Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Aquatic ape hypothesis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

I had a problem with one of the illustrations here as detailed in the previous section, but a bunch of people have descended on it and removed all of them without discussion. The last says 'one edit is not edit warring and this is the last stable version so per WP:BRD this is the one we go with while talk page discussion commences' but it is obvious that is not so if one looks at the history pager, most of those illustrations have been there and never removed in the last few months at least before today. Perhaps some of these people could say why they have suddenly turned up? And what is the reasoning for removing all illustrations? Dmcq (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It's at ANI. Also, the three tags just added all mention discussion. It would help if the editor adding those tags actually discussed their objections to specific content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains it. I wish one of them at least had contributed to the discussion here. Dmcq (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've argued for removal (of some images) at ANI. I think a few images - perhaps the first two - could be argued to be a positive, but the rest seem pointless. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't object overly to cutting out the more obvious ones. I think the baby in the water one is a good illustration for the overall topic. Dmcq (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the baby one is fine, and I'd drop the gorilla one down to the "hypothesis" section (where it also illustrates bipedalism). I can't see any point in the others. The horse, deer, shower and swimming ones are simply ridiculous. Black Kite (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Dmcq: I've removed all images before, but persistent advocates keep adding them back. As several others have pointed out, at least the majority of these "illustrations" are unecyclopedic. As Engelbrecht himself pointed out on ANI, most of them are used to "illustrate" various arguments and could be used in a lot of articles to "make a point". (Here is an example from The Guardian: Aquatic apes are the stuff of creationism, not evolution (Don't miss the elephant joke at the end.)) None of them addequately explain AAH. For this reason, neither the baby nor the gorilla belong here. There are illustrations online that specifically illustrates AAH. Get one or wait for one.

Per WP:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, [...]"

--Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That others persist in putting in images and you persist in removing them is evidence of slow edit warring, nothing else. So some people agree with you and others disagree with you, that shows very little of use. Pointed out is simply emphasising your side. I know the hypothesis is not mainline, it is hardly creationism but even it it were I fail to see the relevance. As to a lead image the article you pointed to at the Guardian shows exactly that type image, so fulfills your requirement that the lead image be representative of the type used not thhat that is required, it is simply a guideline. Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Dmcq: It's not "that type of image", it's the same image, used in the same "illustrative" purpose. Did you even try to see the irony in the Guardian? Are you saying Wikipedia guidelines don't apply to this article? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So what's the problem if they though it was okay as an illustration? Does the irony content mean you can use the article to support whatever you like but it can't be used for anything you don't like? And if you're quoting guidelines then perhaps you could point to the particular sections of them. Were you referring to me saying that it was a guideline rather than a policy? I already said it satisfied the guideline. The business about being a guideline is that it gives advice on best practice, it does not imply that anything deviating in the slightest must be removed. As WP:POLICY says it should be treated with commonsense. Dmcq (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Also note that Fama feels the need to ridicule AAH by pointing to an absurd blog analogy about elephants with yellow feet (elephants which are old semiaquatics too, by the way). Isn't that typical behavior among creationists haranguing evolution? --CEngelbrecht (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You didn't say anything pertinent to improving the article. Attacking other editors got you at ANI just recently and didn't help your case. Please just discuss the subject and not the editor. Dmcq (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless a guy like me is attacked as an editor, right? Because I dare to have read the sources to this idea, instead of watching some mockumentary about mermaids on Animal Planet and go, "Yep, that's what that idea is about." Because I've personally concluded, that AAH is not unreasonable thinking, now that we all "know" that it's wrong for all eternity. Then I've just asked for the urine, haven't I, you hypocrite?

And the hypocrisy is even deeper with the random arguments for getting rid of illustrations here. One user argues, that a generalized image of the various AAH hypothesis arguments is unnecessary, because the listed points are only partially covered in the body text. Another says, that any images are unnecessary, because the points are described in the body text. Are pictures supposed to illustrate something key from the body text, or something not represented in it? I hear both, all of a sudden.

But we're not talking about use of illustrations here. Those images were removed, because the user in question becamse uncomfortable being presented with thousand-words images of an idea, they've been accustomed to laugh at for all the wrong sociological reasons. Reasons which is comparable to the ones that plagued great thinkers like Copernicus and Galileo, and to an extent still Darwin. Even if AAH is wrong, they don't even want it to be presented as the reasonable concept it is. 'Cause the human ape don't want to know what it is. And in that, they are no different in psychology than the creationists and ID'ers plaguing the articles on evolution.

'Cause this stripping of all imagery is just another typical mistreatment of this article. Over these last few years I've seen the article's body text reduced to nothing, where the only focus winded up being "this idea is nuts, go back to sleep". Close to all description of the individual arguments deleted, where it was nothing of an encyclopedic entry. A typical non-POV presentation based from pure negative bias. And I've seen continous harassment against users adding neutral wordings against this negative bias, again on par with the methods of creationists and ID'ers against evolution describing users. I've seen nothing but a continous pressure for censorship. For some odd pshychological reason, a certain group just don't want this idea to be out in the open. This is the general type of conduct, this fringe idea brings out in not the support, but the opposition. All this not about how to use images. This is about a continous vandalising behavior, that only seeks to kill a non-POV presentation of a divisive idea. Because a range of people just don't "like" it.

I see all this as a big threat to scientific thought and the well-intended purpose of Wikipedia. Enough is enough. If AAH is so bloody wrong, a neutral presentation would support that anyway. But that is not good enough, is it? (Partially copied from "ANI") --CEngelbrecht (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The village pump is probably the right place for discussions like that. Dmcq (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And in the meantime get rid of those blasted pictures, right? And tomorrow all body text describing the actual hypothesis, right?

Sorry, I have good cause not to assume good faith on this particular idea. For some reason of human hysteria, it is refused a fair break. It's all I have ever seen. We haven't evolved since Copernicus. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How about the gorilla picture in the lead then if there is some unspecified thing wrong with the baby one. It is rather like one I saw on another discussion about the topic [2]. Or is it unacceptable to use something similar to that article too because of some unspecified guidance? Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with any of the pictures included. Except that they don't support the general misconception, that the aquatic ape hypothesis is a laghuable idea. I'm very sorry, but a balanced non-POV, neither positive or negative biased version using adequate, sourced body text and illustrations just can't support that foolish custom thinking. Even if the damn thing should be wrong and humans have never been bathing apes. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for your frustration, they way the fringe theory noticeboard people chopped out large sections was against the idea and spirit of Wikipedia to properly describe notable topics and overall I think that noticeboard is dysfunctional. However the text has been fixed and the question here is about the pictures. You need to address the problem at hand on this talk page, it is not the place for general complaints. Have you got reasoned arguments for particular pictures? Dmcq (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's extremely ridiculous to see all the pictures got removed. I would say that this article had more images than an average Wikipedia article, but we should discuss which to be removed and which to be retained, not swept all out at once, and protect the page as if this is the final decision.

The presence of those images, although raised some debate in the past, were agreed by most editors despite their standpoint on the hypothesis. Their presence is a decision agreed by a group of diverse editors, not to be overturned by someone who walk by and don't like all the stuff.

And come on, someone read a funny article in the Guardian and think they understand the topic? Should someone at least have a basic understanding on the topic before editing anything in Wikipedia?

I will remove my similar diagram in Endurance running hypothesis until further resolution on this matter. I don't know if Wikipedia is not the place of such kind of illustration.

Dmcq: May you advice which is the right place to discuss this image-removing incident? Seems ANI is discussing something else. Chakazul (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It does seem to me that there was an admission above someone was engaged in a long running edit war to remove images from the article and I see no good reasons for that. The best you can do if you want a long term solution is I believe to set up a WP:RfC for guidance on if and how many or what type images are acceptable in the article. Dmcq (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dmcq, I'll try. It seems the one(s) who did the mass deletion don't even bother to further discuss here. Chakazul (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In the spirit of bold editing, I have reinstated a number of the pictures which were removed, leaving out those which were a) too "rigid" (e.g. pictorial diagram); b) superfluous (bathing); c) not particularly compelling/interesting. Hope that's ok - will be happy to discuss further. Alfietucker (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The horse and the shellfish ones are clearly superfluous as well, IMO. We don't need a photograph to know what they look like, surely? Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd have thought the horse for instance should be sweating if it is illustrating the point about horses sweating and the larynx of the deer isn't particularly obvious. At least the shellfish are shown in the context of being eaten as a meal. Dmcq (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I see the point you are both making. Apologies - I was thinking with my magazine editor's hat on, so to speak: i.e. pictures to draw readers to specific parts of the text, rather than directly illustrating the points being made. I won't object if someone else removes them, but it would be good to have at least a picture of a sweating horse as a replacement. Alfietucker (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Good to see the images are back. I agree with the current criteria of selecting images. How about the summary diagram I put here before? Is such kind of diagram beneficial to the readers while not violating NPOV and RS, or, can it be improved in some way before putting here? Some examples: File:Geological_time_spiral.png, File:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg. Of course these 2 examples are already enjoying scientific support (unlike AAH), but I'd like to demonstrate the advantage of summarizing a complicated idea. Chakazul (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

More than that, they are based on illustrations already existing in reliable sources. I can't say I'm keen on the first one even though it was some image of the day, but the second shows things that are hard to illustrate properly in text and it doesn't contain all sorts of information that can be better done in the text. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Specific images that deal with the aquatice ape hypothesis can be included. However, every single image included in this article was original research of the plainest sort. I removed the lot of them. Please find good images for the article. Images of the main proponents, for example. Images relating to human evolution. However, images of sea food, divers, and horses are not appropriate. jps (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If the caption for the baby underwater had said "Newborns float and hold their breath instinctively when submerged. This evidence of one of many aquatic adaptations supports the aquatic ape hypothesis." then you might have a case. The fact is, the caption read, "Newborns float and hold their breath instinctively when submerged. This is argued to be one of many aquatic adaptations by proponents of the aquatic ape hypothesis", which is indeed what proponents of AAH say; I cannot see how such a caption with that picture breaches WP:OR. Or, to put it another way (to consider another article on a fringe theory), if your interpretation of WP:OR was to stand, then the article Unidentified flying object wouldn't have any pictures whatsoever of alleged UFOs. Alfietucker (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The image is of a swimming baby. It is original research to connect it to anything else. Let's not play WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS games. The UFO article is also a mess, but we should discuss it there, not here. jps (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems to me a misreading of the policy - it would be original research if no other published source had made such an illustration. Clearly it has already been done, on several occasions. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, the caption makes quite clear that this is an inference drawn by AAH proponents, and is not presented as fact. Are we really so nervous that some simple soul is going to misunderstand the illustration (placed there to give readers a quick "handle" on the AAH argument - not to mendaciously "convert" to the cause!)? I've seen your reply on my Talk Page, btw, and may be able to dig up such an illustration (many moons ago now I had a book on the theory, which is why I've got a layman's interest in this article). Alfietucker (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue is broadly related to soapboxing in the sense that I think the images on this page were being used to jazz up the content to make it look casually more like a plain scientific article, but this is incidental to my WP:OR complaint. The issue is that this is a synthesis of an image taken for a completely different purpose. If every AAH book and paper used images of swimming babies, you would have a point. We could caption it with, "Most papers written about AAH include images of swimming babies" or something to that effect, though it would, obviously, be better to get our hands on actual images used by the proponents rather than attaching unrelated images to a WP:FRINGE page. That said, can you get us that illustration? If it was actually form a book on the theory, we could include it as a primary source. That would be a great addition and rather uncontroversial (as long as the fair use rationale could be applied). jps (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An illustration does not have to be exact - it just has to illustrate the topic in a pertinent way. Hardy(1960) quite clearly talks about this, as part of his hypothesis, thus an image illustrating this part is not WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 20:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see where Hardy discusses that images of swimming babies are somehow topical. What are we to make of the adult in the picture? Does the support of the adult show some alternative hypothesis might be better? I'm not sure how one can say this particular image is straightforwardly pertinent from a plain reading of Hardy. jps (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It has to be pertinent but does not have to be exact. --Kim D. Petersen 20:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think with WP:FRINGE topics, exactness is not only preferable, it is absolutely required because of the particular dangers with original research. We're talking about a subject that has received almost zero serious academic treatment. It therefore needs to hew closely to the actual sources lest we even inadvertently stray into making novel points. jps (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion - not policy or even remotely supported by policy. MOS doesn't make such a distinction, nor does any other page. The image is quite clearly illustrative of one of Hardy(1960)'s original observations, that have later been expanded upon. --Kim D. Petersen 21:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think both WP:FRINGE and WP:OR are largely in agreement with my approach, but there's always going to be disagreements about interpretation of policy which is, frankly, a bit of a laugh at this website where policy is meant to be descriptive rather than proscriptive and editorial decisions turn on the personal opinions of the website users. I simply disagree that the image is "clearly" illustrative. I suppose we could take this to WP:NORN to get other opinions. jps (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any usage in taking it to WP:NORN, since a search on that board for similar situations return a result that is contrary to your stated views. But if you believe that you will get another result, then go ahead. I would like to point out to you that WP:OI somewhat covers this situation with the text: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article. Since this image does not illustrate or introduce any ideas or arguments that are not already in the article and its references - i fail to see your problem. --Kim D. Petersen 21:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy". Kim, I think you've just hit the nail on the head. Unless jps is about to take this to WP:NORN, then I see no reason not to reinstate a number of images - including the underwater baby - on that basis. Alfietucker (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not a resolution if there are editors advocating to reinstate original research images. Therefore WP:NORN#Images at Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. jps (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, a pointy violation would be to include the image to the right in the article. Is there any reason not to if we include a picture of a swimming baby? jps (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That image does not illustrate any point in the text and so fails WP:OI. I do wish the images had been discussed one at a time rather than this blanket removal. There were illustrations that pointed out faults in the hypothesis as well as ones illustrating points of the hypothesis. Dmcq (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are a number of sources in the article that indicate that the propensity for human drowning is a direct contradiction of the hypothesis. For example, it is found in The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction? jps (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Seal pups, it seems, have a greater propensity for drowning. It seems they are not as ready to swim as are babies. Yet no one denies that seals have an aquatic life. Sure, that's not the whole story, but neither is "the propensity for human drowning". Alfietucker (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Umm, you seriously do not have reliable sources for what you are saying, and your sources don't even support your synthesis. The fact that children drown easily is evidence against this fringe hypothesis that essentially no one believes except for rank amateurs. I think if we have the baby, we ought to have the drowning notice. I notice that you didn't include a citation for your claim in the image. If none can be found, it will be removed. jps (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't take on board my caveat "that's not the whole story". But did you take on board the Geographic info about seal pups? Quote: "Pups are weaned in only 10 to 12 days, during which time the pups' masses double. After nursing, the mothers leave their pups and enter the ocean...Alone on the ice, the weaned pups convert their mothers' fatty milk into flesh and bone for the next couple of weeks and then begin dipping into the water and learning to eat on their own." (Emphasis added.) Earlier in the article, the point was made: "Without thick, solid ice expanses, seal babies drown or are crushed by broken-up chunks of ice." As for "rank amateurs", I'd hesitate to put David Attenborough in that category, who as I understand it rather gives credence to the hypothesis. Alfietucker (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Just discovered that I spoiled the link to Attenborough's Radio 4 programmes on AAH. Now fixed. Alfietucker (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when did David Attenborough publish a peer-reviewed article on this idea? I seem to have almost no ability to understand what your point is with respect to seals and humans. Are you saying that humans are less likely to drown than seals? Because I see no sources for that contention, and it is rather irrelevant to the point that humans drown (that seals do it too is rather beside the point). jps (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My point - besides pointing out that aquatic animals are known to drown - is to try to point out that your objections too often appear to be careless generalisations (e.g. "The fact that children drown easily is evidence against this fringe hypothesis that essentially no one believes except for rank amateurs") rather than reasonable attempts to address the issues. I would gently suggest that taking the latter course would be a more constructive way of proceeding. Alfietucker (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The only careless overgeneralization I see here is your contention that based on a report that seal pups have drown therefore seal pups have a "greater propensity for drowning" than human babies. jps (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't give due weight to where I say "it seems" (alas, tone is very difficult to convey in text). The serious point, as I thought I made clear, is that to claim that human babies drowning is evidence they can't be aquatic (or at least, to quote you, "The fact that children drown easily is evidence against this fringe hypothesis") is nonsense - or at the very least inconsistent in itself - unless one accepts that premise for seal pups as well. There are, I am sure, more compelling objections to the hypothesis, but I submit drowning by accident is not one of them. Of course, if you can find a reputable paper (as opposed to a partisan blog) to say to the contrary, then you have at least something that may be cited. Alfietucker (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The thing that matters is the sources. We don't have sources going on about babies drowning instead of automatically holding their breath that I'm aware of so all this just comes under WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH. I have found the bit about drowning instead of swimming as being against AAH but I don't see anything in the article saying AAH supports the idea that babies can be left on their own to swim. Dmcq (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way are we very sure what is shown there is safe? I haven't heard of any problems this way but I know that stupidity has no lower (upper?) limit and people might try it out. Dmcq (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of straying off-topic, here - for instance - is information from a UK organisation which holds swimming classes for babies. There has also been film of babies swimming underwater including The Blue Lagoon (1980 film), so you might say there have been plenty of high profile examples set to the public already. Alfietucker (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good enough to me. Dmcq (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually not only children, but all human beings are prone to drowning, but this is not against AAH because all great ape species have similarly lost the instinctive swimming ability. See Bender & Bender (2013) "Swimming and Diving Behavior in Apes". The fact that we can learn swimming/diving much better than our ape relatives is an argument used to support AAH.

Although AAH is a fringe theory, I aware that most counter-arguments are not as powerful as some may think, they mostly came from non-RS (e.g. personal websites, blog posts) and some can be easily refuted with RS. (A bit off-topic now but I've the urge to clarify something) Chakazul (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added images to illustrate this affect as it is entirely supportive of evolutionary pressure applied in a wet environment.Nature Lumos3 (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems okay to me, though there is no study which says that wrinkled toes grip better than non-wrinkled toes, so I removed that claim. It probably ought to be removed from the article too unless there has been independent sources which have discussed it. Are there? jps (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is fairly robust support for that claim here Royal Society Biology Letters - Water-induced finger wrinkles improve handling of wet objects. Lumos3 (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit synthetic. Are there any third-party independent sources which connect this to the AAH? jps (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Kyriacos Kareklas, Daniel Nettle and Tom V. Smulders⇓

I've removed one of the images, we don't need a photo gallery on it. Dmcq (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems finger wrinkling is not as advantageous as once thought, as a 2014 study failed to replicate the results, Finger#Fingertip_wrinkling_in_water has a better coverage.

I didn't aware of any source claimed that finger wrinkling as an argument for AAH, so it may be WP:SYNTH. Chakazul (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The place indicated has a reference showing the link to AAH and also a link to a study showing the effect couldn't be reproduced more recently. Both could be put in the article. Dmcq (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that this edit removed a major chunk of the article, it should be discussed here first. Pinging Fama Clamosa. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think i support the deletion. Wikipedia should not be "presenting the case" for the fringe theory. Per WP:PSCI "Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. " I am pretty sure the content as it now exists/was restored after the deletion does not follow the Policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

(I added a flag to the section header to correspond to a tag on the article content) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The section could be trimmed perhaps but not cut out altogether. The article should explain why proponents of the theory feel it is valid while clearly saying mainstream science does not accept these justifications. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a rationalists version of Conservapedia where anything a bit outré is banned. This is an encyclopaedia where what is out there is described. The requirement is that we clearly indicate its fringe status and show the arguments against it properly. There is no requirement to chop things out just because we can't be bothered to edit in the things we should do properly. Dmcq (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

then propose a proper presentation that shows the claims in the appropriate light that they are held by mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'then' there? Otherwise what? How about being more specific in what you are complaining about, at the moment it is just 'I don't like that'. Is it that you want the objections and the proposals to be merged together rather than separated? That was tried and the article became unreadable. Dmcq (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

you suggested that the problems the section has with meeting policy NPOV can be addressed by selective editing rather than removal and so I am asking you to provide examples of how editing can bring the content into compliance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As you feel there are NPOV issues, it will be helpful, as Dmcq suggests, if you pointed out specific text that needs to be worked on and why. For example, what issues do you see with "Bipedalism". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have problems as I stated with the absurd theories held only be a few fringies not being presented as they should be according to our polices WP:PSCI: as completely out of the mainstream, wingnut ideas. For fringe topics, we do not present the Pro and the Con WP:VALID. We clearly identify them as fringe. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What PSCI says is "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." This article very clearly and at length says the hypothesis is not mainline and describes how the views have been received. The policy is satisfied. Deleting well sourced bits of articles because you are still unsatisfied about the weight is not supported by any policy and is against the basic directive to make an encyclopaedia. It would not be a reference work which described the aquatic ape hypothesis if it did not describe what the hypothesis proposed. Dmcq (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot less variations than the possible ones that happen during evolution. It is evident that authors appear+ conditioned to assume a one off scenario as is the rule in religious literature. Nature is a lot more complex, therefore we cannot and should not ever agree on a single scenario. Adaptations happen in various ways, do not follow a straight line and can as we do know reverse as well. Millions of years mean considering a lot of different conditions and looking at any creature that had access to the oceans also a lot of space! Very likely there are many variations in aquatic adaptation including the loss of fur as I have seen a few persons not in need of much protection other than their natural coat! Personally I can add one adaptation that was assumed to counter an aquatic past; this is the effect of long time immersion on our skin. Very little effect really but for our palms and the soles of our feet, not only becoming non-slip but also ribbed . The said effect just happens to be very handy for a creature trying to walk on slippery surfaces and handle even more slippery slimy items! You are not likely to drop a glass or a fish with soaked hands! Also I wonder how many other creatures suffer from varicose veins? As a financial argh-ument; I do suggest for the savanna likers to invest in a resort in a desert. Yes we are terrestrial but we are paying for it.

AQUATICUS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.188.117 (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 

Added signatures that were not added. The diff-compare showed the 4 tildes, but the automatic signature function failed to add the signature and date to the above edits. It was probably the broken reflink which has since been fixed. Without a closing /ref, everything after the opening, including the signature tildes, was considered part of a citation.

There was also an accessibility problem with the table of contents showing sections that did not appear and which could not be accessed when the box was collapsed. There is a special template that displays headers without appearing in the TOC which solved that problem.

Happy trails... 172.162.6.235 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I wan't sure if adding directly to the page would have been right , seeing the contrasting views in this talk and the fact that the theory isn't widely accepted.

Anyway I think that , at least , two claims should be added: the presence of the mammalian diving reflex , which shows that in some past we must have been at least a bit acquatic, and the high presence of some diseases , for examples myopia "In myopia, or nearsightedness, the eyeball is too long. Myopia usually starts in puberty and is more prevalent in boys. Also whales, seals and penguins are nearsighted outside the water (37-38). This is an adaptation to the refractive power of water (1.33; air, 1.00). "

THE AQUATIC APE THEORY AND SOME COMMON DISEASES M. J. B. VERHAEGEN Medical Hypotheses 24: 293-300 (1987), [3]

(i've skimmed only to the parts that interested me and a deeper analysis should be done)

-ale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.231.130 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The mammalian diving reflex predates anything this theory is about, note the word 'mammalian'.

As to myopia there is evidence it is induced quite often by close work and in particular reading. People who work outside and aren't educated have lower rates of myopia. I hope if you stick in something about myopia as being related to underwater sight yoou also include the more prevalent theory about it as well. -Dmcq

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see the above contribution added to the article. SmokeyTheCat 09:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In the "theoretical considerations" chapter, Langdon rightfully receive considerable space presenting his critisism of the eBook: "Was Man more aquatic in the past? Fifty years after Alister Hardy,Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution"

The rebuttal by Vaneechoutte and coauthors is merely referenced, however, and not stated in the text. This seems unbalanced. Unless challenged here, I will integrate some of the rebuttals from this reference in the "Theoretical considerations" chapter in a point-by-point style within next week.

Yours, PhD Frank Helle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankHansen99 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

consider the proposal challenged. unless an academic third party asserts the validity of the the "rebuttal", we are not here to present the FRINGE case, particularly in a point by point style. Please read WP:GEVAL and WP:OR .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The section which describes the wading hypothesis of bipedal origins needs improving in my opinion. It is currently rather vague in what it is supposed to be describing, it does not list the strongest arguments in favour of the idea and gives some pretty weak counter-arguments without any caveats.

They key observation in its favour is that all extant great apes that are quadrupedal on dry land will switch to bipedalism in waist deep water with 100% reliability. This will be bipedal locomotion, not just posture, it will be without any support of the forelimbs and will continue for as long as the conditions prevail. No other scenario will induce Pan, Gorilla or Pongo to move bipedally so easily or predictably and this is not true of any other mammalian taxon. Moving bipedally in waist deep water provides the simplest, most clear cut survival benefit imaginable - the animal can continue to breath.

The counter argument listed in the article that "bipedalism also gives many advantages on land, particularly lower energy expenditure and the ability of long-distance running—which humans do better than most terrestrial mammals" is weak. The energy efficiency only really works in flat, firm, vegetation-free substrates (e.g. on a dried out river bed or on a sandy beach right by the water's edge) and the ER hypothesis has a number of substantial problems (e.g. predation, how to replace water loss and the role of women and infants.)

The argument that "the AAH suggest that bipedalism is disadvantageous when comparing humans to medium-sized, terrestrial quadrupeds" is a red-herring invented by John Langdon, cherry picked from one of Elaine Morgan's books. Most waterside proponents today do not depend on that argument and would argue that the LCA of humans and chimps were wading-climbing apes exhibiting some kind of bipedalism, but not the current modern energy-efficient kind. To argue for early brachiation as the primary driver of bipedalism does not explain why chimps and gorillas and (to a lesser extent) orang utans reverted to quadrupedalism. The wading hypothesis answers this point easily.

The argument that "the elongated lower limbs of humans, which is explained by AAH proponents as improving swimming speeds" is a misrepresentation. Only a few proponents hold that view.

It is correct to say that "there is no single accepted explanation for human bipedalism" but a more scholarly list (of over 30+) of them could be provided. The wading hypothesis compares favourably with most of them as shown here.

A paper on the Wading Hypotheses of Human Bipedal Origins was recently published in the journal Human Evolution.

Abstract

At least 30 or so distinct ideas have been published in the scientific literature since the time of Charles Darwin pertaining to the origin of human bipedal locomotion and attempting to explain it in evolutionary terms. Some of them overlap and are complementary, whilst others vary widely and are contradictory. Each of them has strengths and weaknesses but there have been no published attempts at objectively comparing and evaluating them. Their popularity, or otherwise, according to the way they are presented in university texts, appears to be largely a matter of what is currently appealing to authorities of the day. One idea that has never been popular is the Wading Hypothesis. Here the idea is described in detail, discussed, assessed and objectively compared to other ideas, including those that are de rigeur today. Contrary to the mainstream view in anthropology today, it is argued here that there is nothing in the literature that adequately rejects the wading hypothesis, and that it is actually one of the strongest ideas yet proposed, deserving far more serious attention than it has been afforded to date. A “River Apes … Coastal People” wading model is introduced. This three-phased model of the evolution of human bipedality proposes a wading-climbing Last Common Ancestor of Gorilla-Pan-Homo (LCA-GPH), a seasonally flooded gallery forest habitat for the evolution of hominin bipedality, and a largely coastal foraging phase to optimise our modern efficient, striding gait.

Kuliukas, A.V. Wading Hypotheses of the Origin of Human Bipedalism. Human Evolution 28 (3-4):213-236, (2013).

AlgisKuliukas (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

By the very abstract, it essentially removes itself from contention because we present the mainstream views, not the views that say they mainstream shouldnt be considered. Also, if you are the A V Kuliukas of the paper, please note our conflict of interest policy and refrain from using Wikipedia as a platform to promote your fringe ideas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Where, in the abstract (or the paper) does it "say the mainstream shouldn't be considered"? It doesn't. The paper considers all of the 30+ ideas more thoroughly than any other paper I've read on the subject (and, as my PhD is on this subject, I've read most of them.)

Yes, I am the author of the paper. I offer it as an example of a peer reviewed paper published in the scientific literature on the very subject which this topic refers. The article at the moment cites no such paper and so I think it would improve its scholarliness to do so. I posted it here on the Talk page (and not on the page itself) because of the COI point, in the hope that some impartial editor might use it.

The idea that wading may have had a contributory role in the origin in human bipedalism is backed by more evidence than most of the other 30+ ideas. Your labelling it as "fringe" simply indicates a bias. Carsten Niemitz, Colin Groves, Richard Wrangham, Chris Stringer and Sir David Attenborough are just some respected authorities on evolution who would not share your view.

AlgisKuliukas (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It says in the section on Westenhöfer's original draft of the AAH that he was "influenced by German National Socialism". No support for this statement is offered. Moreover, the article on Westenhöfer himself says little about his political views, but as he is stated to have influenced S. Allende, and was very concerned with the social conditions in Chile, he does not appear to have been too far right-wing. I don't know about the Anglo-Saxon discourse, but in Germany, linking somebody or something with National Socialism is a cheap, stupid, but fully effective way of discrediting him or it. Thus, mentioning the alleged influence in the beginning of the article is apt to prejudice the reader against the hypothesis from the start. This is even more deplorable if the claim should be wrong. I therefore suggest to either substantiate or remove this phrase. Konrad Lehmann (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, if it isn't sourced, it needs to be - or removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I'd have to suggest that we need a source for the assertion that he "can be said to have worded an early version of AAH..." too. His hypothesis was certainly aquatic - but apparently non-ape. He seems to have argued that we weren't descended from apes at all, if what I can glean from a quick Google search is correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a popular article with new support for the aquatic ape hypothesis from genetics and paleoanthropology.

http://boingboing.net/2009/12/16/how-shellfish-saved.html

http://boingboing.net/2009/12/16/how-shellfish-saved.html

Elemming (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Someone has really made a butchery of Wikipedia standards. At least a quarter of this article should be edited out to remove the obvious biases against this theory and get a NPOV. Elemming (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The page could really do with a timeline of when each feature ascribed to the hypothesis (flooding of the Afar triangle, bipedalism, descending larynx, enlarging brain, reduction in hair, lowering density of the skeleton, etc) is known to have occurred, to see which - if any - occurred roughly at the same time as each other. If there's little or no overlap in the date ranges, then the hypothesis would seem severely weakened, though the "Waterside development" angle wouldn't be completely ruled out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DewiMorgan (talk • contribs) 09:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

signing (with falsified date to match original end of discussion) for archiver. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"Rarely presented AAH arguments point to the human tendency to produce watery psychic tears". Watery psychic tears? As opposed to tears that are not watery and do not have the ability to read minds? I'm guessing that the word "psychic" here is intended to mean something like "generated by the psyche" - i.e. emotion - but it's not the best choice of words. It's also not very clear what this argument actually is. Why is crying only possible is you evolve in water? Is the argument that the body would not adapt to unnecessarily lose a precious resource such as water unless it evolved in conditions in which water was plentiful? This needs some context as well as clarification. Paul B (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that argument is very weird.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is horribly dated and biased. The AAT of today is far different than what Hardy presented or what Elaine Morgan promoted. As there remains such controversy on the subject I would like to suggest the following solution:

Establish 2 pages, one Anti AAT and one Pro AAT. Allow the two sides to separately present their evidence and arguments in a thoughtful and respectful manner. As for the current article, it could either be deleted or used as the anti view.

205.167.128.152 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)GCJ

Two articles won't be happening per our WP:POVFORK guideline. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not surprising to hear that. Sad that dialogue is being discouraged. BTW, Neil, are you a WIKI Administrator?

205.167.128.152 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)GCJ

Articles aren't forums for dialogues. Administrators don't have any special say in article content (they follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines like everyone else) but if I was answering this question in about an hour instead of now, I would say yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I have uncited the word to word [4] duplication from BBC article.[5] Please research, there can be more. VandVictory (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Another one, [6] was not different to [7] VandVictory (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

[8] not different to [9] VandVictory (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The above user has been blocked as part of a prolific SOCK campaign. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's so sad because there is no opportunity for AAT supporters to really explain the theory properly. Most of the scepticism comes from not fully understanding the idea, and there is no hope for us to change this article to what we really think when there are people out there wishing to paint us as Nazis. I couldn't even add a link to wiki's own page on the dive reflex. I can only imagine that this must have been the sorrow once faced by Darwin, when the theory of evolution was first met with so much resistance. It leaves a little glimmer of hope that as the outdated references quotes in the article start to gather dust along with their writers, more open-minded people willing to listen to reason rather than positing their opinions as fact will one day be listened to. Wikipaedia editors themselves clearly are interested in this topic - since they featured it on their home page no less than three times! Maybe this was the mistake, because it only drew the article to the attention of fierce opponents who so vehemently believe that this is a "Just So" story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 20:43, 15 May 2015

Actually, from personal experience (I have a degree in anthropology), I think that most of the scepticism comes from understanding the 'theory' well enough - and from recognising just how vague and unfalsifiable it has been. Anyway, I suggest that you read up on Wikipedia policy before editing the article further - we need 'sources for claims regarding scientific acceptance of the hypothesis, not just vague assertions, and endorsements from TV broadcasters... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep your chin up! Darwinism was not accepted over-night. There appears to be more sense in the AAT origins, than the sort-cut hypothesis that our ancestors went from swinging in trees to the prairies (and then, eons later, take up a sedentary life style so they could edit Wikipedia and face book etc., all day). One only has to watch little kids on the beach. The first time a wave throws them bottom-over-elbow they may well cry – but after a time, they can't wait to get into the water again. It is as if being at home on a sea-edge environment is hard-wired into their genes. Unfortunately, the rise in sea level since these times means that evidence of these coastal communities may never be found. Keep plugging away until the old hypothesis fade away.--Aspro (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

One also only has to watch a child with a skateboard. The first time they try it they go base over apex, and run off to mummy/daddy in tears. Within a few days though, they are whizzing around without a care in the world. Evidently, our ancestors once had wheels, and the ability to make use of them is still in our genes. Sadly, the process of erosion/sea level rise/trampling by herds of wildebeest has removed all traces of our ancestral skateboard park hunting grounds... 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Good reply.. but knock the sarcasm off. Look at the difference between a skate-board park and a sea shore. To-day skateboarders (miles form the coast) have all their food provided by their parents. Compare them to kids on the sea shore. On the sea shore, they soon become interested in things like cockles, mussels, laver,whelks, crabs, etc. Those, they discover are food (unless perhaps one lives in a westernized country like the US, were people won't eat anything unless it has been prepared and cooked for them by others). Don't you think (or see) that skate-board parks are a modern substitute for the thrill of being in the sea? If you don't mind me saying so: Don't you think you have got the cart before the horse, based on autocentric and limited experience and not the bigger picture? The higher availability of protein (from the shores) allowed our guts to shrink, and our craniums to expand – until we became the modern homo sapiens.--Aspro (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"Don't you think (or see) that skate-board parks are a modern substitute for the thrill of being in the sea?" No. I am a rational human being (with a large and well-fed cranium). I have better things to think about. Like Wikipedia policy, and its applicability to article talk pages. And in particular, policy on not using article talk pages as a forum for facile debates with people who think that science consists of making complete bollocks up, and then expecting other people to swallow it whole. 01:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes as you were clearly pushing a view. For example, you used a Daily Mail article (hardly a sterling source) to highlight support for the theory but failed to include any criticism mentioned in the same article. Why? Cherry picking material is not acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This story is absolutely brilliant, I love it. What better example could we give than skateboards vs swimming. If we are going along the lines of an argument that swimming is what separated us from a shared common ancestor with chimps, then let's have a look at a comparison between the two. Chimps are perfectly capable of skating. Not only skating, but they are also able to rollerblade, ice-skate and do all manner of things that a few unfortunate individuals have been forced to do by their human owners. So clearly skating is not a factor that separates us from our nearest cousins.
Take a look at chimps swimming and we have another story. Water moats have been traditionally used to keep chimps within their enclosures at zoos. A few individuals who have been encouraged by humans to swim have actually succeeded at this, although their locomotion is quite similar to arboreal movements. http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-chimpanzees-orangutans-swim-dive-01319.html

The real eye-opener is watching them dive. There have been a few reports of chimps diving, and in all the examples seen, the chimps are grabbing at their face in order to submerge themselves. It is quite clear that unless they have a mask or assistance to prevent water entering their nose, they risk drowning from water entering the nose. In all the cases, the chimp in question is seen blocking the nostrils with one hand, severely limiting the amount that can be achieved through the use of hands. They can carry fewer things with only one hand, and may not be able to complete some tasks requiring two hands, such as opening a jar for example, or more close to real life, opening a mollusc or moving rocks in order to retrieve something. Moreover, they would not be able to carry a tool and direct themselves through the propulsion of their other free arm.
Humans on the other hand are the only great ape with a protruding nose, which directs water away from or around the nostrils. It allows forward swimming without water entering the nose and risking drowning. It is clear that chimps would never be able to do free-diving hunting like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgRpwESWPLM both from a physiological standpoint of being able to hold their breath, as well as having hands free for direction, propulsion and carrying
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR and WP:NOTFORUM. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A wiki page about the Aquatic Ape theory that doesn't allow any valid Aquatic Ape Theory information or valid references seems strange. What would be the harm in allowing a few real references and adding description of the opposing theories? After the theory is proven fact, then more rigorous requirements could be used before allowing editing.
.
My following sample needs a complete rewrite, but something like:
.
Aquatic Ape Theory pseudoscience: When Pan and Humans split, Pan stayed in the jungle but humans moved to edges of rivers, lakes, and oceans. Humans adapted to waterside life and many humans still live near bodies of water.
.
Savanna Proven Fact science: When Pan and Humans split, Pan stayed in the jungle but humans moved to the savanna. Humans adapted to savanna life but later lost most of the adaptations so do not often live on savannas. Humans only recently moved to be near bodies of water in the last few years with no adaptations. Somitcw (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That is categorically false. It is, however, true to say that it does not allow invalid information. This is by design. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Guy, please be clearer on what you guess is "That is categorically false.".
Is it that negative people twist the Aquatic Ape Theory into invalid weirdness just to be able to dispute the weirdness that they invented?
Is it that "Aquatic Ape Theory pseudoscience" is only pseudoscience because people with a negative point of view rewrite it to make it appear to be pseudoscience?
Is it that "Savanna Proven Fact science" has no relation with science?
Is the fix to let people that understand AAT delete the hateful AAT article and rewrite from scratch using valid facts about what the theory is?
So many questions to your one incomplete comment. Sorry.
Somitcw (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

What is categorically false is the posters' understanding and presentation of what Wikipedia articles are / should be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom. I had assumed that Wikipedia articles should contain some truth instead being all distorted information and negative innuendos. My bad.
I wonder why Guy didn't answer?
Somitcw (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Aquapess is attempting to insert this: {{cquote|Despite this, the central idea of this theory has recently received more attention, and has even gained support from Sir David Attenborough at a recent conference at the Royal Marsden Hospital ("Human Evolution Past, Present and Future - Anthropological, Medical and Nutritional Considerations", 2013).^[1][2]

Let's discuss what to do with this text. I think the 2013 conference should probably be mentioned in the article, but it was of course organized by AAH proponents and did not have any significant participation by mainstream paleoanthropologists, and the 2011 book to my knowledge has only received one negative review by Langdon, who was also the only opponent of the theory present at the conference. We would need some third party coverage of the conference to assess its general reception, and we would also need to include Langdon's counter arguments. I am unsure about what relevance Attenborough's support has, if we start including namedropping then to avoid giving it undue prominence we would probably need a list of similar people opposing the theory - which would of course be longer. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Attenborough was pretty well dismissed. [10], [11], [12] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Two of the references you added do not include the words "David Attenborough", so I'm not sure how they are relevant. Granted, one of them gives links to a Guardian piece on the topic ^[3], which is actually a well-balanced article attempting to show facts without taking sides.
One of the references you used was a personal piece written by a Nature editor who clearly just wanted to advertise his book, and another one was a blog. It's quite easy to find a blog that agrees with whatever stance you have, so I'm also not clear how that is substantial support for the aquatic ape theory being "wrong".
Lastly, your use of "International Business Times" as a reference is very interesting indeed, especially since one of the criticisms of the AAT is that "only non-specialists" support it. I didn't realise that IBT was a specialist in Palaeoanthropology. I agree, the Daily Mail does peddle some garbage, but at least I was only using it as a national news source to report a factual event, and not as a means to either prove or disprove the theory. Having said that, at least IBT correctly reported that:

Conference chairman Professor Rhys Evans, a surgeon at the Royal Marsden Hospital, said: "We are trying to discuss the pros and cons of the theory. But many of the things which are unique to humans - such as a descended larynx, walking upright, fat beneath the skin, and most obviously an extremely large brain - it seems can best be accounted for as adaptations to extended periods in an aquatic environment."

The issue here isn't whether people agree or disagree with people like David Attenborough or Professor Rhys Evans, but rather that the statement at the end of the opening paragraph is now out of date:

popularity of the idea with non-experts

and a later derogatory comment

The AAH is thought by some anthropologists to be accepted readily by popular audiences, students and non-specialist scholars because of its simplicity

Langdon may have thought this in 1997 (the reference used to support these statement), it is now 2015, and more and more educated people are coming to the conclusion that water likely played a significant part in human evolution, including high ranking medical professors and someone who, yes, may be a broadcaster, but has had lifelong contributions as presenter in the service of science, has first hand experience with, chimps, gorillas and orangutans as well as aquatic mammals throughout his long-spanning career, as well as others in the palaoanthropology field, such as Chris Stringer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs)

"written by a Nature editor who clearly just wanted to advertise his book" - you have a reliable source stating this?

"another one was a blog" - see WP:NEWSBLOG. Scientific American is a respected source, unlike your Medical Hypotheses.

Attenborough and Evans are not experts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• There has been presented zero evidence that the view is gaining popularity. The fact that the proponents themselves claim this is entirely irrelevant. The hypothesis is not mentioned in mainstream journals. It is not mentioned in human evolution textbooks. When it starts being mentioned in contexts that is not either conferences organized by proponents, or news coverage of those conferences, then that would mean something. Namedropping means nothing at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

- your reference, where he shamelessly plugs his book mid-article

"As I discuss (with tongue firmly in cheek) in my forthcoming book The Accidental Species,"

Aquapess (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that whole column was written just to insert that one sentence. Since you work at a university, I wonder what professors would say if you came up to them and said they were only teaching classes so they could shamelessly advertise their books? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, I've just realised what's happened. I work at a university, and I've made the mistake of thinking that Wikipedia uses the same standards of referencing. You see, our students are not allowed to use blogs as references, and any student found to be doing so will automatically be marked down (after a brief chuckle from whoever is the marker). But I can see that Wikipedia has different rules, so you're quite right, your reference to the SA blog is acceptable in this case.

I'm afraid that we only accept references from peer-reviewed journals or published books for students' coursework as referencing, especially in science. This is how science progresses. Medical Hypotheses is a peer-reviewed journal, with an impact factor of 1.152. Granted, this is quite low, but it would be perfectly respectable for a masters student, and most PhD students don't tend to publish in journals with an impact factor higher than 3 - 5. Most professors or leaders in their field can only hope to publish a handful of times, if ever, in the big journals (Nature, Scientific American, etc, impact factor 20 - 30+), in their entire career. This is mainly because they are non-specialist journals, a bit "jack of all trades", covering everything from quantum physics to genome sequencing, which means that the entire scientific community of the world is in competition to publish in it.

The other peer-reviewed reference I added (and was subsequently deleted from the article) was from Evolutionary Anthropology (journal) ^[4] This is a specialist journal, and has an impact factor of 4.53, making it a fairly respectable journal in its field. The article was also co-written by respected palaoanthropologist Robert Foley. As I tried to explain on Neil's talk page, he is so well-known that he has his own Wikipedia page. He is an expert in this field, yet it seems you were happy to delete his paper without a passing comment, and only Attenborough piqued your interest. I'm honestly baffled about this obsession with Attenborough, and I've yet to hear any reasons why a reference from an expert was rejected. The David Attenborough insert was perhaps the least important change that I was hoping to make on the page.

I think one of the issues might be that you guys don't have access to these journals, so you can't comment on something which you have not read. I'm happy to send you some articles if you like, so that you can be more well-read on this issue. In the mean time, you can also look at this article from Rae and Koppe (2014) ^[5], because even the abstract which you can read mentions David Attenborough:

"The idea that people went through an aquatic phase at some time in their evolutionary past is currently undergoing a popular resurgence (see Foley & Lahr[1]). This idea has even started to gain some traction in more learned circles; the late paleoanthropologist Phillip Tobias wrote in support of aspects of it in an edited e-book[2] and a conference on the topic held recently in London was endorsed by celebrities such as the television presenter Sir David Attenborough.[3] Despite (or perhaps because of) the lack of interest within the academic community, advocates of the concept continue to fill the media with challenges to the “savannah hypothesis” of the origins of people and to bemoan the fact that their views are not taken seriously by mainstream academia."

This is a genuine peer-reviewed article, from a journal that is specialist in the palaoanthropology field. This article is in fact against AAT, but doesn't pretend that AAT isn't undergoing a "popular resurgence" just because they don't agree. This abstract illustrates that mentioning David Attenborough has nothing to do with "name-dropping" and everything to do with bringing AAT discussion to the fore, and the repercussions that his comments have had within the palaeoanthropology community.

In conclusion, you have deleted two of my peer-reviewed references, whilst attempting to back up your own comments with non-peer-reviewed sources. Please tell me again how AAT is "unscientific" and how you justify the retention of unsubstantiated and factually incorrect comments such as "The AAH does not appear to have passed the peer review process" Aquapess (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As I alluded to before, at least one of your peer-reviewed references, Medical Hypotheses, has a dubious reputation. Even the publisher states, "Medical Hypotheses was therefore launched, and still exists today, to give novel, radical new ideas and speculations in medicine open-minded consideration, opening the field to radical hypotheses which would be rejected by most conventional journals." [13] So, a publisher of fringe theories. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That is indeed to put it mildly. It is a notorious publisher of fringe science and is not reliable source for anything other than to note that a given fringe idea exists.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, no mention of the Evolutionary Anthropology paper that i have referenced even though it fits all the criteria requested:

1. a specialist peer-reviewed journal, edited by experts in the field
2. an article written by opponents of AAT
3. not from a conference
4. a recent article

Seems like you guys want to brush Rae and Koppe (2014) under the carpetAquapess (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I had not noted your reference to Rae and Koppe. I found it now and also read Foley and Mirazon in the same issue of EA. Both of those articles are excellent, and deal damaging blows to the scientific status of the AAH. Rae and Koppe demonstrate that the sinus could not have had any relation to flotation. And Foley and Mirazon demonstrates that the watered down lacustrine AAH does not account for any aspects of evolution that has not already been better accounted for by non aquatic hypotheses. They conclude that the AAH has been around for 50 years and no significant evidence in favor has accumulated, and that today no open questions require recourse to an aquatic hypothesis. Both papers should of course be included, but not cited for the en passant mention that Attenborough has supported the hypothesis, but for the substantial argument which is a rejection of AAH.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maunus, many thanks for taking the time to look up those two papers, that is most appreciated. In defence against the Rae and Koppe paper, the sinus is not considered to be very strongly linked to aquatic living by most AAT supporters (myself included) precisely because there is a very dubious link between the two. I suspect this is why they picked this one feature to focus on, since it is so easy to pick apart, rather than, say the deposition of subcutaneous fat and loss of body hair (widespread in aquatic mammals, and unheard of in other great apes). Even Langdon admitted that "11 out of 26 traits to be possible aquatic adaptations consistent with the AAH" ^[6], yet they chose not to pick one of these features. I find it quite pointed that Rae and Koppe shy away from critiquing more complex issues such as subcutaneous fat or the dive reflex in infants, and rather aim at easy targets such as the sinus. It seems to me that the recent resurgence in AAT support has been received as some kind of threat, and this paper is a hasty defence to prevent changing the status quo, and they also use the support of Attenborough dismissively, but this is going off topic. Fact of the matter remains that even they acknowledge that at least the AAT has "gained traction" in recent years, hence my inclusion, rather than any name dropping.

On another matter, since pieces from Scientific American seem to be popular amongst Wikipaedia editors, I thought you all might enjoy reading this: "Wikipedia Editors Woo Scientists to Improve Content Quality"^[7] Very much looking forward to a time when academics will be more involved with editing such pages, and even get a chance to correct comments about themselves. Aquapess (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

People will probably not like a YouTube video as a source, but here is a National Geographic clip, See How Easily a Rat Can Wriggle Up Your Toilet. National Geographic says that rats can hold their breath for up to three minutes underwater and they have the stamina to tread water for three days straight. Stoodpointt (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Anything that is included should talk about the aquatic ape hypothesis or some very related topic. The video doesn't and so in Wikipedia parlance it is WP:Original research to include it. Wikipedia should just summarize what has been said about the subject. Dmcq (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I read this article a long time ago and I remember it saying humans were the only land animals that can hold their breath. It doesn't say it now. Stoodpointt (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This article uses Langdon's (1997) JHE paper, as it's most authoritative source. This is probably because it remains the only serious critique to be published in a 1st class palaeoanthropological journal. (Foley & Lahr's 2014 4 page critique notwithstanding.) All over the article, arguments from Langdon are cited, as if this was the definitive last word on the matter. This would be fair if a citation was also given to the published critique of Langdon's paper.

Kuliukas AV, (2011). Langdon’s Critique of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis: It’s Final Refutation, or Just Another Misunderstanding?. In: Vaneechoutte M, Verhaegen M, Kuliukas AV, (eds.), (2011). Was Man More Aquatic In The Past? Fifty Years After Alister Hardy: Waterside Hypothesis Of Human Evolution. Bentham (Basel)

Abstract: Thus far, there has been no challenge to Langdon’s 1997 critique [1]of the aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH), despite its having a number of weaknesses. The paper lacks scholarliness as it does not draw upon the one published scientific investigation into the plausibility of the AAH in the literature, i.e., that byRoede et al. [2]. Langdon’s summary of “anatomical evidence for the AAH” seems to have been directed against an exaggerated interpretation of Alister Hardy’s hypothesis that humans were “more aquatic in the past” [3]. Most of the critique was based on cursory and superficial comparisons with fully aquatic mammals, such as cetaceans, rather than considering whether human ancestors could have been more aquatic than those of apes. Even on this basis, Langdon considered eleven out of twenty-six traits to be “possible aquatic adaptations” or “consistent with the AAH”.

Foley & Lahr (2014) has also been critiqued...

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

The current (March/April 2014) issue of Evolutionary Anthropology is rare in that it contains two papers specifically critiquing the so-called “aquatic ape hypothesis” (abbreviated “AAH”, but better labelled, in the plural, “waterside hypotheses of human evolution.”). The first (Foley & Lahr, 2014) is a general assessment of the authors’ interpretation of the AAH and the second (Rae & Koppe, 2014) is a particular rebuttal of one specific idea—the sinuses for floatation hypothesis. This short paper is a response to both. It is argued that the first uses a straw man’s argument to characterize the so-called “AAH” as arguing for exclusively more aquatic adaptations than waterside proponents have in the past. Foley & Lahr’s paper is also unscholarly in that it does not draw upon the latest scholarly work. One chapter of that work re-defines and re-labels the “AAH”, which was of key importance to their paper. Rae & Koppe’s paper is harder to criticize but still contains some problems which the authors overlook in their strict rejection of the sinuses for floatation hypothesis. If one understands that waterside hypotheses of human evolution are simply postulating that major phenotypic differences between humans and chimps are the result of a (perhaps slight) differential in the selection from wading, swimming and diving, they cannot be ridiculed as belonging in the same “crazy box” as creationism as Henry Gee recently argued and must take their place within mainstream physical anthropology.

AlgisKuliukas (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The point stand that all attention from mainstream evolutionary anthropology has been critical not withstanding the AAH cliques "rebuttals". There is no sign of a change in attitude towards AAH from mainstream evolutionary anthropology - it is still considered a highly problematic fringe hypothesis. Including Foley and Lahr, and Rae and Koppe is fine. And possibly your counter argument could be mentioned. But really iy is clear that the AAH pool is stagnant at this point, in spite of attempts to stir up a storm.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aquatic ape hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Vaneechoutte%20et%20al.%202012.%20Reply%20to%20Langdon.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

It's great that we have a picture for finger wrinkling on the page, but I realised that there is actually no text to explain the relevance of this feature to AAT. Normally images accompany text to demonstrate something, but in this case, there's an image just floating in the "other claims" section with no information about this interesting topic, and as a result it looks a bit clumsy and disorganised. Conversely, the Wikipaedia page for fingers actually has a great and balanced section describing this interesting nervous system response. It's not simply just cells swelling in response to water exposure, which would happen all over our bodies if that was the case; and it has been known for some time that damage to nerves eliminates this response.^[1] So I propose to add something like this under the physiological and biochemical claims if that is ok?

• Finger wrinkling:

  

  Humans are the only great apes to show finger and toe pad wrinkling in response to exposure to wet conditions. Originally it was assumed that the finger wrinkling was simply the result of the skin swelling in water, but it is now understood that the furrows are caused by the blood vessels constricting due to signalling by the sympathetic nervous system in response to water exposure.^[2][3] One hypothesis that has been put forward is that the wrinkled fingertips are adaptive for grasping in wet conditions in the same way as tyre treads help to avoid slipping on the roads. This adaptation could have evolved at a time when human ancestors spent a predominant amount of time in aquatic or semi-aquatic environments. To investigate this, a study in 2013 found that the wrinkled fingertips provided better handling of wet objects but gave no advantage for handling dry objects.^[4] Conversely, a 2014 study attempting to reproduce these results was unable to demonstrate any improvement of handling wet objects with wrinkled fingertips.^[3] However, no other theory has yet been put forward to explain this nervous system response, and the authors of the latter paper suggest that this nervous response "does not serve any adaptive function but rather is a byproduct of sympathetic nervous system-induced vasoconstriction".^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs)

And do these papers make direct reference to the AAH? I'm guessing not. Removed along with picture. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Neil, so pleased to hear from you again!

1) If the finger wrinkling was really irrelevant to AAT, why was the picture there in the first place? Why was it not removed earlier? Especially since it had no reference at all?

2) You cited "no link to AAT" under your reason for removal of the fingertip wrinkling passage. The fingertip wrinkling has been shown by some research as to permit a gripping advantage, but ONLY in wet environments.

The fingertip wrinkling entry for fingers itself in wikipaedia even spells this out:

"One hypothesis for why this occurs, the “rain tread” hypothesis, posits that the wrinkles may help the fingers grip things when wet, possibly being an adaption from a time when humans dealt with rain and dew in forested primate habitats"

AAT supporters believe that the wet conditions that gave rise to the evolution of this interesting nervous response is actually semi-aquatic environments or the result of littoral living where humans collected molluscs from the water for example.

This is one of the central pieces of evidence in support of AAT.^[5] Although you may not agree about the evolutionary cause of the wrinkling, (and I included a reference that opposed the idea, for fairness and balance), it is clearly relevant to the topic of AAT, there is published research on it. I wonder what is the need to delete it now, rather than the many years previous that that picture has been up.Aquapess (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Because all kinds of inappropriate stuff exists in articles until someone notices it. You cannot take studies that have nothing to do with a fringe theory and say, "See, look! These support the fringe theory." That's like taking a rejected vaccine report and using it to support anti-vaxxer theories. What you can do is find sources that discuss these studies within a AAH context and use those. And please remember to sign your posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm Neil, I would agree with you, except that the finger wrinkling topic has been so embedded in AAT evidence for so many decades. Even the picture has been on the page for years, so it's not like we just thought of it now. The anti-vaxxer movement came from one fraudulent doctor who made a study on a group of less than ten children and then presented the results in such a way to make a quick buck for himself. Conversely, the fingertip wrinkling has been a central tenet of AAT for many decades, and no other alternative has been put forward to explain it except "byproduct of evolution" or "spandrels". We also don't stand to make any profit from this, unlike Andrew Wakefield. We are just interested in the science.

I assume you're quite busy editing a number of pages, so maybe you didn't have time to read any of the links. So I will present a few quotes from the sources demonstrating links to AAT:

"Wrinkled fingers could have helped our ancestors to gather food from wet vegetation or streams"^[1] - This is pretty much what AAT is. AAT is commonly misconstrued as being wholly aquatic such as dolphins or whales, but it's not the case.

"This information has piqued the interest of those who subscribe to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH), which claims that ancestral apes lived in water at least part of the time. Others, however, dismiss the idea, as these adaptations could have come from water being ever present in the environment without spending as much time in it as proponents of AAH would say"^[5] - again, a balanced argument, showing both sides. Would be good if Wikipaedia could do the same

Aquapess (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah sorry Neil, there was no response, so I assumed that the above recent, high profile sources had proved the link to AAT.

Actually, it's ok if you delete this section. By clipping away at the article, you're actually reducing key words that lead to traffic on this page, and instead it will push curious people to sites like Nature or IFLS who are not frightened of discussing AAT even if they oppose it. It will also lead people to go to the fingertip page on wiki, which lays out the two studies on whether or not it confers and advantage in wet environments, and allow people to make up their own mind given the evidence, without the aggressively anti-AAT stance.

It would actually be more advantageous for you to keep the section on fingertips and just put greater emphasis on the article that didn't demonstrate an advantage in wet environments. But by removing the words "fingertip wrinkling" Google will lead curious people elsewhere. I feel stupid pointing this out to you, because as a wiki administrator for many years, I'm sure you must be intelligent enough to understand this. Nevertheless, we have to stand by the admin's choices.Aquapess (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

First, I'm not acting as an admin here. With respect to this article, I'm a regular editor just like yourself. Second, I am completely uninterested in "key words". Having key words does not appear in any Wikipedia policy or guideline so your not-so-subtle attempts at reverse psychology fall flat. Third, please acquaint yourself with WP:SYNTH again. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If you want to say these studies support AAT, then find a source that explicitly says so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This WP:SYNTH - on that basis, you could remove the entire content of the page if you held that to account on every paragraph. For example, the Lancet article cited about the medical advantages of water births makes no mention of AAT, but the fact that it is safe and has been shown to be advantageous means that it is mentioned on this page. Will you delete that too? In that case, why not take a fine toothed comb to remove all such sentences and references?

Lastly, reverse psychology or not, you've got to admit that there's something hilarious about a grown man being afraid of a couple of sentences on fingertips (which appear almost word for word, reference for reference already on another wiki page without causing anyone any offense). If you're going to delete my section, at least let me poke a little fun. Aquapess (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Pruny Fingers Are An Evolutionary Advantage is I think okay for inclusion as they draw the connection and it looks like a reliable secondary source. The rest of them are better sources for their topics but including them would I'm afraid constitute OR as they just have not drawn a close enough connection with the topic of this article. It would also be reasonable to link to Finger#Fingertip_wrinkling_in_water for a description of the effect. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Dmcq, yes, the references used were recent and reliable. Two of them were taken from the Finger wiki entry, so if they are acceptable there, why are they not acceptable here?

I also agree with your second point, best thing would be to link to the Finger page, via a link as I did in the second sentence of the passage, or as a direct quote, I don't mind whichever is deemed more appropriate Aquapess (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The other links about fingertip wrinkling would have to have a more direct reference to the topic to satisfy WP:OR. The source has to draw the connection rather than an editor on Wikipedia. They are about fingertip wrinkling so they are appropriate in an article about fingers. The don't point out a connection to the aquatic ape hypothesis so they can't go here. Dmcq (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your considered and polite reply Dmcq. So basically, the IFLS reference which DOES specify link to AAT doesn't count I gather, so it wouldn't be possible to paraphrase to something like:

• Finger wrinkling:

  

  A recent study found that the finger wrinkling gave an advantage in handling objects but only in wet conditions, in the same way as tyre treads help to avoid slipping on wet roads.^[4]. Supporters of AAH believe this to be further evidence of human feature adapted to living in wet conditions.^[5] However, a subsequent study in 2014 attempting to reproduce these results was unable to demonstrate any improvement of handling wet objects with wrinkled fingertips.^[3] and there is no current consensus as to the evolutionary purpose for this trait.

I have shortened it, and put both sides forward, with no leaning towards either side. Aquapess (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm very odd Dmcq, I just found a section in the archives where you previously okayed the addition of this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis/Archive_6#Illustrations_of_finger_and_feet_wrinkling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I am unable to figure out what you are trying to say. Could you phrase it without things like 'very off' which I could not find on the web thanks. What are you trying to say by 'So basically, the IFLS reference which DOES specify link to AAT doesn't count I gather, so it wouldn't be possible to paraphrase to something like:'. I thought I said that was okay as a source for this article, are there extra not's in there which don't count as a negative? Dmcq (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

So sorry Dmcq, I made a typo in my original reply, and I think when I went to correcting it you were also editing the page, so my corrections were not saved. I meant to say "odd", in the sense that you said it was ok before, I wonder why it got deleted since then?

Also, I got confused when you said "They are not about AAH, so they can't go here" - I thought that meant that you had decided that the passage was not appropriate for adding to this page afterall. So if you are happy to add the section to the main AAH article, please go ahead with whichever format you think is best. I am reluctant to make any changes to the page now in case I get reported for edit warring or something. Aquapess (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dmcq, thanks for the edit, looks great. It's good that you put the link to the fingertip wrinkling as well, as discussed. Personally, I really like this topic, not only because it's physiologically interesting, but it also supports the idea that AAT isn't about being in the water 100% of the time, since our fingers only wrinkle in response to water exposure. If AAT really was about being wholly aquatic like dolphins or whales as is commonly misinterpreted, then our fingers would be wrinkled all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The attractiveness of believing in simplistic single-cause explanations over the much more complex, but better-supported models with multiple causality has been cited as a primary reason for the popularity of the idea with non-experts.

Er, Occam's razor, anyone? Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The clue here is 'better supported'. An explanation which isn't supported by verifiable evidence may be simple - that doesn't make it right. Maybe the wording could do with tweaking though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is also 18 years old. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Very much enjoy it when anti-AATers say "better supported" and then offer no examples. Yet to find any evidence that "better supports" why humans are the only great apes with deposition of significant subcutaneous fat and loss of hair cover, more common in our aquatic mammal distant cousins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 10:11, 9 September 2015 Aquapess (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

On a further note Andy, one of your favourite comments is that AAT can't be true because there's a general consensus at the moment - that doesn't make it wrong either. Copernicus and Heliocentricism anyone? How about Semmelweis and hand washing? It was his own fellow doctors that insisted he was wrong and millions of people died as a result, and he died peniless in a mental assylum. Think how also contentious it was only 20 years ago to believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Revolutions are made by thinking outside the box, not going along with the status quo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talk • contribs) 9 September 2015‎

Firstly, I have never stated that "AAT can't be true because there's a general consensus", and secondly, comparisons with Copernicus are ten-a-penny on Wikipedia article talk pages. Every other purveyor of snake-oil, perpetual-motion-machines and 'new physics to prove Einstein wrong' claims to be Copernicus reincarnated. They can't all be right, and accordingly Wikipedia has to stick with the tried and tested method of waiting for the revolution, and then reporting what is in orbit around where. And frankly, as 'revolutions' go, one that merely overturns the scientific consensus on how wet our distant ancestors got doesn't seem that revolutionary. Maybe though that is merely a jaded perspective of one who once actually believed in changing the future, rather than the past (not that I succeeded in either). AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a specific edit to the article someone wishes to propose? Otherwise this appears clearly to be WP:NOTFORUM and should be closed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Do editorial changes have to be specific? Or can the general thrust of the article be discussed? Isn't the discussion about what the point of view of the article should be? Should the article help pooh-pooh the theory? Or strike a more neutral tone?173.173.20.99 (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Another example of revolutionary change in scientific orthodoxy is plate tectonics. lack of an overt statement that AAH must be wrong because the scientific consensus says so, does not alter the fact that that is at least part of the overall thrust of the article as it now stands. The Occam's razor point seems a strong one to me. And being grumpy and disappointed is in itself not an argument ... so my children often tell me, anyway ... 80.17.36.33 (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is outdated both in its name and approach. I have just listened to part 1 of a BBC radio 4 programme at [14] by David Attenborough, which states that it is now called the "Waterside ape theory", and is increasingly accepted by mainstream scientists. (Part 2 of the radio program on the latest evidence is tomorrow 15 September.) The subject is outside my field, but is very important in human evolution and badly needs rewriting by someone competent. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I have so looked forward to this programm, remembering the laughter that David Attenborough faced going to a symposium on the subject a couple of years ago. At the moment a redirect would be the first step, one that I will try to do (1st time), and it will be interesting to see what all the blog writers now say about the possibility of the hypothesis being feasible.Edmund Patrick – confer 09:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference to peer reviewed paper in a reputable scholarly journal please? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Waterside ape theory search will give this page as first choice. Not sure redirect necessary? Edmund Patrick – confer 09:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

NeilN No peer papers found yet but [this link] to the programme will have to do at thye moment, if you can listen to it, not sure where you are geographicially! Edmund Patrick – confer 09:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

And does Attenborough refer to peer reviewed papers? Otherwise, he's not qualified to make the determination. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

He does, quite a few times, in relationship to particular parts of the theory alongside those for the theory as a whole. Edmund Patrick – confer 09:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if you could provide the names of the papers and the journals they appear in then we could probably dig them up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Attenborough has been promoting this for years, nothing new in that. The claim that it is "gaining traction" is unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable because it is not true.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Today's programme was on the history of the controversy, tomorrow's on the latest research. Checking the papers (and maybe books) of the scientists interviewed should provide reliable sources. 10:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I predict it is going to be research by the same little group of scientists who have been pushing the theory on this very page for the past decade or so - Vanechoutte, Kuliakis, Verhaegen.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Just so no one jumps ahead, if you want this article renamed, a requested move discussion will have to occur. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Beginning to collate a list, and great to see that “At the heart of science is an essential tension between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counter-intuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.” is still relevent! Edmund Patrick – confer 10:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A start - Episode one papers after one repeat listen on way to work!!! May not be complete and times into programme are in brackets.

• Columbia Earth Institute 2010 (04.30)in reference to percentage of humanity that lives in coastal region.
• Scientific American 2010 (25.22) University of Arizona cover story Early Human Dependence on Shellfish on coast of South Africa in ref to recent - 160,000 years ago - history.
• Scars of Evolution - series 2004 - (39.32) testable predictions in this case Vernix caseosa

is this what you are looking for? Hopefully others will add and it will at least improve the article. Edmund Patrick – confer 10:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No, those are all popular press coverage, what would be required would be actual peer reviewed academic articles suggesting that any version of the Aquatic hypothesis has serious backing in the paleoanthropological scientific community.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

My limited research on Scientific American was to their website - which may well be lies - "Generally speaking, Scientific American and Scientific American MIND present ideas that have already been published in the peer-reviewed technical literature. We do not publish new theories or results of original research." and of course in this particular case especially so. Columbia Earth Institute is part of Columbia University, hopefully for student numbers they are popular, even so I would like to think they took professional care as to what they and the scientists involved published especially if not peer reviewed. Actually (although I have a form of dylexic so in my case my reading is sometimes open to misinterpretation, so apologies if so, but) the peer review does not have to have serious backing in the paleoanthropological scientific community, what it must do is peer review research into the theory it does not need to back it.Edmund Patrick – confer 12:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No, those are popular science outlets that publish articles of interest to the general reader. This kind of publication is never a reliable or useful gyuide to the scientific standing of any particular theory. Unless supported by sources published in respected academic journals there is no basis whatsoever for claiming that any kind of aquatic evolutionary scenario is gaining acceptance. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

On an issue such as this there will be peer-reviewed articles on both sides. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) points out that such articles often report the author's own research, and should be treated with caution as primary sources. The guidance also says that articles in Scientific American are often summaries of a field by a recognised expert; we have to look at each source on its merits, not adopt hard and fast rules. In this case, there are experts on both sides of the argument, so we should be reporting both sides, not taking a POV view that the theory is wrong, as the article does now. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There really isnt. You are misrepresenting the status of the hypothesis in your comment. There are no major experts of human evolution that support the AAH - this is simply false. The one actual expert who did was the late Philip Tobias. There are hardly any peer reviewed articles on the AAH: Vaneechoutte, Verhaegen and Kuliakis have recently published a few articles in minor peer reviewed journals and organized a conference on the topic that they have promoted very much (but which didnt feature support from any major experts), but these articles and conference do not show that the theory is gaining traction - and there are vastly many more sources that completely ignore the AAH (you will not find AAH mentioned in any textbooks on human evolution for example or in reviews of advances in the field). You need to read some more actual sources about human evolution and paleoanthropology (reliable academic review articles or textbooks rather than popular science articles which are notorious for pushing interestingnew findings and theories and ignoreing more boring mainstream views and established knowledge) before you make claims about the relative scientific support. This is a VERY clear fringe hypothesis with almost zero percent scientific standing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It is true that the theory is generally ignored in popular books on human evolution. I have read many books by Chris Stringer, Ian Tattersall, Donald Johanson, Spencer Wells etc, and it is rarely referred to. However that does not mean that it lacks heavyweight support. Attenborough's programme had quotes from Richard Wrangham, professor of human evolution at Harvard, saying humans learnt to walk bipedally in water; Michael Crawford, director of the institute of brain chemistry and human nutrition at Imperial College, saying that marine foods were necessary to the expansion of the brain (and a quote from Stringer disagreeing); Will Archer of the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology saying that human ancestors were eating catfish 2 million years ago; Professor Naama Goren-Inbar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem saying that diet at the 700,000 year old Gesher Benot Ya'aqov site in Israel included marine nuts which required diving several metres. One resarcher had trawled the Journal of Human Evolution for references to marine resources. She found almost nothing up to 2002, then a gradual increase until 2014 when they had a special issue on aquatic resources and their importance for human brain evolution. This special issue should be a good place to look at the state of expert opinion. It is obviously a minority view, but one held by serious scientists. The Wiki article at present reads like a blog by an opponent, not an encyclopedia article. It needs revision by someone with no axe to grind on either side. I do not intend to take it on as I am almost the only editor working on Anglo-Saxon history and there are plenty of people interested in evolution. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes the fact that a theory is ignored by summaries of the mainstream view does mean that a view lacks support. It is indeed the best possible evidence. I have not seen Wrangham argueing that human bidpedality is an adaptation to water - if he believes this then presumably he has published this somewhere in a peer reviewed - which would certainly be a notable proponent. So please bring a source that is actually by Wrangham to the table. Evidence of prehistoric humans eating crustaceans, catfish or other marine foods is not the AAH - which specifically posits adaptations to a watery milieu. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I do not want to divert from working on Anglo-Saxon history. Hopefully someone will do the research to make the article more balanced. Otherwise it will remain a one-sided argument against the theory. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Given the theory's standing it would be hard for it not to read as an argument against the theory and observe WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also I think it is necessary to separate the AAH hypothesis (which suggests that water has been the origin of a suit of specific adaptations - the umbrella hypothesis) from the idea that water and occasional wading may have been related to one or a couple of specific adaptations. Certainly serious scholars may entertain the second scenario, but not the first.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Dudley Miles for the work in providing a informative description of the second episode. It is true that the article is not neutral in its words and presentation, though like you there is limitations to what I can do, and I would have an axe to grind, mainly the total denial of any possibility of this theory being correct or partly correct and given obviously the number of scientists and/or professors that have just committed a foolish mistake of expressing support for parts of the theory I am not alone. It has and I am sure will continue to lead to wonderful evening conversations with fellow workers especially archaeologists! Once I have finished my work on Mathew Hopkins and Edmund the Martyr I may well take a deep breath and.....Edmund Patrick – confer 12:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I am very glad to hear you are working on Edmund. I know very little about East Anglian history. Any chance of seeing it at FAC? I aim to get Æthelflæd to FAC soon. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

moved conversation to my talk page more appropiate. Edmund Patrick – confer 14:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• I found this article by Wrangham, Cheney, Seyfarth and Sarmiento in which they do propose that lacustrine wading (in a savannah context!) provided necessary preadaptations for bipedality. "Wrangham, Richard, Dorothy Cheney, Robert Seyfarth, and Esteban Sarmiento. "Shallow‐water habitats as sources of fallback foods for hominins." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 140, no. 4 (2009): 630-642." This is however part of his somewhat theory about underground storage organs (tubers) being an important resource for early hominins - so it is hard to assess how the reception of the idea has been. It has 70 citations on google scholar, but I havent looked through them.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The sentence "Conversely, both Morgan and Algis Kuliukas have accused Moore of distorting Morgan and other AAH-proponents presentations from the debate, using only little referencing" is followed by two citations. The first of these needs to be removed. When I clicked on it, my browser left a message stating, "The site ahead contains malware Attackers currently on www.elainemorgan.me.uk might attempt to install dangerous programs on your computer that steal or delete your information (for example, photos, passwords, messages, and credit cards)." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I’ve added a Wayback Machine URL from a few months before the given access date. More recent captures suggest the site has been unmaintained or abandoned for the last year or two.—Odysseus1479 15:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)