Talk:6th millennium BC

message: removed: Chinese astrologers record a nova in the constallation Taurus, it will become known as the Crab Nebulathis happened in 1054 -- I have no idea how it got here... Dbachmann 11:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Crab Nebula

message: Is this really "official dogma"? Who are the officials? (Kejo13 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the "official dogma".Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Equids

message: Currently the standard for the year pages describes the events section as follows:The events section is divided into months, each month has a calendar at the beginning and lists any important events that occurred. The month header once linked to the particular month in the year (if the page exists, eg. January 2004), but doesn't anymore. Every item links to the day.I would like to propose a similar standard for the millennial pages, but instead of dividing them by century, I propose that we divide them by geography.  The geographical divisions I propose at this time are: West Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Africa, America, Europe and Australia.  More specific or more general geographic sections may be more appropriate for different millennia.  As a reader, I think such sections would make the event list much easier to read and take in.  This might be particularly appropriate for millennial pages like this one which do not have corresponding century pages since our current scope states: Articles for the year 500 BC and earlier should be redirected to the relevant decade. Articles for the year 1700 BC and earlier should be redirected to the relevant century. Articles for the year 4000 BC and earlier should be redirected to the relevant millennium. What do you think? -ErinHowarth (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events section 

message: I cut the following event from the events section because it doesn't really describe an event which occured during the 6th millenium.  It really described an archeological find which dates to the 6th millenium *c. 6000 BC — 53 clay figurines, stone tools and agriculture in 24 settlements of the "Four-lakes" culture in the region surrounded by the lakes Vegoritida, Heimaditida, Petron and Zazari between the towns of Kozani and Florina west of Thessaloniki, Greece. (4/3/07)This seems to be referring to an acheological find described here: news archives at stone pages dot com If someone can rewrite this item so that it describes an event, I think it can be moved back to the article. -ErinHowarth (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not an event 

message: I would appreciate help with the following inconsistencies.  I followed the link from here to the copper age article, and the dates don't match.  I can't believe its so hard to date some of these things.  
copper article6th Millennium BC article
The Copper Age in the Middle East and the Caucasus begins in the late 5th millennium BC and lasts for about a millennium before it gives rise to the Early Bronze Age.c. 6000 BC — The Copper Age comes to the Fertile Crescent. (Roux 1980) First use of copper in Middle East. (Bailey 1973)The emergence of metallurgy occurred first in the Fertile Crescent, where it gave rise to the Bronze Age in the 4th millennium BC.c. 6000 BC — The Copper Age comes to the Fertile Crescent. (Roux 1980) First use of copper in Middle East. (Bailey 1973)Any help would be appreciated.- ErinHowarth (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dating inconsistencies 

message: I'm removing the following event for two reasons c. 6000 BC — Saharan black pastoral culture <t. 2700 BC>. (1968 Almanac)First, it is not a sentence, so its very difficult to guess what event is being described here.  Second, this reference refers to these people in the 4th millennium.In the Saharan highlands, the pastoral culture of the fourth millennium BC left magnificent rock paintings which show three human groups: a Negroid people…, black but non-Negroid pastoralists…, and lighter-skinned pastoralists…  Africans: The History of a Continent By John Iliffe; Published by Cambridge University Press, 1995; , 9780521484220If you can improve the above listing, please add it back to the article. -ErinHowarth (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: black pastoral culture

message: I believe the title of this article should be changed to "6th millennium BCE" with a redirect from "6th millennium BC" instead of how it is set up now.  The use of BCE and CE instead of BC and AD would draw greater readership and editors if we transition toward less religious based references.
Lets discuss and affirm the change or keep the article as is. To start the discussion read Common Era.
I share former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's conviction that too many people with different religious convictions use the Gregorian calendar by default.  They should not be put off by exclusively Christian references (BC and AD) to dates.  Wikipedia is all about our shared world knowledge of our history.  A common references, that avoids specific religious events, within a shared calendaring system is available now and Wikipedia should use it. 
I'll come back to this article in three months and if there is no discussion I will make the title and redirect changes.
PeterEdits (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your move was reverted. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates), years, decades, centuries, and millennia should use BC, not BCE. Please don't move unless new consensus is reached. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   Sorry, didn't realize the decision on which convention to use (BCE or BC) had already been reached by the Wiki community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterEdits (talk • contribs)  17:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's all right. Thanks for your contributions. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of BCE instead of BC

message: WP:VERIFY 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 10th millennium BC to 6th millennium BC and, frankly, much of it is completely unverifiable or is in the wrong place. I've lost count of the number of entries that have had to be revised and then moved into other millennia. This is taking far too much of my time and why should I waste my time searching for sources that other people have been too lazy to add, assuming they ever existed in the first place? Invariably, they didn't. I am therefore deleting all unsourced content from this article under the terms of WP:UNSOURCED 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)
thread_title:  Removing unsourced entries 

message: Hindu God Rama was also born in 5114 BCE at Ayodhya according to Astronomical research.
is this accurate? Other pages on God Rama indicates his birth was during the 1st Millennium BC 96.248.95.252 (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth of Hindu God Rama