" 
 ::::::::::Unless a guy like me is attacked as an editor, right? Because I dare to have read the sources to this idea, instead of watching some mockumentary about mermaids on Animal Planet and go, ""Yep, that's what that idea is about."" Because I've personally concluded, that AAH is not unreasonable thinking, now that we all ""know"" that it's wrong for all eternity. Then I've just asked for the urine, haven't I, you hypocrite? 
 ::::::::::And the hypocrisy is even deeper with the random arguments for getting rid of illustrations here. One user argues, that a generalized image of the various AAH hypothesis arguments is unnecessary, because the listed points are only partially covered in the body text. Another says, that any images are unnecessary, because the points are described in the body text. Are pictures supposed to illustrate something key from the body text, or something not represented in it? I hear both, all of a sudden. 
 ::::::::::But we're not talking about use of illustrations here. Those images were removed, because the user in question becamse uncomfortable being presented with thousand-words images of an idea, they've been accustomed to laugh at for all the wrong sociological reasons. Reasons which is comparable to the ones that plagued great thinkers like Copernicus and Galileo, and to an extent still Darwin. Even if AAH is wrong, they don't even want it to be presented as the reasonable concept it is. 'Cause the human ape don't want to know what it is. And in that, they are no different in psychology than the creationists and ID'ers plaguing the articles on evolution. 
 ::::::::::'Cause this stripping of all imagery is just another typical mistreatment of this article. Over these last few years I've seen the article's body text reduced to nothing, where the only focus winded up being ""this idea is nuts, go back to sleep"". Close to all description of the individual arguments deleted, where it was nothing of an encyclopedic entry. A typical non-POV presentation based from pure negative bias. And I've seen continous harassment against users adding neutral wordings against this negative bias, again on par with the methods of creationists and ID'ers against evolution describing users. I've seen nothing but a continous pressure for censorship. For some odd pshychological reason, a certain group just don't want this idea to be out in the open. This is the general type of conduct, this fringe idea brings out in not the support, but the opposition. All this not about how to use images. This is about a continous vandalising behavior, that only seeks to kill a non-POV presentation of a divisive idea. Because a range of people just don't ""like"" it. 
 ::::::::::I see all this as a big threat to scientific thought and the well-intended purpose of Wikipedia. Enough is enough. If AAH is so bloody wrong, a neutral presentation would support that anyway. But that is not good enough, is it? (Partially copied from ""ANI"")   "