Talk:Oldest Dryas

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Time Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

The section on Late Pleistocene sequence actually says a lot more about the Older Dryas than the Oldest Dryas, and I would propose moving this section to the Older Dryas article. Myopic Bookworm 09:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why using ages in "BC"? BC for Late Glacial time is strange. "end of the Oldest Dryas at about 12,700 BC calibrated." This should be 14,700 BP. And now the rest is logical "The same date from Antarctica and the south China sea is 14,600 and 14,700, respectively, while a Greenland ice core indicates 14,500" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.178.16.51 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of section

The reference you have deleted is a scholarly work by a leading authority, the former Chief Archaeologist at English Heritage. It should not be deleted. It is the only reference for the whole article after the lead, but you have only deleted the dating section. The correct procedure in this case is to delete the statements you know are incorrect, add citations if you can and add {{cn}} (^{[citation needed]}) tags to the rest, not indiscriminately delete the whole section. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "The correct procedure in this case..." You are entirely wrong. I already linked to the core content policy WP:UNSOURCED; I suggest reading it. Particularly these sentences:

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

There has been a citations template at the top of the article for three years; adding further inline tags is not what is called for.

With regards to the Miles citation: he may be a good archaeologist. But this article concerns a subject spanning palaeoclimatology and palaeontology, an entirely different field in which he does not have expertise. The 7 citations added to the lead regarding dating, which differ from Miles, give the peer-reviewed positions of around 30 experts in those fields. Cambial Yellowing❧ 22:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]