Jump to content

Talk:African humid period

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Younger Dryas category

[edit]

Is it really correct to list Category:Younger Dryas on this page? The Younger Dryas is a pause in the AHP, not a continuation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not searching for continuations, but for articles which either place the Younger Dryas in its palaeontological and archaeological context, or provide explanations for its causes. Dimadick (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the length tag

[edit]

I'd like to dispute the length tag on the grounds that this topic is extremely broad and covers a number of aspects across several different countries, fields of science and ages. That and as discussed in the archive, it does not neatly split into various topics. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently written in a way that is broader than the topic, and the topic can certainly be covered in a more concise way - for example avoiding examplefarms. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, deliberately so, to give a bit of context of what came before and what else occurred at the same time. The examples of e.g lakes were picked with a reason, too - the lakes in question have had dedicated studies to them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't need to report every lake that's been studied - we're meant to be providing a broad overview of the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to think that listing lakes that were studied is an appropriate level of detail. Details on each lake on the other hand would be excessive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grnrchst since you readded the tag (or since it was off for two years, added it) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered whether more could be done to create and move material into sub-articles? DeCausa (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considered, but:
  • Creating subarticles is not trivial.
  • Nor is replacing the content that was spun off.
  • The yearly update becomes much more of a hassle if, on top of everything else, one has to spread it across multiple subarticles and decide where it goes.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russian source

[edit]

This source discusses the speciation of the Guinea tilapia, but it's too long to readily translate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on "How language can be a path away from neo-colonialism in geoscience"?

[edit]

I've introduced this source in the article but I am not excited by it. Putting aside for a moment that the term "African humid period" was a) coined in 2000 by deMenocal and not by Nicholson and Flohn 1980 which don't use the term and b) there are so many manifestations outside of North Africa that such a rename motion has gained little traction so far, I am not sure if this study carries the weight to argue that the term is neo-colonial. Certainly not without a "allegedly" before it which strikes me as questionable too. I am just not sure whether to default to inclusion or exclusion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that @Herostratus: has removed this part. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can't read the article beyond the first few sentences, but it looks like a polemic and a pretty incendiary one at that. Apparently "African humid period" is racist or something. If it's misleading or too broad or whatever, that'd be one thing, but racist is just over the top. I don't know what the authors recommend instead, and if they have a concrete suggestion I suppose we could put it in the Terminology and use the article to ref that (altho these people might not be notable enough, so maybe not). But the political screed stuff, seems too fringe to me. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: It seems like there are non-paywalled copies here. The pertinent part to AHP is Another example, which is rooted in colonial-era treatment of colonized areas as uninhabited and homogenous 2 , is the ‘African Humid Period’. This Holocene climate perturbation has been recognized across mainly northern Africa for over 100 years but this phrasing first appears in the 1980s 6. The term is problematic, as instead of referring to a section of the continent, indeed initially just the Sahara 6, the whole of Africa is invoked. Lumping together 54 countries, eight climatic regions and 30 million km 2 into a single, simple, unknowable entity harks back to colonial thinking. Instead, we could simply refer to this period as the ‘northern African Humid Phase’. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. Well, they do have a suggestion "northern African Humid Phase", which is entirely reasonable. We could use that article as a source for the statement "some scientists have instead used and recommended... "Northern African humid period". After all, they are correct in saying "The term is problematic, as instead of referring to a section of the continent, indeed initially just the Sahara 6, the whole of Africa is invoked. Lumping together 54 countries, eight climatic regions and 30 million km 2...", altho I don't think it is super confusing cos reading a couple-few sentences in to any material on the subject makes it pretty clear what is being talked about.
But, ascribing this to an imperialist mindset is just such arrant nonsense that I'm not sure that these people are serious enough to have any standing to comment on anything not directly in their exact areas of technical scientific expertise, defined narrowly. Yes I know the West has acted badly in a lot of places, but this here is a science article.
Anyway, they didn't recommend "Northern African humid period", the recommended "northern African humid period", and for all I know capitalizing "Northern African" as a proper noun rather than using "northern Africa" as a mere descriptive phrase indicates a desire to divide the continent into formally separate sections which is racist or something. Who knows? It's tiring to try to keep up with this stuff and so I'd just as soon not include these people at all. Herostratus (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested

[edit]

This sauce speculates that the Los Chocoyos eruption of Lake Atitlán might have induced a significant greening of the Sahara 84,000 years ago. Via Mediterranean rainfall and not the monsoon, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green or "green"

[edit]

@Mukogodo: I still must contest this formatting change. Most of the world does not put the green in scare quotes, even if it probably should, and the distinction between savanna and green strikes me as overly literal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6,000–5,000 years ago during the Piora Oscillation cold period.

[edit]

A "PIORA" cold period is very much debated, and above all, never ocurred in that time, perhaps Piora I started at 3400 BC, if at all.HJJHolm (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3,400 BC is 5,400 years ago so within Menocal's timespan, though? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographic September 1924

[edit]

Does someone have a working version of the article that says on which page the savannah animals are mentioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

[edit]

The Introduction is by far to detailed. On the other hand, we need a chapters about datings of the beginning and the end.HJJHolm (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the intro is too detailed at all, sorry. It seems to be a proper level of detail. There is already a chapter about the dating of the ending (6.1 Chronology) and the dates of the beginning aren't particularly controversial and don't need a chapter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Length/citation number

[edit]

So, currently the article has 965 citations and with my annual update the number will likely grow. @KyleSirTalksAlot: has flagged the article for excessive citations so at some point a split will have to be done, but someone has to write the split articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Begun shortening by removing duplicate citations. Got down to "additional factors". Thinking to do this section by section:
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth checking ><, }}<, >{{s and }} aside from }}{{ which I have been doing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did the first three; the fourth is probably too much work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Nomadic" additions to the lead

[edit]

There have been several additions of the term "nomadic" to the lead, first with no source, then with this one. There are a few problems:

  • This concept needs to be discussed in the article before it can be added to lead, per WP:UNDUE and WP:LEADCITE
  • Most importantly: As formulated by the edits, the addition implies that the inhabitants of the Green Sahara were mainly nomadic. That's a questionable claim that would need extensive discussion in the article text, not just one source.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of nothing...

[edit]

User:Turathizetu/sandbox, User:Kōkogaku-sha/Takarkori, User:小文儿/Lothagam Lokam and User:Turathizetu/Jarigole Pillar Site. Some interested user may want to launch them one day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The AHP is the most profound climate change of the low latitudes during the last 100,000 years"

[edit]

As questioned by Darkskysunflowers. The source text is The AHP represents the most comprehensive and areally extensive change in low-latitude climate of the last 100,000 years, and it provides an instructive example of the response of continental climate and ecosystems to external forcings, I figure the question is about how it compares to the ice ages? Given that sea levels are more geography than climate and that the southward shift of the Sahara boundary during LGM/HE1 seems to be somewhat less than its northward retreat during the AHP, it might still be valid. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of "The AHP is the most profound climate change of the low latitudes during the last 100,000 years" feels too broad/vague/subjective. The source text saying that the AHP is the most "areally extensive" change makes sense and is a narrower-stroke assertion. Given what is known as well as what is still unknown about details of the climate across the globe of the past 100,000 years, I tend to prefer erring in the direction of narrower assertions.
Very nice work on the article, by the way - it's clear you've put more than a little effort into it. Darkskysunflowers (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 floods

[edit]

Regarding this addition by Des Vallee, I am not sure that a flood "in decades" is meaningful enough to be compared to the AHP. If it becomes a pattern, yes, but as it stands it feels like too routine to be compared to the AHP - remember, we are talking about millennial-scale events not decadal floods. Also, there is a minor WP:CITEVAR issue (the reference tags are in the text instead of the list like the rest of the content). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: It's not the African Humid Period it's just the current climate of the Sahara which is was incredibly rare and attributed to climate change. Just like there is information in the article on the current greening of parts of the Sahara in early 21st century. Des Vallee (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the issue is that it's still an once in decade thing not once in a millennium. The other section discusses decade-long developments as part of a discussion on the recent state of the Sahara, this addition only one year which is thinner, I'd also avoid using news media as sources on scientific topics, as they tend to be less rigorous. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The full monsoon occurred similar to past events and is the most documented, likewise there is consensus that the event was caused by current climate change. Des Vallee (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does it make it representative of the AHP and/or future Saharan climate, though? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Des Vallee:I am also uncertain about the source interpretation. This source says that in northern Morocco floods will become less bad and in southern worse, which is kinda sorta in line with the topic but only with a hefty amount of SYNTH. This one discusses flood hazards in general, especially along the (non-monsoonal) coastline - no recognizable connection to the AHP at all. Only this source actually talks about monsoonal floods. I'll leave this one.

That said, this source illustrates a major issue with using newspapers about events as sources: It only discusses the 2024 event even though the content implies that there were similar events 30-50 years ago and presumably 60-100, 90-150 and so on. Either they remain uncovered (possibly creating an WP:UNDUE issue as only the most recent flood is covered but not the previous) or we cover them all and then the whole thing becomes too long. So I'd wonder if there is a source saying that such floods occur all 30-50 years and that this timespan is expected to shorten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Removing reference to unsourced, uncited herodotus and strabo quotes which do not actually exist"

[edit]

Discussing here whether According to an article in Oxford Research Encyclopedias, the ancient geographers Herodotus and Strabo both discussed the existence of a greener Sahara, although their reports were questioned owing to their anecdotal nature. should stay or not. Thenewthemesucks says no; other people that commented at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#References to a past wetter/greener Sahara in Herodotus and Strabo are @Lambiam, Card Zero, and DOR (HK): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how wikipedia works so I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong.
Even with a reinserted reference to the oxford research encyclopedia there is no citation to find what they're talking about, doing independent research to try to find it myself, I could not find anything other than a reddit thread with people making reference to the existence of these supposed quotes, and then when asked to produce them the quotes they provide do not appear to be talking about a past green sahara at all
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1ldppvz/comment/mybykzb/
if there is an actual source referencing this in the oxford research encyclopedia, can someone link it with an inline citation, because it seems like this is just hearsay being reproduced across the internet Thenewthemesucks (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thenewthemesucks: Back then, many scientists questioned the existence of a humid and vegetated Sahara because earlier reports (e.g., Herodotus, Historia (Melpomene, 168–199), 440 bce; Strabon, Geographica (book 1, chapter 3), 23 ce; see also Hornemann, 1802/1997) were of a more anecdotal nature. is the text in the source. Google Books has a few things e.g here in the Hornemann source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Strabo and Hornemann, both of which talk about the land being flooded by the sea. Which turned out to be correct, but has nothing to do with the humid period. Nothing about a greener Sahara is mentioned per se, as far as I can tell.
Strabo Book 1 Chaper 3: Ammon with good reason became so distinguished and so well-known as it is if it was situated on the sea, and that its present position so very far from the sea gives no reasonable explanation of its present distinction and fame; and that in ancient times Egypt was covered by the sea as far as the bogs about Pelusium, Mt. Casius, and Lake Sirbonis; at all events, even to‑day, when the salt-lands in Egypt are dug up, the excavations are found to contain sand and fossil-shells, as though the country had been submerged beneath the sea and the whole region round Mt. Casius and the so‑called Gerrha had once been covered with shoal water so that it connected with the Gulf of the Red Sea; and when the sea retired, these regions were left bare, except that the Lake Sirbonis remained; then the lake also broke through to the sea, and thus became a bog. In the same way, Strato adds, the beaches of the so‑called Lake Moeris⁠ more nearly resemble sea-beaches than river-banks. Hypnôs (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preprints

[edit]

[1][2][3] Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paper results contradicted by its supplementary images?

[edit]

So I have raised this question on X as well but I kinda wonder how to use this paper here. Its conclusions (Sahara greening induces drought in the southwestern US) are contradicted by its own figures, specifically 2 and 3 in the supplement which imply a south wet-north dry dipole in contrast to what the PDO theory predicts. I am not sure if the problem is that Sahara greening has effects beyond a change in the Pacific decadal oscillation and these effects override the PDO effect, or if images are mislabelled. I don't know, is this something one calls the journal editors or not? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1007/s00376-024-4284-6 for example shows a north-dry-south-wet response to vegetation during the Eemian. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on first (WP) principles, unless the source is WP:UNDUE wouldn't one have to report the conclusions in the article without comment and wait for other WP:RS to be published that questions it? Anything else would be WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be right, but such a contradiction raises a question about whether the paper itself is a RS - there are few ways to have a source be more unreliable than when its conclusions and data don't line up. Perhaps emailing the authors/editors might help? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 17:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Emailed the journal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the lead author. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading the history and the previous preprint, I suspect that the paper was originally trying to establish a connection between African greening and Pacific drought ... only for the data to refute that, so they dropped the conclusion but kept the data. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of the neolithic?

[edit]

This source claims that the end of the AHP coincides with the beginning of the Neolithic at least in Egypt, but is that really so? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

[edit]

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed that it is quite large, with other 16,000 words (as indicated in the yellow banner at the top of the page). This is larger than the 12,000 words it was when it passed its GAN in 2019, which itself is quite large. I think prose in this can be spun out into new or existing articles and summarised more effectively here. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a broad topic and the strength of Wikipedia is its in-depth nature. Summaries can be found in many places (e.g ChatGPT) but this degree is only available here. And contrary to what some people claim, spreading information around multiple pages does not in fact make it easier to maintain and update it. It only seems easier because folks maintain some pages fter a split, causing the other to decay. Updating might become harder, even, since you need to edit multiple pages not just one. Granted, at some point WP:PEIS will become an issue but I don't fancy anticipating these problems a split or shortening would bring. If a re-review of newly added prose is warranted ... yeah, that might be it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Longer articles also increase load times, especially for users with less-stable internet connections, and makes navigating the page more difficult. These problems are exacerbated with users access Wikipedia by mobile, which are the majority of our readers. I don't want to encourage editors to use ChatGPT for information summaries, as it suffers from hallucinations and draws on a limited number of citations to develop responses. Longer articles are also more likely to intimidate readers who might click away instead of reading the long text: spun-out articles allow readers with a mild interest to read an overview, and those who want more information can click into the child article. WP:TOOBIG as a guideline has an established consensus on what the length should be (although there have been recent discussions about changing those numbers). Since there are opportunities to spin out sections, like the "Effects section" (each region can have its own article, I think) or the "End" section (which some of its sub-sections are also quite long) I think this article is too detailed for the wide scope of the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the ChatGPT comparison was mostly to illustrate that an article with much less level of detail has competition. Also, as noted on the talk page of the article size guideline, prose length has little relevance to load time which is primarily a function of template and image use & effects of prose length on reader engagement is speculative due to the effect of TOCs, headers and collapse status of subsections. But that's mostly arguments about the guideline; my main issue with any form of splitting (aside from the work needed for a split) is that it makes maintenance harder not easier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think spinning it out is necessary. It would benefit from being way more concise and less technical. A reduction of details and examples would also improve the article's flow.
A few examples:
  • The lead sentence should give a date range instead of "late Pleistocene and Holocene geologic epochs", which won't tell many readers much.
  • Albedo feedbacks starts with a paragraph that is a 50+ word sentence that says nothing about Albedo feedbacks.
  • Fossils record has a sentence with 29 examples of animals, most with its own citation.
Hypnôs (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Hypnôs: It has been a while since this article was edited. Are either of you willing to address concerns? Z1720 (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been active only sporadically lately, and my attitude is admittedly informed by the notion that WP articles need to service both general readers and folks going for specifics - not just the former - so I am at best tepid on many of the shortening suggestions. Replacing the lead sentence with something like "approximately 14,600-5,500 years ago" is fine. WRT albedo feedback, it is a topic of relevance to academic research on the AHP but yeah not the best section & a long sentence. I wonder if that list of fossils could be put into a footnote or an List of animals of the Holocene Green Sahara article. Is there a way to list out lengthy sentences w/o eyeballing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really not familiar enough with the topic to make substantial changes. And there are other articles I would prioritize, if I had the time. Hypnôs (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_humid_period&oldid=1352290591"