Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:33, 5 October 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aquatic ape hypothesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Aquatic ape hypothesis received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Aquatic ape hypothesis. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Aquatic ape hypothesis at the Reference desk.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Evolutionary biology Low‑importance Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Primates Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Human Genetic History (inactive) 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. Palaeontology Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 5, 2009, March 5, 2010, and March 5, 2013.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Mvaneech (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis/Archive_5#Request_to_add_information)

A warzone

Ten years down, and this article is still a warzone. New relevant studies are still censored away. People are not to supposed to know about studies into vernix caseosa or surfer's ear in Homo erectus, 'cause past human aquaticism is to stay a laughing matter for all eternity. It's a disgrace that Wiki's standards can't protect such a topic from malicious vandalism bent on keeping knowledge from general access.--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Although there is much I disagree with you on CEngelbrecht2 the following is very apt, but I also can see no way of improving this encyclopedia on this particular subject at the moment. “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.” Carl Sagan

This talk page is here to try formulas and discuss ways of improving this article so how would we get the introduction of vernix caseosa (both positive and negative) back into the article? Edmund Patrick – confer 10:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Any and all edits, that doesn't scream the knee-jerk assumption, that any version of aquaticism in recent hominin evolution is psychotic lunacy gets deleted within hours as a matter of course. It's the only "pseudoscientific" idea I know of, where it isn't necessary to present what it's talking about. "When the great innovation appears, it will almost certainly be in a muddled, incomplete and confusing form. To the discoverer, it will only be half understood; to every one else, it will be a mystery. For any speculation which does not at first glance look crazy, there is no hope." (Freeman Dyson) --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

it’s very simple, you go “This is what the aquatic ape theory says...” and then you go “however, this is what the scientific consensus is...” it really isn’t as complicated as you guys are making it out to be   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If you keep track of this article, it's not even allowed to do that. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If only the please look through the back history for a clearer picture. Edmund Patrick – confer 17:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I still don’t see the problem, there’s absolutely no reason why it shouldn’t be that simple. I just keep seeing people say “it’s not that simple, end statement.” The biggest thing I’m seeing is people saying sources that support the theory are unreliable which is the most twisted logic I’ve ever heard of   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77, Edmund Patrick, and CEngelbrecht2: This topic is probably one of the most problematic there is. I would recommend proposing changes here before editing the article itself. One problem is the nature of the topic itself. It is not a theory regarding the cause of cancer, or some other Medical question. There is no way to recreate the origins of our species in a lab. It's difficult to imagine a dispositive scientific discovery that would settle the matter. We should all keep that in mind when we edit the article. :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It’s not like you have to phrase it as “this is what happened,” you just have to phrase it as “this is what the theory says” as you should with really anything. You still have to present what the theory says even if it isn’t well supported (so long as you’re clear it’s not well supported)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's the very issue on this topic: You can't present the theory as not well supported. You can't list a proposed argument and then list the rebuttal that's supposed to null it, 'cause the extremely few rebuttals that have been presented for some strange reason are grotesquely weak. That's why the rebuttals still aren't being presented by anyone, 'cause none of them can null the strongest arguments, even though they all "know" it's still nuts. From that, you'd might be forgiven being very confused as to why the concept of water and human evolution is still so obviously wrong. But what can you do against this very strong, decades old sociological expectation for the idea of human aquaticism to be completely nuts, simply because it was the "wrong" people that pursued it way back when. Faced with that tiny "plebs" issue, it quite clearly doesn't matter if it is nuts or not. And any outsiders are left to still assume that it's wrong, even though no one can answer why it's wrong, 'cause that's what you've been told to do. That's why you don't need to read the best arguments in a place like this, 'cause then you'd risk stop laughing at it, which is what you're supposed to do. You're not to supposed to read such banned volumes and draw your own conclusion, if a concept just happens to be an inconvenient truth for an established segment of Academia. Who really cares what human origin actually was?

This is a very strange pseudoscientific idea, I agree. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Case in point: This section was deleted just now. And the reason given was that it was "offensive."

Vernix caseosa

A 2016 research programme conducted by Tom Brenna (then at Cornell University), with the help of Judy St Leger at San Diego Seaworld, compared the chemistry of vernix on human neonates and samples of a vernix-like substance on California Sealion pups. They established that its molecular composition is comparable to human vernix, being rich in both branch chain fatty acids (BCFAs) and squalene. They conclude their findings add to the evidence for human traits which have evolved in parallel to the aquatic adaptation of marine mammals.

The only thing offensive about it is that it's perfectly reasonable science. And it isn't supposed to be, if it dares to support this "pseudoscientific" idea. 'Cause you all "know," that the idea is wrong. You don't know why, and you're not supposed to know why. That's why censorship on this article is perfectly admissable and quite clearly preferred. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree, that really shouldn't have been reverted. The study specifically says "Its presence in a marine mammal supports the hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans" so it directly references aquatic ape hypothesis. @ජපස: why exactly did you delete this?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

As for your reversions of, "Most of the criticisms of Langdon have been refuted," and, " This hypothesis was in itself criticised in a 2012 article in the Journal of Human Evolution," I'd agree those statements are POV, but it really called for rewording like "In 2012, Mario Vaneechoutte refuted this by saying/in response said/etc." Honestly, all I'm seeing in this article is a lack of communication and cooperation for seemingly simple problems. There's absolutely no reason why there should be so much warring when the only problem evident is wording   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the sources intentionally do not mention the aquatic ape hypothesis and cite none of the literature from the champions of the subject, and, apart from the Atteborough program, there is no way to connect Brenna's publications yet to this page. He is being intentionally coy. Also, the Vaneechoutte reference is to a source that is impeached above. In short, this really brings nothing new to the table. jps (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

ජපස "the hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans" is exactly the same as "aquatic ape hypothesis". To exclude it is POV. If we operated like a court of law, that argument would still not hold. As for Vaneechoutte, Mvaneech, if you want it in there, you have to put it as "proponents of this hypothesis say that..." and then talk about Langdon and the current scientific consensus. As for it's reliability, I don't know much about Bentham, but his response was also published by Journal of Comparative Human Biology, doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2012.09.003, so, so long as we don't try to use it to say "this is why AAH is true" (which is effectively what you were doing before which is why it was reverted), it should be fine to use   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The Journal of Comparative Human Biology is a pocket journal that publishes AAH papers because the editor-in-chief's POV skews as such. So, no, I don't think the "he said/she said" here is appropriate at all. We're not in a court of law. We're at Misplaced Pages, and if Brenna cannot be bothered to cite ONE AAH proponent in his paper, then it is dishonest for us to connect those papers to AAH. jps (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Does David Attenborough count as a proponent, because Brenna cites Waterside Ape. It’s dishonest of us to try to pretend this paper isn’t relevant at all to AAH   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, let's try to contextualize this. The Scientific Reports publication isn't subject to the peer-review that would be required to properly contextualize these farcical claims. No one pays attention to the kind of out-on-a-limb arguments in Scientific Reports because of this. Look at the complete lack of citations! The proper articles Brenna has published on vernix caseosa do not cite AAH at all. See the problem? Misplaced Pages should not be in the business of promoting shoddy research done by AAH proponents in game-y open access journals. jps (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Consider, for a moment, that an author can make a conclusion that no one else has made before because, say, no one else has done anything like this before. Do you know of any other study that looks at marine mammal Vernix Caseosa? There aren't any, so no one would have been able to say anything about it. Making a conclusion isn't anything to be shamed on and the hope is you wouldn't do anything like this on any article, and Scientific Reports is indeed a reliable source. You can't throw out every journal publication that brings evidence to AAH especially on an article about AAH because you believe any publication who would do that must be full of conspiracies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which discuss marine mammals vernix caseosa. It is silly that you think that there aren't. Did you even try to look for them? (Here's a random example: .) jps (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The source you just gave says “pulmonary vernix caseosa” which is very different, and yes, I did look it up. It’s found only in humans and, this just in, sea lions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Please, how is it "very different"? I just looked through a huge number of sources and I can't find any explanation as to its difference. jps (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

do you know what “pulmonary” means?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

See what I mean? Censorship, that's the only word for it. These are banned volumes as from the days of Copernicus and Galileo. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please stop trying to get Misplaced Pages to right great wrongs. Convince your AAH-believing brethren to publish in journals with impact factors that break 1.0 and have editors who aren't fellow travelers. jps (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That link states: "on Misplaced Pages, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." And when it is reported in both mainstream media and reputable publishing houses, and still gets censored out in here? Look at that deleted section above. That was in Nature. It's not "offensive", and it's not "unrelated". Its crime is to not confirm an abused idea is nuts. And then we are not to hear about it, and any nonsensical excuse for its censorship is fine. Because it's a Copernican idea. Half a century later. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It was manifestly not in Nature (journal). It is published by the same people, but in an open access journal called Scientific Reports which is about as poor-quality as you can get in the game of things that claim peer review (one step above predatory publishing, actually, and Nature publishing group have been criticized on such places as Retraction Watch). jps (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You have to be joking, it is the largest megajournal for 2 years running, you mean to tell me we have to throw them all out now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

As the only source for an entire section? Absolutely. I have no problem using papers from Scientific Reports that are widely cited or discussed by others, but it clearly has editorial control problems in part because is so mammoth (and, worse, it is likely so mammoth because of some editorial control problems). jps (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

So then how are you deciding when to throw out articles? And a discussion on vernix caseosa should be a sentence or two at most, like "The vernix caseosae of humans were once thought to be unique, but has now been demonstrated to be similar to that of the California sea lion in a 2018 study. According to the study, the high levels of branched chain fatty acids (BCFAs) in sea lions–and thereby humans–may be an adaptation to defend against the pathogen-heavy (compared to a savanna) shore environment, and the high levels of squalene are typically only seen in animals where the skin is often wet," and then if you can find a study that talks about the function of the vernix caseosa in humans, throw it in if it pertains to this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

We aren't "throwing out articles", we are looking for sources for Misplaced Pages content and the proposed paper (the only source being asked for us to consider here) is not particularly good because it is published in a megajournal and doesn't seem to have any serious editorial notice. I also think the second sentence you propose is original research speculation. jps (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I just skimmed over it and wrote that as an example, but for the actual thing it'd be, "The vernix caseosa was once thought to be unique to newborn humans, but has now been demonstrated to be present on California sea lion pups in a 2018 study. According to the study, the vernix caseosa has high levels of branched chain fatty acids (BCFAs) and squalene, and in sea lions, BCFAs may be an adaptation to defend against the pathogen-heavy (compared to a savanna) shore environment, and the high levels of squalene–both in the vernix caseosa and skin secretions–are typically only seen in animals that live in a damp environment."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a source for the claim that the vernix caseosa was "once thought to be unique to newborn humans". That needs to be verified independently. The claim that BCFAs "may be an adaptation" would need to be acknowledged by third party sources for it to be relevant. The claim that squalene is only seen in animals in a "damp environment" would need to be verified as well -- especially for newborns that come from aquatic environments in wombs and eggs. In short, not a good draft at all. jps (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's the Scientific Reports article, it literally starts out with "Vernix caseosa, the white waxy coating found on newborn human skin, is thought to be a uniquely human substance," there can't be another source that says anything about sea lion vernix caseosae because no one's looked at sea lion vernix caseosae, and "Early authors investigating sebum lipid classes observed that squalene is only found in animals that inhabit a 'damp environment' suggesting a function for squalene in skin lipids of mammals whose surface is often wet." Have you actually read the article?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Can you find any corroboration of claims such as "it was once thought unique to humans"? It's not in the citations in the paper and I pointed out another paper that mentions a vernix caseosa on a non-human animal, so where is the evidence that anyone thought it was unique to humans? The article makes expansive claims that are not found elsewhere (yes, I've read the article -- it's terrible!). jps (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Pardon the digresion, but isn't Donghao Wang the lead author of the study at issue? Why are we calling it the Brenna article? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Because Wang is not connected to AAH so this would be irrelevant for our matters here. Brenna is the AAH connection. jps (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@ජපස: I took a look at Retraction Watch's posts on Scientific Reports, per your comment. I don't think it supports the rejection of this particular article. It is still a peer-reviewed publication. The fact that there were issues raised with some other articles (issues that appear to have been addressed) shouldn't render it unusable in its entirety. Unless such a determination comes from a larger community consensus or the ArbCom. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

At Misplaced Pages, best practices are not to write sections based on a single article published in a megajournal. Find a better source or couch the connection in a better fashion. jps (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And then what will be your next excuse? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Brenna, Tom. "Sea Lions Develop Human-like Vernix Caseosa Delivering Branched Fats and Squalene to the GI Tract". Scientific Reports. Nature. Retrieved 26 May 2018.

Scientifc Reports

The journal Scientific Reports really should not be used as a sole source for anything on any page in Misplaced Pages owing to the editorial philosophy which is essentially "accept all comers and find your friends to peer review your work". There had been earlier attempts to use an article published in a different, more prestigious and relevant journal, by Brenna which would have worked had he actually cited AAH. But he did not. Then he went to Scientific Reports where he could get away with being looser and being more provocative with his language (which is still couched, but certainly attempts to make claims which remain completely unfounded and uncited by others relevant to the subject of evolution). Misplaced Pages should not be in the business of reporting on this kind of gaming in articlespace. Best to leave it out of it. jps (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

See? Quoting the truth is suddenly sacrilege. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

ජපස Take it up with the Arbitration Committee, but until then, Scientific Reports is a legit publication and is fair game on Misplaced Pages. We can’t throw out an entire publication (especially the biggest megajournal) just because of one bad article (which they later corrected, and mind you, it was a dispute over a graphical display)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration committee? Huh? Anyway, the point is that this journal is not good enough editorial control for us to use a single paper to base an entire section. If you can find other sources where Brenna actually refers to AAH that aren't reviewed by AAH supporters (such as those on the editorial board of SR), I'd be pleased to learn of them. jps (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

to decide that an entire journal is full of crap and should never be used is a decision that should be made by the larger Misplaced Pages community, not by only you or all of us here in the talk page of AAH, which is the job of the Arbitration Committee. Your argument started as it didn’t use the exact words “Aquatic Ape Hypothesis”, then when we dealt with that you moved to saying all the journal publications are inside the pockets of bigger publications which are full of crap and we can’t trust anything they’re saying, then you said that the paper doesn’t cite any AAH proponents, and then we went over his use of Attenborough, and then you said that no one has made a similar connection with sea lion and human vernix caseosa, and then when I said it’s because no one looked at sea lion vernix caseosa before, you went back to the big conspiracy that scientific report and journal of comparative human biology can’t be trusted because they’re either a megajournal and megajournals are full of crap because they’re so big or they’re in the pockets of scheming publishers with no sense of dignity, and now you’re saying the entire peer review system is rigged over there. At first I thought CEngelbrecht2 was exaggerating but after seeing you will steadfastly refuse any information published in a sizable journal, I’m starting to agree that it’s getting ridiculous. You would never do this in any other article, or at least I hope not   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

"to decide that an entire journal is full of crap and should never be used..." is not what I'm arguing. Try reading my post again. jps (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Then say it again but in different words because "this journal is not good enough editorial control for us to use a single paper to base an entire section" translates to "it's full of crap" because if you can't use a source alone don't bother using it at all, and it's not gonna be a section, it's gonna be two sentences which I've written above   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

If you cannot understand my concern that a single paper from Scientific Reports isn't enough on which to base a section, I'm not sure what you want from me. If you would like to start a new discussion section to try to workshop two sentences (where are you intending on putting them?), be my guest. As I intimated above, you have a lot of original research not supported by independent sources that you seem to want to include. jps (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

If you conducted this type of censorship on articles about, say, Darwinian evolution, you would be stopped immediately. But because water and human evolution has been arrogantly stigmatized for decades, here you get away with it. Congratulations on your successful rape of inconvenient truths. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You are the only person I have ever seen say that Scientific Reports is unusable. The apparent lack of 'editorial control' is just one article and about a single graphic that had absolutely no bearing on the factual accuracy of the article which they later took down, and some retractions following investigations. You can't unilaterally decide an entire journal is not reputable, so if you want to say that we can't take Scientific Reports at its word, you need to take it up with the Arbitration Committee. Until we get a consensus from the greater community, your concerns about its reputability are just that, yours, and yours only   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't said that Scientific Reports is unusable. Please try to keep up. With the concerns expressed over things published in Scientific Reports, it is only natural for us to look for corroborating publications. You haven't identified any others. Please find some. jps (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think you’re keeping up either. No one else has looked at sea lion vernix caseosa, therefore, no one else will talk about sea lion vernix caseosa. Because of its obscurity, it’s unlikely anyone else will look at sea lion vernix caseosa in the foreseeable future, and you can’t hide behind a wall of I-think-we-should-wait-until-a-journal-that’s-actually-good-publishes-something-like-this, and you most certainly can’t exclude it for being too trivial or too stupid to put in. At this point, you’re just fishing for excuses to exclude, so unless you can come up with a real reason, please stop   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to include a sentence or two about the sea lion research with a variety of sources that would explain the more expansive claims. But you have proposed to keep these statements in while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge issues with the factual nature of the statements about evolutionary implications in the article. Why is that? jps (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You are making it up. Out of sheer irritation that this idea can't be denied. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And then what? What's your next excuse for keep denying scientific truth? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Workshopping a mention of Brenna

Alright, let's get down to business here. First of all, Brenna once claimed that he got interested in this subject because of Attenborough's program, I believe he must be referring to Scars of Evolution from 2005 where the vernix caseosa on harbor seals was first suggested, though he may have listened to a rebroadcast. In any case, documentary evidence shows he has been associated with the AAH crowd since at least 2010. This puts his research firmly in the camp of the others outlined.

Now, the next question is how to approach the next discussion.

Tom Brenna, professor of pediatrics whose primary research focuses on fats and oils and fatty acids, led a team that collaborated with Judy St Leger at San Diego Seaworld to compare the chemistry of vernix on human neonates and samples of a vernix-like substance on California Sealion pups. They established that the molecular composition is comparable to human vernix, being rich in both branch chain fatty acids (BCFAs) and squalene.

I think I can live with this inclusion. How about everyone else?

jps (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, except the lead author, according to the source, is not Brenna. Is there a source that says he led the team? Am I missing something here? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it is somewhat normal for medical papers to have the leader of the team to be the last author. In this case, it is pretty clear to me that Brenna is the one connecting the researchers, and he is the corresponding author. jps (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct, it's by Dong Hao Wang, who seems to have done a lot of stuff with lipids and BCFA's. Also, you should really give his discussion on the function of BCFA's and squalene. Also, "vernix-like substance" is OR as the source specifically describes it as a "true vernix caseosa"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The function of BCFAs and squalene are debatable. It is unclear to me how someone can make a determination of what is a "true vernix caseosa" and what is not. Can you explain how they came to the determination that is was true? jps (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

we’re not here to right what you might perceive as great wrongs, we’re here to synthesize what the experts have said, not read what they say and say “I think I’ll only believe these sentences over here and omit the rest” which is blatant OR   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, we're not here to synthesize, really. jps (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I meant summarize, and give Wang some credit, the man's been researching and publishing papers on lipids and fats for some time now, he's allowed to be taken seriously on what he makes of the purpose of BCFA's and squalene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable bringing Brenna's student into this article. While I can verify that Brenna is a member of the AAH caucus, this is the only paper that Wang has written that seems to be in line with this and I haven't seen other indications that he was inspired by AAH to write this work. jps (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You have to be joking, I thought we already established this, "the hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans" is AAH. There is absolutely no other alternate way to understand this, and he cites AAH works, like Attenborough's Waterside Ape, so if there's any doubt in your head that he's not talking about AAH, you're being paranoid, and you're fishing for excuses   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Brenna is the PI and Wang was his student. I am worried about the WP:BLP implications of connecting Wang to the AAH community as he is a student and not a PI. I've been able to verify Brenna's voluntary association with AAH. It could be that Wang doesn't mind the association, but I'm uncomfortable with Misplaced Pages explicitly naming a young researcher in the text of an article that is WP:FRINGE with no other mention of him in the entire encyclopedia. jps (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is that even a problem? It’s his study, so credit him on it. He’s listed as an author of the study, so, therefore, has already declared that he supports everything said in it. You’re fishing for excuses   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If you think that a student necessarily supports everything that's written in a paper that their PI puts in, I don't know what to say. I promise you I'm not fishing for excuses here. I simply think that we shouldn't use his name in the article text of this particular fringe article. I have no problem linking to the article. There are even possible venues where mentioning his name in Misplaced Pages text can be done with less WP:BLP concern. The article on vernix caseosa, for example. jps (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do we even need to mention his name? Just say "a 2018 study"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think mentioning Brenna's name is okay as it helps to contextualize the AAH-connection which is the key part to this section (researchers inspired by AAH doing related research). I wouldn't mind a sentence that explains the claimed Attenborough inspiration. jps (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

E.g.

Intrigued by an observation reported by Attenborough in his 2002 radio documentary Scars of Evolution, that harbor seals were born with something that resembled human vernix caseosa, Tom Brenna, professor of pediatrics whose primary research focuses on fats, oils, and fatty acids, led a team that collaborated with Judy St Leger at San Diego Seaworld to compare the chemistry of human vernix and samples from California sea lion pups. They established that the molecular composition of both vernix is similar, being rich in branched chain fatty acids and squalene.

How's that?

jps (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we're getting there. But here's a rewrite which includes the key finding of the Brenna et al research which should surely be included:

Intrigued by an observation reported by Attenborough in his 2002 radio documentary Scars of Evolution, that harbor seals were born with something that resembled human vernix caseosa, Tom Brenna, professor of pediatrics whose primary research focuses on fats, oils, and fatty acids, led a team that collaborated with Judy St Leger at San Diego Seaworld to compare the chemistry of human vernix and samples from California sea lion pups. In research which demonstrates for the first time that vernix caseosa is not unique to homo sapiens, they established that the molecular composition of seal-lion vernix is comparable to human vernix, being rich in branched chain fatty acids and squalene.

Almanacer (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I cannot verify that this is the first time that non-human vernix was shown. In particular, here is a source from the 1930s that reports that chimpanzees have a vernix caseosa: jps (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

More recent and hence more reliable source. See also Brenna's citation in support.

Singh G, Archana G. Unraveling the mystery of vernix caseosa. Indian J Dermatol 2008 ;53:54-60. Available from: http://www.e-ijd.org/text.asp?2008/53/2/54/41645

"According to present knowledge, vernix production is unique to human" Almanacer (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears that the categorical statement is simply false, or at least both Brenna's group and the group writing for the Indian Journal of Dermatology missed this earlier citation. Maybe neither group did the appropriate literature search? That's neither here nor there, but there is clearly a source from the 1930s discussing vernix caseosa on a chimpanzee. jps (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This is an intriguing enough case of whether verifiability is satisfied that I opened a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Errors/mistakes_in_reliable_sources. jps (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources which provide evidence from the molecular analysis of the substance are the one's to rely on here rather than a non-specialist's implausible account from decades old anthropological field work. You need to come up with examples of the former if you want to call the Brenna claim in to question. Almanacer (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Pardon? Yerkes and Elder were not doing anthropologial field work. They, competent biologists and certainly specialists, reported an observation. If there is a standard by which molecular analysis is the only way to identify vernix caseosa, I have not found it referenced in Brenna's work nor anywhere else. jps (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm fairly certain that the dichotomy is the result of an arbitrary change to the commonly held definition of "vernix caseosa" over the years; prior to the 1960's, it seems to be used to refer to skin surface lipids in newborns of multiple species. But after that point, it seems to be specifically used to refer to human newborn skin surface lipids. See my last comment at the RSN discussion for a more complete answer. Of course, this answer is OR and I do not endorse mentioning it in the article. But it explains how Yerkes and Elder could have observed vernix in chimps, yet Hao et. al. "discovered" the first example in a non-human. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, then, I would say that this line about the claimed discovery certainly does not bear mentioning in this article. What to do about the article on vernix caseosa is an entirely separate matter, of course. Have fun not originally researching, MPants! jps (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my thoughts are to exclude that line, as well. As for the rest of the mention, honestly, without seeing research establishing the existence of a vernix analogue in other marine mammals, I don't see this as particularly relevant unless the Hao e. al. source explicitly mentions the AAH. If it does, then we can add it here. If not, then I think it's WP:OR for us to cite it here (though we can certainly cite it over at Vernix caseosa). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

it very specifically says, “Its presence in a marine mammal supports the hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

And I very specifically said "if it , then we can add it here." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

there's no other hypothesis of an aquatic habituation period in the evolution of modern humans, but if you're so uncertain, we can email the author for clarification if it really comes down to it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Jesus dude, stop being so defensive. I was agreeing that we could add the mention. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The paper cites both of Attenborough's AAH radio programs as well as the Crawford and Cunnane papers. I suppose it's not surprising that they avoid mention of Morgan and Hardy. jps (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm just saying if we're not sure what the guy said we can ask him   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's already in the article, and nobody's trying to remove it, so I think we're good here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Brenna, Tom. "Sea Lions Develop Human-like Vernix Caseosa Delivering Branched Fats and Squalene to the GI Tract". Scientific Reports. Nature. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
2. "J. Thomas Brenna, Ph.D." Directory, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School. 2018. Retrieved 2019-02-11. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
3. "The Waterside Ape - 15/09/2016 - BBC Sounds". The Waterside Ape. Event occurs at 32:55. BBC. Retrieved 2019-02-13.
4. Brenna, J. Thomas; Collins, Richard; Palmer, Lauren; Nilson, Erika; Leger, Judy St; Ran-Ressler, Rinat; Wang, Dong Hao (2018-05-10). "Sea Lions Develop Human-like Vernix Caseosa Delivering Branched Fats and Squalene to the GI Tract". Scientific Reports. 8 (1): 7478. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-25871-1. ISSN 2045-2322.
5. "J. Thomas Brenna, Ph.D." Directory, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School. 2018. Retrieved 2019-02-11. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
6. "The Waterside Ape - 15/09/2016 - BBC Sounds". The Waterside Ape. Event occurs at 32:55. BBC. Retrieved 2019-02-13.
7. Brenna, Tom. "Sea Lions Develop Human-like Vernix Caseosa Delivering Branched Fats and Squalene to the GI Tract". Scientific Reports. Nature. Retrieved 26 May 2018.

Catch-22

I mentioned it before, but as it still seems relevant I will mention it again, the editors 'guarding' this article operate a Catch-22 policy. Papers that mention and overtly support the AAH are inadmissible because the AAH is a 'fringe theory'. 'Mainstream papers' that could be employed in support of the AAH are inadmissible because they may not overtly state that their findings are applicable to the AAH. A classic catch-22 situation. Urselius (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually agree that it is a Catch-22 scenario, but the policy extends way beyond this article into the WP:PAG of Misplaced Pages itself. Therefore, this is not something we're going to solve at this talkpage. It is a problem that AAH proponents have to solve outside of Misplaced Pages or, if you prefer, start a discussion about it at WP:RSN, for example. Remember, too, though that someone will probably tell you to re-read WP:RGW. jps (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience template

I recently noticed the removal of this article from the {{Pseudoscience}} template. I checked if this article was described as pseudoscience then noticed the sentence: "Anthropologist John D. Hawks wrote that it is fair to categorize the AAH as pseudoscience", so have reverted it. My revert was then reverted by another editor asking me to check if the article supported it ("Only appropriate to list something here as pseudoscience if this is supported in the relevant article") but also claiming that the article would also need to be in the category to be in the navigation template ("Aquatic ape hypothesis is not within Category:Pseudoscience. I suggest you take up the subject on the article's talk page"). Since I don't care much, I'll leave this note and let others decide. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm so WP:NAVBOX: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Misplaced Pages for each of these systems." and I note that the editor who removed it (CEngelbrecht2) has a history of trouble in relation to this topic. I would like to understand FreeKnowledgeCreator rationale, since the article does support that it's pseudoscience, inclusion in a category is not necessary to be in a navigation box and we have the WP:PSCI policy. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The article notes the opinions of two critics who consider the Aquatic ape hypothesis pseudoscience. Their opinions are presented as opinions, however; they are not presented as fact. The Aquatic ape hypothesis article does not identify its subject as pseudoscience in the way that many other topics are unambiguously identified as pseudoscience by their articles (such as Intelligent design, for example). I am not really interested in debating the topic; I'm simply noting that for the hypothesis to be identified as pseudoscience in the Pseudoscience template, the article would have to give much more weight to the view that it is pseudo-scientific. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right that it's more ambiguous, thanks for the comment. Although I remembered a bit about the main claims, this piqued my interest to reread the article, then I've been looking for updated information and sources tonight. Unsurprisingly, I mostly find non-expert reviews, but also some expert criticism. Anthropology itself has always been a shady field, in this case it's anthropology mostly made by amateurs. It can be credited as inspiring a little research, yet is mostly considered a falsified hypothesis (some keep entertaining it, possibly indulging in pseudoscience, for others it's fantasy, ideology or simply the appreciation of an alternative view to old anthropology) but inferring that the hypothesis itself was pseudoscience may be a little pushed, afterall... —PaleoNeonate – 04:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Placing a page in the category "pseudoscience" does not necessarily mean that the idea is confirmed by everyone to be pseudoscience (how could it?). Rather, it is a category used for when there are documented reliable sources naming the topic as pseudoscientific. I think we have that situation here. Perhaps a consideration should be given as to whether this subject should be added to List of pseudosciences, however. I think it represents a fantastically interesting edge case. It's probably closer to a failed hypothesis that exposed a naked emperor while being naked itself. jps (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

At the same time, you have other reliable sources labeling this topic "stigmatized", arguing that this stigma is a serious hindrance for the reconstruction of the human past.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23272598

If the whole topic is to be labeled pseudoscience, it's a very strange pseudoscientific topic at that. It'd be the only pseudoscientific topic I know of, where what's actually being proposed isn't what's being rejected time and time again, and where Nullius in Verba somehow doesn't apply. With this one topic, students of paleoanthropology are expected not to form their own opinion in the faculties by reading certain banned volumes, while it takes any first year art student to explain to a toddler, why Dan Brown is a nutball. With Elaine Morgan, the kids don't have to know her argumentation, so they can see for themselves why she was so full of it, and they risk their exams by keep asking questions about it (that is a true story).

At best, the topic can only be labeled fringe science. At worst, its treatment by the fraternities the last fifty years would be labeled an scientific scandal of Galilean proportions. Pseudoscientific just doesn't apply and never has.--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring over lead

Edit warring over the lead by Alexbrn is a seriously unwelcome development for this article given its controversial nature. The protocols on removal of content specify: "If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal." WP:RVREASONS and should be adhered to. The allegations he makes in his edit summaries regarding the long established content he seeks to remove are baseless. Almanacer (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What edit warring, I see 3 (2 non consecutive) edits by him this month, and 1 by you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Also WP:RVREASONS is a mere essay, whereas WP:V is a policy - and no, we're not going to inject stuff into the lede that misrepresents the cited source. (Add: and Almanacer is at it again - have notified them that DS apply in this area). Alexbrn (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC); amended 11:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This phrasing being continuously edit warred out of the lede by user Alexbrn:

Though much of the mainstream academic community ignored or derided the initial proposal, a small group of academics in the last 15 years have undertaken research programmes linked to the AAH.

References

1. Milam, Erika (2013). "Dunking the Tarzanists. Elaine Morgan and the Aquatic Ape theory". In Oren Harman & Michael R Dietrich. Outsider Scientists: Routes to Innovation in Biology. University of Chicago Press, p. 232.

As Alexbrn states in two of his removals of the lede.

"Novel source in lede, and thr source does NOT SAY THIS anyway"

"Rv. naughty to make stuff up"

You can read the source yourselves and draw your own conclusions as to whether the above summary is misrepresentative:

http://static.squarespace.com/static/504273a6e4b0b97fe5a6a1e6/t/52a5f6b2e4b0525f9c3acbce/1386608306279/Milam-2013-Dunking%20the%20Tarzanists.pdf

I sincerely doubt, that Alexbrn has actually read it him/herself.

--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It needs attribution as it is one source. Moreover it lack important context (such as most of them are not anthropologists, or even biologists). Also what is this source, a book, a magazine, what is its provenance?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, we can add this one to the same paragraph:

https://www.crcpress.com/The-Waterside-Ape-An-Alternative-Account-of-Human-Evolution/Evans/p/book/9780367145484

--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What does it say? Also is it even an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Is De revolutionibus an RS? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What has that to do with anything?Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It's just strange, how so many sources on this topic are still only one source. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What? Where has that been said?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You did, just now, 14:08. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree that the sentence implies that AAH is garnering actual scientific rapport and was unfairly derided, and both of these statements are false   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Okay, why not suggest different Ledes? Remember that - as the lede is a short summary of the body of the article, we cannot say anything that isn't in the body of the article. And strong statements require strong (if not stronger) references. I would advise stop arguing about who did what and confine the issue to the article. Present potential ledes (and their supporting documentation) below. That way, we can work collaboratively to a consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It has just proven impossible over the years to reach consensus on this article, because you can't summarize this idea without the neutral reader suddenly stop laughing at it. And they're supposed to laugh at it. On this one topic, Nullius in Verba doesn't apply. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The lede "The hypothesis remains highly controversial and is generally more popular with the lay public than with scientists; it is generally ignored by anthropologists", that seems to be to sum it up nicely. It does not say it is totally ignored, just mostly ignored.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

And it's not necessary to point out that significant studies have taken place in. People don't need to ever know that. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

later decades? one source for that sentence is from 2014, the other 2012.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Right, 'cause you censor out all the other sources. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, I am not going to try and not be sarcastic. Which source from 2020 have you presented? as to be a decade after 2014 it would have to be at least one published in 2020.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Good day - axe handle? What are we doing here? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Well I am saying we already cover the fact that most anthropologists and non lay persons have ignored this (and thus by implication some have not). That this (in fact) reflects the situation as it was when this source "Dunking the Tarzanists. Elaine Morgan and the Aquatic Ape theory" was published. Thus nothing needs to change. That this is unlikely to have changed over the last decade.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

So, so.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98 (2016)

https://www.crcpress.com/The-Waterside-Ape-An-Alternative-Account-of-Human-Evolution/Evans/p/book/9780367145484 (2019)

Just off the top of me head.--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

None of those contradict the claim that its "generally ignored by anthropologists". In fact the disputed edit does not say anything that contradicts it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The edit is not trying to. It just summarizes, that aquatic studies are taking place, despite all the derision and ignorance. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Well lets see. As it stood when this was first posted three was one source, published in 2013, thus could not have been a source for "last 15 years", nor (as far as I can tell) does it say that there have been "research programmes linked to the AAH". It says one academic said there should be more study, and one paper that said that sea foraging may have helped humans become bipedal (which is not what AAH claims). Thus I would suggest (based on that source) the claim is undue. I am unable to verify what your two new sources say. So can you provide a summary or quote of the text you think supports the edit?Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The foreword in Evans 2019 is plenty:

https://books.google.se/books?id=hTS

I can ooDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22The+Waterside+Ape:+An+Alternative+Account+of+Human+Evolution%22&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3rKSjgoPlAhWKepoKHVshCYEQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Waterside%20Ape%3A%20An%20Alternative%20Account%20of%20Human%20Evolution%22&f=false

--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to quote it, as I cannot find where it mentions any new studies over the past 5 or so years that would be classed as academic (apart from the book it is a forward to).Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)nly put the telescope in front of you, Your Holiness, if you're not gonna look into it, I can't help you.

If you're feeling lasy, foreword pages xiii and xiv is enough. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Its not laziness, I cannot see any. So I am asking you to provide one example.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

https://books.google.se/books?id=hTSoDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=da&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Sabotaging the link. Real mature. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That looks like an edit conflict (If you care too look there was a bizarre text moving), and you have still not provided one quote. I would also suggest lay of the PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

>SIGH< Euh-kay...

"In 2004, Elaine said that she thought that within 10 years AAT would be 'over the cusp' and in the mainstream of evolutionary anthropology. That was certainly the case in terms of public support and, with this pivotal book, Peter Rhys-Evans has pushed the weight of evidence well beyond the tipping point. I thought I had pretty much kept abreast of research relevant to AAT, but I found more than a dozen astonishing facts that were completely new to me in this invaluable reference work. I also found a number of new, as yet untested hypotheses, including an exciting and very credible mechanism for the evolution of the descended larynx. These will, I'm sure, result in many more revelations in the future. There has never been a better time to be an evolutionary anthropologist." ("The Waterside Ape: An Alternative Account of Human Evolution", Peter H. Rhys Evans 2019, foreword by Gareth Morgan, page xiv.)

Anything else? It's real hard to assume good faith. I know it's still heresy to actually read these banned volumes and form your own opinion. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

-

• What do other encyclopedias say ?? H. James Birx (2006). Encyclopedia of Anthropology. SAGE. p. 227. ISBN 978-0-7619-3029-7....yup 40 years of nothing!!!--Moxy 🍁 16:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Jim Moore??? You don't mind the opinions of that amateur? Because he says what you want to hear?

Just like people chastising Elaine Morgan's contributions about beach apes of human origin for being the pathetic fancies of a feminist playwright... while being fine quoting Robert Ardrey the playwright talking merrily about the skull splitting males of human origin. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Now we've got Almanacer, with an explicit bad faith agenda, trying to edit-war material into the lede which is (a) not in the body and (b) misrepresenting the source. This is bad. Alexbrn (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You're just disgusted, that independent researchers are indeed ignoring the command of the fraternity cardinals, conducting heretical studies into this beach ape concept. Why won't they just let you keep censoring this inconvenient truth? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What's the next item on your agenda? Deleting that four line quote by Alister Hardy from 1960, that doesn't make it all sound crazy? Delete any mention of iodine and the hominin brain? Y'all have done this in years past. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Better to WP:FOC. We're not going to misrepresent sources and disregard the WP:PAGs to promote nonsense, however much advocates wish it. If you want to promote this stuff maybe start a blog, or try Wikiversity or something? Alexbrn (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There you go, "to promote nonsense", enough said. You know, that the Earth is the center of the Universe, no damn way you'll look into that damn telescope.

What's bad is how many years Wiki have letten y'all get away with censoring one of the most important ideas of our time. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's the problem from what I'm seeing: the only information relevant is what the author says about how AAH works, whereas the part you're focusing on is how shocked the author is about the fringe status of AAH   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

No, my problem is, that this article is apparently not supposed to relay, what the idea is about. We all know it's nuts and pseudoscience, but every time you summarize the idea, it just doesn't look insane. And we all know, it's supposed to look insane, therefore we obivously can't relay what the idea is about, and we have to turn the article into gobbledygook. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, somebody told me a big fat lie around junior high; that we can't possibly repeat the atrocity of 1632 against Galileo, 'cause now we have the scientific method. The treatment of this idea just collides with a feeling of utter betrayal by my elders, 'cause they quite clearly ignore their own scientific method, whenever the next incovenient truth hits them personally. Sure, nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature ... unless the fraternity cardinals don't feel like it. Thrasymachus was right, and y'all can keep urinating on your own giants. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Evolutionary biology articles
• Low-importance Evolutionary biology articles
• WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
• C-Class Primate articles
• Low-importance Primate articles
• WikiProject Primates articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Unknown-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• C-Class Anthropology articles
• Mid-importance Anthropology articles
• C-Class Palaeontology articles
• Mid-importance Palaeontology articles
• C-Class Palaeontology articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Palaeontology articles
• C-Class Feminism articles
• Low-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2013)
• Articles edited by connected contributors