagation of light is rejected, as is the "plum pudding" model of the atom. String theory is being explored. Plasma cosmology on the other hand, is basically ignored and unresearched - like the AAH.

I think rejected is too strong a term, but casually discarded in favour of more empirically supported hypotheses is propos. But again, the implications are the same - the AAH page should still give due weight to the mainstream positions of human evolution. I think Manus' adjustment to the lead here, adding the mainstream narrative concerning hominen evolution, is an excellent one that should be sourced and expanded in the body as recommended by WP:UNDUE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Tag
Is the multiple issues tag still needed? I don't think so and support its removal. The lead section now seems to summarize the article and the neutrality seems adequate. There appears to be a broad consensus from the experienced editors that the current page is OK, and that adding further text to promote the idea or attempt to "prove" it would be undue weight or require original research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to read the whole article, but the lead tag can go. – Maky  « talk » 14:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that 20kb of POV text was inserted into the article immediately after this exchange.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Raised this at Jimbo's page
See User_talk:Jimbo Wales where I mentioned this article as the latest of ones like this that have concerned me where articles are gutted of content or deleted because they are not mainline. Dmcq (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hypothesis material
I have removed the material reinserted by SamueltheGhost. It gives undue weight to pro-AAH viewpoint relative to the mainstream views. It seems to contain synthesis (such as the section on swimming ability). And it is not neutral in that it seems to be clearly more favorably disposed towards AAH than its general standing within mainstream science warrants. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been reinserted. Please note that I did not write it; it is material that had been in the article for a year or more until arbitrarily deleted, without consensus, recently. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but I don't agree with Maunus's description of it either. The important thing is that the arguments put forward in favour of the AAH need to be made known to the reader in some factually accurate form, however wrong those arguments may be. Otherwise it's censorship. A core principle of wikipedia is NPOV. That means we provide facts, including the main published opinions, but we keep our own opinions out of it. Readers can make ther own minds up, and we should not be trying to control how they do it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a misrepresentation of wikipedia policies that doesn't take into account WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. In articles about fringe topics fringe viewpoints still only get the amount of coverage that they merit relative to the mainstream. This content is ludicrously biased in favor of the fringe theory and only tangentially mentions the mainstream view - sometimes even openly casting it into doubt. Wikipedia is not the medium for providing extended media coverage of fringe science as has been established in multiple arbcom decisions by now - this has absilutely nothing to do with censorship but about writing an encyclopedia and not a laundry list of rejected hypotheses.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said before, my view is solidly based on WP:NPOV. AAH is a credible but perhaps excessively vague hypothesis (which I see as one of the strongest arguments against it), unsupported by direct evidence, which has not won general support from the professionals in the field. The AAH is not mentioned in the human evolution article, but you seem to be saying that "articles about fringe topics", as you describe this one, should not be about this "fringe topic" either. If the AAH is not to be discussed at all, you should be listing this article at wp:AfD. Meanwhile where there are good counter-arguments for the points raised, they can be given. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And removed again. The length of time that something has been present is not a measure of it's quality.  And it looks like there are several people who outright disagree with its presence.  Making the "arguments for" the AAH so the "reader can make up their mind" is inappropriate advocacy in my opinion.  Those arguments are often presented in nonscholarly sources by nonscholars.  Further, within the anthropological community, they aren't accepted as explanations for those features and the AAH overall has had very little impact.  That is, in my mind, the weight we should be giving and representing.  It's not censorship to remove it, it's soapboxing to include it.  To claim we should include the arguments even knowing they are wrong is a disservice to the reader.  Should we include the minute details on the Apollo moon landing hoax page?  The AAH is not credible, this is quite obvious given the lack of serious discussion beyond a tiny minority of proponents and its absolute lack of presence in anthropology texts and secondary sources except to note that it is not taken seriously.  We have multiple sources that explicitly state it's not a serious theory, that raise it only to dismiss it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. The material removed was a prime example of synthesis and article overload. It was entirely reasonable to remove it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are good arguments for the Apollo moon landing alternative narrative (about which I know nothing), they ought to be in the article, so that I can judge their quality for myself. If there are any such half-way convincing arguments, and they have been deliberately omitted, that's a breach of NPOV and an insult to me as reader. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That depends who's 'good arguments' they are. If they are nothing but arguments in favour of the conspiracy, backed up by sources that don't actually refer to it at all, they don't. That is synthesis. In any case, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an exhaustive collection of every statement from every 'reliable source' referring (or not actually referring) to article topics. We are here to summarise, not to analyse - and the deleted material seemed to be engaging in far too much of the latter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is OK to give a short description of the arguments - that does seem to be a reasonable way of describing what the hypothesis is about - which is one of the aims of the article. But it should be presented in a way so that it is perfectly clear what the mainstream view is on each point. And it should not contain any synthesis of the kind that is currently there. It doesn't matter if the arguments are wrong (lots of interesting theories of the past we wouldn't be able to write about then) - what matters is that it is clear to the reader what the mainstream view point is. The problem with the hypothesis by the way is mainly that it is not supported by the fossil evidence and that it is a single cause hypothesis of a kind which is simply unable to explain the complex patterns we now know characterizes human evolution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maunus says "I think it is OK to give a short description of the arguments". So let's see your proposed text. We could easily achieve consensus if all editors would actually seek it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is having any list invariably invites people to expand it with more and more minor points. Plus, to adhere to WP:FRINGE we have to give the mainstream explanation for each point, which can lead to original research if the link isn't explicit, or undue weight if the mainstream explanation isn't presented (as in someone can read an unrebutted point and conclude that the AAH has some validity because there's no mainstream rebuttal; it's the tactic used by creationists, to great success among the uneducated).  I would suggest just including the most prominently-listed features, i.e. "...such as lack of body hair, bipedalism and the human distribution of body fat.  Each of these explanations have a more mainstream explanation that is considered more credible by mainstream anthropologists."  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we could have somewhat more than that. Basically I think we can have a lot of detail as long as the presentation is balanced all round, does not include SYNTH or OR, and does not leave the reader with the wrong impression.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please outline these ‘more credible’ explanations. Why are humans bipedal? Why do human infants lack fur? Why are human infants so fat compared to other primates? Then perhaps you can explain the mainstream explanation as to why humans can float on their backs, dive for minutes at a time, and to depths no other primate has ever even got close to.Yloopx (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to educate you about the mainstream views of human evolutionary history - you can find that information by reading any textbook on the topic. This talkpage is for discussing how to write the page - not for soapboaxing for your favorite hypothesis.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You earlier wrote, “what matters is that it is clear to the reader what the mainstream view point is.” I’m interested in what you believe the mainstream view of human evolution is. Why are humans bipedal, naked and fat? Quote from a textbook if you like. Yloopx (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bipedality is generally attributed to the need to carry tools or food and more efficient terrestrial locomotion - there are several commonly cited hypotheses suc as the "sharing hypothesis", another is about thermoregulation etc. the most common ones are summarized here Bipedality - wading is not among the most commonly cited hypotheses for explaining bipedality. Hairlessness is usually attributed to thermoregulation as well and connected to the development of sweatglands - the most common hypotheses are described here Hair(this one has a paragraph on AAH - that does not reflect what I have seen in most recent textbooks that do not mention the aquatic hypothesis). I don't remember of any specific hypothesis for subcutaneous fat - but I know that some of the reviews of the AAH deny that this is even a general characteristic of the genus homo. I am not at home right now, but if you insist I will be happy to provide quotes from the textbooks I have that don't mention AAH with as much as a line.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that’s informative. The two links you provided showed a number of possible explanations for bipedalism and nakedness, and both included the AAH. That’s exactly my point. There is no single accepted model, but instead a range of possible alternative explanations, including the AAH. All I, and a number of other editors, are asking is that the AAH be treated on Wikipedia as a possible hypothesis explaining human evolution, which it is. Of course it is not universally accepted, but as your links demonstrate, nor is any other single explanation of human evolution.Yloopx (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a possible hypothesis for sure. Its just not one that most experts consider probable or supported by evidence - to the degree that most serious reviews don't even consider them. That is what the article must make clear.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. Evolution can't be explained by single factors. Self-evident, to all but those who wish to find all-encompassing 'hypothesises', rather than understanding complex processes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The single factor of natural selection does a pretty good job of explaining the origin of species, but that doesn't mean the evolution of species is not a complex process. That humans were more aquatic in the past (AAH) explains perfectly well why humans are different in so many profound ways to other primates, but it’s far from a simple explanation if one wants to fully understand the mechanisms and processes involved. Yloopx (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if mainstream scientists couldn't resolve every single claim made by the AAH through a conventional explanation, that doesn't mean the AAH is right. The AAH does not "win" by default if there is no mainstream explanation, that's a logical fallacy (specifically false dilemma, which assumes that there are only two possible answers - either the AAH or the savanna hypothesis, itself a straw-man set up by AAH proponents to make their own arguments look better). Yloopx, if you think single factors explain human evolution, you need to read Lagndon's article which addresses the AAH as one example of an "umbrella hypothesis" in which multiple adaptations are explained by single factors. Such umbrella hypotheses are logically compelling, but essentially considered wrong. Again, you are ignoring that we must give due weight to the scholarly majority. Pages are based on the number of convinced experts, not the number of convinced editors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I never once said the AAH is right because there are no better alternatives. My point is that this article, and a number of editors here, have continuously claimed that the traits posited by proponents of the AAH, are better explained by alternative models. But when challenged, nobody ssems to be able to articulate those alternative models. This leads me to think this is an assumption rather than a fact, and I think this is a significant point in terms of the tone of the article. Yloopx (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What you think is irrelevant. The scientific position is clear - the AAH has been rejected by mainstream palaeoanthropology, and that is what our article will say. This isn't a forum for us to 'explain' why, to people who refuse to work within Wikipedia guidelines, and neither is it a place to engage in original research. If you wan't to debate the issue, do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This[African Genesis: Perspectives on Hominin Evolution. Sally C. Reynolds, Andrew Gallagher. Cambridge University Press, Mar 31, 2012] anthology of chapters written by well respected paleo-anthropologists goes into a great degree of detail on ecological issues in human evolution and it doesn't seem to mention Morgan or AAH. The Chapter by De Ruiter et all uses a model to show that environments with partially water dependent fauna have a greater ratio of hominins than environments with many highly water dependent animals. The main argument seems to be that hominids evolved in an "environmental Mosaic" with a bit of everything. This makes sense when considering that it is a process of several million years in a period when African climates was fluctuating rather heavily. (their argument is about Robust australopithecines specifically but some of it is likely to extend)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What needs to happen here

 * 1) Everyone who considers themselves a proponent of AAH or similar hypotheses needs to step back and realize that one does not revolutionize science by eiting wikipedia but by publishing in professional journals. Wikipedia is not here to change the way the AAH has been received by mainstream science but to reflect how it has been received by mainstream science.
 * 2) Everyone who is at this point so annoyed at the blatant attempt at astroturfing this hypothesis that they can't remember the main points of WP:FRINGE (specifically "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea', which must meet the test of notability.") and WP:NPOV should step back and realize that the article can describe the AAH theory without endorsing it and that that is what we should aim for.
 * 3) Then the article should be written with a description of the literature on the topic (both literature published in peer reviewed journals and in self published ones) without giving the appearance that this is a generally accepted hypothesis or that it should be. This is surely possible as long as steps 1 and 2 are followed first. It should describe the arguments of the hypothesis while noting that mainstream paleoanthropology does not consider AAH to adequately explain any of the phenomena it claims to explain or that it has any support in the fossil record. It is that simple.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The hypothesis is simple - water drove human evolution. The alleged "evidence" is the more complicated and contested parts.  Which particular pieces of "evidence"?  How many pieces?  From what sources?  How do we deal with the moving goalposts for each new bit of evidence?  Do new claims about nutrition count?  What's the line between describing the evidence and advocating the hypothesis, particularly given criticisms of the theory are that it's more description and comparative anatomy than hypothesis testing?  I don't mind having some of the major claims included, briefly, but I don't want a massive list that spends more time rebutting than it does making the claim.
 * I think as basic grounds rules for this sort of conversation, we can exclude any source that does not discuss the AAH specifically. I further propose we only include claims for which there is a response. And how about a final ground rule of a maximum of three sentences per claim, to keep things brief?  I see no value added in having 24,000 characters worth of "AAH says this, but the actual explanation is seen as this, this, this, this, this and this, and also this".  My preference is still to leave the list out completely but an abbreviated list is tooth-grindingly reasonable.  May I suggst a brief section restricted to bipedalism, loss of fur and the newer claim of fat and dietary consumption?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "I further propose we only include claims for which there is a response" is really rather amusing when you look at it logically. If "claim" is meant to be any disputable statement, then we need an infinite chain of responses before anything can be included. If "claim" means only arguments in support of the AAH, it means that weaker arguments will be included but stronger arguments must be omitted. That's NPOV indeed! SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think of a short list of three claims - perhaps bipedalism, hairlessness and diet? I believe these are representative, while still allowing for a mainstream reply for each one.  Having the full list seems excessive, particularly given the overall theory is not accepted.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This might be a basis for progress, if extended to include conscious control of breathing and speech, which have certainly figured large in some of Elaine Morgan's works. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If we include those four points, including rebuttals, is that adequate? What about length?  There would need to be consensus that such a limited list was adequate, otherwise it'll creep back up to a dozen increasingly dubious entries.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to create a draft. We can't ask editors to agree in advance to something they haven't seen. We could ask Vsmith to unprotect, or put a draft together on a subpage somewhere. There's still plenty of scope to argue about the details, but this might work. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets try a subpage for the sake of good order: Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Draft.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, suggested section below, move it to a subpage if you like. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reception in the scientific community
In reply to Dominus, for sure we should not understate the level of rejection, but also not overstate it. The open statement claimed that it's "generally not accepted in the scientific community", but note that all published sources cited so far has indicated the rejection in paleoanthropology & anthropology (sometimes paleontology) and never the "scientific community". Claiming such is both unverifiable and untrue.

Here I'll demonstrate the limited yet non-negligible academic interests by referring to high quality sources:

Evolutionary Nutrition -- The idea that aquatic food sources have driven the evolution of human brain is influential (still debatable) in this field, as indicated by these peer-reviewed papers & published works with good citation indexes (according to Google Scholar). All of them referenced and supported Hardy/Morgan's hypothesis.
 * Crawford MA, Marsh D (1989) The driving force: food, evolution and the future. Harpercollins. [cited by 85]
 * Crawford MA (1992) The role of dietary fatty acids in biology: their place in the evolution of the human brain. Nutrition Reviews 50 (4): 3–11. [cited by 88]
 * Broadhurst CL, Cunnane SC, Crawford MA (1998) Rift Valley lake fish and shellfish provided brain-specific nutrition for early Homo. British Journal of Nutrition 79: 3-21. [cited by 175]
 * Cunnane SC, Crawford MA (2003) Survival of the fattest: fat babies were the key to evolution of the large human brain. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology - Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 136 (1): 17–26. [cited by 69]
 * Cunnane SC (2005) Survival of the fattest: the key to human brain evolution. World Scientific. [cited by 39]

2 highly-cited sources in the same line of argument have generated published debates with experts like Loren Cordain, Janette Brand-Miller, John Langdon (contradict the belief that "nothing is going on")
 * Crawford MA, Bloom M, Broadhurst CL, Schmidt WF, Cunnane SC, Galli C, Gehbremeskel K, Linseisen F, Lloyd-Smith J, Parkington J (1999) Evidence for the unique function of docosahexaenoic acid during the evolution of the modern hominid brain. Lipids 34 (Supplement 1): S39-S47. [cited by 168]
 * Broadhurst CL, Wang Y, Crawford MA, Cunnane SC, Parkington J, Schmidt WF (2002) Brain-specific lipids from marine, lacustrine, or terrestrial food resources: potential impact on early African Homo sapiens. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 131 (4): 653–673. [cited by 157]

Also an edited volume with 11 chapters by 12 scientists, explicitly supported Hardy/Morgan throughout the volume
 * Cunnane SC, Stewart KM (eds.) (2010) Human Brain Evolution: The Influence of Freshwater and Marine Food Resources. Wiley-Blackwell.

Coastal / Underwater Archaeology -- There's an emerging paradigm that (1) aquatic food sources were important to hominins, and (2) Homo sapiens exploited marine resources as a major focus from the time of early evolution. This is often discussed in concordence with the above nutrition theory. Bailey's works referenced Hardy/Morgan, and Erlandson's works to Sauer(1962) which in turn supported Hardy.
 * Stewart KM, Stevens NJ, Robbins LH (1994) Early Hominid Utilisation of Fish Resources and the Implications for Seasonality and Behaviour. Journal of Human Evolution 27 (1–3): 229–245. [cited by 60]
 * Joordens JCA, Wesselingh FP, de Vos J, Vonhof HB, Kroon D (2009) Relevance of aquatic environments for hominins: a case study from Trinil (Java, Indonesia). Journal of Human Evolution, 57 (6): 656-671. [cited by 20]
 * Erlandson JM (2001) The Archaeology of Aquatic Adaptations: Paradigms for a New Millennium. Journal of Archaeological Research 9 (4): 287-350. [cited by 169]
 * Bailey GN, Parkington J (eds.) (1988) The archaeology of prehistoric coastlines. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1. [cited by 60]
 * Bailey GN (2004) World prehistory from the margins - the role of coastlines in human evolution. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in History and Archaeology 1 (1): 39-50. [cited by 20]
 * Bailey GN, Flemming NC, King GCP, Lambeck K, Momber G, Moran LJ, Al-Sharekhf A, Vita-Finzig C (2007) Coastlines, submerged landscapes, and human evolution: the Red Sea Basin and the Farasan Islands. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 2 (2): 127-160. [cited by 24]

Again an edited volume with 20 chapters by 40 scientists, provided evidence updates to the above theories in nutrition and archaeology
 * Bicho NF, Haws JA, Davis LG (eds.) (2012) Trekking the Shore - Changing Coastlines and the Antiquity of Coastal Settlement. Springer.

Note that not all experts agree with them, e.g. Curtis Marean thinks that the early use of marine resources is a product of the already enlarged human brain.

I've gone a great length to show that there are academics interests and investigations surrounding some of the AAH's arguments, and the corresponding evolutionary theories have been gaining influences in those fields. It's interesting to note that they may not be the central arguments in AAH, but they're the most promising to be verified/falsified by scientific method.

This real situation is contradicting the opening sentence, the overall tone of the article, and the "undue weight" used. We should be surprised why the above supports are not mentioned (or not allowed to be mentioned) in the article. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 21:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Investigations surrounding AAH's arguments do not support the theory except if those investigations explicitly say that they are investigating the hypothesis. Just saying that aquatic food may have been important for early diets does not necessarily support AAH, except through WP:SYNTH. Any undue weight in this article is given to the hypothesis itself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The title of the article does explicitly say that it is investigating the hypothesis. To give any less weight than it now has would reduce it to saying that there is an AAH and it's WRONG WRONG WRONG, but avoiding any factual information about it at all. This does appear to be what some of the editors on this page want. A bit of an insult to the intelligence really. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which article? And no - it is WRONG WRONG WRONG to use wikipedia as a tool for boosting hypotheses thata re not currently considered feasible by the scientific community.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:SYNTHESIS. Sources that don't say they support the AAH cannot be used as evidence that the AAH is supported. This is getting more ridiculous by the minute. Why the hell would anyone trying to promote a serious scientific hypothesis spend their time discussing the content of Wikipedia articles? If it is science, prove it. Get it published in credible science journals.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No "aquatic ape" in the title doesn't mean it's not about the AAH. As I've stated clearly, the sources above cited Hardy/Morgan or Sauer(1962), reviewed at least some of their arguments, and explicitly supported them. Those works in evolutionary nutrition (cited Hardy/Morgan) are further reviewed and recognized by the archaeology sources (themselves cited Hardy/Morgan/Sauer). They're all legitimate secondary sources on the AAH, no WP:SYNTH or WP:OR is involved. What else do I need to clarify? Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are conducting WP:original research in pursuit of the WP:TRUTH instead of adhering to our policy of WP:VERIFIABILITY. Rather than finding a source which discusses the degree of acceptance of the AAH, you are are gauging it yourself based on your interpretation of the primary sources using your own criteria. That is a waste of time, yours and ours. We leave that to regognized INDEPENDENT experts, and use what they conclude in reliable independent secondary sources. Sorry, but you are engaging in promotion and advocacy, as I and others have pointed out. You simply do not have the necessary professional and emotional distance from the subject to make objective judgements. You have a major case of not listening to the arguments of your fellow editors, apparently because you do not consider them of any value compared to your own expert opinion. See WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE.
 * I again strongly advise you to back off and let uninterested editors deal with the subject of the level of support. As an involved supporter, you are unlikely to make a useful contribution. You're being disruptive, and are rapidly heading for a block. Snap out of it and go edit in an area in which you are not so personally and professionally involved. For my part, I have never even looked at a WP article related to my research, or at any single WP article related to the whole field of microbiology in general, for that matter. I know that if I did, I would get so caught up in correcting all the mistakes that I would lose perspective, lose patience, and end up getting blocked. I suggest you do the same, for your own peace of mind. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been making these points for a while now. Chakazul, you have to understand the mores and rules of the community before you can edit controversial topics.  One of those rules, expressed in thumb-form, is you can't use a source on the page unless there is something in the source that more or less matches the page's title.  If a topic doesn't use the words "aquatic ape", it's almost certainly irrelevant for the aquatic ape hypothesis page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Dominus: It sounds pretty rude to me, and is some kind of personal attack. I didn't expect to read these here.
 * Anyway, to me it has started to be some kind of disillusionment -- I should have realized that here is not a place to treasure information quality, when sources like amateur websites, blog posts are valued much above published / peer-reviewed ones (interestingly, when citing materials from Medical Hypotheses or Bentham, they're challenged as not peer-reviewed). Nor is it a place for pure reasoning, but more of popular believes / personal opinions defended by WP policies. I'm certain that most of the WP is a good place for knowledge accumulation for the humankind (as least as a working draft), but I've seen all those discouraging things in this article. (Excuse me to express my personal feelings here!)
 * Perhaps I've gone too far in my arguments and challenging too many assumptions. Or I should care less about how AAH is protraited here, whether "it's pseudoscience" or "taken seriously by no one". It really doesn't matter. Thanks for WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE, I'll take a break now :) Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 15:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please don't ever compare those who take AAH seriously with Creationists or ID believers -- it's an immense insult to the scientists who took the burden to search and excavate the rare coastal sites, who went underwater in hope of finding anything, who studied the remote coastal peoples in the middle of nowhere... Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 15:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Everybody runs out of patience eventually; the experienced editors have heard these arguments many times before on this page and on other pages. It gets frustrating.  Compared to most heated discussions involving single purpose accounts promoting fringe theories, this one has been pretty calm.  The issue you're not getting is that we are about verifiability, not truth.  For our purposes, it doesn't matter if the AAH is correct - what matters is that it's pretty clear it's not seen as a powerful or useful theory in the field.  Trust that if the anthropological community changes its mind, if we start seeing serious, lengthy discussions of the AAH in tertiary sources and review articles, the page will change.  Part of the problem is the very definition of the AAH.  You seem to think that any interaction with water (including just eating fish or aquatic plants) is part of the AAH; I see that as at best a tangent.  Who is right?  It's hard to say, and it's harder to do what we really need to do - verify the text using a reliable source.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that (a big) part of the problem is the very definition of the so-called (ironically labelled) 'aquatic ape hypothesis'. This is why some of us have gone to a lot of effort over several years to redefine it and relabel it. This is, for me, the main message in the eBook that the "experienced editors" here have been determined to keep out of this WP page. Note the title: Was Man More Aquatic in The Past? 50 Years After Hardy: Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution. Note the chapter (6) in the book, specifically on this subject, by Elaine Morgan and I that ends... "Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan." Kuliukas & Morgan (2011:118) I have run out of patience trying to get the editors here to see reason. If the very proponents of the idea are not even allowed to state what it is, what is the point? Algis Kuliukas (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that if you are trying to relabel the hypothesis, then you don't do it on Wikipedia. Publish your work in peer reviewed journals, give your hypothesis a distinctive name ("Wading Hypothesis", I presume), and maybe someday it will merit its own article, making reference to previous work started with the original AAH.  But again, the point is that you don't do your original research on Wikipedia. –  Maky  « talk » 03:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We did so in the book. It was peer reviewed as much as most scientific books are. The label is Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution, like I just stated (twice). But the "experienced editors" here are determined that this book, written by proponents and some authorities of paleoanthropology such as Phillip Tobias, does not count. Frustrating. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course the book counts, and it should be included as a source, but it doesn't show that the ideas have been generally accepted. You are clearly aware that the hypothesis gets short shrift in textbook and mainstream sources - its just not considered part of the mainstream explanations of evolution at this point. Wikipedia is not here to change that - it should clearly reflect what is the current mainstream. But once you are able to generate more scientific interest and the theory starts getting mentioned in textbooks and review articles then we can start giving it more attention here. At this point it is important that the reader who reads this article is made aware of the low degree of acceptance that the theory currently has, and what the mainstream view is. We can give detailed information about the Wading hypothesis/AAH in so far as it doesn't mislead the reader into believing that the hypothesis is generally accepted or try to boost its credibility relative to other hypotheses.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to read that you think it counts. Some of the "experienced editors" here should take that on board. No-one is claiming that the book, or anything else for that matter, shows it has been generally accepted. Those who regard themselves as proponents know this better than anyone. All we are trying to do here is accurately report what the damned thing is to the general public. Some of us just went to a lot of trouble to write a scholarly, scientific book in order to help do that so please understand our frustration that the (perhaps understandable) determination of a few others not to give the idea any undue credence has led them to effectively blocking reporting the latest text on the subject. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All you are trying to do here is promote your own non-peer reviewed, vanity published e-book that has not yet even been commented on by scientists in the relevant field and promote your own theories and research. Wikipedia is definitely the wrong place for this. Please find another venue for your self-promotion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as it is published by scholars I think it is possible to include it - we do routinely include use selfpublished papers by scholars as sources for their own views - just like a blog post can be used as a source for the authors views. It can of course not be used to establish anything about the overall standing of the hypothesis since its publications involves no approval of a scientific community.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Self-published, unreviewed works by scholars are basically worthless unless they have been substantially discussed within the mainstream scholarly community, and not just in a tiny walled garden of fringe proponents. This e-book has not yet been commented upon, so there is no evidence that it is part of mainstream scholarly discourse among recognized experts in the field. As such, it carries no weight. Please read the EXTENSIVE discussion about this source on this talk page (which includes the better part of Archive 4) before trying to resurrect a deadhorse argument. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is wrong and policy no where says that selfpublished sources cannot be used for establishing views of their publishers - especially if the authors are experts or otherwise notable. There is also no rule that they must have been commented on - or that it has to be part of the mainstream. In fact such a requirement would make it impossible to have articles on minority viewpoints. I don't care about an extensive argument if it is not grounded in policy. WP policy quite clearly allows certain uses of selfpublished sources and this is one of those. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:SELFPUB "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field,"·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT covers this. A self-published source that hasn't yet generated any interest in the mainstream scholarly community is of no interest to us, either. The views of even recognized experts in self-published sources are irrelevant unless they are part of serious scholarly discourse on the subject. Once other scientist read this book and start commenting on it, those views may become relevant. But until then, they cannot be taken seriously, espcially since the authors and editors themselves didn't take them seriously enough to publish in a legitimate outlet for scientific ideas with real peer review. Please read the previous discussion. Besides, your quote is irrelevant, as we are not talking about using the sources for information about the authors themselves, but about scientific reasearch. Their research is irrelvant until they publish it in a legitimate peer-reviewed outlet or until it has been commented upon by their peers in the mainstream scientific community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You continue to misrepresent the policy - it clearly also covers representing views not just sources about the authors, but about their views. And weight does not require that others have commented on it no. It requires that we don't present its conclusions as representative of anything others than the group of scholars who wrote it. You are simply misapplying policy here in order to force a misguided view of how WP should treat fringe topics. There is no basis in policyfor completely leaving out large sources by proffessional scholars treating the topic of an article just because it is selfpublished.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But is is NOT self-published. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you and the other contributors have to pay the publisher to have it published? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No. This is just a cheap slur that some "experienced editors" at WP keep repeating. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be vanity publishing, not self publishing. Mr. Kuliukas's colleague, Dr. Vaneechoutte, explained the situation, and no, they did not pay. In fact, they seem to have gotten ripped off. Their book is self-published because Bentham takes no editorial responsibility for the ebooks they publish, leaving that completely to the authors or editors of the books themselves, in this case Messers. Kuliukas, Vaneechoutte and Verhaegen. They are effectively the publishers, and Bentham is basically just a website where their work is posted, and can be read for a fee (you have to "buy" the e-book). Messers. Kuliukas, Vaneechoutte and Verhaegen get a share of the sales, or, at least, are supposed to. Bentham keeps the rest. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is neither self-publishied, nor vanity published. This is what it is - it is a scientifically written, academic book, written by the the proponents of the idea to try to update the public with what the idea is. Terrible, isn't it? Judging by Vobisdu's definition above - how many scientific books are not "self-published"? I find it astonishing that this guy (Vobisdu) appears to be some kind of authority here. Who is he? (Expect this to be censored away from the discussion by another "experienced editor") Algis Kuliukas (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)