Talk:Bipedalism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quadrupeds

Not a single mention of quadrupeds (and whatever they call things with more than 4 stomping organs)?!? Not even as "as opposed to" or "see also : " with appropriate links?!?
[ -- an IP user]]

The article has always linked to Leg in the first sentence, which is the extent of other counts' direct relevance to this topic, and a better place for an editor with the interest and background to compare and contrast. Leg has always mentioned at least quadrupeds (although most of that history is now to be seen in Human leg), and now goes further. --Jerzy(t) 16:52, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)
Er, i wrote the following summary for the edit where i added the above msg:
The article links to Leg in the first sentence, which is the extent of their relevance to this topic. However, this comment deserves to have a copy placed on Talk:Leg, and i am doing so. --~)
Then i realized that what is needed at Leg is not what the IP asked for, and that moving the msg was pointless, and wrote a different msg here than i'd anticipated.

--Jerzy(t) 19:07, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

Deleted the line about buffalo wings, was irrelevant and sounded like a plug. Hope this helps

Category?

Why is this article categorized under 'transportation' and 'robots'? It seems misplaced, as those things are mentioned more as footnotes to the main thrust of the article. Istvan 03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed this original research from [60.234.112.22]

I want to add something to the origin of bipedalism, which, as far as I know, was not mentioned. I will not go into details of the hypotheses now in fashion as I do not find them convincing. I want to link neoteny with bipedalism. As the main human trait - development of neocortex - started, neoteny - birth of biologically immature babies- became a necessity. These immature babies - by definition- were immature and could not be autonomous in almost any sense. The dependence on the mother became almost total. At some point the young mother (homo sapiens to be) got to the point, when she had to "choose": either to grab her baby and perform whatever halting and imperfect bipedalism, run with the baby in her new-found embrace - or loose her baby. The choice was so stark. Because the baby, being so immature, could not even cling to the mother, would fall and become lost. So, the forelegs had to act as hands, for grabbing and holding- and this of course had its greatest impact in this context. Of course, most young mothers could not achieve this, but some were more able, for both anatomical and CNS reasons- and these were able to keep their newborns and automatically also the species to become more and more bipedal. Bipedalism, of course- showed itself to be both plus and minus in other aspects of life of these ancient creatures, but the ability to keep the babies alive during their immaturity was the most crucial for the whole species. Jan Miller, MD, Whangarei, New Zealand. janm@nhl.co.nz 23/7-2006.

Redirected Savanna theory here

Below has been pasted from the Savannah Theory page, it is discussion about the Savannah Theory page.

HEre is the previous talk page

I'm putting a NPOV label on this article because the author put way too much time refuting this theory, without displaying the prose and cons from both sides. Arbadihist 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. An aquatic ape supporter is not a suitable author for the opposing theory. [edit]

internal inconsistency

This article has been flagged for NPOV due to author's pro-wet ape theory, but the Aquatic_Ape_Theory article has not. This is probably confusing to the reader.

The Aquatic Ape Theory article is balanced. The author makes a strong case for it, points out the criticisms, then rebuts those criticisms. This article (Savannah Theory) makes no case for the theory, then makes a strong case against it with no rebuttals. Regardless of the author's strongly biased orientation, the Savannah Theory has the most fossil evidence to support it, and (likely because of this) has the most support among anthropologists. This is just a badly written article. (Danaidh 01:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)) [edit]

What can be done?

This page is really appallingly bad. I don't know wikipedia well enough to know what can be done about this. It seems that there were attempts to bring it to the attention of the wikipedia community at large, but those attempts have obviously failed. And the article desperately needs revision. Not only because it's biased, but also because it contains next to no useful information about the theory at all.

I've been trying to research the topic so that I can improve upon the article, but it's quite a complicated issue, and I don't have the necessary background knowledge, nor valid sources. Actually, my limited research thus far seems to indicate that the term "Savanna Theory" is only used in context of the Aquatic Ape discussion, and not in discussion of human evolution in general. That is, when people discuss the theory, they do not refer to it as such. Additionally, it appears that the savanna itself is not playing as large a role in theories of human evolution as the article indicates. It appears, therefore, that this article is not only biased in its coverage of the material, but also a simply incorrect portrayal of the "conventional" or prevailing theory of evolution at the moment, or at least an incorrect portrayal of the savanna theory as the prevailing one.

Then again, I could be wrong about the above--I simply do not have the knowledge or resources to discern what the theory actually is, what it is called and by whom, and what role it plays in the anthropological and paleontological communities.

But I would love to find out more, and as Wikipedia would be an ideal way in which to compare the two theories, I beg someone with the ability to rewrite this article!

I know that I haven't really made a contribution here except to whine and ask for help, but the poor quality of this article has been bothering me all day.

Hi. You might want to read this article, which has a more scholarly view of human bipedalism origins. I agree, that savanna(h) theory is language not used by professionals researching the subject and that this article is a textbook example of a strawman argument. What can be done are a number of things. At first I was going to suggest a complete rewrite of the article, although as the term isn't really used, that may not be wise. A merge / redirct to Bipedalism might work. JPotter 06:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC) JPotter 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for Human bipedalism

I love this page, especially the parts concerning the reasons for Human bipedalism. However I find it curious that everyone seems to be trying to discover the ONE reason Humans adapted that way. As a non-Anthropological scientist, it seems to me that an adaptation is selected (in the Darwinian sense) if it's more useful overall than the alternatives. That may mean that is has one overriding utility, or many smaller ones. I'm thinking that the 'pluses' of bipedalism (carrying things, seeing greater distances, mobility in trees, ability to manipulate things, better fighting ability) simply outweigh the 'minuses' (lower top speed, more difficult balance, etc.), in the environmental niche Humans evolved in. Thus the earlier bipedal proto-Humans were more successful overall and out-competed their quadrupedal versions. Middlenamefrank 20:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've removed external links twice now and User:Nicolharper has partially reverted twice. I think my version is the better, any other opinions? WP:EL says links should be kept to a minimum that are most useful, and those containing info that can't be kept in the main page. Here's my rational for each:

WLU 20:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Hi WLU. Thanks for neatening up the page with your previous edits. With regards to the external links, I think it is useful to have a selection of links at the end of articles for further reading - some linking to in depth discussions, others highlighting curiosities. Wikipedia should make full use of its advantages as an internet encyclopedia, with its capacity to link and its effective lack of space limitation. Obviously many links would be hard for people to process, but there are only a few at the end of this article.

Thanks for giving your reasons for wanting to delete the links, much appreciated. I agreed with your deletions for some of the links and I have kept them deleted. However, in general I think that if someone thinks a external link should be deleted, unless the link is obviously totally spurious, they should either work the link into the text, or find a better replacement link. I think that some of the links here could be improved, but better to find replacements in that area than delete them. An encyclopedia, particularly wikipedia, provides an introduction to a subject, enabling further reading. Extensive deletion weakens wikipedias capacity as a source for investigating a subject further. I would like to see more links at the end of this article, say about 20. Thanks again for the edits, Nicolharper 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem for the heads-up, and your thanks gives much needed positive-feedback for discussing rather than revert-warring.
However, your assessment of external links is quite out of keeping with the external links policy, which states in the nutshell

Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. (emphasis added)

Further, in the first section Important points to remember, the first point is "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Emphasis is in the original. There should not be 20 links, particularly for a page as short as this one. Notice Autism, which is much longer, but only has two external links. Ditto for hospital, anabolic steroid and I urge you to read WP:EL and make your arguments from there - wikipedia is built from policy, and it is what allows articles to be brought to a common standard. Any page which has any sort of external review (i.e. WP:3O, WP:RFC or WP:ARB) will do so based on policy. I've got it right on my user page, read the policy, because it's incredibly important. Familiarity with policy will save you a lot of anguish and frustration in the future, and is essential, ESSENTIAL, if you are ever to participate in WP:AFD, possibly the funnest part of wikipedia. D'you get the feeling I'm a fan of policy?
WP:EL also agrees with your preference for integrating links into the article as inline citations - citations are the preferred use of external links, the EL section is actually for links which are virtually impossible to include in the body text. Note that further reading can be added to pages, in a further reading section. Given this, what do you think about trimming the links further? WLU 00:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi WLU. I am aware of this policy, it is just the case that my preferred minimum is bigger than your preferred minimum. The policy isn't strict as far as I know on what constitutes a minumum, or what is meritable, accessible, or appropriate, it is a point for discussion. My reasons for favouring a larger minimum of links are those I gave above. I would also argue that the articles that you mention such as Autism are wrong to have so few external links, and it would be more helpful to the reader to have more than two external links. I would suggest that it is simply that my attitude toward wikipedia is more Inclusionist[1] whereas yours, I would guess, is more Deletionist[2]. I have reinstated four of the external links until better links are found to replace them, but I am happy, to be polite, to keep deleted four more of the links that you deleted. I hope you find this a suitable agreement. Cheers and all the best,Nicolharper 02:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a matter of replacing links with other, better links - it's a matter of if the link is appropriate to the page, by adding a reference to information that can not be placed on the page itself. An external link is given tremendous weight and traffic by including it on wikipedia, so it should only be the most relevant links. Can we discuss them on a case-by-case basis?
  • The monitor lizards link is 100% spurious in my mind - it is at best an inline citation, it's not really adding anything to the page, and bipedalism is mentioned once, at the end of the article. Particularly since there is now an inline citation (or should be - see WP:CIT for how to use citation templates), this should be removed and not replaced. That some species are temporarily bipedal is definitely something for the body of the article. Also, it's a forum, which is a link to be avoided (#11).
  • The octopus link always turns up dead when I click on it. Does it work for you or others?
  • The time.com article essentially duplicates what should be in the article - a discussion of bipedalism. From WP:EL#Links to be aovided (#1), a link should be avoided if it "...does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." And I don't think this one does. It's a general overview of 'new' evidence, which can be used to justify similarly general statements in the article itself.
    • As with time.com, philosophistry.com should be integrated, not kept as an external link. It's a journal article, making it an ideal citation, not an external link.
Please review WP:EL and my above statements - what do you think? Is there a reason they should be included that I have missed? I've reviewed the articles quickly, not done a thorough read, so I could have missed specific statements. If you're still convinced, we can take this to a third opinion. I don't think these links should be replaced, as I don't think they add anything that could not be integrated as an inline citation. WLU 20:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Links

I've removed the links I discussed above. Two are here if someone wants to integrate their information into the page.

WLU 18:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi WLU. I have put my position; that the remaining links should not be deleted without being replaced with better links. All the best, Nicolharper 13:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Your comment is out of keeping with WP:EL - there is not a magic number of links which must be maintained, so there is no need to 'keep a link until it is replaced with a better one'. External links should be kept to a minimum, featuring those which best supplement the article with information or media that can not be included in the article itself. Since we appear to be at a deadlock and no closer to agreeing, I think a third opinion is warranted. WLU 13:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
3O has been listed [3] WLU 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi WLU. I have been looking at the featured articles and many have far more than 7 links, for example DNA, Action potential, and Chagas Disease. I think this is good as it provide lots of easy to access further reading. This article could use a wide variety of external links like those featured articles.
Also, I would suggest that if someone thinks that external links should be integrated into the text they should do it themselves rather then delete another peoples contributions and then leave it to others to work the links into the text. On a similar note, if a person finds a link to be dead they should fix it rather than delete it. This seems to me to be a more productive and considerate way to work. All the best,Nicolharper 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Contemplate the content of the external links more than their number - I would guess that the links on featured articles are extremely to the point rather unlike the ones I would like removed. Autism and Raney nickel feature just two and Victoria Cross (Canada) has none. Given the open-editing nature of the project and the more than two million articles on wikipedia, it's always possible for errors or improper links to be added, or for a diversity of examples to be found for either featured. And your polite criticism aside, the links are available for inclusion on the talk page. Further, the criticism can be reversed - rather than reverting, you could work to integrate the links yourself into the article. Still you have not replied to my comments above on the content of the links. Please address their content, and how you feel the link itself demonstrates something that can not be integrated into the article as text. It's possible I am not seeing your merit, the only way I can understand your rational is if you lay it out for me. Currently, as far as I understand it, all I have to go on is 'the article had seven links when I got here, and there should always be seven links'. If the links can be replaced with 'better links', then that may mean they are not suitable for inclusion at all. In general, a link should stand based on it's own merits in isolation, not related to other links on the page.
However, if you feel it absolutely necessary, I shall attempt to integrate the links into the page and then remove them from the external links section. WLU 14:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Further note - I'm attempting to integrate the philosophistry link, and found out that it is in fact a blog. This bars it from inclusion per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, point 12. I am removing it, and if you really feel it should be included, please state why a link that is in conflict with policy should be included in the page before reverting. WLU 15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I'm looking things over now and will give an opinion shortly. — Coren (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am generally in favor of a small (half-dozen at most) number of external links on an article, especially when those provide in-depth coverage of a specific aspect of the main topic, are the "official" site of the topic, or are academic sites covering the subject matter (which can then be used as a springboard to deeper research).
In this particular case, however, on a very strictly defined topic there are very few external links that could be relevant but which could not be used to flesh the article itself out (and used as sources instead). We have to remember that the objective is to write the article, not defer to external sites.
So, of the six links currently in the article, one is dead, one (http://evolution-of-man.info/) is of unknown reliability, and three are news articles of relevance only to a specific event or aspect of the topic and should either have their info added to the article and be used as sources. The time.com article is accessible and on-topic, but provides no useful information that is not already in the article.
One of the guiding principles of what to add to external links is that they should provide useful, on topic information on the subject matter of the article that could not or should not be included in the article itself. Otherwise, if the information is good and reliable, include it in the article and use the external site as a reference.
So, my opinion for this article: axe the external links entirely. None of them add to the article in any significant way. Take useful information out of those which are reliable and use them as references instead. — Coren (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I'm fine with this option - the links should be posted on the talk page and added to the page as in-line citations. I've already done so with some of them, though I still don't like the philosophistry one as it's basically a blog - without a publication in a reliable source, it comes across as some guy's opinion, even if it is accurate. Nicol? WLU 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it pretty much goes without saying that ELs converted to sources need to be reliable sources (which blogs aren't). — Coren (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources for discussion of human bipedalism theories

It's good that the theories are attributed. It would be better if the discussion and criticism of the theories were attributed as well. Otherwise one can be left with the impression that at least a major part of the reasonings and arguments adduced are the original work of a Wikipedian (i.e.OR).--91.148.159.4 23:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)--91.148.159.4 23:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WLU 23:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. This is the second time this month. I'm pointing out a problem and I am told (the previous time by the person who has created the problem) to fix it myself, when it's obvious that it's very difficult or even impossible for me and a thousand times easier for someone else. It's obvious that if the edits are not OR, the person who made them or other persons with the same level of interest in the matter are the only ones in a position to source them; this is not the job of a passer-by who simply points out the fact that the discussion is unsourced. But I guess the only way to get the thing done would be to threaten that I'm going to remove the whole thing in accordance with WP:V until sources are presented. Then the original author will turn up, revert and maybe, just maybe, try to present some sources after a week or two of constant edit warring. I was hoping that I could just make a relevant observation and move on to something else, while at the same time being useful to Wikipedia. OK, so much the worse for Wikipedia.
P.S. I notice people have complained way back earlier on the talk page that the discussion of the various theories is unbalanced in favour of the "wading theory". This is an additional reason for that discussion to be sourced. --91.148.159.4 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
(note:I'm not going to post any more on this talk page, because I really can't afford to become engaged in the sort of long, painful discussions that develop often in such cases; don't take this as a sign of consent, contempt or anything else but that).--91.148.159.4 00:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's editors are volunteers. Yes, editing can be a time-consuming pain in the ass. Which is why we're not always eager to jump on a major piece of work suggested by someone else when it's not our area of specialization. We are volunteers not servants. You seem to have passing familiarity with policy, and removing erroneous text is indeed an option. Have at thee, you are supported by policy. WLU 03:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bipedalism edits

For some discussion see [4], Nicolharper 01:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Turnover pulse hypothesis

I reworked the Turnover pulse section quite a bit(what was the deal with the 'wading hypothesis' critique through-out it?). I still think it needs more work and perhaps some sources. I would greatly appreciate some feedback. Woland37 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing and in-line citations would be good. Though the entire theory of human bipedalism is tentative and contested, the only way to fairly portray each theory is to source each one. Right now the AAH looks just as legit as the rest, and as far as I know it's considered bogus by academics. It's not really directed at this section (which looks good), the whole thing looks like a smokescreen for the AAH hypothesis to claim victory on wikipedia. WLU (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I know. I honestly don't think that the AAH should even be included in this article. There are basicaly three non-anthropologists who support it and zero anthropologists/paleontologists. It's the very definition of a minority viewpoint. For now though cleaning up and sourcing the other sections will probably do. I have a few old textbooks I can use. Woland37 (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there's some discussion in serious journals; I recall when I was going through the AAH page that there were some mentioned and cited in the lead as discussing (possibly discounting) the AAH. Good sources. If the textbooks cite studies as well, you're better off citing the secondary sources. I'll drop some useful things for citing sources on your talk page. WLU (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Advantages

There was a discussion a while back about the advantages and disadvantages of bipedalism, and how to add info on the topic. One suggestion I made was to use a table, here's the table I started and found some sources. Needs work, but I'm doing other stuff on my sandbox so I'm posting it here. WLU (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bipedalism dramatically changes body position and biomechanics compared to a quadrupedal stance, conferring a variety of advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages Example
Greater reach with mouth to reach food Gerenuk
Elevated head allows wading to greater depths in non-swimming species Gorillas
Greater field of vision and improved detection of danger or resources Meerkats
Frees forelimbs for other uses Rodents (manipulation), Bears (combat), Octopus (camoflage)
Greater speed for animals lacking a flexible backbone Ostrich
Greater efficiency for long-distance walking or running Humans
Disadvantages Example
Greater instability Humans can sustain concussions from a standing fall
Greater stress to feet, knees, ankles and hips Arthritis
Top bipedal speed limited compared to quadrupend animals with flexible backbones Ostriches top speed is 65 km/h; cheetahs top speed is 100 km/h
Higher fatality rates due to childbirth[5] Humans


possible sources

[6][7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Hominid vs. Hominin

With all the new fossil discoveries over the past few years, taxonomies have changed, and thus terminology has changed. The textbook "Images of the Past" (which is citation 16) states that "hominid" is an obsolete term, and that "hominin" is the new term, which is more apt in its definition. Fuzzform (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Facultative and obligate bipedalism

Can anyone provide a ref to clear definitions of "facultative" and "obligate"? I've searched in vain. At present I'm editing to mention the terms but point out their difficulties, and then avoid using them. Philcha (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Exclude "bipedalism" in aquatic environments?

The article currently describes certain species of octopus as moving bipedally at times. I think this is totally unhelpful, as aquatic environments remove the issues of load-bearing and balance which are important for locomotion on land. This approach would classify flies (insects with only 2 functional wings) as bipeds because they use only 2 limbs while flying. Can anyone provide a ref to a definition of "bipedalism" which includes only locomotion on land? Philcha (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Restructure needed?

IMO the "Evolution" section is not coherent because it covers widely disparate groups that evolved different forms of bipedalism in response to different evolutionary pressures. I therefore suggest that evolutionary history and pressures should be covered in the sections dealing with specific groups of bipedal animals. I propose to restructure as follows:

  • Overview
    • Types of bipedal movement
    • Facultative and obligate bipedalism
  • Bipedal animals
    • Hominines (humans and animals more closely related to humans than to chimps). Theories about origin of Hominine bipedalism. Refs: [16]; [17]
    • Other primates
      • Gibbons (normally bipedal on the ground).
      • Other apes (normally quadrupedal knuckle-walkers on the ground; bipedalism most commonly used in threat / combat situations).
      • Other primates. Lemurs. Any others?
    • Macropoda (kangaroos, etc.) Evolution if I can find material.
    • Rodents (kangaroo mice, spring hares).
    • Birds and dinosaurs. Early dinos bipedal in all major lineages. Evolution of bipedalism in dinos. Differences between bird bipedalism and ancestral dino bipedalism. ([18]). Drill down into Ornithodira if I can find supporting material.
    • Non-dinosaurian archosaurs (Hutchinson, already cited in intro). Some overlap if the dino-bird section describes Ornithodira at all, will figure out how to minimize overlap if it happens.
    • Lizards. Philcha (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There should be no need for an overview section - the summary of salient points should be in the lead. A brief look says maybe etyomology or definitiion would be a more exact term. I'll have a look. Also there is some sence of reprtition as is, though it is early and my cerebral cortex is still snoozing for lack of coffee....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow this is a really trick article. The only thing is now its sort of like we're discussing all the animals twice. Unless you have 3 separate headings for the 3 times it has evolved and eliminate a general evolution heading altogether.

I added a definition/etymology bit - we need where the term was first thought and maybe who named it etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dogs

Anyone else think this information is necessary? This type of bipedalism is ridiculously obscure in my mind and by far an exception rather than rule, only present because humans will feed 'bipedal' dogs. A single, brief mention is all that is needed and links to videos as 'proof' or references is silly and excessive in my mind. WLU (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely.--Woland (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge of "Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism" into "Bipedalism‎"

I really don't think this was a good idea. The sections on humans now dominate "Bipedalism‎" far too much. "Bipedalism‎" is an overview of bipedalism in a wide range of animals, and there's room to widen that range, e.g. Eudibamus (whose name is Greek for "genuine biped"). So "Bipedalism‎" should link to more detailed articles (Wikipedia:Summary style).

In addition it's recommended that a merger should be proposed on the Talk pages of both of the articles involved and a reasonable time should be allowed for discussion. (Help:Merging and moving pages).

Also I'm not sure how to undo this - "Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism" - tried undoing it but "Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism" was totally gone, so I reversed the undo to prevent the merged content from being lost.

Please don't take this personally, Irishguy - I'll be very willing to discuss with you how best to handle the content of "Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism". Philcha (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How about creating an article human bipedalism and go into the morphological changes, evolutionary history, unique features of human bipedalism, and a {{main}} in this article with brief discussion. WLU (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, as your suggested "human bipedalism" would serve as a source of detailed info for other articles too, e.g. human evolution, human anatomy, evolutionary theory (why didn't natural selection stop us from using a skeleton that has all these disadvantages?) and possibly even stress injuries. Philcha (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Update

OK, all undone now. Have at it guys. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"True" bipedalism?

A contestant on Mastermind once stated that the only true bipeds are humans and penguins. Does anybody here happen to have any idea what is meant by this? -- Smjg (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

They probably were referring to the fact that both of those examples are obligate bipeds. I think they are probably wrong as ostriches are obviously obligate bipeds as well. Some other animals will stand on two legs occasionally or hop but this isn't considered true bipedalism.--Woland (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As are most birds from what I can make out. So what's the difference? -- Smjg (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The contestant was mistaken - see the article for many variations and shades of grey. Philcha (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Which article - Bipedalism, Penguin, Mastermind or something else entirely? Either way, I can't find what you're talking about. -- Smjg (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
So what's the difference? When we're talking about "true" bipedalism, we're talking about *primary* means of locomotion. With most birds this is flight. Even though they stand on their legs when they land, this is not their primary means of locomotion like it is with humans and the ostrich.--Woland (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Woland, thank you for illustrating the point so well - any criterion for "true" bipedalism vs any other kind of bipedalism is likely to break down under the weight of exceptions.
Smjg, as for your "Which article?", you listed only 3 options and only one goes into much detail about Bipedalism. Philcha (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Primates are mammals

Yes primates are mammals, but there is a distinction in that primate bipedalism is on the evolutionary trajectory towards human bipedalism. In other words, bipedalism in other mammals, such as those in kangaroo, evolved independently. The important fact about bipedalism in primates is that the hands are freed to carry objects, whereas other mammals do not use their forearms to carry objects.

Shambalala (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent find!
However "primate bipedalism is on the evolutionary trajectory towards human bipedalism" sounds dangerous close to the old scala naturae / evolutionary ladder idea, which is now seriously out of favour. OTOH your "In other words, bipedalism in other mammals, such as those in kangaroo, evolved independently" is on target - bipedalism has evolved in parts of various mammal groups - some primates, some marsupials, some rodents - while other parts of these groups use other primary styles of locomotion. Throw in the dinosaurs, the early members of which were all bipeds, but whose last common ancestor with mamals was over 290 million years ago and was almost certainly quadrupedal, and the pattern is that there is no pattern. -- Philcha (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right, i'll try to avoid human exceptionalism, i was merely trying to connect human and primate locomotion. The birds too. Shambalala (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any particular objection to what you say at this point, but your restructure has destroyed the completeness of the article. A list of bipdeal mammals must include primates in the list if it is to be in any way complete, and you have removed them from the list. Primates aren't special, they are just another group of mammals and need to be discussed under the heading of bipedal mammals.
There is already a section on the evolution of bipedalism in humans if you want to expound your idea that "primate bipedalism is on the evolutionary trajectory towards human bipedalism", and I will challenge it there if you do. The main pioint is that the section on bipedal mammals can't exclude primates just because you think there is a subjective distinction. Distinct or not they are indisputably and objectively mammals.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that primates are mammals, and they should be represented under mammals. However there is a distinction that is not subjective, and that is the use of hands to carry objects while using bipedal locomotion. This trait is not seen in rats, kangaroos or most of the other mammals that exhibit limited bipedalism. Largely because these other animals do not have hands or for that matter opposable thumbs used for gripping. They have forelegs instead. Primates, humans included, are the only order that does have hands and opposable thumbs. In this regard we can consider the kangaroo's hopping as only having a coincidental relation to that of primates. Maybe it would be okay to place the information under the mammals subheading, but 4 th level subheadings are not ideal. It is not "my idea" that non-human primate bipedalism is related to human bipedalism. These articles clearly discuss the relationship
I don't think it is fair to claim that this is "my idea" since others have clearly seen a relationship. Recall too, that humans are also mammals, why then do we have a separate section for them. My basic suggestion is to discuss primate bipedalism in greater detail. There is a lot of scientific literature about this subject such as the above examples. I think this is the most logical way to include the information, however I am open to supporting any better suggestions.Shambalala (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There are problems with the latest structure:
  • If it is helpful to distinguish between primates and other mammals, the order should be "Primates" then "Other mammals".
  • The section "Primates" does not mention that: gorillas are quadrupeds except for male territorial displays; gibbons and some lemurs move bipedally when on the ground, although one could argue that this is not "normal" locomotion for them as they are mainly arboreal; orangs very seldom move bipedally on the ground, spend most of their lives up in trees; bush babies and IIRC tarsiers move around trees by "vertical clinging and leaping" and avoid the ground if possible; and the majority of primate species (monkeys) normally move quadrupedally, even up in the trees. In other words even occasional bipedalism is rare in primates.
Forgot to sign! Yours belatedly -- Philcha (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
1) Humans do not have a separate section. There are only two sections: 3.1 Dinosaurs and their descendants and 3.2 Mammals. Primates need to be discussed under mammals for the mammals section to be anything like complete. You can not remove them completely from the mammals section as you have done.
2)If you want to discuss primate bipedalism in greater detail then have at it. Create an entirely separate article about it if you wish to. I encourage you in your endeavours. But there is no justification for you removing primates form the discussion in this article about which mammals are bipedal. You can discuss primate bipedalism in eye-wateirng detail without needing to remove primates from the list of bipedal mammals in this article. Primates are mammals. Primates are bipedal. They MUST be discussed under the heading of bipedal mammals or the article becomes incomplete, misleading and un-encylopaedic. You can add whatever else tickles your fancy, but please don't go around making the article incomplete by deleting important information in this section. Thank you. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
No need for sarcasm or condescension. I think its ironic to say that adding more information makes the article or the section incomplete. I am not removing any information. My view is that mentioning some primates such as bonobos along with other mammals, most of which use non-locomotory bipedalism, is in actual fact more incomplete. Placing bonobos and baboons that actually walk bipedal and upright, along with raccoons and beavers that simply squat on two legs is actually a disservice to the abilities of these primates. Shambalala (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
1) You are not adding information to the primates section. You have repeatedly removed it to another section and as a result made the mammals section seriously incomplete. As I have said, you are encouraged to add whatever you like. You don't need to remove information in order to add more.
2) The section does NOT just mention some primates. It actually states that macaques "along with other primates... will also walk or stand bipedely on land."
3) If you want to split primates out as a separate subheading that's grand. But do it properly. Don't leave some primates under the generic mammalian heading and move some to the primate sub-heading. Unless you have evidence that sifaka and baboons aren't primates then you will need to incorporate them all into your new primate subheading.
4) In a section on limited bipedalism in mammals it is NOT a disservice to anyone of anything to mention two species that walk bipedally when the situation demands. Disservice is POV judgement of yours. I doubt many monkeys fell slighted by this.
This is one of the major problems with Wikipedia, everyone wants to add there pet facts and they just add it anywhere with no reference to style or completeness or readability. We end with articles with a lot of fats and very little information. A fact is not the same as information. Please stirve for completeness, consistency and comprehensibility. Thank youEthel Aardvark (talk)
Per your suggestion of having a more complete and consistent section on mammals, I have reorganized most of the primate references into one level 4 heading under mammals. Shambalala (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is now an unreadble mess. Some primates are covered in the general mammals section, some are covered separately under primates. Some are covered in both. The primates section contains pointless information on non-bipedal movenemt (HTF is brachiation bipedal?). The mammals section contradicts the primates ection by stating that all primates are bipedal to some extent, while the primates states that only some primates can stand on two legs unsupported. This is what happens far to often when people want to shoehorn in their pet subject. Rather than reading the article and paying attention to completenes they just insert what they want mentioned in anywhere and leave it to others ot sort out the contraditions and problems of style. This is always gong to be one of Wikipedias biggest failings: lots of facts. No nformation.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Largest living biped?

What is the largest living biped? (Dirrtypittie (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Completely Unsupported Claim Inserted

Right at the end of the section about human bipedalism, some guy inserted "the wading hypothesis is gaining credence among scientists." I don't know what was going through the mind of whoever put it there- the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis is pretty well discredited, and though a few scientists still think that it might be possible, it's not exactly gaining credence. The sentence is just weasel words anyways. I'm deleting it in the next few days unless someone can back it up.Punkrockrunner (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)punkrockrunner

Someone actually inserted a bunch of wetape stuff throughout the human section. Removing it now.--Woland (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jerboa?

Does the jerboa count as another evolutionary development of bipedalism? It's in a different family than kangaroo mice and springhares. If so, that would bring the count of mammalian bipedalism to five. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.84.59 (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Provisional model

Is this wording appropriate in the above titled paragraph? 'Early hominids did not have the large brains that require that infants be born premature and helpless.'Eggamuffin (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm new so was cautious about editing.

Wading Model

A couple of points... it's called the "wading hypothesis" of bipedal origins. Labelling it the "aquatic ape", as WLU seems determined to do, is a misrepresentation, seemingly designed to exaggerate the idea to a level that it can be sneered at.

The previous version of this page... "but the theory does not have any scientific support and is primarily an exercise in comparative anatomy and speculation" is simply a gross distortion of the facts. Clearly it has scientific support as all extant great apes are more likely to switch to bipedalism in shallow water. This is in the peer reviewed literature...

Niemitz, C. A Theory on the Evolution of the Habitual Orthograde Human Bipedalism - The "Amphibisce Generalistheorie". Anthropologischer Anzeiger 60:3-66, (2002).

Kuliukas, Algis Vincent (2002). Wading for Food: The Driving Force of the Evolution of Bipedalism?. Nutrition and Health Vol:16 Pages:267-289

Please don't revert this page back before justifying this to us here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is your conflation - your original edit termed the wading hypothesis as a part of AA. That's why I restored the information on AA you deleted (which should remain) and retitled it. Now it seems as if you're arguing that it's distinct from AA (which my reading seems to agree with), so I'd suggest removing the parenthetical note linking it to AA and giving it a separate header (since, IMHO, the only *real* commonality of the two is that water is involved - even the styles of locomotion are different, swimming vs. walking through a viscous liquid). The criticisms you mention are directed at the original version of AA (with fully aquatic, habitually swimming apes), and are phrased far more gently than some other opinions I've heard on the topic.
I think you need to decide just where wading falls: a subset of AA, or an independent theory that just so happens to also include water? In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a walking/running person - I don't dispute that interesting stuff happens during wading, but I'm skeptical of how strong a selective force wading was on early hominins. Still, it should absolutely be included - the issue here is under what heading and in what manner.Mokele (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" (AAH) has been misunderstood partly because it's label is very misleading. It was meant to be ironic. (of the apes, which we know are most definitely not aquatic, we are the most aquatic - only slightly more, but enough to explain many differences between us.) Unfortunately it is an irony which seems to be lost on most people, who seem to take it on face value and think it is somehow proposing a truly aquatic ape (in the sense that a seal is an aquatic mammal). If you read the original literature by Alister Hardy you'll see this is simply not the case. He writes that he proposes that human ancestors went in the water "for a few hours at a stretch". The other problem with "the" AAH is "it" is not an "it", it is a "they" (plural). There are several related ideas which broadly propose that significant unique aspects of humans among the apes are best explained by proposing greater selection from moving through water in our lineage than in the other great apes'. For these reasons a better, less ambiguous, label is "waterside hypotheses of human evolution" in my opinion. Notwithstanding that argument, the wading hypothesis of hominin bipedal origins is clearly a subset of the broader umbrella of waterside hypotheses (or, if you prefer, it is part of the AAH). The point is though, it is not the AAH itself, only part of it. That is why I think it is misleading to list, on this page, "the aquatic ape hypothesis" as one of the models to explain human bipedalism. There are some AAH proponents (e.g. Marc Verhaegen) who would object to this on the grounds that they do not actually think human bipedalism is explained by the AAH. (Odd, I know!)
Putting it under the heading "The Wading hypothesis" and linking it to the main AAH page solves this problem. Including my citations in support of the idea next to the statement "...but the theory does not have any scientific support and is primarily an exercise in comparative anatomy and speculation" is contradictory so I am (again) reverting it back to the way it was before. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thing is, while other terms may be more accurate, AAH is a widely known term. A non-anthropologist who's heard something about it might come here looking for info, and not finding such a well-known term as a heading would make things more difficult for them (after all, this is primarily a lay-person's resource). I've re-edited it, see if this version is better. It'd be nice if you could supply broader references from your lit search, maybe get things phrases a bit better. Mokele (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, Mokele, I'll accept your point about the heading. It's an old chestnut for us "aquatic" people - the label's clearly wrong. The irony of it has been lost on two generations but, it's the thing everyone's heard of so it isn't going to go away. Some (like Elaine Morgan) prefer the position you've taken here but I disagree. The longer we use the term "aquatic ape" the more people are going to get the idea behind it wrong. But anyway... Thanks for your editing. I think it's definitely better now than it was. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The real issue is, how much credibility does it have in mainstream circles? I've looked in textbooks and general sourcebooks and found generally no discussion. What proportion of the field believes that wading, swimming or aquatic adaptation has anything to do with the development of bipedalism? From my research, it's a tiny proportion. So tiny I don't think it's worth more than two sentences. If we're citing primary literature (in science, that would be articles discussing single experiments) that suggests there is no secondary sources (review articles and mainstream textbooks) that discuss the topic and show a degree of acceptance that implies a lengthy discussion. In other words, it is undue weight to give serious, lengthy consideration to the AAH, let alone any of the splinter ideas that have even less acceptance. We are bound to report these ideas proportionately in representation to their acceptance, not to promote an idea of minimal acceptance. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
WLU, your bias against this idea is becoming very apparent. This idea has as much evidence for it as any other. As for it's popularity, that is not usually a scientific measure that one would use but even there many anthropologists and human biologists are coming round to the idea. Carsten Niemitz and Friedeman Schrenk are two of the most prominent anthropologists in Germany and they have publicly supported the idea for years. Have you published your "research" or is this just your private readings to support your opinion? Who is the arbiter of "acceptence"? You? I had a paper published in a peer reviewed journal which supports the idea. The BBC made a documentary on evolution (:ife of Mammals) in which David Attenborough basically promoted the idea. All of this however, we are supposed to understand, counts for nothing becuase WLU doesn't like it. Please try to be a little more objective. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you cite Niemitz or Schrenk supporting it in print? In peer review? A documentary is not evidence - the accompanying reptile one had numerous factual errors. Lastly, I'd *love* to see some support for your claim that it has "as much evidence" as other ideas - how many papers on each side? Finally, that your paper was published means nothing - I've seen some utterly ridiculous crap published, even in high-ranked journals. Go to PNAS and check out the onychophoran-caterpillar stupidity going on. Mokele (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Well the thing you keep trying to snip out includes a citation to Niemitz. You make the rules up as you go along. A BBC documentary is not evidence but a lay person's hostile opinion-based web site is. Now, you're even claiming that my peer reviewed paper doesn;t count. It's a disgrace. As long as it supports the mainstream, right? Who cares? This is rational thought? Why not get rid of the whole topic and just say "We're bipedal because God made us that way"? After all, it is what most people believe. It's the real "mainstream" view. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Undent. Bias matters less than evidence. How many peer-reviewed sources on bipedalism discuss the idea in a positive way? How much literature can you point to that discusses the idea explicitly and shows it is widely accepted? How many review articles and textbooks favourably review it? Without these sources, the idea lingers as a fringe theory that should be given minimal weight and text. Don't accuse me of bias, spend your time looking for the kinds of reliable, secondary and tertiary sources (i.e. review articles and textbooks) that support the idea has major weight in the field and significant support behind it. If you are unable to do so, you are using wikipedia as a soapbox for promotion rather than trying to build a neutral, reliable encyclopedia. If biologists really are "coming around", then it's only a matter of time before this support becomes evident in the sources. Until then, accusing me of bias isn't increasing the amount of serious scientific scrutiny the AAH or wading hypothesis is gaining. This isn't my research or my opinions, these are wikipedia's policies. You may also want to avoid personal attacks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So it's a voting contest now? Science by popularity. I have cited three peer-reviewed articles to back up the wading hypothesis. How many do I need? 30? The savannh theory entry doesn't even have one but that's ok because you guys like that idea. You have shown your bias because you ignore the peer reviewed literature when you don't like it but have no problem promoting Jim Moore's masquerading web site, because you do. The topic, as you seem to prefer it mentioned here, would only say "The aquatic ape hypothesis proposes that humans evolved bipedalism as a result of bipedal wading but the theory does not have any scientific support and is primarily an exercise in comparative anatomy and speculation" ([19]) - that is a very biased (and ignorant) portrayal. I have shown it to be wrong. It does have scientific support and it is no more an exercise of speculation than any other theory. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. It's not a voting contest, it's proportional representation in review articles and tertiary sources. Essentially any study can be cited to support anything. Even flat-earther can find citations. Put another way, a creationist can always quote mine specific studies, and find specific studies to support their point. From this they can "fake" the idea that there is actually debate over whether evolution exists when really there is absolutely none in scientific circles - just a bunch of people with pre-existing opinions who will do their best to pimp the idea that evolution is a theory in crisis, or disputed by specific researchers. However, any review article of biology will never refer to creationism, or any doubts about the theory of evolution, though specific points can be raised. Similarly, specific articles can be cited to say "there is 'evidence' for aquatic apes", and specific sentences can be cited that appear to support aquatic evolution. But this neglects the greater sweeps within paleontology, which doesn't really take the AAH seriously. So, to avoid original research, you would need studies about the AAH that discuss it as the AAH (not studies of say competitive swimmers who are marginally faster when shaved but never mention aquatic adaptation in protohumans), and further you would need review articles that reviews the evidence for the AAH and concludes that it's good. Recent ones at that - the most recent I've found is Langdon in the 90s. You can cite specific studies to show that some people believe there is merit to the hypothesis, but that doesn't mean there is debate in the field. You need secondary sources (review articles) that state it's taken seriously and is substantively among the relevant experts - paleontologists and the like. Or even better, find a new review article about how bipedalism evolved, and point to the section of the paper that discusses the AAH, wading ape hypothesis or whatever, and summarize the section where it says it is either well-supported or not well-supported. A review article of bipedalism in a credible scientific journal that specifically mentions the AAH will go a long way towards demonstrating a) that there is debate about it in the field, and b) what is the conclusion of the debate. This is basically where WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE meets up with a specific topic.
The reason Meier is a useful source is because it's meant to be a broad overview of the debate in human paleontology. And it does a pretty good job, and is a pretty good parity source. The book isn't that serious, but it does summarize the field in a popular way, and that summary shows that the AAH has no real weight within the debates. Want to demonstrate it's wrong? Come up with review articles and paleontology textbooks that discuss the AAH seriously and at length. Without those sources, you are citing primary research articles to create discussion where there is none. If there is really a debate about the AAH in the field, it should be easy for you to cite prominent experts who have published in credible sources. It's all there in the policies - WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SOAP and WP:NOT. You might also want to review WP:VOTE - wikipedia is not a democracy. We follow the sources, not our own wishes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, I understand your agenda perfectly. The fact that you can only cite creationist examples shows how badly you have misjudged this idea. It's the only model that can say: "Put a group of apes in this scenario and they will move bipedally for as long as the conditions previal." It's the only one that can add... "and if they moved quadrupedally, they'd die".
You cite the Wikipedia rules as if they back you, when they don't. You break the WP:NPOV policy by insisting that this idea falls into the same camp as creationism. The last edit you were responsible for before I tried to intervene was ""The aquatic ape hypothesis proposes that humans evolved bipedalism as a result of bipedal wading but the theory does not have any scientific support and is primarily an exercise in comparative anatomy and speculation." This is hardly a neutral point of view, is it? Did you verify that it "does not have any scientific support" - nope. No need, I suppose. On the other hand, my modest claim that it is supported by various pieces of evidence are verifiable. They are from the peer-reviewed literature. These are all reliable sources as per WP:RS, unlike your claims, which had no reliable sources at all. I am not trying to make this page, or even this paragraph on this page, a soap box as per WP:SOAP. But I would argue that you are doing this in your clear opposition to the idea being fairly portrayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs)
You misunderstand. I cite creationism as a comparison on this talk page. I've never advocated citing it on the main page. If my summary was an accurate summary of how paleoanthropologists view the AAH then it is neutral. Neutral does not mean "supportive" or "sympathetic". Neutral means "proportionate within the community". And as I've said elsewhere - primary sources can be cherry picked. They can be published in low-notability and reliability journals (like Medical Hypothesis, which pretty much guarantees that the idea doesn't have mainstream support). They can be self-published. They can be a thesis that was never accepted for publication by a journal - and thus not a reliable source. It is not sufficient to meet bare reliability, it must also be neutral and proportionate. I can cite primary research articles to support, for instance, AIDS denialism, or even cold fusion. That doesn't mean it's right because the most recent research summaries and discussions don't give any of these ideas a lot support or play. It's unfair to portray it as if it were a serious contender with a mixed-woodland evolutionary scenario, or as if bipedalism had a single, primary driver. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
That you cannot discriminate between the validity of the idea that wading might have beeen a factor in the evolution of human bipedalism and AIDS denialism, I'm sorry, just shows your bias. The wading idea is cited in peer-reviewed literature by people as respected as Jonathan Kingdon, mentioned in BBC documentaries by people as respected as David Attenborough and repeatedly referred to in a mainstream German anthropological journal by respected German anthropologists such as Schrenk and Niemitz. Even going by whatever you might perceive the maintream, orthodoxy view to be, this idea is a more serious contender than some of those listed on this page (with fewer citations to back them and with no caveat to warn gullible readers off them) such as Tanner's phallic display idea or Dawkin's "fashion". If you can't accept that then you might as well just admit that you have a particular problem with the so-called AAH. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not that the ideas are valid or not (that would be a decision about truth, while wikipedia insists on verifiability). It's a matter of how seriously it is taken. BBC documentaries are infotainment, not scientific literature (the press frequently gives extra attention to new, vivid, surprising or dramatic stories, but this doesn't mean they are accurate or reflect what the scientific community is discussing). Who else, besides Jon Kingdon, has discussed this recently?
Gibbons, A. (2006) . The First Human. Doubleday. (USA) discusses a form of it. Richard Wrangham et al just had those ideas published in AJPA.
If you seriously disagree with the other ideas on the page and they are not justified by sources, per WP:PROVEIT, you can remove them and it is up to the editor who wishes to see the information included to provide sources. The two are independent. I know something about the AAH, I don't know about the others but I don't object to them. In addition, those theories are sourced, single lines in a "misc" paragraph. If you'd like, I could remove the AAH section header and include it as a similar single sentence in the "Other behavioural models" section, though the caveat of "this idea isn't taken seriously" could probably remain - there's specific citations to this effect and unlike the phallic display and "fashion" models, the AAH has considerable popular appeal and attention.
The best thing you can do is cite a recent review article discussing bipedalism that gives time to the AAH or wading hypothesis. Can you do this? The consistent inability to demonstrate recent, secondary-sources clearly discussing the AAH and related theories at length (i.e. more than a couple sentences) is what cripples the ability of the AAH to be more than a fringe theory on wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes "widespread support" and why is only the wading hypothesis singled out for this?

There has been a quite long running dispute on this page about the wading hypothesis of bipedal origins and the level of support it should receive on this page. Baically, there appear to be two alternative wordings being proposed. One is very dismissive...

"The aquatic ape hypothesis proposes that humans evolved bipedalism as a result of bipedal wading or other aquatic behavior but the theory does not have widespread support."

The other is more supportive...

"The wading hypothesis (part of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis) proposes that early hominins first began moving bipedally in order to move through shallow water[29]. The idea is supported by evidence that all extant great apes, largely quadrupedal on dry land, tend to switch to bipedalism when moving in shallow water [30], that the difference in energetic cost between moving bipedally with an early ape-like gait (i.e. with a bent-hip bent-knee gait) compared to a fully-upright human gait is reduced in water [31], and on a series of biomechanical and ecological grounds.[32]"

The question arises... what constitutes widespread support? Is it the responsibility of wikipedia to determine this support? If so, why do none of the behavioural models contain similar caveats? How widespread is the support for Tanner's "phallic display" idea? or Dawkins' "fashion"? Don't tell me. It just doesn't matter there.

The wading hypothesis is not yet mainstream, by any means, but it gets as much attention in university-level text books as some of those ideas. For example, it is given as much attention and credit as the above ideas are in these textst...[Kingdon, J. (2003:17). Lowly Origins. Princteton University Press (Woodstock)], Campbell, B., Loy, J., Cruz-Uribe, K. (eds.), (2006:244). Humankind Emerging (9th Edition). Pearson (Boston) and Jablonski, N., Chaplin, G. (2004). Becoming Bipedal: How do theories of bipedalization stand up to anatomical scruntiny?. In: Anapol, Fred C; German, Rebecca Z; Jablonski, Nina G (eds.), (2004). Shaping Primate Evolution. Cambridge (Cambridge).

In the wake of the recent Ardipithecus reports I am left wondering how widespread is the support for the "savannah hypothesis" of human bipedal origins. Why is no caveat is needed there or, indeed, why even no citation is needed to support the idea?

It appears to me that Wikipedia's policies being applied very inconsistently here by editors such as WLU. All I am arguing for is a level playing field. If the public should be warned that the wading hypothesis lacks widespread support, then let's have the do same to the other ideas too. All of these ideas should be backed by citations.

AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to break this down:
1 - I strongly oppose losing the first part of what I have restored as the first sentence. AAH includes more than just wading, and to replace that sentence incorrectly implies otherwise.
Well this is why it should be refrred to as the "wading hypothesis." The label "aquatic ape hypothesis" is a misnomer. People just don't get the intended irony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs) 05:27, January 3, 2010
Does anyone use the phrase "wading hypothesis" in the literature? It looks like no-one except you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because lots of people have got it wrong in the past it shouldn't mean we must follow in their footsteps. The "aquatic ape hypothesis" always was a minomer. Calling a part of it that tries to explain bipedal origins through wading the same label only compounds the error. The correct label for this idea is the "wading hypothesis". One day anthropologists will finally get that much and might start refering to it as such. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
2 - I've checked these sources - Lowly origins mentioned AAH very briefly, without too much overt sneering. Humankind Emerging has no mention of it. And the mention of AAH in "Shaping primate evolution" is cursory at best. None mention wading at all. Can you provide page numbers?
Without too much overt sneering? At least try not to be so overtly biased. This is what Kingdon, said on the idea... “7: Intimidation displays directed at other or same species (Westcott 1976, Jablonski and Chapman 1993). 8: An aquatic phase of foraging and avoiding predators in water (Westenhofer 1942, Hardy 1960, Morgan 1972). 9: A thermoregulatory theory whereby savannah dwellers rear up to keep cool (Wheeler 1984). 10: "Two feet better than four" hypothesis; energetic efficiencies in bipedalism (Rodman & McHenry 1980). 11: A "gimmick" spread by imitation and then favoured by selection (Dawkins in litt.) 12: Terrestrial squat-feeding in grassland (Jolly 1970) and on the forest floor (Kingdon 1997).” Kingdon (2003:17) - No sneering at all. As much attention and credit to it as to several others. No caveat about "lack of widespread support" there either.
You must have an old edition of Humankind emerging. “Foraging postures and bipedalism - Two new hypotheses relate the beginning of hominin bipedalism to particular foraging patterns and postural adaptations. The first hypothesis, by Belgian anthropologist Marc Verhaegen an his colleages (Verhaegen et al 2002), proposes that hominin bipedalism began as an adaptation for wetland wading and climbing, as our earliest ancestors foraged for plants in shallow water and alongside streams. These researchers attempt to support their arguments with data on certain aspects of the australopiths' anatomy and reconstructed habitats and new observations of wading-foraging by wild gorillas (Doran and mcNeilage, 1998).” Campbell et al (2006:244-245) Campbell, B., Loy, J., Cruz-Uribe, K. (eds.), (2006). Humankind Emerging (9th Edition). Pearson (Boston) No sneering or caveats there either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs) 05:27, January 3, 2010
Algis, you are citing a lot of very old sources - 1942, 1960, 1976, 1972 - these can be discounted almost without considering them - how much has paleontology advanced since then? Kingdon is the only really recent one, and two sources from the same author is always less convincing. Where is the vivid debate of a vital, emerging, evolving theory in the literature?
I cited Kingdon 2003 and Campbell et al 2006. The refs you thought were very old were from those citations. (An apology would be nice.) Where is the debate of a "vital, emerging, evolving theory in the literature" for the "phallic display" idea or Dawkins "fashion" - how come they need no "no widespread support" caveat? This kind of double standard just smacks of bias. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
If that is all Humankind Emerging says about the wading hypothesis, that's two sentences. What does it say about the older hypotheses? How much text do they get? How in-depth is the explanation for those? Note as well - "attempt...certain aspects" - hardly a ringing endorsement. And again - this is one book, are there other textbooks? I've looked in my library and there's no mention in the books I checked. I can do so again, and I'll provide page titles and authors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said, about as much as all the others, and more than the phallic idea and the fashion idea. How many texts even mention the phallic idea or the fashion idea? They are less popular than the wading hypothesis as far as I can tell. So much for that line of argument. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
3 - Other theories are also rarely considered seriously (you suggest two good candidates). Perhaps it would be better to instead sort them into popular, widely-held (such as savanna) and less-accepted? Also note that AAH does get it's own page, and is the only one that has such. As it is, that borders on WP:UNDUE
I'd be happy with that. I have no problem the page saying that the wading hypothesis (or the AAH) is not mainstream, but I do have a problem that it is not accurately described or verifiable and published evidence for it is held back from the reader because of some bizarre duty to support the mainstream theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs) 05:27, January 3, 2010
It's hardly a bizarre duty - again, it's like AIDS referencing AIDS denialism; fusion referencing cold fusion; evolution referencing creationism; child sexual abuse mentioning satanic ritual abuse. Minor points and theories with minimal acceptance shouldn't get much mention. And it looks like the "wading hypothesis" gets even less attention than the AAH. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This is where you show your bias. How on earth can you place this idea in the same box as those? It's a simple, plausible, evidence-based hypothesis. Get over it. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
4 - We can't say squat about the implications of Ardipithecus until someone publishes about it, otherwise that violates WP:OR.
A whole issue of the journal Science was dedicated to Ardipithecus recently. The big take home messagee was that the savannah theory was pretty much dead. (see, e.g. White, T., Ambrose, S., Suwa, G., Su, D., DeGusta, ., Bernor, R., Boisserie, J., Brunet, M., Delson, ., Frost, ., Garcia, N., Giaoutsakis, I., Haile-Selassie, Y., Howell, ., Lehmann, T., Likius, A., Pehlevan, C., Saegusa, H., Semprebon, G., Teaford, M., Vrba, E. Macrovertebrate Paleontology and the Pliocene Habitat of Ardipithecus ramidus (summary). Science 326:67, (2009).) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs) 05:27, January 3, 2010
The savanna hypothesis being dead doesn't mean the AAH or wading hypothesis are more accepted. It has long been recognized that the savanna hypothesis was wrong anyway, and the AAH set up the savanna hypothesis was always more of a caricature used by AAH proponents anyway rather than an actual theory of human evolution. Do any of those 2009 articles reference the wading hypothesis as a viable alternative, or do they focus on a mixed woodland hypothesis? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I never said it did. All I pointed out was that it didn't have "widespread support" either - at least that's what some anthropologists keep telling us (others seem unmoved and keep referring to open plains in their scenarios regardless) You guys seem to want it both ways. My point was just that whereas the wading hypothesis must be fully cited from the peer-reviewed literature (which I have done) and comes with caveats for those poor stupid readers to make sure they know it has no widespreead support, the savannah theory needs no citatios at all and no such caveat. I have said that I have no problem with the idea being put under a heading such aas "ideas without much mainstream support" but just that it should be reported accurately. People should know what it is is, not what gossip has taught some opponents to think what it should be. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
5 - on AAH, the silence speaks loudly. The fact that, even in spite of the masses of books written about human evolution and the vast quantity of research, AAH and wading are rarely mentioned at all, and then only in passing, says a lot about their place in modern anthropology.
Considering some of the above I have lost some of my faith in your competence to judge such matters. The point is very little research has been done on the so-called AAH. If it's been rejected, it's been on the basis of gossip rather than science. The matter is changing. German anthropologists are certainly open to it. Carsten Niemitz and Friedemann Schrenk are two senior figures who are supportive of wading in the evolution of bipedalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs) 05:27, January 3, 2010
NPOV and UNDUE is always a judgement call. You say it yourself - "very little research has been done on the so-called AAH". That's true, which is why we shouldn't extensively discuss it. It was rejected on the basis of failing to be convincing, and failing to compete with other hypotheses that better explained the same features - read the critical sources on the main AAH page, this is discussed extensively. It doesn't matter that it's been rejected on gossip or science, what matters is that it has been rejected. If you think it has been rejected unduly, go forth and publish. But to try to do so on wikipedia is a violation of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP and WP:POVPUSH. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
How much research has been done into the phallic idea or the fashion idea? No problem there, So, it doesn't matter that it's been rejected on the basis of gossip? Really? I thought science was supposed to be done through the literature and on the basis of - you know - science. I did publish, but you won't accept it's validity because it seems your preconceived idea that this hypothesis must be wrong (arrived at through gossip) trumps everything - the peer reviewed literature and even the scientific method itself. I'm not publishing the idea here, it's already been published, I'm just trying to report what it is accurately. Get over it. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
6 - I have serious problems with your wording. Firstly, gibbons and organs are *routinely*, if not primarily, bipedal when on land; a better phrasing would be something like "extant bonobos are primarily bipedal when moving in the water" (since you don't have data on prevalence in other species). Secondly, I don't agree with your phrasing of your paper's results - you imply that there is some sort of energetic benefit to wading, but even in your own paper, there was *NO* combination of factors which allowed a primate of a given knee angle to cover a given distance more efficiently by wading vs. by walking. The difference is always either non-significant or more costly in the water. And the third does not appear to be available online, so if you could provide a pdf, I'd appreciate it, since I'm skeptical of the claimed biomechanical support. Mokele (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nothing against including a bit more on AAH and wading, but frankly, of your 3 sentences, one is wrong, one is worded very poorly, and one can only be sourced to an obscure german journal. Mokele (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Criticise (and improve) my wording, fine. But please don't just censor the evidence for the idea out of existance or discriminate against the idea by putting caveats on it, but no others that have even less widespread support otherwise it looks like Wikipedia is biased. Anthropologischer Anzeiger is hardly an obscure journal. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You may think that wikipedia is biased, but obviously other editors disagree. And again, cherry-picking single studies isn't enough to justify that a) the theory has been unjustly rejected and b) that the theory has mainstream support. The Anthropologischer Anzeiger article is used to do both. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Cherry picking studies? The whole point of this section is to list the theories that have been put forward and to give some evidnce from the literature for them. Clearly, this idea, for you, just cannot win. Besides "cherry picking" citations is better than having no citations to back up a claim at all. Langdon's the only 'proper' critique of the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" and the two sentences that "rejected" the wading hypothesis are comically bad. Anthropologischer Anzeiger is a mainstream German anthropological journal that clearly has none of the problems you do about this idea. I think you need to get over that and accept the idea's as good as any on the list and has more support in the field than most of them. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The wading hypothesis is a subset of the AAH, in other words, a fringe hypothesis within a fringe hypothesis. I think you need to demonstrate that the AAH and wading hypothesis have mainstream support by a relatively extensive discussion in a recent secondary source - a recent review article in a peer-reviewed journal that is more than a single sentence. It's a relatively low bar, so it should be easy to meet if the wading hypothesis is a serious contender within the peer-reviewed discussions of human bipedalism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I agree one would think it should be a relatively "low bar" but actually if you did a lit review of bipedal origins, as I have done, you'd find a surprising paucity of meta analyses of these idea - even ones that ignore the wading hypothesis. I'm actually writing a chapter for a book specifically on this right now. Maybe I could cite it when it's published. But then again I expect people holding your opinions would gleefully cite COI reasons for rejecting it. The damned "aquatic ape theory", it seems, is damned forever in a web of catch 22 pseudo scepticism and pseudo rigour AlgisKuliukas (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Depending on the publisher the chapter may be suitable, but I would suggest not citing it yourself. To a certain extent WP:COI discourages citing your own work but does not prevent anyone from citing it. Your best bet would be to ask a neutral editor to review and summarize it for you.

Don't you think that "paucity" is an indication that it's perhaps not the most well-supported theory? From what I know it is primarily speculative with no actual hard evidence to support it and further, minimal people actually using it as an interpretive and predictive lens within paleoanthropology. It's really not a high bar to cross; that it hasn't been crossed yet (bar the critial Langdon, 13 years ago) is another indication that it's not mainstream. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The "paucity" I was describing there was for meta analyses in the literature about bipedalism models generally, not specifically about the wading hypothesis. What "hard" evidence do you imagine there might be? Almost all the paleohabitats are waterside ones where wading could have occurred. Extant apes are most predictably bipedal when they are in waist deep water. Wading acts a perfect precursor to both obligate bipedalism and knuckle-waling. It provides a energetic "cushion" allowing for non-optimal (compliant) bipedalism to be practiced in a stable form for milllions of years before the anatomical traits evolved to make it efficient as seen in us. What other model of bipedal origins can say "place apes in this scenario and they WILL move bipedally for as long as the conditions prevail and if they moved quadrupedally it would kill them?" None of them can. So, it's clear that the evidence for the wading hypothesis is head and shoulders above the others. Nevertheless, it is entirely compatible with all of them too. Where better to carry an infant bipedally than when moving through water? Where better to keep cool than in the shallows? etc. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe even Darwin acknowledged that fossilization best occurs near the waterside, thus finding a large number of bones in a waterside context is an artifact of fossilization, not evidence of water dwelling. And again, it doesn't matter what I think, it doesn't matter how compelling it seems to be, what matters is what the experts think - and as far as I know, that's mixed woodland, not waterside. It doesn't matter how convincing you or I seem to find it. If you can't source it as a major contender within the scholarly community, it doesn't get any play. Looking in google scholar, it seems to have been used twice, neither as scholarly articles in journals. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bipedalism/Archive_1&oldid=390199901"