Talk:Paleolithic

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paleolithic 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.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1: 30 days

History Top‑importance

	History portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Material

Some of this material is simply copied from other articles. I believe that is against policy. I will therefore judiciously cull out the copied material whenever I identify it. Given a certain block of writing, it should appear in one place and be referenced or summarized in another; otherwise, we have sets of articles that say the same thing. All this is open to discussion of course. If you have dicussion, discuss.Dave (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia - you can copy material if you attribute it, although if it is a large chunk you should probably summarise and link to the main article or section of another article with the appropriate template. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent W. Fallio

I think this article needs to be culled of the information and theories sourced from Vincent W. Fallio. He doesn't seem to be a reputable scholar in the field, and his book that's cited often here is not published by a reputable press. Thoughts? NealBhattacharya (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Neolithic § Why not "Neolithic era" or "Neolithic age"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Neolithic § Why not "Neolithic era" or "Neolithic age". —GoldRingChip 14:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

undeniable things about the population in Africa and Middle east in the Paleolithic

https://archaeologie.bemerkenswelt.de/en this is ground-breaking stuff, the images are satellite imagery from Google Earth so there's no doubt about that, it has placemarks of all stone age formations in Africa and Middle east! TL;DR Africa and Middle east were far more populated. Implement this large chunk of knowledge somewhere on the page, maybe even in a theories section! I hope the idea gets to the scientific community so they can research it more.. 178.221.182.108 (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a very unreliable source and I doubt we can use it. The majority of the images on that page are of desert kites, which are well-studied and which we have a good article on, and keyhole monuments (monuments en trou de serrure), which we don't have an article on (yet) but are also known and dated.[1][2] Neither are Palaeolithic, nor signs of particularly high population densities in the past. – Joe (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the site is fun, but on a non-exhaustive look it doesn't claim anything about the Paleolithic anyway. Indeed, all comments I saw about dating were admirably vague and cautious. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fair point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.220.205.235 (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]