|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
First sentence
I changed the first sentence from
The African humid period (AHP) is a climate period in Africa during the Holocene during which northern Africa was wetter than today.
to
The African humid period (AHP), roughly lasting from 14,600 years ago to 5500 years ago, was the most recent climate period in which northern Africa was wetter than today.
because:
- The span of a period is its most basic attribute and as such should be given in the first sentences describing a period.
- The first sentence dating AHP as 'during the current geological epoch during which northern Africa was wetter than today' isn't very helpful.
- Otherwise a reader has to read 132 words of the leading segment to learn when AHP started started.
- Otherwise a reader has to read 202 words of the leading segment to learn when AHP ended.
- Otherwise the first sentence is objectively incorrect as the Holocene only started ~11,650 cal years BP.
- The article should make clear that AHP is not the only humid period, but only the most recent one.
Please address these issues before before changing my edit.Kuiet (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Kuiet: I see two issues with this rewrite. One, as you can see from the "End - Chronology" section the timing of the end of the AHP is somewhat contested; 5,500 years ago is certainly the most common estimate but hardly the only one. "was the most recent climate period in which northern Africa was wetter than today" is somewhat misleading; there were wetter periods than "today" in Africa that are more recent than the AHP, such as the early 20th century pluvial, but which aren't a "green Sahara" period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- I concur with JJE that the previous sentence was better in terms of prose, and accuracy. In order to write accessibly, we should avoid too many details. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I sincerely appreciate your mannered approach. And, indeed, I recognize both your points as valid. I tried to signify the dates were contested by adding the word 'roughly', but if you deem an alternative approach more clear, by all means, implement it. Similarly I agree that 'most recent one' is misleading and should be removed. But I remain strongly in favour of mentioning the start and end dates - whichever ones - before 200 other words.Kuiet (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think that we can accurately summarize the uncertainty of timing within the first sentence w/o making it unduly complex. Also, only a very small part of the Pleistocene included the AHP, so I am not certain on whether it's better to mention it. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 07:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am inclined to restore the previous text, but I wonder if there is a better formulation. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 11:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry for being late in replying. Why do you think mentioning the Pleistocene might be a good idea? Don't restore the previous text since at least the Holocene part is factually incorrect.Kuiet (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Huh? If the lack of "Pleistocene" makes the previous text wrong that sounds like a good reason to add it, no? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies, it seems I wasn't sufficiently coherent. What I meant to say was:
- Don't put 'Holocene' back, since it's wrong.
- You were the first to mention 'Pleistocene' so in reference to your "Also, only a very small part of the Pleistocene included the AHP, so I am not certain on whether it's better to mention it." I wanted to ask you why/where are you considering mentioning 'Pleistocene'. Not implying mentioning it would be good or bad, I was just plain asking for more info.
- But honestly there isn't even really a need for you to explain - I don't want this to turn into an endless conversation and I trust you enough to just go with whatever you decide is best.Kuiet (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies, it seems I wasn't sufficiently coherent. What I meant to say was:
- Huh? If the lack of "Pleistocene" makes the previous text wrong that sounds like a good reason to add it, no? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry for being late in replying. Why do you think mentioning the Pleistocene might be a good idea? Don't restore the previous text since at least the Holocene part is factually incorrect.Kuiet (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Kuiet and Femkemilene: I've done this edit in an attempt to compromise between some of the issues mentioned here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Nicely done, thank you.Kuiet (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
"Neolithic subpluvial" in the lead
Sorry, but I have to dispute Geoffrey.landis's attempts to include "Neolithic Subpluvial" in the lead for the following reasons:
- There are currently a number of synonyms of AHP listed and there is nothing that would justify singling out this one.
- On the contrary, according to Google Scholar most other synonyms are better known than Neolithic Subpluvial.
- That Neolithic Subpluvial is a redirect to this page is irrelevant. Lead sections are written on the basis of article content, not on whether one term has a page here that is a redirect.
- The exact terminology is a relatively low-importance aspect of the entire topic, thus not lead-worthy.
Thus I don't think the other terms should be mentioned at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- If those other terms redirect to this page, then they should be boldfaced in the lede, too. This article is not only the "African humid period" article, it is also the "Neolithic subpluvial" article.
- When a user loads an article, the term that they went should actually exist on the page. "You didn't really want the article you thought you loaded, so we decided to load a different article instead; it's up to you to figure out why we picked this article instead of the one you wanted" is not good practice. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- That does not really address the UNDUE issue. Also, WP:R#ASTONISH only endorses a bold mention when it would be a surprising target, but an article with "subpluvial" in it redirecting to one with "humid" isn't, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- UNDUE was not addressed because WP:UNDUE was not previously brought up. Using an alternate term a single time in the lede is not an undue violation of neutral point of view.
- The text you linked states: "Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term." "Neolithic Subpluvial" is not a misspelling of "African humid period", nor is it an "obvious close variant". Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- It was brought up
there is nothing that would justify singling out this one.
and yes mentioning a rarely used alternative title that is mostly outdated in bold in the first sentence is in fact undue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)- Honestly, a better alternative would be to retarget Neolithic Subpluvial to African humid period#Terminology where it is mentioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- It was brought up
- That does not really address the UNDUE issue. Also, WP:R#ASTONISH only endorses a bold mention when it would be a surprising target, but an article with "subpluvial" in it redirecting to one with "humid" isn't, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- We're usually quite liberal with alternative names in the lead and I don't think it would hurt to include some here. Green Sahara also redirects here, for example, and to me at least that's a more familiar term than Neolithic subpluvial or African humid period; it would be helpful to readers to immediately point out that these are all the same concept. – Joe (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I have to strongly oppose Green Sahara because that concept applies to pre-Holocene GS as well but this article only covers the Holocene version. The only reason why it is a redirect is because nobody has bothered to author an article yet and this is the closest related topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Please stop. If you want to continue reverting, please establish a consensus first (which you have not), rather than designating yourself as a self-appointed expert. Until then, please follow Wikipedia standards, which are that inbound redirects are to be mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article. See: WP:R. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Geoffrey.landis:Sorry. However, WP:R does not say that it's always appropriate to mention it in the lead - in fact, the guideline says that things like "density of water" are more appropriately not mentioned in the lead and I think it's a better analogue than the parts you mention. And the UNDUE point still stands. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is an inbound redirect. The instructions on inbound redirects apply.
- The "Density of Water" redirect to "Properties of water" needs no boldface because it is obvious that density of water is one of the properties of water. Are you asserting that it is so obvious that the phrase "Neolithic subpluvial" refers to the African humid period that it is unnecessary to mention it?
- I assume you have not read the WP:Undue article, which is about giving appropriate weight to opposing opinions. In any case, six words is not undue weight. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- I did read the part where it says
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects ... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery.
(emphasis mine) and that's a problem here since "neolithic subpluvial" is not the most common alternative name by far (Holocene Wet Phase - which is commonly applied to the African/Arabian version, is almost 10 times as common and "Green Sahara" is even more so). That's why I think it shouldn't be mentioned first; either you don't mention it at all and just say "Also known under other names" with a link to the section or you mention Green Sahara first, which has far more claim to the title and is certainly no more clearly connected to "African humid period". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I did read the part where it says
- @Geoffrey.landis: As the person wanting to add something to the stable version that Jo-Jo Eumerus worked on for months, the onus is on you to get a consensus for it, not on them to satisfy your understanding of policy.
- Now that I see how many alternative names there are, I think the link in "also known by other names" is a good solution. But to find out that it is also known as the "Neolithic subpluvial" (or "Holocene Wet Phase" etc.), readers currently have to click that link and then click on an easily-missed footnote. The Terminology section is not very long: can we not just put footnotes a and b in the main text? And bold the synonyms that redirect here per MOS:BOLD? – Joe (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- To be honest, I've never been happy with shoving the alternative names into a footnote. It can be defootnoted, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- "As the person wanting to add something to the stable version that Jo-Jo Eumerus worked on for months, the onus is on you to get a consensus for it"
- No.
- Putting a reference to a redirect term in the lede of an article is Wikipedia standard editing practice. Period. Jo-Jo unilaterally deciding that he doesn't like Wikipedia editing policy and NOT doing this requires consensus. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- It isn't a policy. Both WP:R and WP:MOS are guidelines and the former says that "normally" not "always". One can still discuss which term should be given special emphasis if there is more than one candidate term or if WP:UNDUE concerns exist [which is a policy]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- The distinction between "guidelines" and "policy" is nit-picking, but if you prefer: Putting the phrase in the lede is following Wikpedia guidelines.
- "Undue" refers to emphasizing excessive emphasis of minority opinions. One word is not, in any sense of the word, excessive.
- I have a suggestion, let's follow Wikipedia policy.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- As said before "neolithic subpluvial" is far from the most commonly used term and putting it in the first sentence is indeed undue. As that policy itself says, "prominence of placement" can be a way to give something undue importance.
This is beginning to go in circles. The current parenthetical which refers people to the other names is fine I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- As said before "neolithic subpluvial" is far from the most commonly used term and putting it in the first sentence is indeed undue. As that policy itself says, "prominence of placement" can be a way to give something undue importance.
- It isn't a policy. Both WP:R and WP:MOS are guidelines and the former says that "normally" not "always". One can still discuss which term should be given special emphasis if there is more than one candidate term or if WP:UNDUE concerns exist [which is a policy]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Green Sahara
I added this as an ALTNAME (which is also a redirect and probably is also a contender for COMMONNAME!) before noticing the above thread - so no doubt I'll be reverted! However, just to say that we shouldn't have a link back to the terminology section in the first sentence - per MOS:CIRCULAR. DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- @DeCausa: See, I was thinking that MOS:SL would apply here rather than MOS:CIRCULAR as it's a section link and not a circular redirect. Green Sahara is certainly a common term but one catch is that it's also often applied to pre-Holocene AHPs which are more tangentially covered here.
I've been dallying with turning Green Sahara into a proper article with a different focus (more anthropology and more Sahara, for instance), actually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've never noticed the last sentence of MOS:SL before. That does seem to override CIRCULAR - which does seem slightly odd but there it is in black and white! This is obviously an area of your expertise (which it isn't for me) - is Green Sahara a different concept to this article? The sources I looked at seemed to use it as a synonym. DeCausa (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- @DeCausa:There is a roughly 50-80% overlap, I'd say. That said, AHP also covers East Africa etc. which isn't within the Sahara, and AHP is mainly used for the Holocene GS while GS can also be applied to the Eemian etc. GS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I’ve self reverted the edits I made earlier which included adding “Green Sahara” to the Terminology section (where it’s currently not mentioned). There may be scope for a separate Green Sahara article. However, what I would say is that there needs to be a clearer explanation of “Green Sahara” and its relationship to the article title both in the lead and the body of this article. I certainly found this article looking for information about Green Sahara and would say it’s a more widely known name than the article title. In the article itself it often seems to be used as a synonym for the article title which possibly needs clarifying. For these reasons I think quite a prominent explanation is warranted. By the way - great article! I see it’s pretty much all your work.DeCausa (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- @DeCausa:There is a roughly 50-80% overlap, I'd say. That said, AHP also covers East Africa etc. which isn't within the Sahara, and AHP is mainly used for the Holocene GS while GS can also be applied to the Eemian etc. GS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've never noticed the last sentence of MOS:SL before. That does seem to override CIRCULAR - which does seem slightly odd but there it is in black and white! This is obviously an area of your expertise (which it isn't for me) - is Green Sahara a different concept to this article? The sources I looked at seemed to use it as a synonym. DeCausa (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
File:Africa Climate 7000bp.png
I see that Tobby72 just added File:Africa Climate 7000bp.png to the page. I am not sure if it was already added in the past, but I am not so sure that it accurately reflects the scientific consensus on vegetation during the AHP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- The website it comes from is interesting but it hasn't been updated since 1998 and links to a "new version" that is dead. As far as I can tell it only lead to one scientific publications, in Internet Archaeology (2001), which says a bit about the methodology. But yeah it looks very coarse and obviously not up-to-date. – Joe (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like this is supposed to be the most recent version of the website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Removed the image in the interim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like this is supposed to be the most recent version of the website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the length tag
I'd like to disagree with the tag Dylanvt placed here - this is a very broad scope article (c.f WP:HASTE) that can't be neatly subdivided without prohibitive amounts of work (c.f also the peer review). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)