Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis

message: 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)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: Is  really what was meant? It would seem to be opposite the meaning of the cited sources. MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a particularly unfortunate mistake, as discussed at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah that was on me. Missed three letters.  --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "not considered to be a classic example of pseudoscience" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Simple question, do any of the sources link this is the hypothesis? Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Removal seemed apt. Bon courage (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Doesn't the Rhys Evans book count as a primary source as well?  --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I do not agree.  --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vernix caseosa 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think only  can answer that. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photograph of the conference