This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Holocene article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lmuhlenforth,
JB125JB,
Cocobob1 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Yuheng98.
These stories connection to the Holocene period goes back several millenia. The Burkle crater conjoins with the deluge of the cultures from Mesoptomia and the Tuttensee impact with Greek mythology along with Celtic stories undated yet recited. Agencius 12:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I can say about this discussion is when the history seems the holocene period goes back into several millenia.
The graphic used to delineate the Quaternary Period in this article (as well as in the "Quaternary" article) presently seems to group the Pliocene into the Quaternary. The Quaternary Period only encompasses the Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs.
Perid 22:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone manage a graphical timeline similar to the one in the Geologic time scale article? There's a note by that one saying the Holocene is too dense to be shown, and the reader will tend to click the link in the hope of seeing the holocene shown similarly, and be disappointed. Oliver Low 15:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide some reasoning? Not averse in principle, but the page may grow over time.
The This time period is part of the Holocene epoch and related boxed info on articles of ancient cultures should be made into a template, for instance template:Holocene, instead of being individually made for each subsequent page. So that we only need add {{Holocene}} or etc to the page. Nagelfar 09:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Holocene [Gr holos whole and Gr kainos new] perhaps those creating soundbite definitions (i.e. in the Holocene Calendar entry it states: the name means entirely recent, and the Holocene epoch entry it states: Recent Whole, which seem close enough and perhaps I am just arguing semantics about semantics, but it seems that the two different entries should have the soundbite definition be the same for better continuity between Wikipedia entries. It's just an idea. Galo1969X 04:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to query the definition of the Holocne as an epoch. As I understood it, there is still debate as to whether the Holocene is an epoch in its own right or is the latest interglacial era in the Pleistocene epoch. I am aware that the naming would indicate epoch over era (the latter normally ending in -ian, at least in the UK) but I wasn't aware that this unequivocal decision had been made. 131.111.204.9 ( talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
In several places, the article uses past tense in a way that implies the Holocene has ended. When talking about issues with the Holocene fossil record, this presentation is especially unclear. The discussion is obviously in regard to the early Holocene, but it's quite confusing. I'll make a mess of it if I try, but it would be great if someone with expertise in both geology and grammar (and NPOV) would work on this issue. Ftjrwrites ( talk) 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the fundamental assumption of this chart that the end of the Pleistocene coincides with a major technology shift in the way shown. Certainly climate change was a factor, more in some places than others. But there was not always a clear shift to something that could be called Epipaleolithic, and Mesolithic should only be applied to northern Europe. In some places, shifts preceded the start of the Holocene by a few centuries. In others, the shifts came later if it all. Worse, the references to specific cultures is nonsensical. We know of thousands of cultures for these periods. These examples make little sense in this context. Most offensive (and telling) is the Kurgan reference. There's no prehistoric culture recognized by today's scholars as the "Kurgan culture." The term is a relic of an older theory about the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland. It remains controversial and those scholars who generally adhere to its basic ideas today would not call it the "Kurgan culture" in the same sense that some of these other cultures are named. That's a conflation of two different meaning of the word culture. In the archaeological sense, a culture is group of remains from sites showing great similarity within a clear region. A "culture" in this sense may or may not equate to an actual people group, as we might tend to use the word "culture" in common parlance. Kurgan burials are characteristic of several archaeological cultures from the Eurasian steppe, but there is no single "Kurgan culture." Regardless, the Kurgan intrusion (pun intended) has no place in this geological article. And neither does most of the other stuff in this chart. A better substitute chart might more clearly define the various climatic eras within the Holocene, such as the Younger Dryas or the Little Ice Age. Ftjrwrites ( talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I was very confused by this phrase: "Holocene started 10 14C k yr before present (11,703 calendar years before 1950)". So, 10,000 BP = 11,703 calendars years before 1950? I'm still trying to figure this out, moreover the other dates in the same paragraph. Thanks! :^)
New Ice Age Ahead - Part 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.115.211.126 ( talk) 03:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The article states that the Holocene epoch continued until the Anthropocene. However, I do not believe that Anthropocene is a geological term at all. The Geological time scale article does not mention it. It looks like a very recent neologism which is not (yet) widely accepted, but I am not a geologist. Can someone who is clarify please? Rachel Pearce ( talk) 15:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The article on the Holocene calendar says that the Era started 10,000 before 1AD, and to use the calendar, you only have to add a '1' to the front of the current year. According to this page, you have to add 8000 to the current year. Any way to reconcile this difference? Or am I not reading something properly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.216.66 ( talk) 14:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Human civilization dates entirely within the Holocene.
How are we defining "human civilization" here? There most certainly were people living in groups, thus there were cultures, and arguably "civilizations" earlier than 10,000 years ago. A quick look at the Civilization article shows that there isn't necessarily consensus on the meaning of the term, thus on the beginning of "human civilization" at all. Can this quote be backed up somehow? If not, maybe it should be changed to reflect the subjective nature of this statement. romarin talk ] 15:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced 11,430 BP date and used only the 11,600 BP which is the one I've encountered. The reference to this article give 11,780 BP but I don't know where that's derived from. The way, the truth, and the light 05:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC) All datings in this article are extremely inaccurate and too often based upon a single or/and outdated source. HJJHolm ( talk) 06:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
All datings in this article are extremely inaccurate and too often based upon a single or/and outdated source. HJJHolm ( talk) 06:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The answer to my question could be of major importance for archaeologists. Just think about it for a moment. What would happen to our civilization if it were suddenly flooded. Never mind the "suddenly" part, let's just think about what would happen if it took ten or even a hundred years to for sea levels to rise by a hundred meters. What would we do? More importantly, how much would we lose? What impact would a general sea level rise of that magnitude have on our languages, our technologies and our politics? We aren't any better at adaptation than our ancestors were. If it came right down to it, I'd bet against us making it. Our ancestors survived it because they were tough, but even though they were tougher than we are, they almost certainly lost a lot of things that they knew about. Just ten meters of salt water can put a great many things we take for granted out of our reach. -- Brothernight ( talk) 12:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I had a well sourced end of Holocene ref. Why remove it? Hcobb ( talk) 05:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
What makes the Holocene distinct from the Pleistocene? All I can make from the article is that it is basically just the most recent interglacial. -- JorisvS ( talk) 13:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
And the term Holocene is dated. It'll be discarded even before it's over (in a few centuries). Hcobb ( talk) 12:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
But please get back to my question, people: Why is the Holocene distinct from the Pleistocene, i.e. not just another stage of the Pleistocene? -- JorisvS ( talk) 22:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Everyone I was reading this article and was confused and enraged by this line "the mythical story Noah's Ark." I have to say that Noah's ark is possibly a myth but possibly not, as well as there being significant evidence stating it is real. like how could the bible be written without people being there. so please remove the word "mythical" 114.75.15.140 ( talk) 02:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I wound up here looking for the current Age we're in and found Holocene. Pretty nifty. Only, in text you don't really know how it's pronounced.
Before I look like a fool at the next cocktail party, can someone add the proper pronunciation to this?
According to this article, the Holocene started 11,500 years ago. Looking at a number of pages - Smilodon, Nothrotheriops, American mastodon and short-faced bear being just a few that come to mind - the "temporal range" area of the Infobox says, for example "X - Late Pleistocene, X - 10,000/11,000 years ago", instead of "X - Early Holocene" With Smilodon it's even worse, 8,000 years. Am I missing something here, or are a lot of these animal pages incorrect? I'd edit them without asking this, but I'm not sure if it's me missing something or an actual error. Jackakraw ( talk) 17:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This part, "perhaps inspiring deluge or inundation myths such as that of Noah's Flood." is one sided and even false. We cannot ignore the flooding of the Black Sea region, or the mention of a flood in so many different sources, as early as the Sumers, as far as I am aware of. Remember the end of the Ice Age... - Yozer1 ( talk) 12:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The first lines of the article say " at approximately 11,700 years before AD 2000". Could someone clarify why this doesn't say 11,700 years ago or 9,700BCE ? The language of it is simply poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.176.85.193 ( talk) 18:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The article implies that the Holocene has been divided. It has not formally been accepted by the IUGS and so this is original research. In any case if the dates from the IUGS were to be used then the 1972 division dates would not match with the 2013 division dates. So the article is inconsistent. Instead a proposal from Walker 2012 that divides into Late / Middle / Early which is syn with Upper / Middle / Lower should be used. At least it should be mentioned in the article. So the info here is outdated and also wrong by its muddling of the scientific and non scientific literatures. is the walker paper http://www.ub.edu/ice/sites/default/files/docs/jornades/Walker2012.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.68.29 ( talk) 08:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Scientists have recently determined that we now live in the Anthroporcene era, and the Holocene ended with the advent of widespread radiation distribution in the 1950s. Please stop revising changes that say otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.113.239.22 ( talk) 13:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Apparently "It is accepted by the International Commission on Stratigraphy that the Holocene started approximately 11,700 years ago". When was it "accepted"? Royalcourtier ( talk) 01:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Holocene. 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) 05:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The mention of "recent" as an invalid synonym for holocene is referenced to OED when it can be referenced to the actual source, Gradstein, as excerpted by the International Commission on Stratigraphy, so this has been done. Robertwhyteus ( talk) 21:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
In Mesoamerica, transformations of natural environments have been a common feature at least since the mid Holocene, mostly through the exploitation of wild plants and the establishment of crods.
Should this read "crops"? I'm not aware of the word "crods", there's no Wikipedia entry for this word, and no instance of the word in the cited source. Is this just a typo?
-- 208.38.59.161 ( talk) 22:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The Holocene has been divided into three stages/ages: Greenlandian, Northgrippian, Meghalayan. Numeric ages have been added: base Meghalayan 0.0042, base Northgrippian 0.00833. [1]. Te Karere ( talk) 11:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
References
After reading the article, I don’t believe I saw any mention of the ongoing Holocene mass extinction. This seems like a very crucial detail, so why it has been left out is beyond me. I would suggest adding a section that pulls from the “Holocene extinction” main article. Yupwewin ( talk) 18:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
These are exclusively valid in middle Europe and can thus not be used to subdivide "THE Holocene" as a global feature. Hans J. Holm; 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:70D5:FCCA:A7AB:51D ( talk) 13:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I removed this sentence on earthquakes: Earthquakes are a leading cause of sediment deformation, leading to the creation and destruction of bodies of water.[26]
Frankly I (having studied geology with a large focus on the Quaternary) do not have a clue what point the author was trying to make here, but whereas the first part of the sentence is not wrong in itself (although the role of earthquakes in the Holocene are not any larger then before), I really have no clue to which events the second part might be referring to. Considering that in the preceding sentence post-glacial rebound was wrongly named as causing the Baltic Sea, whereas it is only constantly reducing its size (the Baltic Sea being caused by the Baltic ice cap and the erosion of glaciers spreading from there, also corrected that), I suspect somebody got something mixed up so I removed it and made this section to give the original author a chance to explain what he of she meant to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codiv ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Holocene's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "WorldScientists":
Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century.
Reference named "PimmJenkins":
The overarching driver of species extinction is human population growth and increasing per capita consumption.
The overarching driver of species extinction is human population growth and increasing per capita consumption.
Reference named "dirzo":
In the past 500 years, humans have triggered a wave of extinction, threat, and local population declines that may be comparable in both rate and magnitude with the five previous mass extinctions of Earth's history.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)