Talk:Upper Paleolithic

message: Of course, the dates are approximations. But at least they should be given consistently across articles. Beginning: 40,000 BCE or 30,000 BCE (as the Paleolithic article states)? End 10,000 BCE or 10,000 years ago (as per Mesolithic)? — Sebastian (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, and worst, "ago" or "BP" are nonsense, because changin every day, at least every year! For What do we have a common chronology???2A02:8108:9640:AC3:9DB2:EB0C:5F7E:C058 (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read Before Present. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Important: please add a listing for the Bromme culture to this article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: They don’t match the dates on the image details on Commons which is a problem and we probably need to use at least the dates from Chauvet Caves.  Doug Weller talk 17:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Doug Weller: Yeah, I mean, you can add whatever text you like on Commons... 😁 there is some dispute on the dating, perhaps we should expand the range given? Or just remove the dates entirely?  Tewdar  17:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Tewdar Removing the dates might make readers look at the commons details, range would be better. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article supplement gives dates for rhino panel around 33,000 ybp, which is roughly what Commons says, so we should probably just use the Commons dates imo.   Tewdar  18:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates for Rhino drawings 

message: In the leading paragraph, Neolithic Revolution is mentioned but is not mentioned in the rest of the article. It needs to either be removed, relocated, or the subject developed more in depth later on in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelby672 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Paragraph

message: "America:
South American culture located in Chile and Brazil flourished between 30,000 and 20,000 BP."
This is highly doubtful for the earliest human remains on the American continent in North Alaska which were blocked there by the massive ice sheet are dated some 25,000 BP. The Monte Verde in Chile are dated 18,400-14,500 BP (if correctly dated) - the only one site which springs out of the line of site which indicates that Patagonia was inhabited around 11,000 BP and most of South America some 2,000-3,000 years before.  Spetkoff (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it. Looks like it was added by an IP editor in July and not noticed. We don't source this type of article to newspaper reports. The newspaper report did itself refer to some evidence of earlier settlement, but the issue is unsettled and that is not a suitable secondary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubtful dating on Chile and Brazil cultures