Talk:Zhoukoudian Peking Man Site

Confusing dating
There is a mismatch between what is stated in the article "Modern scientific dating techniques confirm that the site was occupied between 770,000 and 230,000 years ago" and the reference it use "Based on various chronometric data obtained with different techniques. Peking Man is known to had been occupying the site during the period between 580,000 and 230,000 years before the present." Avihu (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead link
The potentially fascinating link (19) about the Japanese torture of archaeologists is unfortunately dead.80.60.103.23 (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks much for the report – sorry it took so many years for someone to fix it, but I've now rescued the dead link via archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20051012071152/http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/10/features/melvin.php. Turns out the article doesn't actually give any more details regarding that passage, which I was very moved by as well, but you can at least read the rest of the article now.  --Dan Harkless (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Zhoukoudian
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Zhoukoudian's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "pei1934": From Canis mosbachensis:  From Paleolithic dog:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)