This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've added in some points debunking some of rangham's ideas re cooking. Loki0115 ( talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added a quote from Wrangham that debunks Loki's criticism. Kburchbebop ( talk) 19:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I corrected the previous entry as it was extremely pro-Wrangham and violating NPOV. Instead, I added in some necessary data on the level of controversy behind Wrangham's theory within the archaeological/anthroplogical community.
Loki0115 (
talk) 23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This "controversy" section frankly doesn't seem all that notable, or controversial. Wrangham is a social scientist, and scientists disagree and critique each others' ideas all the time -- that's the whole point, and it doesn't make it controversy. An example of controversy would be the Kinsey report's methodology or motives, or a section in the Richard Herrnstein article about his authorship of The Bell Curve. The sources cited in this controversy section are about the debate itself -- they do not establish it as an actual controversy. Could someone please supply some references supporting this as a notable controversy? Otherwise I suggest deletion and keeping this to the raw foodism page. Yawar.fiesta ( talk) 06:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it's been more than a month so I went ahead and deleted the "controversy" section for the reasons cited above -- namely, no evidence of notability. Note also that the first sentence of the section as it existed was factually incorrect: " Richard Wrangham, a primate researcher and professor of anthropology has argued that cooking is obligatory for humans as a result of biological adaptations to cooked foods." While Wrangham has argued that cooking was necessary for human evolution, he acknowledges that it is possible in a modern setting to survive without cooked food, as in this interview.
Deleted text:
Richard Wrangham, a primate researcher and professor of anthropology has argued that cooking is obligatory for humans as a result of biological adaptations to cooked foods. [1] [2] Wrangham believes that cooking explains the increase in hominid brain sizes, smaller teeth and jaws and decrease in sexual dimorphism that occurred roughly 1.8 million years ago. [3] [1] [2] Other anthropologists, however, oppose Wrangham, contending that archeological evidence suggests that cooking fires began in earnest only 250,000-500,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East. 2 million years ago, the only sign of fire is burnt earth with human remains, which most anthropologists consider coincidence rather than evidence of intentional fire. [4] The mainstream view among anthropologists is that the increase in human brain-size was due to a shift away from the consumption of nuts and berries to the consumption of meat. [5]
Yawar.fiesta ( talk) 19:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least the criticism of Wrangham was included. That's the main thing. I do still heavily disagree and consider that Wrangham's theories re cooking and the human brain etc. are highly controversial. After all, it is not simply a case that Wranghams's notions have not been completely accepted, as several online references, such as 1 or 2 in the article, make it very clear that Wrangham's theories are viewed with absolute contempt by the overwhelming majority of anthropologists, due to the lack of evidence to support Wrangham's claims and plenty of evidence which debunks his theories. Of course, you may think of controversy as, instead, implying a nasty dispute. Well, even in that case, I would say that the strongly worded responses of his opponents in the field of anthropology(such as comments about Wrangham being merely a chimp researcher and not a serious anthropologist etc.) make Wrangham's notions extremely controversial indeed.Loki0115
I have had to undo 2 previous attempts to re-portray Wrangham's notions as being supposedly mainstream. If one looks online, one finds, first of all, that there are astonishingly small numbers of articles on Richard Wrangham, thus emphasising that his beliefs are fringe, and not mainstream therefore. Even worse, the few main articles featuring Wrangham typically include a major caveat stating either that "most other anthropologists" or "many anthropologists" view Wrangham's ideas to be laughable and unscientific. In one such article, Wrangham is even derided by a serious anthropologist as being merely a "chimp researcher" and not a genuine palaeoanthropologist - if one looks at Richard Wrangham's online CV, one can see that there is ample justification for that remark.
Here are 3 links re the above comments:-
Regardless of whether some people view Wrangham's notions as being supposedly "right", one should take into account the fact that he is not taken seriously by the majority of palaeoanthropologists. So claiming that his views are merely "alternative" is wholly inaccurate, to put it mildly.Loki0115 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 July 2011
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl=
(
help)
It is irrelevant that those sources are 12 years old as they are among the first links to appear when one googles "richard wrangham". The fact is that Richard Wrangham is so fringe, that there are few articles about his ideas, since he is viewed with disdain by the rest of the anthroplogical community, being labelled a mere "chimp researcher". So the general susbstance of that deleted paragraph is valid. I will look for more modern refs to add to it, but I don't really think that's necessary, as no recent article has come up to suggest that there is any decent evidence to support Wrangham's claims re fire being invented c. 1.9 million years ago. Loki0115 ( talk) 02:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I've done some research. It seems that the above poster was dead wrong. One of the refs was from 2007, so is only 4 years old. Case closed. I will now undo that deletion.
Loki0115 (
talk) 03:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The real problem is that Wrangham is practically the only scientist who is behind the pro-cooking theory. One occasionally reads of other names, but 99 percent of the time, Richard Wrangham's name is mentioned instead, or, occasionally, along with 1 or 2 others. That one study mentioned above, for example, is one which was carried out by Wrangham, so is hardly credible as a support to his theories. Then there's the fact that the language used by other anthropologists to describe Wrangham is particularly strong, with statements about Wrangham stating that he is "merely a chimp researcher", not a genuine anthropologist(verifiable if one checks his online CV), that Wrangham is "just plain wrong" etc. Such strong language is generally only used to describe fringe ideas which have no backing in the scientific community. Plus, even Wrangham has himself admitted in interviews that he has no solid evidence to back up his claims. So, it is necessary to highlight the fact that his theories are fringe. Loki0115 ( talk) 08:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Wrangham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Wrangham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've added in some points debunking some of rangham's ideas re cooking. Loki0115 ( talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added a quote from Wrangham that debunks Loki's criticism. Kburchbebop ( talk) 19:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I corrected the previous entry as it was extremely pro-Wrangham and violating NPOV. Instead, I added in some necessary data on the level of controversy behind Wrangham's theory within the archaeological/anthroplogical community.
Loki0115 (
talk) 23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This "controversy" section frankly doesn't seem all that notable, or controversial. Wrangham is a social scientist, and scientists disagree and critique each others' ideas all the time -- that's the whole point, and it doesn't make it controversy. An example of controversy would be the Kinsey report's methodology or motives, or a section in the Richard Herrnstein article about his authorship of The Bell Curve. The sources cited in this controversy section are about the debate itself -- they do not establish it as an actual controversy. Could someone please supply some references supporting this as a notable controversy? Otherwise I suggest deletion and keeping this to the raw foodism page. Yawar.fiesta ( talk) 06:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it's been more than a month so I went ahead and deleted the "controversy" section for the reasons cited above -- namely, no evidence of notability. Note also that the first sentence of the section as it existed was factually incorrect: " Richard Wrangham, a primate researcher and professor of anthropology has argued that cooking is obligatory for humans as a result of biological adaptations to cooked foods." While Wrangham has argued that cooking was necessary for human evolution, he acknowledges that it is possible in a modern setting to survive without cooked food, as in this interview.
Deleted text:
Richard Wrangham, a primate researcher and professor of anthropology has argued that cooking is obligatory for humans as a result of biological adaptations to cooked foods. [1] [2] Wrangham believes that cooking explains the increase in hominid brain sizes, smaller teeth and jaws and decrease in sexual dimorphism that occurred roughly 1.8 million years ago. [3] [1] [2] Other anthropologists, however, oppose Wrangham, contending that archeological evidence suggests that cooking fires began in earnest only 250,000-500,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East. 2 million years ago, the only sign of fire is burnt earth with human remains, which most anthropologists consider coincidence rather than evidence of intentional fire. [4] The mainstream view among anthropologists is that the increase in human brain-size was due to a shift away from the consumption of nuts and berries to the consumption of meat. [5]
Yawar.fiesta ( talk) 19:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least the criticism of Wrangham was included. That's the main thing. I do still heavily disagree and consider that Wrangham's theories re cooking and the human brain etc. are highly controversial. After all, it is not simply a case that Wranghams's notions have not been completely accepted, as several online references, such as 1 or 2 in the article, make it very clear that Wrangham's theories are viewed with absolute contempt by the overwhelming majority of anthropologists, due to the lack of evidence to support Wrangham's claims and plenty of evidence which debunks his theories. Of course, you may think of controversy as, instead, implying a nasty dispute. Well, even in that case, I would say that the strongly worded responses of his opponents in the field of anthropology(such as comments about Wrangham being merely a chimp researcher and not a serious anthropologist etc.) make Wrangham's notions extremely controversial indeed.Loki0115
I have had to undo 2 previous attempts to re-portray Wrangham's notions as being supposedly mainstream. If one looks online, one finds, first of all, that there are astonishingly small numbers of articles on Richard Wrangham, thus emphasising that his beliefs are fringe, and not mainstream therefore. Even worse, the few main articles featuring Wrangham typically include a major caveat stating either that "most other anthropologists" or "many anthropologists" view Wrangham's ideas to be laughable and unscientific. In one such article, Wrangham is even derided by a serious anthropologist as being merely a "chimp researcher" and not a genuine palaeoanthropologist - if one looks at Richard Wrangham's online CV, one can see that there is ample justification for that remark.
Here are 3 links re the above comments:-
Regardless of whether some people view Wrangham's notions as being supposedly "right", one should take into account the fact that he is not taken seriously by the majority of palaeoanthropologists. So claiming that his views are merely "alternative" is wholly inaccurate, to put it mildly.Loki0115 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 July 2011
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl=
(
help)
It is irrelevant that those sources are 12 years old as they are among the first links to appear when one googles "richard wrangham". The fact is that Richard Wrangham is so fringe, that there are few articles about his ideas, since he is viewed with disdain by the rest of the anthroplogical community, being labelled a mere "chimp researcher". So the general susbstance of that deleted paragraph is valid. I will look for more modern refs to add to it, but I don't really think that's necessary, as no recent article has come up to suggest that there is any decent evidence to support Wrangham's claims re fire being invented c. 1.9 million years ago. Loki0115 ( talk) 02:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I've done some research. It seems that the above poster was dead wrong. One of the refs was from 2007, so is only 4 years old. Case closed. I will now undo that deletion.
Loki0115 (
talk) 03:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The real problem is that Wrangham is practically the only scientist who is behind the pro-cooking theory. One occasionally reads of other names, but 99 percent of the time, Richard Wrangham's name is mentioned instead, or, occasionally, along with 1 or 2 others. That one study mentioned above, for example, is one which was carried out by Wrangham, so is hardly credible as a support to his theories. Then there's the fact that the language used by other anthropologists to describe Wrangham is particularly strong, with statements about Wrangham stating that he is "merely a chimp researcher", not a genuine anthropologist(verifiable if one checks his online CV), that Wrangham is "just plain wrong" etc. Such strong language is generally only used to describe fringe ideas which have no backing in the scientific community. Plus, even Wrangham has himself admitted in interviews that he has no solid evidence to back up his claims. So, it is necessary to highlight the fact that his theories are fringe. Loki0115 ( talk) 08:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Wrangham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Wrangham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)