Talk:Timeline of human prehistory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


--Useless without sources== What is the point of starting something like this without any sources? I can't see the point. I'm tagging it right now.Doug Weller (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I plan to add sources, of course. Please feel free to add sources and other data yourself. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sources

  • I've quickly added some reliable sources. It's so much easier to do that rather than make derogatory comments and quickly tag. Paste (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bless you, thank you very much. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Asimov? A book in a foreign language? Speculation about the Toba volcano? It still is not accurate, hence the tag. When there is a consensus that it is accurate, the tag can be removed.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And grabbing sources from other Wikipedia articles which is what seems to have been done here suggests strongly that the editor adding them hasn't read the source. Doug Weller (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with Dr. Isaac Asimov. He is a most reliable source. This article will take a long time and a lot of hard work. But it will be worth it. Of course, the work will be faster and easier if we have more editors who make contributions and fewer who just criticize without actually lifting a finger to help. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am fluent in Spanish. If you are not, go and learn it. It is not so difficult. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:RSUE}} "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher." There are good English language sources available (and please, no encyclopedias)Doug Weller (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we shall search for English language non-Encyclopedia sources. If you put as much time into adding data and sources to the article as you put into complaining and criticizing, the article would be close to completion already. As it is, it is going to take a long time. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toba

Just a couple of links on this: [1] [2] -- that's one of the problems with a list like this, it too easily includes highly contentious stuff.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC) If we leave out Creationism, all the disputes can be solved in an amicable way. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria, linear approach

One of the reasons I am unhappy with this article is that it seems to have no criteria for what should be included -- there must be thousands of potential relevant entries, and to keep those accurate seems an impossible task. Another problem is that as it stands it is linear, and that doesn't match real life. Periods overlap, how is that going to be catered for? This is a relatively minor point but has to be dealt with. And I think every entry needs a good reference. And what do we do when something is contentious?Doug Weller (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can not give up on pursuing knowledge just because there are differences of opinion. If we did, we would all be Medieval Creationists. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, how does it differ in intent from Synoptic table of the principal old world prehistoric cultures?Doug Weller (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It gives a lot more detail than that Synoptic table, which just gives you an idea of the chronological position of those cultures, but does not talk about specific places and events. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question as to how a list handles either controversies (eg Toba)Doug Weller (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC) or overlapping time periods, or the criteria.

As to controversies, we cannot advocate one POV or another. So we just present both sides and let this serve as a springboard for further research and investigation. As to overlapping time periods, that is not a problem and I do not see why it should be. In the real world, different cultures exist at the same time. As to criteria, I propose the following:

  • Omit and leave out mythology and fantasy, such as Plato's Atlantis, the movie "10,000 BC", and such.
  • For events that are controversial, see above. Present both views, without a POV.
  • Include cultures, places and events from c. 120,000 BP - the appearance of Homo sapiens to c. 3700 BC, when writing was invented and thereby Prehistory ended and History began.
  • Use time and energy to find and include data and sources. Do not waste time and energy in carping, caviling, complaining and criticizing.

I may think up more criteria later. Anybody else has any ideas? Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

None of them worked. Also, the number needs to be kept to a minimum. See WP:EL. This basically means any external links need to relate to the whole article, not parts of it.Doug Weller (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Herd of reindeer slaughtered

Again I ask what the criteria are for entries. What was the point of this one?--Doug Weller (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Reindeer existed in Western Europe and that humans were eating them. They were not vegetarians. That this really happened is not at all controversial. It is not doubted by anybody except Creationists who think the Universe began to exist in 4004 BC. If you are in that camp, you can still work on dates between 4004 BC and 3700 BC. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And Reindeer do not exist that far south in modern times. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you miss my point. Are you looking for the earliest evidence of meat eating -- and if so, where? There is much, much older evidence that HSS ate meat. I don't think that it matters what meat they ate.Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is very interesting that there were herds of Reindeer then in what today is France. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But that has nothing to do with this article. I really don't understand your criteria.Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the article. The article is about Human Prehistory. The event took place during Human Prehistory. I do not see what your problem is. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merger

It seems an excellent idea to me, as it should mean that we get more knowledgable editors paying attention to it. As well as being a logical mergeDoug Weller (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC) It does not seem such a good idea to me. But it would be acceptable if all the data were transferred to the merged article. Too often I have seen "mergers" serve as a cover and excuse for the wholesale deletion of data, and an impoverishment of knowledge. But of course I have no choice but to accept the result of the majority voice. Everybody please vote. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that simply saying "It does not seem such a good idea" is not a vote. So here it is, the actual vote:

  • Strong vote Against merger. "Mergers" are usually just covers and excuses for deleting data. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It isn't your article, and you are characterising the situation. At the moment, this article is getting worse as it is still using decades old sources. Merged it would get support from other editors with better resources.Doug Weller (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I need to say that you, Das Baz, have tried hard with this article but with all due respect, you don't have the resources and I'm afraid the background to maintain it. It really needs more editors with more expertise if it is to be a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia. Merging will make this possible (although some of the sources need replacement and some more tweaking, the concept shouldn't be abolished).Doug Weller (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC

I am happy to see that the material has really been merged, not deleted, and I certainly hope qualified editors contribute to add and improve. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, as you can see on the other talk page, I do too. I didn't want to delete the article.Doug Weller (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)