Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 17, 2017Peer reviewReviewed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 5, 2009, March 5, 2010, and March 5, 2013.

Intro relevance

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

Seems appropriately sourced and so fine. Especially for WP:FRINGE topics like this we need the mainstream view for context. Bon courage (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your response but I'm confused. I'm not concerned about the sourcing it's about the relevance which is unclear to new readers. I'm not trying to bury any particular view, mainstream or otherwise. --Thomas B (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically can you address why book reviews of some author's unrelated works should be discussed here? The article doesn't even say what that second book is about. And please address specifically why you're unconcerned about WP living persons so I can better understand your argument. --Thomas B (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're not unrelated. The topic of this article is AAH and the books are on that. Bon courage (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting the page until we have resolved the disagreement here. Should we request a third opinion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion Thomas B (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, post at WP:FT/N for expert attention. Bon courage (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a third opinion - the statements are obviously relevant, and explained in further detail in the body of the article. MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For reference to any other editors, this was my proposal to avoid the WP living persons issues, maintain both points of view, and make it easier on the reader to follow the reasoning of the intro.
The hypothesis was initially proposed by the English marine biologist Alister Hardy in 1960, who argued that a branch of apes was forced by competition over terrestrial habitats to hunt for food such as shellfish on the sea shore and sea bed, leading to adaptations that explained distinctive characteristics of modern humans such as functional hairlessness and bipedalism. The hypothesis was further advocated by writer Elaine Morgan in The Descent of Woman. Anthropologist John Langdon has criticized it as containing unresolved inconsistencies. Many others have also criticized it as pseudoscience. The hypothesis is thought to be more popular with the lay public, even though it is generally ignored by anthropologists.
Would welcome clarifications about what exactly is lost here so I can better understand your pov. --Thomas B (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then (a) the article should say that the second book is all about the AAH, but (b) the sentence effectively said that some people liked the book and some people didn't. What value does that add for the reader? Thomas B (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lets them know it's controversial. But I see the goalposts are now shifting. Bon courage (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't we just write that her views are controversial? "John wrote book X on some topic. John wrote book Y that got mixed reviews." If you're just trying to say her views are controversial, that's a confusing way to do it. I'm not trying to "shift the goalposts" to attack anybody or any view, let's just work together to figure out what exactly you're trying to say and find the best way to say it. Thomas B (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. Please consider that the article, including proposed revisions, notes that THE THEORY ITSELF has both proponents and detractors, and comments on expert and lay acceptance. Why/how do her second book reviews specifically, which like all books included some people who liked it and some who didn't, inform readers on this issue? --Thomas B (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should mention Morgan, because she more or less kept this issue alive through the 70s and 80s. I suppose her follow up books are mentioned because her first book on the subject is the worst reviewed and the lead section would shift in tone toward the negative if we only discussed that one. As always, keep in mind that the lead section summarizes the article and is not really standalone. MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My proposed edit above still definitely mentions Morgan. If you want to avoid shifting the balance, totally reasonable, then just note that there are proponents and detractors for the theory, don't get sidetracked into evaluating secondary materials. The reason I feel reviews of secondary materials are less relevant is because those materials might be positively/negatively reviewed because of the theory itself, but could instead be positively or negatively reviewed because of writing style, or reliance on some outdated piece of info, or from unrelated character attacks or factions. So a reader just gets less information about the theory itself from hearing about (3) reviews of (2) books about the (1) theory than just reviews of the theory itself. --Thomas B (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
just note that there are proponents and detractors for the theory - that would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE, we can't do that. This is a theory that is really only in the public consciousness at all because of a series of books published for a general audience. Omitting mentions of those books, the feminism advocated therein and how they were reviewed would be very strange given the history of the topic. MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying we can't note there are proponents and detractors for the theory, but we can and should note that there are proponents and detractors for a book about the theory? Why doesn't false balance apply to the book? This is a confusing position. --Thomas B (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that reducing the text to a line about proponents and detractors isn't going to work. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, agreed we shouldn't include sentences that just say something has proponents and detractors. Now, based on that same reasoning, let's remove the sentence about proponents and detractors for the book for the same reasons you stated. --Thomas B (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the two to be equivalent. I know it is tempting to argue with strawmen, but it doesn't actually help you convince others your position is correct. MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The OP seems to have wandered off their initial query, but now I think we're done here. Bon courage (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like "wandered off their initial query" is charitable. I've consistently stated I am trying to improve the style of this section, which I believe is highly confusing to new readers, in part because of the relevance issues. As you've made points in favor of certain positions, I have tried to adjust my recommendations to compromise to meet you half way. I have received none of the same courtesy. This is not "shifting the goalposts" it is honestly trying to find middle ground. Since we are at an impasse, and since both you and MrOllie have repeatedly misstated my views and not assumed good faith, I recommend we request additional help to review the discussion. If you are confident in your position you should take no issue with this. --Thomas B (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why there's a noticeboard thread where you can get an audience of hundreds. See WP:FT/N#Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water. (The thread is so titled because AAH comes up at the noticeboard so often!) Bon courage (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend a strawman, I genuinely don't understand your point of view. Please assume good faith! --Thomas B (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about whether or not edits to introduction remove important information or simply improve readability):
Declined as more than two editors are involved. Please seek assistance on a relevant noticeboard or request dispute resolution. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Already more than two editors involved, so not applicable. Bon courage (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

voorts (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by --Thomas B (talk) 23
40, 1 May 2023 (UTC): Current intro is poorly written and non-encyclopedic. It's weakly sourced, has tangents, dives into criticisms using jargon rather than clearly stating relevant views, making it hard for readers new to the topic to follow. As a secondary but related issue, the intro possibly maligns a living person based on one source. It suggests Morris is biased and conducting "male science" based only on Morgan's views. This worries me with respect to WP:Living Persons, but I'm admittedly less certain and welcome independent review. Scientific positions and debates should be preserved. However, commentary on Morris's personal biases should be undertaken with care. A compromise that preserves the link to Morgan's feminism would say something about how she promoted AAH as a feminist theory in contrast to "other views in the field" without mentioning any single living person by name. A better intro might simply say that there are contrasting opinions at a high level, then still deal with the specific claims and counterclaims in depth later in the body of the article.
Viewpoint by (other editor(s))
Proposed changes are purportedly stylistic but actually impact content because even small changes can shift the delicate balance of positions in a fringe science article. [This was my best good faith attempt at summary. Please feel free to overwrite this section completely if I have misstated your views. --Thomas B (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)][reply]
Third opinion by voorts
....

Vernix caseosa

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

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

Living Persons

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

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

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

The photograph of the conference

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

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

New evidence

OP informed they need to wait until this is published in reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Note: John Hawks has backpedalled considereably since his "pseudoscience" blog. That term should certainly be removed from this page, especially considering all the evidence that has accumulated over the intervening decades. The only definition of pseudoscience that I know of is when a proposition "generates no falsifiable hypotheses". While this would be true of the Savannah theory, it is certainly not true of AAT.

I hesitate to edit the page only for it to be reverted. Seems pointless.

Would it be possible to speak to the most active anti-AAT editor for this page?

Here is my evidence supporting the hypothesis: --

It has recently been demonstrated that humans have evolved the ability to absorb fresh water from sea water via our eccrine sweat glands by reverse osmosis. https://www.academia.edu/113806848/Eccrine_Hydration_hydration_via_eccrine_reverse_osmosis_as_a_drought_survival_mechanism

This mechanism could not possibly have evolved anywhere but in a marine environment.

Countless millions of tons of fossil evidence in the form of shell middens also confirm lengthy periods of dependence on marine resources. https://www.academia.edu/40664984/The_Acheulean_hand_axe_a_toolmakers_perspective

The page is therefore outdated and misleading with many errors. I would like to rewrite (most of) it. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "anti-AAT editors" that I am aware of. Rather, the article follows reliable sources (i.e. not stuff from academia.edu) and has wide consensus from many previous discussions. Bon courage (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bon. The paper is actually from a peer reviewed Canadian journal (IEE). I put the Academia link to save you looking through the entire edition for the paper. You have clearly chosen not to read the information presented, so I assume you are indeed anti-AAT.
That's great. You obviously have opinions on all sorts of topics.
Please now read the new evidence and then you can make informed comments.
The "wide consensus from many previous discussions" are 20 years behind the times, by the way. Science (sometimes) moves on, you know. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see it's in this.[1] No impact backwater journals are likewise of little use here. Bon courage (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how splendid. A person who can evaluate content without even reading it. You must be very special.
If it's good enough for 7 of the "best scientists", then it's good enough for me.
Any editors out there able to read? This chap doesn't seem able to understand eccrine reverse osmosis. Just judges content by publisher.  :-)
Thanks.. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 14 scientists in the world. Th issue here is that one (minor) source can't be used to overturn 100's of expert opinions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:FRIND. Wikipedia does not indulge WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Bon courage (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Are you prepared to read the new evidence or not? I guess not.
Where I choose to publish my work is surely none of your business. You have clearly never published anything, so I'll disregard your opinions on that matter.
No need to bombard me with emails.. I have not edited any part of the AAT page. I do not have a conflict of interest. I am not multiple people. It is not pseudoscience.
I think you have some serious issues, Bon. In fact you are obviously terrified of reading anything that might mean you are wrong about something -- anything.
I was hoping to speak to a scientist. You are obviously not that. If you were, you would have enjoyed demolishing my paper, no?
You are behaving like a Troll. Is that what Wikipedia has come to? That's very sad. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your work? Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. My work. Is that a problem? Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MAybe, read wp:coi. Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Read it. It says "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships."
Again -- what's your point? Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? My point is that this raises questions as to your motives for wanting to add this. This is not a case of someone finding this and going "I say what a good point" but rather of someone trying to push their own work, as an academic yo can't see why we might see a problem with this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My motives are of the purest -- the quest for truth. If you have a problem with it, then I suggest you read the paper. If you read the paper then you will be able to evaluate it. If you don't read the paper, you will have no way of knowing if it is valid or not, will you?
Having set yourself up an an arbiter of truth, you should really read ther paper. That's all I'm asking. That's all I have ever asked. Can you explain why you would rather spend days posting links to Wikipedia pages that dopn't apply rather than simple Read the paper?
Are you, in fact, simply a Troll? Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTTRUTH. Wikipedia's motives are to follow the mainstream, not to seek the truth, as we have no mechanism to determine what the truth actually is. MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Steven.
You're quite wrong of course. You'll remember that the Michelson-Morley experiment overturned the expert opinions of every sinmgle physicist on the planet,.and I think you'll find that my (major) experimental breakthrough does the same for human evolution.
If you refuse to read it though, then you will have to remain in ignorance. Shame.
Anyone here who can read?
Anyone? Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can read. Can you read Wikipedia's policies, as given in the links folks have been sharing with you? That would explain why your arguments aren't finding any purchase here. You're trying to get Wikipedia to do something counter to what it was designed for. MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Are you prepared to read the new evidence or not?
Where I choose to publish my work is surely none of your business. You have clearly never published anything, so I'll disregard your opinions on that matter.
No need to bombard me with emails.. I have not edited any part of the AAT page. I do not have a conflict of interest. I am not multiple people. It is not pseudoscience.
I think you have some serious issues, Bon. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia determines whether a source is usable in large measure based on how and where it was published. So if you want to include it here, it is very much our business. MrOllie (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since articles on the AAT have been published in the New Scientist, The British Medical Journal, the Journal of human Evolution and Nature on numerous occasions, then, accoerding to you, the AAT page in Wikipedia is in error in referring to it as as pseudoscience. Or else, your statement is simply untrue.
Now why would you say something that isn't true, Mr. Ollie? I take it you you are also afraid to read the paper. If you read the paper you would have some credibility. As it is, I'm just getting insults, threats and bluster. If you read the paper you might have some cogent arguments against.it without having to make up false statements.
I fear you editors are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute.A great pity. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AAT is almost totally ignored by people who actually study human evolution. It's completely undue to present it as a mainstream hypothesis when it is not, and indeed would bring Wikipedia into disrepute to do so. You should cut out your aggressive tone. I would suggest following the advice at WP:IDHT in order to avoid continuing to waste Wikipedia contributors valuable time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is why the new evidence is so important, especially now that Raymond Dart's "Savannah" or "killer ape" hypothesis has been completely debunked.
I read your link. It says "The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you." In this case it is, (unless you are volunteering to read the paper). That's all I'm doing here is asking that simple question over and over -- Is there anyone there willing to read the paper?
If you too are afraid to read it, then please don't bother replying again. Thank you.
I'm not wasting anyone's time. I'm not forcing anyone to respond with more threats, insults,,misleading and potentially libellous statements. I'm just asking the question. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the paper, but I don't think it is ready to be included here. We need third-party mention of the paper in serious, thoughtful ways to allow for its proper contextualization. I don't see that yet. jps (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okeydoke. I've got the third party mentions on websites etc., but I guess you mean papers in top-flight journals by world nenowned silverback anthropologists. Several of those offered to co-author and I have lots of feedback from them, but ieccrine hydration is so new and unexpected that getting papers published will take a while.
The downside of Wikipedia is that it is everybody's go-to first point of reference. If it says "pseudoscience" then it's very hard to get a fair hearing. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing the paper says is that you are not an impermeable membrane, which is a well known fact already Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Dunk.
REVERSE osmosis. Not OSMOSIS.
Are you seriously an editor here? Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might check out the archives of this talkpage. It will potentially be very eye-opening and might explain the frosty reactions you have gotten. jps (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, I hope you can understand, is that it is hard to decide who is the Alfred Wegener and who is the Prosper-René Blondlot. We try to rely on those top-flight journals and world-renowned silverbacks to make that judgement call because, for better or worse, that is all we got. Get them to publish positive reviews that will get noticed by the naysayers and Wikipedia will be happy to report on how the dust settles. jps (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll pass on your words of wisdom and get back to you.
I've got a few world class guys on my team. Where does one publish positive reviews of academic papers I wonder... Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can try writing letters to top-flight journals (which are often published as "commentary"). If you've got world class guys, they probably will sit up and pay attention. jps (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (And thanks for the tip about the archives). I have had a couple of letters published in New Scientist. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a start. New Scientist has a, let's just say, mixed reputation. Their editorial philosophy has sometimes strayed towards platforming fringe theories in ways that mean that we don't always find a good way to establish what they've published as worthy of inclusion. But they are by no means completely excised from our lists of usable sources. I would say, however, that you might want to look for some anthro-heavy, high-impact outfits to make your case. jps (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes. NS has made some rather odd editorial decisions over the years, but the current editor of the Journal of Human Evolution is one of the most vituperative opponents of AAT. I think we'd have to wait for a change of editor. At one point, an early account of the immersion experiment was rejected by him as invalid because none of our participants "remained immersed for the full 20 years that defines a 'megadrought' "...
I have a lot of followers in the US. Probably best to look there.."usable sources" was interesting. I tried to use only the most irreproachable blue-chip sources for my references in the hand-axe thing -- https://www.academia.edu/40664984/The_Acheulean_hand_axe_a_toolmakers_perspective -- but getting things printed in them might not be so easy. I'm getting too old for this.
Thanks again for your interest. Garethfloydmorgan (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis