Talk:9th millennium BC
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9th millennium BC article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This seems a bit far fetched to me - Trans-Atlantic trade in the 9th millennium BC? Is there a source for this?
- There are some theories- Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact#Transatlantic_contact_during_the_Ice_Age. --Brunnock 20:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- From evidence of what appears to be tobacco leaves or residue found in ancient Egyption tombs. Of course this would push the earliest date of trade to about 3000 BC, not 8000 BC as stated in this article. In either case it's all highly speculative. --Jquarry 22:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Revamped palestine to knaan
The name Palestine was coined only in the first century AD and meaningful only when referring to the periods the area was called that way.
one misnaming isn't better then the other. If you want to be super correct use the geological naming Palestine is a provincial naming of the area used by different colonial empires and adopted by the correct palestinians early in modern tmes, Israel was the ancient Kingdom of Israel in the second millenium bc and the modern state niether existed during 9k bc! or if you want to reffer to the actual naming of the regions I guess you might use Israel for all of its de facto controlled territories (autonomy or whatever) Palestine for whatever the palestinins claim and start a deayed edit war with anyone who reads this (remote) page which for my opinion is a good thing anyway (to build up articles). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Update , It appears Two users seem keen in revamping this , ignoring the reasons I stated here. I can only say that if this sums up to this wikipedias integrity will fall even lower , I am not a casual editor in here but this ignorant authority abuse Is honestly unjust and what keeps people from even trying to contribute in talk pages. I hope that someone higher up will see this and warn them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think if you want to use Iraq and Iran, (even England, Turkey and China) to name the places where prehistoric events happened, then it is only correct to use Israel. The area is not called Palestine, as the user states above, the word Palestine wasn't even coined until 1st Century CE. The people who edit this are only trying to interfere and spread Palistinian dominance on the internet.
- If you want to be completely impartial about it (for no reason other than racism - because really, there is only one reason why you refuse to recognise Israel as the name for the area), then according to the Dorling Kindersley World History Atlas the proper name for the area at 9th century BCE is Western Mesopotamia, not even Canaan as suggested. Colt .55 (talk) 22:41 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Maglemosian peoples - huge discrepancy!!
In this article it is stated that Maglemosians were seen already from c. 8750 BC. However in the article about Maglemosian culture, it is stated that they dwelled about 7500-6000 BC. This is not good, as it means a difference of ~ 1200 years. Who is right? -andy 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
All sources I've ever found say that dogs were domesticated up to 100,000 years ago. At any rate, it is well known that they were domesticated before the 9th millennium BC.Punkrockrunner (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)punkrockrunner
I'm not a Christian, and 'BC' refers to something that is only belived by Christians. It is wrong that wikipedia should use BC. 'BCE' is the recognised universal terminology. this page name should be changed. Colt .55 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm reverting your arbitrary era change. The use of BCE/CE vs BC/AD has been a contentious issue on Wikipedia for years. No consensus was reached so the present guideline at WP:ERA is "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used ... It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a a substantive reason; the Monual of Style fovors neither system over the other." If you wish to revive the discussion, please do so on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Some archived discussions of this debate are in Wikipedia talk:Eras, Wikipedia talk:Eras/Compromise proposal, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. At least one editor was banned from making any era change, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2, in his case from BCE/CE to BC/AD thousands of times. I agree that in some articles, such as those on Judaism, that BCE/CE is preferred, which I stated on Talk:Hebrew calendar/BCE vs BC. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)