Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::It's so dreadful to anticipate the worst of human psychology, and be proven right. You look at a rewrite and go, "Well, this is at least a bit closer to what's been talked about all along. I wonder how long it will take this time, before the book burning starts?" And in this case... a fortnight. This has been going on for years now on this article. ] (]) 12:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
::It's so dreadful to anticipate the worst of human psychology, and be proven right. You look at a rewrite and go, "Well, this is at least a bit closer to what's been talked about all along. I wonder how long it will take this time, before the book burning starts?" And in this case... a fortnight. This has been going on for years now on this article. ] (]) 12:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Remember to ]. Commenting on other editors is disruptive. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions and disruptive behaviour is likely to attract editing restrictions. ] (]) 12:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Remember to ]. Commenting on other editors is disruptive. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions and disruptive behaviour is likely to attract editing restrictions. ] (]) 12:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Very talented raping the rules. ] (]) 12:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Suggestion - new subsection - anthropological consensus on human evolution
I'm still trying to do something about this hopeless, negatively biased article. I propose to lead the section about the actual hypothesis/ses by summarizing the contemporary consensus on human evolution, as expressed by the scientific field of anthropology. This is to illustrate the background for Elaine Morgan's AAH, since she based her work on what she perceived as shortcomings to parts of that consensus, straw man arguments and whatnot. Whether we then further detail her challenging of this consensus in the following sections is for a different discussion. If you skeptics really desire an optimal, non-POV article detailing what the hell all this boohah is about, let's start with this, since it should contain the fewest controversies (unless creationists are also hanging out in here, which is not bloody unlikely the way things have been going).
Modern humans, Homo sapiens, developed from earlier forms found as fossils at various locations around the world, seeing an early concentration in East Africa. Other remnants from early humans such as tools, foods, dwellings, etc., have also been detected. Combined, these finds present a partial image of the process, that developed the species Homo sapiens.
From the collective work of anthropology, and in later years also genetics, established consensus states, that humans belong in the biological tribeHominini, this in the family of Hominidae (the great apes), this in the order of primates, this in the class of mammals. Humans are closely related to, in order of closest kinship, the great ape genera chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and further distant the family of gibbons. Hominini includes the subtribeAustralopithecina with the genera Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Paranthropus, Australopithecines; and the subtribe Hominina, encompassing the genus Homo, some of its species being Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, the Neanderthals and modern humans, the latter being the only extant species. There is still some uncertainty about the interrelation between the known Hominin fossils; new finds can still drastically rewrite the human family tree, most recently with Sahelanthropus. Contemporary anthropology estimates, that the direct ancestors of modern humans split from a common ancestor to chimpanzees somewhere between 4 and 8 million years ago in Africa; the fossil ape Sahelanthropus tchadensis which lived some 7 million years ago in Chad is considered the earliest possible homininin.
Since the breakthrough of Darwin and Wallace's theory of evolution in the 19th century, it has been debated why humans have features that distinguish them from their nearest evolutionary relatives; most notably by being near-furless, employing upright bipedal stance on their hind limbs, and having the perhaps most complex brain in the animal kingdom. A wide range of difficult to corroborate hypotheses have been presented as to the evolutionary background of the unique features of modern humans; for human bipedalism e.g. altered carrying behavior, improved energy efficiency, improved thermal regulation, altered social behavior and increased dominance behavior.
The human split from the lineage of the chimpanzees is linked to the geological formation of the East African mountain range Great Rift Valley that extends from Djibouti to Mozambique. In this region are found many of the key fossils of the earliest hominins, leaving it to be considered the cradle of humanity. The most widely considered hypothesis is that woodland dwelling, brachiatinghominoids, specifically on the eastern side of the mountain range, gradually lost their habitat to more open areas, for instance grasslands, and that this and other changes forced these hominoids to develop the shapes, that gradually resulted in modern humans.
In recent decades, the traditional image of human origin having taken place in grasslands (e.g. the African savannah) has been challenged, since particularly the oldest homininin fossils are found alongside fossilized fauna and flora from traditional woodland habitats, rather than from grasslands, e.g. the some 4.4 million year old fossil Ardi, an Ardipithecus ramidus.
References
Leakey, Richard E. (1994). The Origin Of Humankind. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN978-0297815037.
Stringer, C.B. (1994). "Evolution of Early Humans". The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 242. ISBN978-0-521-32370-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help) Also ISBN 978-0-521-46786-5 (paperback)
Klages, Arthur (2008) "Sahelanthropus tchadensis: An Examination of its Hominin Affinities and Possible Phylogenetic Placement," Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology: Vol. 16: Iss. 1, Article 5. ir.lib.uwo.ca
Huxley T.H. 1863. Evidence as to Man's place in nature. Williams & Norgate, London. p114–115
Lovejoy, C.O. (1988). "Evolution of Human walking". Scientific American. 259 (5): 82–89.
signing (with falsified date to match the original conclusion of this discussion) for archiver. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
RfC: Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.
Should the lead and reception section mention that the theory has been described as pseudoscience, based on the inclusion in Regal's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and John Hawks' blogpost in which he labels it such? ·maunus · snunɐɯ·05:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Survey
Support inclusion in lead and reception section The evidence is more than sufficient for mentioning this, and when it is a prominent view that an ostensibly scientific idea is pseudoscientific we are under obligations to point this out to the reader. Inclusion in two distinct encyclopedias of pseudoscience is about as solid a source that we can get for the fact that the view is prominent enough to include. John Hawks is one of the best respected paleoanthropologists and his blog has even been cited by proponents of AAH - so it is both notable and an RS.·maunus · snunɐɯ·05:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Lead no Reception yes. To be scientific, a claim must be capable of being disproved or falsified. For example, the statement that there is an elf in the room who cannot be seen, heard, smelt, felt, or observed by instruments cannot be proved false; such a statement is therefore not scientific. The claim that gravity bends light waves, on the other hand, can be tested by experiment. If it is false we can prove that it is false. It is therefore a scientific claim. The biggest problem this theory has is that early in its development it portrayed itself as a complete universal event, which it is not, and there are later scientists that for their own agenda, continued to promote this as proof that it is wrong. As wikipedia is an encyclopedia as and such this should be in reception section. And to rehash my many discussions with fellow museum service members - A paleontologist called it (Continental drift / plate tectonics) “Germanic pseudo-science” and accused Wegener of toying with the evidence to spin himself into “a state of auto-intoxication.” Edmund Patrick – confer13:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Read the previous discussion. All sorts of legitimate water-related research is being branded by inclusion under a single banner. The author is not and has never claimed to be a scientist but did adjust her views when scientific evidence became available and was open to refutation. Chris55 (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The term pseudoscience has derogatory implications, not warranted here. The hypothesis was supported by Hardy, who was a professional zoologist and a Fellow of the Royal Society. Recently, there were two half hour radio programmes on the BBC by Sir David Attenborough, reassessing the hypothesis in a positive light, based on recent primary research, some of it published in "Nature". It was proposed that there would exist a testable measure of the hypothesis, and one has recently been found. The greasy covering of new-born humans, vernix caseosa, was thought to be unique to humans. It is certainly not found in other primates, however, it has been recently discovered that a similar coating occurs on new-born seals. The greasy coating of seals has been analysed by mass spectrometry, and was found to be essentially identical to that covering human babies. This is a definite connection between aquatic mammals and humans that does not occur in other non-aquatic mammals. Urselius (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Support in both lead and reception. The AAT is bunk; it's widely accepted to be bunk. It started with a legitimate hypothesis from someone without the background to see why their hypothesis was implausible, but over the succeeding decades it's become an exercise in finding (or simply making up) facts to suit the theory. In particular, it is this later exercise in starting with the conclusion that has made it pseudoscience. We should not mislead the reader into thinking it is taken seriously. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The “growing evidence of the role of waterways in hominid evolution” (Tobias) is now an area of scientific research significant enough to dispense with the charge of pseudoscience as of contemporary relevance. None of the sources cited to support the charge are substantive. Blog posts not linked to peer-reviewed texts by the same author cannot be assumed to be reliable. Almanacer (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The label has been used by writers who thought that the theory was being supported by some people on spurious grounds. That is no justification for labelling other proponents as pseudoscientists who are simply putting forward scientific arguments which may or may not be correct. I disagree both with editors who support because they think the theory is bunk or oppose because they think it is a valid theory. Both views are POV. The issue should be that the article should explain the arguments on each side, not quote abuse. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - For us to declare something pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages's voice, especially in the lead, it has to be a widely-held view. The sources presented are not compelling. A personal blog is not usable at all. The Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience does not seem to be regarded as reliable. I can't find a book called "Regal's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience". Perhaps the OP means ""Pseudoscience: a critical encyclopedia" by Brian Regal, which is cited in a few other publications, but not to the extent that it would be considered authoritative. - MrX21:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
No one is argueing it should be declared in Misplaced Pages's voice. The argument is about whether to include the view at all - with attribution. The questoin is simple: is it a significant notable view that AAH is pseudoscience. If if is then NPOV requires us to include that view. You are now argueing that in spite of being included in two distinct encyclopedias of pseudoscience this is not a significant view. Frankly I find that argument absurd and in contravention of Wikipedias most basic policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ·06:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Then the question posed is ambiguous. When you wrote " based on the inclusion..." perhaps you meant to write "attributed to...". In any case, attribution would not make it any more appropriate for the lead per WP:DUEWEIGHT and my comments about the quality of the sources still applies.- MrX13:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The lead already says, and probably takes too much time over it, that the theory has little support and is not supported by evidence. TFD (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Support both Of course it's not falsifiable, but what else from that period of our evolution is? It's described as psuedoscience and it is very definitely fringe. On that note, perhaps the language of the lede could use a little tidy-up. Do we really need phrases such as "in depth" and "mainstream"? --Pete (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - from the 1930s would predate the Modern synthesis so seems more one of the Superseded scientific theories or thesis that did not pan out, not something current or even pseudoscience. By all means just follow the cites and convey what they say in due WP:WEIGHT, but also be clear on the timing. The reception section should state what the reception was in the 1940s and clearly seperate that from if it got revisionism or relabelling in the recent past. Markbassett (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: No in the lede, but yes to a mention under Reception. The theory is clearly not supported by the available evidence or current scientific consensus, but just being wrong doesn't make it inherently pseudoscientific. --tronvillain (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
RfC comment. Given the history of how the theory came about, it seems more like bad science than an idea that developed independently of science. As such, "pseudoscience" is not unreasonable as a way to describe it, but not quite the most precise term. I would say that fringe would be more precise. The theory does seem to have come about via a sincere attempt to employ scientific methods, but it has been so widely rejected as to put it outside of the mainstream. That's really what "fringe" is. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The current lead makes it quite clear there is not widespread acceptance of AAH, as well as little physical evidence to support it. Let us not conflate merely bad or incorrect science with pseudoscience. Furthermore personal blogs should almost never be cited for matters of science. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, but per Tryptofish, a qualifier like "fringe" or stronger wording indicating its widespread lack of support (popular and evidentiary) is merited in the lede. Heterodidact (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, including opposition to the use of terms such as fringe, and speaking as one who rejected the AAH idea from its original proposal. The AAH proposal began as a serious suggestion and evidence was presented for its support. The fact that the theory had holes does not mean that it was pseudoscience nor even fringe science, and to call it that in the lede does dishonour to the people who proposed it and to WP. The fact that by now it is hardly rationally supportable and that fringe and beyond-fringe writers have embraced it is another matter, and to mention it in the lede without making it clear that this is independent of the arguable merits of the original idea would be irresponsible. But to put the whole story in the lede would be cumbersome and unnecessary. Put it in the body in a properly balanced discussion. JonRichfield (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Strong oppose-There is a basic difference between the AAH idea and ideas like psychokinesis which are at the heart of Pseudoscience.The theory no doubt is extremely flawed and going by the mountain of evidences put forward against it, it could be only irrationally supportable but the theory uses proper scientific phenomenon to build it's case.It's regretful that the theory could not stand the scrutiny and it proved to be a case of incorrect deductions from correct science. On similar terms the Plum pudding model was heavily flawed and it's discrepancies could now be detected even by a high school student, but that does not deem it to be classified under Pseudoscience.To summarize-"Pseudo-science is always incorrect but the vice-versa rarely holds"!Aru@baska13:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose -As far as anthropologists are concerned, it's an interesting if rather far-out hypothesis with some explanatory power, plenty of evidence against it, and which could possibly be accepted if new evidence came to light. That's pretty much how Copernican cosmology began. It may be right or wrong, but it's not simply to be labelled as pseudo. If there's good reason to mention the accusation in Reception, go ahead of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. In brief, the current lede already makes the consensus clear, the sources aren't reliable enough to warrant the inclusion in the lede, and wrong science isn't the same as pseudoscience. All of these points have already been discussed in detail by other editors. Arathald (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Weak oppose As others have stated, there's a distinction between pseudoscience and a flawed argument that failed to attract consensus in a given research community over time. That difference is difficult to articulate in a brief format, but it certainly hinges in part on a lack of rigor in the empirical process and a refusal to accept contravening evidence. To that extent, contemporary support for the theory might be fairly described as having elements of pseudoscience to it, but much of this article is concerned primarily with the historical development of this theory, from an era three-quarters of a century back when the state of science on the evolution of human physiology was substantially less developed and when theories were more speculative--not from a lack of scientific rigor necessarily, but because the record was less established, the evidence less substantial, and the research tools more limited. That's not bad science, per se--just outdated. Now, I do believe the lead could use a considerable amount of work, and certainly could be clearer as to the fact that this theory has insubstantial support as a tenable theory in the modern day, especially considering the tone of the article in general. But to describe the existence of the theory itself as a product of pseudoscience would be highly misleading, I must agree with the emerging consensus there.
All that said, the most important consideration here is the fact that we have to take our lead here from the sources--and I don't, on the measure of either A) the quality of the sources proposed for the "pseudoscientific" label, nor B) their WP:WEIGHT when compared against the sources collectively, view the proposed wording as consistent with a verifiable and neutral claim. Snow06:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Strong oppose. The sources are not all reliable and IMHO absolutely insufficient to warrant an inclusion in the lead. Clearly untenable arguments. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a scientific hypothesis. It happens to be wrong (probably), but that doesn't make it pseudoscience. And it's "included" in two encyclopedias of pseudoscience – but we aren't told (and I don't have the means to check) what they say about it. Maproom (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. There are valid discussions to be had about waters edge habitats influencing human evolution. Branding a whole set of them with the disparaging term pseudoscience is not helpful to human understanding which is what we are trying to enhance. Lumos3 (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Chris55: Any chance you could enhance your argument with a policy based rationale for why the word "pseudoscience" should be excluded from a topic that is included in two different encyclopedias of pseudoscience?·maunus · snunɐɯ·14:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Urselius (talk·contribs) and Almanecer (talk·contribs)the same question for you: Any chance you can refer to a policy that allows us to exclude the term pseudoscience from this topic given the high quality sources that labels it as such? (a reference to the alleged paper in nature would also be nice). Please remember that arguments that are not based in policy can be disregarded by the closer. How can the reception section disregard three notale publications that classify this theory as pseudoscience and simultaneously follow WP:NPOV and the findings of the arbitration committee regarding pseudoscience? You really have to address this.·maunus · snunɐɯ·15:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Your suggestion that an entry in a book about Pseudoscience is sufficient to qualify for the label is curious since the Williams book for example also includes articles on Francis Bacon, Arthur C Clarke and Martin Gardener among other well-known names. Are we to label them similarly? Surely we should pay some attention to what is written there. My objection to Regal’s treatment is that he is mainly concerned with the polemic nature of Morgan’s early writing and despite suggesting that the theory is receiving more mainstream notice returns to a book about an entirely different subject to press his claims. Williams simply concludes that as her “ideas have still to find some basis for acceptance” it remains pseudoscience.
This might be ok if pseudoscience was not used by a certain section of Misplaced Pages editors (of which you are an example) as a means of banning any favourable material about a topic in the name of “NPOV”. I think the argument goes “science is by definition NPOV. Therefore a viewpoint that is opposed to the general consensus is not NPOV.” If we named “general consensus” as Aristotle, we might see some similarities with the schoolmen of another era. I, with an unfortunate liberal bias, think that all viewpoints should be fairly represented and critiqued. Chris55 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
"all viewpoints should be fairly represented and critiqued" is a familiar sort of phrase when one of the viewpoints is that the earth is 6000 years old. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the gratuitous personal attack. Your logic however fails because if all viewpoints should be fairly represented and critiqued then why do you think that the clearly notable viewpoint which is that AAT is pseudoscience should precisely not be described or critiqued in this article? You are contradicting your own !vote.·maunus · snunɐɯ·18:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Another point that should be made is that at least 10 of the scientific papers cited on this page date from after 2010 whereas Williams is 2000 and Hawks not much after. Scientific opinion can change faster than street reputations. Chris55 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Ahha...which is why we should trust journalist Attenborough (whose knighthood is apparently relevant while his lack of academic credentials is not) over the papers published in Evolutionary Anthropology in 2014. When the reputation of AAT changes Algis Kuliukas and his friends will be able to publish in reputable journals which currently they are not, and the theory will be mentioned in textbooks about Human evolution and not in encyclopedias of pseudoscience, which currently they are not. Also Hawks latest writing on AAT in which he defines it as pseudoscience is from 2009.·maunus · snunɐɯ·19:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
There's a lovely quote in the Foley, Lahr 2014 which you regard as "very high quality". A shriek on p57 which says "How can we carry out research on “water stuff” in prehistory without either being dismissed as charlatans or used as props for the AAH??" Since they seem to be scared of their fellow scientists and the problem is all of their own making, it's hard to have very much sympathy. Chris55 (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Attenborough read a natural sciences (Zoology and Geology) degree at Cambridge, he is an FRS (they don't hand fellowships out like toffees), so he is not without academic credentials. What he has done to further an interest in natural history and biology in the eyes of the public speaks for itself. The number of species named after him also speaks for the high esteem he is held in by academics. He is hardly just "a journalist" in this context. There is a sea-change happening in the academic world concerning the aquatic ape hypothesis and this article is becoming dangerously archaic, it may soon be laughable. Urselius (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
You are using the authors to argue the opposite of what they are actually argueing by selectively qupoting them out of context now. That is a very old pov-pushing technique. You really need to read the Arbitration case on pseudoscience, because next step after this is going to be arbitration enforcement.·maunus · snunɐɯ·20:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Now it's you talking rubbish. The rest of their paper is a design for how to do "water related research" without appearing to go along with the AAH. It is to be expected that they minimize the papers which appear to support the AAH but it seems to consistent with their attempt "to keep clear blue water between that and the AAH". I have been been in scientific research long enough to know how the community works, as well as reading a lot of scientific history. None of this is new. It's happened endless times before. Chris55 (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh the wonders of wiki-world. I agree whole-heartly with ·maunus that the fact (and it is one) that a large porpotion of the scientific world sees this theory as pseudoscience is important to learning about the theory and upholding wikipedia's goal of being a encyclopedia! IMHO it should be in reception section - to further improve this article through communial discussions (!) should we introduce a RfC on this question alone? Edmund Patrick – confer06:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Regal's does not say that the theory is pseudoscience, but "Morgan's continued critique of "Tarzanists" in evolutionary biology is less a reasoned scientific discussion that a distracting pseudoscientific politicizing of an important issue." In other words, it is not the theory itself that is pseudoscience, but the approach taken by its chief advocate against the mainstream. The theory itself has its origins in mainstream scientists advocating an original hypothesis, which is not pseudoscience, but actually how science operates. It only becomes pseudoscience when its advocates ignore evidence and impugn the motives of their oppoents, instead of concentrating on scientific argument. TFD (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what you say, TFD. But since 1982 in 4 books, Morgan attempted to separate the scientific aspects from the polemic. To find any current evidence, Regal had to reference a book Morgan wrote counter to Pinker's Blank Slate, in the process of which he demonstrates complete ignorance of those issues. Having taken a stand against AAH people are forced to defend their position by increasingly irrelevant arguments. What we need to do is to find a way out of this pointless stalemate. Water is important in human history and has been systematically ignored in evolutionary theory. One can blame Morgan for making the idea popular with the public without proper scientific evidence but to use a Wiki article purely to support the status quo is indefensible. Chris55 (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Maunus Your comment placed inappropriately in the Survey section has broken the numbering and threatens to turn the section into a mess. I suggest you move it to the discussion section. Chris55 (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@MaunusTo clarify the policy issue: declarations of pseudoscience (or anything else for that matter) are only acceptable if they can be found in reliable peer-reviewed sources and sources are accurately represented in the proposed content, in sum " a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". The currently proposed content on the pseudoscience charge is deficient in both respects as has been demonstrated in some detail and without challenge in on this page by several editors. Almanacer (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment on RfC design: the point of numbering !votes is so that they can be easily counted. The right way to do this is to have separate sections for "support" and "oppose". Then a glance can tell the current tally as well as the total. As it stands we can tell how many people have !voted, but we can only tell that "oppose" is coming out ahead because the margin is (currently) relatively large. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment:TFD expressed it so thoroughly and succinctly in passing, that I repeat it here as an accent point, clear of surrounding digressions: "...it is not the theory itself that is pseudoscience, but the approach taken by its chief advocate against the mainstream. The theory itself has its origins in mainstream scientists advocating an original hypothesis, which is not pseudoscience, but actually how science operates. It only becomes pseudoscience when its advocates ignore evidence and impugn the motives of their opponents, instead of concentrating on scientific argument." JonRichfield (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Nuclear though TFD's point is, its discrimination is not well suited to the lede, particularly if we are to avoid charges of WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR, so, until someone produces a precis sufficiently concise and to the point, I reckon that the body is the right place for it. It might be worth considering making these key points more explicit in the reception section. JonRichfield (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It is not synthesis, I quoted the source: "Morgan's continued critique of "Tarzanists" in evolutionary biology is less a reasoned scientific discussion that a distracting pseudoscientific politicizing of an important issue." The source is not calling the Aquatic Ape Theory pseudoscience, on the contrary it is an "important issue." It's calling Morgan's approach pseudo-scientific. There is a parallel with extra-terrestrial life. It is legitimate science to speculate about and search for extra-terrestrial life, but a lot written about it is pseudoscience. I was not suggesting by the way that we put this information into the lead, but that we not say in the lead that the hypothesis is pseudo-scientific, since among other things the source does not say that. TFD (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Redraft of AAH
Though the Rfc above is still open, Maunus has effectively closed it by acceding to the requests for removal of the Regal quote. So I’d like to ask what next.
This article is a mess, the typical result of warring factions on Misplaced Pages who can’t agree about anything and lay their stakes on something that can’t be instantly deleted. And it doesn’t properly represent the topic that it is supposed to be about. As an example, the largest part in the Proposals section is about Encephalization. Whilst this is the most important area of current research, it was a topic about which Elaine Morgan was consistently ambivalent about, initially preferring to credit it to neotony and never including it in the main chapter sequences in her books.
Since this article is about Morgan’s hypothesis, which remained relatively constant over the years, I think it should start with summarising what she actually said. The basic thesis is that water played an important part in human evolution, but it is argued by a series of plausible consequences, that Daniel Dennett has called adaptionist Just So stories. (Dennett ’95 p243-245 penguin edn) They may or may not be true and many of them will never be able to be independently verified or refuted. Langdon 97 compiled a list of 24 features but even his list has notable gaps: he never mentions babies for example; and such a list is unsuitable for the article.
There is still a place for modern water-related research in the article but it should be separated from Morgan’s claims since researchers unsurprisingly have varying reactions to Morgan. Many are apprehensive of being tainted with the AAH brush and it is only the old men whose positions are impregnable (sorry to be sexist) who have boldly come out in support.
If there is support for a redraft, how do we proceed? Bold editing will probably lead to endless edit wars, drafts on the talk page would be unmanageable. I suspect the only possible way is the sandbox, which can then be discussed on this page. I’m not sure which section of WP should be used. The only suitable place I can suggest is a subpage of my user area and I’d be happy for people to make non-contentious changes to that (with others taking place here).
I think that the subject of the article breaks down into three reasonably separate sections: 1) Morgan's hypothesis, 2) the reaction to her ideas within academia and by the press and other non-academic agencies, and 3) more recent evidence that has some testable basis, which support a water/waterside phase in human evolution. In 1) and 2), it should be emphasised that hotly contested discussions were largely made without any real evidence, the furore being based largely on "gut-instinct" (scientists are not without bias in their views). However, 3) reflects scientifically valid evidence and a beginning in the objective testing of the theory and its predictions. Urselius (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Chris55 a good idea which hopefully will result in a real development and improvement of this article. I will start to re-read the book this week and assist where I can. One thing instantly springs to mind, a result of this may well lead to the necessity of the creation of the waterside ape theory page which is different from the AAT. In terms of a subpage this has worked for a few editors when we took a deep breath and restructured Matthew Hopkins transferring the whole article to a sandbox with <nowiki >at the beginning and obviously </nowiki> at the end. We found it useful as all wikilinks etc do not link (teaching grandmothers to suck eggs!) Edmund Patrick – confer13:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks you both for those suggestions. Separating the academic reaction from popular media is probably important so that discussion of mermaids isn't mixed with theoretical issues! I'm not so sure about the <nowiki> idea. When I tried it (easy to preview on the article without pressing the save button) I found the loss of sections and paragraphs more offputting than the inclusion of references which wasn't as distracting as I feared. This article is nearly 3 x the length of the current Matthew Hopkins article which shows it's a big job. Chris55 (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Good it was cumbersome, we had self appointed "protectors" of the Witchfinder General and all he stood for, that I doubt will occure here. Let the journey begin. Edmund Patrick – confer05:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see myself getting involved in this (only here for the RFC) but I think the proposals sound good. Personally I have severe reservations on unconstructively anal application of OR and SYN strictures, so good luck in avoiding them as snares for your feet, because a worthwhile and balanced article would need a lot of evaluatory explanation and narration. JonRichfield (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Starting: I'm finally ready with the start of a redraft which can be found at User:Chris55/AAH2. Sorry it's taken so long. I have in fact only just managed to get a copy of The Descent of Woman from my local library, still more popular than the followups, but that's not the reason. Partly the delay came from trying to get a transcript of the Attenborough Radio 4 series online which seemed to me important as it's not easy to make references to a radio programme. I'm glad to say this is now available here. So those who have been unable to receive it can scan it rather more quickly.
I've also put the text of the current article at User:Chris55/AAH to act as a resource from which one can transfer text easily to the redraft. Please follow the instructions at the top of each page. Discussions relating to details of the redraft can be made at User talk:Chris55/AAH2.
Chris55 (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aquatic ape hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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.
This article has had a POV headnote on it for 4 months. Following the discussions earlier on this page, I've now redrafted the article completely and it's available for inspection here. It's been entirely restructured and follows more closely normal Misplaced Pages style for this sort of article. Sorry it's taken so long but it involved reading quite a few books and many more scientific articles. I propose that it should replace the current article. Please read it carefully and indicate whether or not you agree with this. Chris55 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Edmund. Maybe I should suggest to others to skip the first two sections (History and Hardy/Morgan hypothesis) which don't say much new, and look at the last two sections: Reactions and Waterside research, which is where the rewrite most differs from the current version, following others' suggestions on structuring. And of course there will be plenty of opportunity to improve the details. I've tried to be as neutral as I can. Chris55 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking very promising, indeed, and I agree it should go up as the article. I've made some small tweaks. Refs 8, 20, 21, 23, 24, 61, 68, and 70 do not point to any (Harvard) citation. Books and journals don't need accessdates. It looks as if initials are punctuated (Bloggs, J.) not (Bloggs J), by the way, I fixed quite a few. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for those corrections. A great help. I've fixed the Harvard citations. The fill-in boxes for citations are a great help but need tweaking in 2 places (ref=harv and removing unnecessary dates). Chris55 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I've left it a week to give time for comments and there are no disagreements so I've posted the redrafted article. Enjoy. Chris55 (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Chris,
Thank you for your very interesting redraft. Just a few comments:
1) The image you have chosen for the header, whilst it is cute, it is not actually of the Aquatic Ape Theory. I think it's highly unusual, if against Wikipaedia rules. to have a page with the main image as something not of the topic that the page is covering. For example, if you go to the theory of evolution page, you don't expect to see a picture of what it is NOT, like Lamarckism for example. A more appropriate image would be someone free diving, without any breathing equipment, such as this: ]
2) There has been some further removals of supportive evidence-based research from the list of biological features that support an aquatic era in human development. These include:
i) Sympathetic nervous control of finger wrinkling leading to improved grip in aquatic environments, much discussed on this page on a number of occasions, and also mentioned on the wikipaedia fingertip wrikling page. Please reinstate this passage which was actually previously approved by an anti-AAT wiki editor:
Finger wrinkling:Finger and toe wrinkling is a response to wet conditions.Humans are the only great apes to show finger and toe pad wrinkling in response to exposure to wet conditions. One hypothesis that has been put forward is that wrinkled fingers are adaptive for grasping in wet conditions in the same way as tyre treads help to avoid slipping on the roads. However if it is such an adaption it could have evolved to cope with water in the environment rather than from having to spend time in it.
ii) The use of water birth is incorrectly mentioned as "recently rediscovered" - it has been in practice for many years and all major NHS maternity wards have birthing pools, and since 2007 have been part of the NICE guidelines (National Institute of Clinical Excellence https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg190/chapter/recommendations ; https://www.rcm.org.uk/sites/default/files/Immersion%20in%20Water%20%20for%20Labour%20and%20Birth_0.pdf) The benefits of water birth have been proven in pain reduction and diminished risk of perineal tears in the mother. The previous reference for this was replaced with one of Morgan in the early 1980s, I'm not sure why and it seems unusual and unscientific.
Aquapess, thanks for your comments. As Chiswick Chap has noted, I didn't put the picture at the top of the article and agree it was a bit odd there. I hope the new one doesn't give to rise to more misapprehensions about humans being related to dolphins :) But the real problem is that I couldn't find any more appropriate picture in Wikimedia Commons. I haven't even been able to obtain a copyright-free picture of chimpanzees wading, though there are plenty of (copyright) pictures on the web.
About finger-wrinkling: I realise that this and other plausible physiological effects have been omitted from the redraft, but it wasn't something that Hardy or Morgan picked up on and there wasn't a suitable place to include it. There may be a place for another section covering other hypotheses. But at the moment it falls between two stools (Morgan's ideas and that for which there is scientific testing). The problem with plausible ideas for which there was no scientific evidence relating to the past was that they became targets for skeptics to knock the whole notion. Chris55 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
About water birth: in the 1980s, water birth was more novel for most people. Certainly it's becoming normal now, but we are dealing with an idea that was presented a long time ago. Chris55 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: The named reference pmid9361254 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
The scientific article on which this news item is based is called "Are Wet-Induced Wrinkled Fingers Primate Rain Treads?" and includes a picture of the wrinkled fingers of a macaque monkey. So it's unclear to me that this is something distinctly human. Chris55 (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there is a picture of a macaque monkey also, when the studies were done on humans, and the lack of information is unhelpful. However, in an interview with one of the lead authors (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110628/full/news.2011.388.html) it suggests that the macaques in question were likely to be hot-spring dwelling japanese macaques, which is interesting from an AAT point of view, because their lifestyle may have some parallels with the waterside ape hypothesis (ie. they are not full-time inhabitants of water-based environments, but nevertheless rely heavily on it).
The original fingertip section that was in the AAH page was a shortened version of what is on the fingertip page, and I think that the section there which has more references to more recent scientific research articles shows that the issue is relevant to humans that merits a mention on the AAH page. I think if it is paraphrased, it could be added to the "Evidence for a waterside context" section. I've copied and included it below for your convenience:
Fingertip wrinkling in water
Although a common phenomenon, the underlying functions and mechanism of fingertip wrinkling following immersion in water are relatively unexplored. Originally it was assumed that the wrinkles were 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. 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. A 2013 study supporting this hypothesis found that the wrinkled fingertips provided better handling of wet objects but gave no advantage for handling dry objects. However, a 2014 study attempting to reproduce these results was unable to demonstrate any improvement of handling wet objects with wrinkled fingertips.
I also think that in between "swimming" and "fat babies" there could be a section mentioning the infant swimming reflex. Whilst many mammals have a basic "dive reflex" involving bradycardia and vasoconstriction, as far as I'm aware, only human babies have a reflex where the glottis spontaneously closes, to reduce the risk of drowning. This reflex is usually lost at six months, but can be prolonged by training. Would it be possible to include something about this unique feature?Aquapess (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Chris, thanks for your reply. I read through your comments and also your previous thread explaining about why you wanted to redraft the page. I agree with a lot of your points, and I think that the previous page was a mish mash of arguments here and there which is not helpful or informative.
I understand your point that you felt that AAH was largely Morgan's theory, and that you've tried to make this page an illustration of her ideas, which I think you've done competently (and explains why you put her as a reference for the water birth, rather than NICE or RCCOG, and the fingertip wrinkling, as you've said above).
HOWEVER, the AAT hasn't remained static since Morgan, and there have been a lot of developments in terms of research since her books, not only the finger wrinkling research, but many mentioned by David Attenborough in his second BBC Radio 4 show recently. Many AAT supporters now believe a slightly modified version of Morgan's ideas, which are a result of a synthesis of new evidence since her initial works, including those mentioned above and by others on these threads. Some people jokingly/affectionately call this a "watered-down" view of the AAT, and is more like a water-side ape, since it is unlikely that humans ever had a 100 % solely water-based life. Some people call this the "Waterside Ape" theory, as was the title of Attenborough's show. The theory undoubtedly builds on Morgan's ideas, but as with all scientific theories, has responded to emerging evidence over the past 40 - 50 years when Morgan first started publicising the idea.
Therefore, my question is, if you would like to keep this page solely to describe ONLY Morgan's ideas, then does this mean that AAT/Waterside Ape supporters should/would be able to start a new wikipaedia page describing the current Waterside Ape theory? My feeling is that since the two topics are quite intertwined, there would be a lot of repetition between the two pages. However, this would free up the second page to summarise recent research, including those mentioned. What is the general consensus on this? Aquapess (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The article is already not limited to Morgan, and must not be. As you say, the Waterside ape version is closely intertwined with the older version, and is not really separable (we call that a FORK, and it's strongly deprecated), so I'd certainly agree that we must not create any "second article" on the same topic. The article is quite short and there are plenty of bits and bytes available, so if we need to say more on the Waterside ape, suitably sourced, we can and will do that in this article. We have however already relied heavily on fairly weak sources (Morgan, the BBC) for a scientific article: further detail should come from scientific sources, preferably review papers not primary research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Aquapess, I don't really understand your request. The final section (now called Evidence for a waterside context) is very much based on recent research which supports the basic ideas. If you look carefully at the references you'll see that it includes a transcription of the Attenborough series, as the original radio version is not available outside UK (it took me a little time!) In particular it is my (unconfirmed) understanding that it was David Attenborough who made the running on demonstrating that vernix caseosa is seen in other aquatic mammals. The name (AAT/AAH) has been questioned since 1998 when Tobias asked for an alternative, and "waterside" seems the only common factor: "waterside ape" & "waterside hypotheses" have both been used. I don't think it's the job of Misplaced Pages to decide, and it's not just about a radio programme. If there was a second article, why would anyone look for it? It would certainly be good if the supporters could make up their minds! Chris55 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Chiswick Chap, so sorry, I didn't get time to have a thorough read of all the changes you made, but I've had a look through now and I see that you have included a fair amount of the research mentioned in Attenborough's show. I appreciate that this must have taken some time, and the overall article is a vast improvement on the previous version. I've made another comment regarding the fingertip wrinkling above however.Aquapess (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The finger wrinkling is an odd case; it's been in and out of the article, and as Chris says it doesn't fit in easily. We must remain neutral - we can't put in every bit of possibly suggestive evidence to try to "prove" AAH, that would certainly be taking sides (WP:POV), and we don't have one: our position is simply that here is a theory that people stated different positions over, and here is what they argued. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
References
^ Changizi, M.; Weber, R.; Kotecha, R.; Palazzo, J. (2011). "Are Wet-Induced Wrinkled Fingers Primate Rain Treads?". Brain, Behavior and Evolution. 77 (4): 286–90. doi:10.1159/000328223. PMID21701145.
^ Haseleu, Julia; Omerbašić, Damir; Frenzel, Henning; Gross, Manfred; Lewin, Gary R. (2014). Goldreich, Daniel (ed.). "Water-Induced Finger Wrinkles Do Not Affect Touch Acuity or Dexterity in Handling Wet Objects". PLoS ONE. 9: e84949. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084949.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Aquapess, I find it rather confusing when you invent new sections retrospectively and don't place comments in sequence. Please consider other users.
You've now added several other references for wrinkled fingers but they seem to cancel each other out and don't add any historical insights. (And references don't really work on talk pages.) You also refer to fat babies. You should be aware that Cunnane & Crawford have an entirely different explanation of fat babies to Morgan, although both of them relate to AAH. Morgan thinks it's to help them float: Cunnane & Crawford start from the staggering fact that 74% of the newborn's energy is taken by their brain to argue that the baby needs fat as an emergency energy supply. I find that rather compelling but it shows how difficult it is to relate physiological effects to evolutionary advantage. That's the main reason I've downplayed such arguments in the article. Chris55 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Chris, some fair points, I agree with the confusing format, but I was just following the interruptions as others had done to me - see comments arising between points 1 and 2 of my original comment above for example.
Also, very interesting comments about the baby fat, but I don't wish to debate the issue - what I was interested in adding is the glottis closure reflex in babies under 6 months after the baby fat sectionAquapess (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right. I agree it should be there in the Fat Babies section. Please add it with citations. The problem is with your "as far as I know". To go beyond being a guess or a hypothesis you have to eliminate the other possibilities. All mammals start in an aqueous environment and it's not until the amniotic sac (or equivalent) breaks that they start to use their lungs. Are humans different in the way they make that transition? I don't know and it would presumably take some tests on other species to establish it. It would be a brave experimenter that risks drowning baby chimps to find out! So whilst it's fine in the 'hypothesis' section it would take better citations to have it in the research section. Chris55 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Chris, yes it makes sense that you would have this reflex in the womb, the interesting thing about humans is that this persists for up to six months, much longer than any other infant reflexes, and with regular use, can be maintained beyond the six months, whereas if the reflex was solely to keep out amniotic fluid, one would imagine that it would disappear very quickly once outside the womb. However, I agree as well that it needs careful research with solid citations, so I will look into this and then suggest a passage later with reputable sources of information.Aquapess (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Summary graphic
Arguments proposed by Hardy/Morgan and other related works (reference list at bottom)
Great thanks to @Chris55: for the redraft, the current version looks much better and up to date.
I propose to add this summary graphic, perhaps near the section "Hardy/Morgan hypothesis". It includes more points than those listed, but all of the points can be traced back to the original proposal and other related published works (peer reviewed papers or edited volumes, see the reference list at the bottom of image). It could provide a clearer picture of the complex set of ideas, and surely we should emphasize in some way that, among these points only a minor subset have produced testable hypothesis (e.g. those mentioned in the "waterside context" section) while most others are either unsupported or remain to be tested as of today. Chakazul (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a fine wall poster, but it is perhaps markedly less suitable as a graphic in an article, where a single message needs to be conveyed in a small space (a single section or paragraph with a relevant illustration) rather than a complex message in a large space (not available on mobile devices, for example). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Right, I was trying to make an encyclopedic summary of the model, but maybe it's not the best format for use in wikipedia. One possibility is to chop it into several diagrams, but that will overwhelm the page Chakazul (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
An excellent piece of work, informative if a bit overwhelming! I love it and would happily use it in talks as a wall poster, not sure if it can transfer to a graphic on a computer screen, which is a shame, but chopping (seperating a better word) it would work if presented as image / text of image / reference to text. Just a thought. Edmund Patrick – confer08:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with others in liking the graphics. But maybe it could be split up into small sections. One thing I find odd is the reference to the man's bald head. Alister Hardy has a lovely graphic in his original article (p643) suggesting why hair on the head is the major place left and it would be nice to see that (the original is copyright of course: I did approach New Scientist without any response. You could also annotate the swimming woman.) Also a picture of a chimp wading would be great. I haven't been able to find a free photo of one. Chris55 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If we are to use any of it, we'd need individual graphics elements with no text, or almost no text (generally best to have none, as other language Wikis don't specially want English; and text works very poorly on thumbnail images, best keep it to captions separate from the image). But not sure any of these images will work like that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments and I agree that separating it into several graphs with no text would better fit the wiki format. The text would be in the caption but that will make it very, very long. Or the points (as well as the references) could be added to the text proper, even better, listed/tabulated in a new section "Arguments from other proponents", but would it violate WP:DUEWEIGHT by presenting too much arguments (most are speculations)?
@Chris55: Yes there are different arguments about the scalp hair, one that it remained for blocking sunlight according to Hardy (see the left side of "head & upper body"), one that the long hair in females for infants to cling on according to Morgan, and that the bald head in males for further streamlining as argued by Verhaegen. These lead to some proponents think that males would have engaged more in diving and females more in floating/swimming. Chakazul (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Censoring the topic
This article has a very weird history. Every time some one dares to describe what it's talking about, it will be a matter of days, before someone will remove everything pertinent, under random false pretences. Somehow, with this particular "pseudoscientific" idea, people are not supposed to be told, what it's actually suggesting. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
To describe "what it's talking about", the article must use reliable, independent secondary sources. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary work meant to reflect accepted knowledge about a topic. It is not an ersatz secondary work giving an exposition of fringe theories based on primary sources from their proponents. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, false pretences. That's not what this is about. It's a very weird phenomenon to observe. A lot of people have been told for decades that this entire topic is pseudoscience, so that's what they expect to read at a place like this. But if you would make a balanced encyclopedic presentation on what all the hubbub is about, you just can't get that point across. And instead of thinking that maybe they misunderstood the whole thing, people go into a state panic. "This can't be right! I know this is pseudo!" And the only outcome is that people start hacking away at random, still desperately trying to censor the topic away, if not only subconsciously.
It's so dreadful to anticipate the worst of human psychology, and be proven right. You look at a rewrite and go, "Well, this is at least a bit closer to what's been talked about all along. I wonder how long it will take this time, before the book burning starts?" And in this case... a fortnight. This has been going on for years now on this article. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Remember to WP:FOC. Commenting on other editors is disruptive. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions and disruptive behaviour is likely to attract editing restrictions. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
