Talk:7th millennium BC

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 7th millennium BC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Time Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The image

linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible said this here Milinia aint never happen y'all and it aint ever gonna happen agin neether —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.61.44 (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the English channel was formed in 7000 BC and then again in 6000 BC?

Similarly it appears that the desertification of the Sahara desert started in 3500 BC, as well as 5600 BC. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find a referent for the inline citation "(Horse & Man, Clutton-Brock)".

Sonata Green (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonata Green: that would be Juliet Clutton-Brock and probably her book simply called Horse. But a proper citation is what we need, and preferably something a bit later than her work. Some think the Exmoor pony is actually a descendant of wild horse.

Just found "Evidence for the horse in the United Kingdom after the end of the seventh millennium BCE does not appear until much later, with a rash of dates between 1500 and 800 BCE (Bendrey 2012). A date for horse remains from Crimes Craves (2859-1630 cal BCE) {Clutton-Brock and Burleigh 1991b) has recently been shown to be too early (Higham er ai 2007; Bendrey 2012). Newly calibrated radiocarbon dates for this material place it at 55-384 CE. Because there is a long temporal gap, it is likely that the European wild horse (E.ferus) died oul completely in the United Kingdom and was only reintroduced as a domesticate much later. Ireland differs from the United Kingdom because it has been an island from about 14,000 BCE, when rising sea levels inundated the land bridge that connected it to Great Britain. Horses have been reported at Shandon Cave dating to 30,977-29.275 cal BCE (Hedges ct ai 1997: Woodman ct al. 1997). but not again until domestic ones finally appear. For decades, the first domestic horse was thought to be that found at Newgrange, dating to around 2000 BCE (Wijngaarden-Baker 1974). Recent radiocarbon dating of skeletal remains from the site resulted in a much younger age range of ca. 67 - 220 CE. meaning they date to the Iron Age rather than Bronze Age (Bendrey el al. 2013)." in a university press book dated 2016.[1] 10:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

IP171.60.209.86 added the following:

*c. 7000 BC: Evidence of agriculture in current-day India, Uttar Pradesh Ganges plains, Lahuradewa lake. "The study of rice phytoliths, pollen studies in the lake sediments and the presence of cultivated rice in Lahuradewa archaeological site also strongly indicate agricultural activity in the area since about 9000 years BP."^[1]

*c. 7000 BC: Bhirrana in current-day India. "The antiquity of Bhirrana on the basis of radiometric dates goes back to the time bracket ranging in date between c. 7380 – 6201 BCE." ^[2]

*c. 7000 BC: Rigveda culture in current-day India. "It is shown that the above calendar originated in India in about 7000 BC." ^[3]

witht his edit-summary:

(Undid revision 857133708 by RegentsPark (talk). Suggestion received: "per WP:BRD. Take it to the talk page please." Reason for suggestion to take it to "talk page" neither clear nor precise. Were any of the additions not well-referenced? If yes, which one and on what count?)

Regarding the Vedic culture, Abhyankar is definitely not

]

Is it not Eurocentric/racist to dismiss results by an author (Abhyankar, in this case) of a paper published in Indian Journal of History of Science as

WP:FRINGE? Argumentum ad populum, Ad Hominem, Hasty Generalization, Straw Man are some of the logical flaws in Joshua Jonathan's dismissal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.78.166.60 (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

No, it's not; it's a matter of mature judgement. There was no Vedic culture at 7000 BCE. See Indo-European migrations. Misplaced allegations of racism, though, are not appreciated here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomers are not experts when it comes to ancient history, and a journal on the history of science will publish articles that contain egregious errors of fact in fields outside the history of science because it's a journal on the history of science, so their editors are science historians. Not ancient historians. For all they knew, there really was a Vedic culture back then, making calenders.

It's actually somewhat funny to see racism being thrown about here, because the people of 7000 BCE who were the ancestors of the Vedic culture were also the ancestors of Europeans.

I will note that accusing an editor of racism without plenty of evidence is a

Tell me all about it. 13:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

English Channel formation not supported by other articles

This article says "c. 7000 BC: English Channel formed" and gives a citation. But the linked article on the English Channel itself and a couple other Wikipedia pages says that the channel was formed much earlier than that (~180,000 years ago) but was bridged by ice until the end of the last glacial period, ending ~11,000 BC. So the trench itself was created much earlier and the open water was sill well before 7000 BC, according to these other sources. Someone with more knowledge than I may want to edit the sentence to clarify what -- if anything -- happened geologically with the English Channel in the 7th millennium BC. AristosM (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

says, LOUD AND CLEAR, that "that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".

I have tried very hard to verify much of the content in the series from

which says that "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". As the editors concerned can't be bothered or are guilty of "subtle vandalism", a very telling phrase I saw earlier today, the unsourced stuff is OUT.

I should add that I have my own sources, which are all reliable, and I will continue to improve these millennium articles. As a result, a few of the entries now being removed could end up being restored in one way or another, but with the proper level of citation as verifcation. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]