Talk:Before Present

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Before Present article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Before Present is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time High‑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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 4 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Before present. The result of the discussion was not moved.

CETERUM CENSEO

ceterum censeo ... that - the "present" ever meant and still means "today" and not 1950, - which latter, in case of radiocarbon dating, might be named "BL" in honour of Libby, otherwise "BFN" (Before Nineteen-Fifty), similar to "b2k" in icecore datigs, - consequently, those "intelligent" "scientists" would live today in the year 60 AP (after present)! In addition, and usually in the same papers, the time scales - if only for better comparability - must run chronologically from left to right, i.e. from the older to the more recent data (unfortunately, too many people seem to be completely incapable of using their plotting programs correctly). Further: Please note that neither ky nor kya are allowed SI-units of time. The only correct ones are "a" for year, or "ka" for thousand years. Please refer to "Unified code for Units of Measure at http://unitsofmeasure.org.HJJHolm (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect ("Radiocarbon dating") date

As of the current revision of the article ("Before_Present"), the first sentence in the section "Before Present#Radiocarbon dating" says:

Radiocarbon dating was first used in 1940.

That does not seem to be correct. For one reason, the article about "Radiocarbon dating" -- (which that sentence itself contains a link to, and seems to rely upon) -- says (in the first sentence of its second paragraph)

The method was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby.

For another reason, the article about "Willard Libby" says, in its FIRST sentence, that

Willard Frank Libby (December 17, 1908 – September 8, 1980) was an American physical chemist noted for his role in the 1949 development of radiocarbon dating, a process which revolutionized archaeology and palaeontology.

It seems obvious to me that something (radiocarbon dating) which did not exist until its "1949 development", did not get used in 1940.

Perhaps it was a TYPO? Maybe it should have said "1950" -- ? --

Any advice or other comments? Thanks, from Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1940 is clearly wrong. But what is the correct answer? 1949? 1950? 1950s? No citation for first use is given. So you just volunteered to find the citation!

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was 1949. I've corrected the date and added citations, taken from the radiocarbon dating article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ... e.g. for this prompt [and helpful] response:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Before_Present&diff=1164473263&oldid=1164183773

Resolved

– case closed

--Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link to egocentrism

This article should link to the page egocentrism as the likely cause for the appearance of this time scale. Should we create a dedicated section on the causes, or put it near the beginning of the article? 2A01:CB08:5F:8700:329C:23FF:FEA2:DF4F (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a reliable source to do this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AD vs CE

Should the references to AD (Anno Domini, a religious designation) be changed to CE (Common Era, a more neutral one), or is this appropriate when talking about the Gregorian calendar, created by the Catholic Church? Scyg (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:ERA. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of the chaos

Here is an excellent overview of the existing chaos and the inability of scientists, science journals and universities to agree on a uniform and unambiguous term (partly in German): https://www.sedgeochem.uni-bremen.de/kiloyears.html. Good luck! HJJHolm (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]