Talk:Acheulean

message: Nature disputes the accuracy of this article; see http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html and Wikipedia:External_peer_review#Nature.  We're hoping they will provide a list of the alleged errors soon. —Steven G. Johnson 01:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm doing a rewrite at  adamsan 16:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a huge improvement over the current version. I think it would be worth replacing the existing article. 85.210.17.122 18:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Cool, I'm scouting around for a GFDL picture and doing some fact-checking but if nobody objects then yes, I think we could swap this one in soon. Should the Nature template remain even after we're happy with a new version? I wish they'd say what the problems were. I spotted a few but not 7. adamsan 19:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

message: This is one of the few nature reviewed articles which also appears to meet wikipedia standards for references. Anyone else think this should be a Featured article candidate? savidan(talk) (e@) 06:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the suggestion Savidan. My rewrite was with the intention to FAC it but then I got worried that I might be making a bit of a rod for the wiki's back. If it turns out somebody from Nature re-reads the article and finds something else wrong with it then it will make the FAC process look bad and become a criticism of the site ie: "We tell them what's wrong with their articles but they still mess it up". I stand by what I've written but there may still be inaccuracies there. Also, I think it could pass FAC but really it still needs more work on distribution and periodisation before it could claim to be a summary of knowledge about the Acheulean. adamsan 13:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA? 

message: The picture that contains the caption "A large and carefully crafted handaxe such as this may have served a social as well as functional purpose" looks suspiciously like a tiny needle point arrowhead like the kind made by Native Americans on the palm of someones hand.  I can see the tiny bumps and lines on the skin.  That is a photo of a tiny arrowhead made by very recent Homo Sapiens.
The 5 pence being used for supposed comparison is a cropped and inserted photo that is obviously not on the same size scale as the actual rock that is being shown.
Plus it looks nothing like any of the Acheulean handaxes I have ever seen.  Is it that difficult to find non-copyrighted photos that people are forced into crude deception to add photos to this article?
The One Watcher (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Supposed Handaxe 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ganj Par, Lower Paleolithic stone tools.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article1568651.ece
This is a recent article on the recent discovery of Acheulian stone tools discovered near Chennai. I thought it might be useful for this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.243.235 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery 

message: The picture of spear tips are NOT the Schoenigen spears. These are from Mesa Verde and are from N. America.
Kortoso (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong spear 

message: *The article starts off with the spelling "Acheulean", and notes the variant "Acheulian", both based on the type site Saint-Acheul in France.  
*But after three further mentions using the first spelling, the lead suddenly and inexplicably introduces an extra "a" into the name, thus: "Achaeulean"  and 
Sangoan (also known as "Epi-Achaeulean").
*A check on Google for "Achaeulean" gave "about 267,000" hits; but barring the first two variants, thus: "Achaeulean -Acheulean -Acheulian" gave only "about 42" hits.  And several of those pages quoted each other …
*Note also that the linked article (Sangoan) uses only the standard spelling "Acheulean".
*I conclude that the strange words "Achaeulean" and "Epi-Achaeulean" are mistakes for "Acheulean" and "Epi-Acheulean" respectively, and will change the page accordingly.  But if anybody has strong evidence to support these spellings as canonical (rather than repeated mistakes), feel free to give references for them and revert my changes.  yoyo (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds right. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variant spellings of "Acheulean"