Talk:Before Present/Archive 1

Archive 1

1950?

What is special about 1950?? Georgia guy 22:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking into this for an answer. --Viriditas | Talk 06:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Found it. Adding... --Jemiller226 18:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The "Before Present or Before Physics" section is really sloppy and incoherent. -- Ted

Yes, and its content was apparently also incorrect. Here's another reputable reference besides the one i already quoted in the article:

"B.P. originally did mean "before present" but eventually was changed to mean "before physics" after A.D. 1950 was standardized as the fixed point from which age determinations are (and I hope always will be!) calculated."

--Espoo 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is too limited

bp is not just used for radiocarbon dating, i.e. for times less than 60 ka, but very generally in geology, palaeology and others. For palaeolithic times, i.e. those where many other physical measures besides radiocarbon are in common use, bp is the generally accepted way to state time and radiocarbon datings tend to be given as calibrated years BP to fall in line. Axel Berger 00:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

BP

Currently BP in WP means British Petroleum. This means that at least some articles link to British Petroleum (as in ' 26,000 BP ' when 'before present' is meant. It also means editors have to code the cumbersome ' 26,000 BP ' to correctly link to this article. Any support for the idea of trying to get article BP to be a redirect to 'Before Present' and making a 'BP (oil)' article to handle the oil company. Hmains 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm going through and fixing bad links like the example you gave, and I ran across your comment. I'm afraid I must disagree. The three main uses of "BP" or "bp" are those meaning "Before Present", "Base Pair(s)" (biology), and "British Petroleum" (the company). There are approximately 170 links within Wikipedia that want the "Before Present" meaning, about 90 for "Base Pair(s)", but over 600 for British Petroleum. Judging by that, "British Petroleum" is by far the most common meaning. Yes, it's annoying; I don't like it, either, but it's reality. --Tugbug 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Rewrite

(This refers to the 00:08, 18 May 2007 edit by Tugbug.)

It's amazing that such a simple, ordinarily non-controversial topic should be the scene of so many reverts lately. Sadly, this is resulting in a messy article. In my experience, the best thing to do in such situations is a rewrite. I have done one. See what you think.

My guiding principles:

• BP years are used for all kinds of dating (ice cores have been mentioned, etc.), not just radiocarbon.
• However, BP years were standardized by people doing radiocarbon dating, with their particular application in mind. Thus, radiocarbon dating should be considered the primary and motivating application of the BP scale.
• BP always means years before 1950 when the uncertainty in dates is small, and years before some date relatively close to the present when the uncertainty is large. Thus, years before 1950 is always an acceptable definition.

  If anyone knows of any exceptions to this, speak up.

• The article does not need a separate section for every little topic that pops up.

  I've taken it from 6 sections to 3.

• Everything in the article should have particular relevance to the BP scale.

  Thus, I've removed the mention of cal BC, cal AD.

• References should be given in a form that allows them to be looked up.

  Thus, for now, I have removed references that were only a name and a year. I found and included a complete citation for the Arnold-Libby paper. I removed the Mook-van der Plicht reference, since I could not get at it due to a subscription requirement; I also can not tell what it was included for. References certainly can be replaced if they can be given in more detail and/or made accessible.

--Tugbug 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

References need improvement

Reference 1 is to a website that uses the term but doe not establish a solid reference, which then refers to a paper which is in itself also uses BC/SD and is not a secondary reference to the origin or establishment of the term. I have added {{fact tags}}. Fireproeng (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

B.P.

1. REDIRECT Before Present —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.5.174 (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Gee Whiz

I didn't know we were 58 years in the future. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole concept is ridiculous. The first rule of communication is to be understandable. Everyone knows what year you mean when you say "1000 B.C." If you say "BP" and really mean "1950" as "present" then you've made it harder to communicate. "BP" as a concept fails basic communication tests. --128.222.37.21 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That depends who you're talking to. If its someone who understands radiocarbon dating, it makes perfect sense. Until 1950 the proportion of C14:C12 in the air was relatively constant. Then atmospheric nuclear weapons testing messed it up. So we take a carbon sample, and measure its 14/12 ratio. Log base 2. Divide by the 1950 atmospheric equivalent to get the number of half lives. Multiply by the half-life of C14. Get the number of years BP (uncalibrated). It's so silly, it won a Nobel prize. LeadSongDog (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This pretentious pseudointellectual bs has to stop. Don't let these twits take over Wikipedia. Who cares if its convienent for radiocarbon dating, convert it to AD/BC and stop being idiots. You're all worse than Americans with thier imperial system. 121.222.224.204 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"BP" and "bp"

Shouldn't the convention of using uppercase and lowercase letters (for calibrated and uncalibrated dates) be mentioned as well? —141.153.214.147 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we have wp:Reliable sources showing this convention is still practiced? LeadSongDog come howl! 01:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

b2k - relevant to this article?

Whilst I accept that 'b2k' (before 2000) can be cited, I don't understand why it belongs in this article. Indeed I think its inclusion is confusing because 'present' in BP doesn't mean 'today', it means 'before the atomic isotope record was disrupted by nuclear weapons [testing]'. So adding stuff about Y2K undermines that point. In my view, 'b2k' needs its own article and no more than a mention in the 'see also' in this one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

AUC - Ab Urbe Condita

I added AUC in See Also. I think it is a good addition for the article. Reinsalkas (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

explanation of revert

Jclerman, it is not OK to comment in the article itself on changes in the article. If you feel that AD should be used instead of CE, you should explain that here on the talk page.

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and has to take into consideration that many people consider use of Christian terminology in dates inconsiderate and rude. Although Common_Era lists about as many arguments for as against use of CE/BCE instead of the provincial, egocentric, and inconsiderate use of AD/BC, the fact remains that attempts to keep the Christian terminology are doomed to failure. In all truly international contexts where participants are equal and come from different cultures and religions, use of CE/BCE has been the norm for a long time. The following quotes should be enough to make you realise that you're fighting a losing battle and doing nothing but provoking anti-European and anti-US and anti-Christian sentiments:

from Common_Era: More visible uses of common era notation have recently surfaced at major museums in the English-speaking world: The Smithsonian Institution also prefers Common Era usage, though individual museums are not required to use it.[2] As well, many style guides now prefer or mandate its usage. [3][4][5][6][7] Some style guides for Christian churches even mandate its use; for example, that of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland.(pdf) The usage of the BCE/CE notation is growing in textbooks. It is used by the College Board in its history tests, as well as by the National Geographic Society and the United States Naval Observatory. [8]

from http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm : We use the terms CE and BCE throughout this web site because they are less hurtful to non-Christians. We feel that this outweighs any of the objections to their use of which we are aware. We want to communicate ideas while being civil and considerate to people of all religious traditions. This is compatible with the purpose of this web site, which is to promote religious tolerance. We want to reduce discrimination, oppression and unnecessary pain caused to people on the basis of their religion. Some people call this being "politically correct" because it is sensitive to the feelings of others. That is their right. But we feel that the use of CE and BCE is the decent and considerate thing to do.

I also question the reasoning behind your changes of the quotes:

1) There is no reason to remove the explanation [U.S. National Bureau of Standards]

2) Splitting the explanation of the meaning into two parts is unnecessary and complicates the issue, and your paraphrase of the second part is so much more complicated that it's incomprehensible to most:

"redefined the meaning of the P in BP from the actual year of the laboratory analysis to Physics" is nonsense compared to the original's clarity: " redefined the meaning of B.P. from 'Before Present' to 'Before Physics' "

In addition, this note was confusing and irrelevant because there were and are no claims to the contrary: "Definitions such as BP can not be changed ad libitum but only by consensus obtained at international commitees."

Finally, you used nine edits to change only three things. This makes it difficult for others to decide which of your edits are OK and which not. Please use the "Show preview" button to check your edits before pressing "Save page".

--Espoo 04:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more; I was distressed to find AD used without comment in a Wikipedia entry. There is no rationale or excuse for using a term that has the name of one religion's principal deity in a non-religious context, especially when the alternative is the standard in academia.. and basically everywhere except Christians writing for Christians. Sebum-n-soda (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Rubish-----

look at Maglemosian_culture and many other articles and you will see that BP is rarely used and AD or BC is much more commonly used. If BP or BP cal was commonly used there would be a bot that would convert all the AD and BC and CE etc. references to BP. Als this article here nowhere says how the year 1965 AD is represented. Is is AP? BP+15 or some other way of expressing it? If these aspects are not dealt with then BP is a limited specialist use even if one big museum or some scientists use it in their terminology they are a minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.176.175 (talk • contribs)

This is a complete misunderstanding of the use of BP. We go by what our sources say, and many of those that actually use radiocarbon dating provide dates expressed in BP. We can't change that and shouldn't. Scientists using BP aren't in a minority of scientists using radiocarbon dating, which never converts exactly to ordinary calendar dating. The article you site has no dates for radiocarbon dated material in it, so is irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

YBP?

Apparently there is a different convention using YBP or ybp, which is frequently found on Wikipedia (search), but not mentioned in the article. While YBP redirects somewhere else, ybp does redirect here, so it should be mentioned. See also wikt:YBP and wikt:ybp. I think the "Y" is redundant, since BP alone will already be understood to mean (radiocarbon) years per convention, but clearly this abbreviation is in use. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've changed YBP, so that now both YBP and ybp redirects to this article.--Cyfal (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I've Never Run Into the Phrase "Before Physics"

We used to joke about events dated "After Present" (historical dates, not radiocarbon ones). Jacob Haller 21:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

but you just did! Jclerman 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG, AP -- that's hilarious! I'm going to use it and everyone will think I'm SO clever! BTW, I know the guy who invented the "before physics" meaning (Hans Sues, the brother-in-law of my friend). I'll ask him if he intended it to be used seriously, as it sounds to me like a joke (as physics existed before 1950). if so, I'll remove the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnoFaye (talk • contribs) 15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No attribution to boot. I suggest surgically removing it. Kortoso (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Radiocarbon nonsense

I am a geophysicist. To say that this is only about radiocarbon or only about estimated ages is radically wrong. For example, BP is routinely used for ice cores, which are never dated with radiocarbon (i.e. [1] [2] [3]). BP means years before 1950 whether or not they are "estimated radiocarbon years" or "calendar years". Dragons flight 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note Axel Berger's comment above. Dragons flight 17:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Those BP years used for geologic time don't need to be anchored in AD 1950 as required for the BP radiocarbon years. The ice cores are anchored in AD 1950 because they are isotopically studied by geochemists in environmental isotopes labs (C14, and stable C, O, etc) and because the yrs are counted with an accuracy of 1 yr.Jclerman 18:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)u

They are expressed in years BP because counting backward is a useful convention for measuring the gelogic time, same as Ma, Ga, etc. for longer intervals. There is nothing that requires years BP to reference radiocarbon and normal usage in ice core work would be for "BP" to mean calendar years BP. Dragons flight 20:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"BP" is NOT "routinely used for ice cores". E.g., Danish researchers have long ago switched to the much more intelligent "b2k" (before the year 2000), since the misuse of a common word like "present" for 1950 becomes the more ridiculous, the more we part from that year. Moreover, it can too easily be confused with the correct, conventional use of "BP", and thus repeatedly leads to tremendous errors in many papers. HJJHolm (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also used for radiometric dating. Kortoso (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

BP "years" are not the same as caledar "years"

I think it should be pointed out that BP "years" do not correlate nicely to calendar "years". For example, you can not simply subtract 10,000 from 1950 to figure out what callendar date equates to the date 10,000 BP. As time passes the BP "year" covers a longer period of time than one calendar "year". Its something to do with how carbon isotopes decay. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This only applies to "uncalibrated C-14 years". Most other fields do apply a 1-1 correspondence. It's not really an issue with BP so much as it is an issue with how carbon dating is reported. Dragons flight (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise, so I will bow to your knowledge... but I was under the impresson that BP was not always calibrated (and as the date gets older can not really be calibrated with any certainty.) It isn't a one to one ratio. In other words: 10,000 BP does not equal 8050 BC (1950 - 10,000). Am I misinformed? Blueboar (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A date reported as "10000 C-14 years BP" behaves as you suggest, but the counterpoint is "10000 calendar years BP" (cal. BP) which is one-to-one. When BP is used away from C-14 it is basically always calendar years. So the uncertainty you describe is a property of carbon dating, not a property of using BP notation. In technical literature a carbon dating number should always be labeled calibrated or uncalibrated in addition to saying BP, etc. Dragons flight (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a great many basis systems in use in stratigraphic analysis, from tree rings to layers in ice cores to layers in seabottom sediments. Many atmospheric factors vary year to year on a global scale leaving patterns that can be seen, repeated, in cores from widely varying sites, so that the corresponding layer in different cores can be identified as the same year. Counting layers in the cores gives exact integer year counts. Occasional fortuitous carbonaceous inclusions in the layers provide C12/C14 ratios for those exactly known years. These become calibration reference data points for converting radiocarbon dating to calibrated dating. Use of these tables allows for corrections for annual perturbations in the atmospheric C12/C14 ratios caused by major volcanic activity (increases) versus sunspots or forest fires in drought years (decreases). LeadSongDog come howl 04:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

While you are broadly correct, I don't think there has ever been a countable ice core of any significant age with a large enough carbon content to be reliably measurable using C-14. As discussed at radiocarbon, calibration curves generally use dendrochronology, cave deposits, and corals. The last two are generally cross-dated with U-Th or similar techniques. Dragons flight (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, ice cores are of little use in C14 dating per se, but they are useful for relating overall atmospheric CO2, N2, O2 partial pressures. For C14 dating this has to be cross referred to other data as you say.LeadSongDog come howl 07:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand better now... but all this needs to be better explained in the article. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is all correct, and therefore the misuse of "BP" outside the conventional radiocarbon dating should not be tolerated. Moreover, the chapters on radiocarbon dating here intersect the proper wikipedia articles and must be removed.HJJHolm (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please clarify this statement, HJJHolm? Links to the "proper" wp articles might help.LeadSongDog come howl 13:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not our job to decide what should and should not be tolerated. People working in paleoclimate, uranium-thorium and other methods frequently use BP to mean calendar years. Wikipedia needs to document things as they are not as we wish they would be. Dragons flight (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What is "calendar year" supposed to mean anyway? What's the other kind of year? Fiscal year? It make me crazy. Kortoso (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Radiocarbon calibration

I have just deleted a sentence at the end of the "Radiocarbon calibration" section because it does not make sense. It read "Many scholarly/scientific journals demand to add the calibrating laboratory code with year, because of differences and progress in quality." (To which someone had rightly added the superscript "[clarification needed]"!). I suspect it was a non-native English writer attempting to say something like "Many scholarly/scientific journals require that the year be accompanied by the code of the calibrating laboratory, because of differences between the methods used by different laboratories and advances in quality." If someone wishes to revert that sentence, I hope it can be done in clear English, perhaps along the lines of my suggestion.UBJ 43X (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"calendar years"

The article states that " "cal" indicates "calibrated years", or "calendar years" ". I may be wrong but I don't think I've ever seen "cal" used as an abbreviation for "calendar years" in dating. Even if it is sometimes used in this way (?), such would require a new sentence, to avoid confusion. At the moment you end up with the absurd scenario of "cal BP" meaning "calendar years, before present". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.77.147 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why is the subject of the article always referred to with both words capitalized? Is it a proper noun and normally written like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnerGenius (talk • contribs) 01:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

UTC

I just added UTC to the list of dating systems. Wikipedia uses UTC as its standard. While this is not clear it does mean either the Julian or the Gregorian must be followed and if they (which is likely as they were started by Catholic Popes) use AD or BC then these are correct teminology. It is not clear though which should be used prior to these dates I guess the Julian Day article shows the difficulty and I would guess the English wikipedia goes for the Gregorian, but using Julian dates prior to its introduction according to what each country did, so Russian dates will not match with English dates for example. 178.190.193.212 (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Mpetz178.190.193.212 (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

And I'm just about to take it out again, if not already done. UTC is not a dating system, it is a time system. [It gives the time of day on planet Earth as at the prime meridian, 0 degrees. To find the equivalent local time of the Wikipedia time-stamp at your location, see your local time-zone conversion factor, which is expressed as UTC±n. See UTC.

Signed and dated here for archive purposes only. William Harristalk 01:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Recommendations of the style guide of the Society for American Archaeology

I suggest to regard the style guide of the Society for American Archaeology here: When reporting radiocarbon dates and ages, the following information should be included: In the first citation, the uncalibrated radiocarbon age must be given. The uncalibrated radiocarbon age must be

• Based on the 5,568-year 14C (radiocarbon ages based on the 5,730-year half-life must be divided by 1.03),
• Expressed as years BP (i.e., Before Present; do not convert to radiocarbon years AD/BC),
• Followed by the 1-sigma (σ) standard error, as provided by the laboratory,
• Accompanied by the sample identification number given by the laboratory (use conventions for laboratory code abbreviations as provided in the journal Radiocarbon)
• Accompanied by the type of material that was dated (e.g., wood charcoal, corn cob),
• And defined as to whether the date was corrected for isotropic fractionation (a 13C value indicates correction has been made; best way to indicate this is to include the 13C value if available).

An example of an uncalibrated radiocarbon age is 480 ± 70 BP (ISGS 5965; plant [Pragmites sp./Equisetum sp.]; δ13C, −25.1). When calibrated dates are included, they must be identified as such by using the conventions "cal AD" or "cal BC," and the calibration used must be identified. Indicate whether the calibration was made for 1σ or 2σ (the latter is preferred), and present the calibrated age as a range of calendar age. If there is more than one possible range of age, include any probabilities provided by the calibration program. (For the date 3680 ± 60, the two possible calibrated age ranges are 2279–2232 cal BC [p = .05] and 2209–1905 cal BC [p = .95].) An example of a calibrated radiocarbon age is ca. cal AD 1480–1532 (calibrated with CALIB 5.0 at 2σ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJJHolm (talk • contribs) 10:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good. Is this the link? Kortoso (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the original and only correct use. Though always misleading by misusing a standard concept. Still better would be a clear notification of "before nineteenfifty" by the abbreviation bnf/BNF, similar to b2k in the icecore literature. The sentence "to specify when events occurred before the origin of practical radiocarbon dating in the 1950s." in the introduction is nonsense by very parochial youngsters, regrettably followed by too many younger and parochial "scientists".2A02:8108:9640:AC3:F1DB:BFF5:FEAF:8D9 (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per discussion, RSes, and convention of similar articles. MOS:CAPS for geologic periods does not apply, since this is not a geologic period. For calendar periods, capitalization appears to be the de facto norm, and is likewise supported by a consensus of editors here based on usage in RSes. (non-admin closure) Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Before Present → Before present – Per MOS:CAPS — not a proper name; not consistently capitalized in sources). Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request. Pinging Johnbod, Jack Frost, Lennart97. (permalink). Vpab15 (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The word "Present" in this case is a proper noun because it is not just any old 'present' but specifically 1950. Also, the abbreviated notation BP (not Bp) certainly is used consistently. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, noting that "Before present" is the title at this point - we need to return to "Before Present" (voters please be clear which you are supporting). It is in fact a proper name, as it does not mean "before the present (August 2021)", but before 1950. You have presented NO evidence that "not consistently capitalized in sources", and frankly I don't believe it. It is certainly nomally capitalized in sources, and for obvious reasons - it is highly ambiguous otherwise. It is always capitalized as an abbreviation. Our article on comparable eras - Common Era, Anno Domini etc are rightly capitalized. I will AGF, but this should never have been presented as an "uncontroversial technical request", and the mover should have realized this, and declined it. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC) T

Just check Google Books and Google Scholar if references cited in the article itself are not enough... — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The expression "years before present" is different - the article is not called that. In fact that (in lc) redirects here. Show us the searches for eg "100,000 before present". Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur. A quick search through some Oxford sources seems to support that syntax

• "Radiocarbon years before present. See conventional radiocarbon age; radiocarbon dating." From: RCYBP in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology
• "Each number gives the date in millions of years before present." geologic time divisions in A Dictionary of Genetics

and a few more. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

In other words, no capitalization. For "BP" as well in "A Dictionary of Earth Sciences":

BP
Initials which stand for ‘before present’ and relate to dates before the present day (taken conventionally to be 1950). The term should not be confused with ‘bc’, which relates to dates prior to the birth of Christ.

However, very funny in "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology":

BP (bp)
Before Present. A term widely used by Quaternary geologists and archaeologists with reference to radiocarbon ages and results from other radiometric dating techniques. The present is conventionally taken to be the calendar year AD 1950. Use of the lower‐case form or the abbreviation RCYBP (Radiocarbon Years Before Present) is generally taken to mean the raw ages as calculated by the determining laboratory. These are not calendar years. Use of the upper‐case form or the abbreviation CalBP (Calibrated Before Present) shows that the original determination has been calibrated to reflect calendar years. However, there is considerable variety in the way these abbreviations are used and anyone using dates cited in publications should check the rubric to see exactly how they are expressed.

— notice that the definition of "the present" is not capitalized (refuting the idea that it "is a proper noun") and an honest remark about "considerable variety". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

"the present" is not a proper noun (nor indeed a term commonly used with this sense), "Before Present" is. That's the thing about proper terms, you can't just chop them about as you like. Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This remark was mostly for John Maynard Friedman, who claimed that "The word 'Present' in this case is a proper noun". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to flog this one to death as we seem to be close to a sensible compromise but I think maybe it reveals why we seem to have 'irreconcilable differences'.

The phrase is used in two ways: as a 'thing' and as an unremarkable phrase in running text. As a 'thing', it is capitalised as a proper noun, like Common Era, Anno Domini, Anno Mundi. In running text, it is not capitalised, any more than say 'ago' would be in the sentence 'I met them ten years ago'. This RtM proposal is founded exclusively on the second usage, the objections to it are founded on the first. In the appropriate context, each usage is correct; in the other context, each is wrong. The compromise version neatly sidesteps that trap. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC) [revised --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)]

Since this got flogged to death anyway, may I draw attention to the exact quote from Oxford Reference, first few words:

BP (bp)
Before Present. A term widely used by Quaternary geologists and archaeologists

Capital B Before. Capital P Present. Quod erat demonstrandum (QED). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that Before Present is not capitalised in running text, or should be anyway. As "years before present" it often is not. Anyway, it seems clear the current proposal is not succeeding. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain how exactly do you distinguish "as a 'thing'" from a "phrase in running text"? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

In this case, the 'thing' is a calendar era. Compare, for example, the glyph ⟨A⟩. To discuss that glyph as a 'thing' – for example to consider its use in the Latin, Greek and Cyrillic alphabets – it has to be isolated as I have here, using the conventional angle bracket notation. If using the letter in running text, I would not do that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to say, but am just asking to demonstrate it on some examples. Please take any book or article that uses both the upper- and lower-case forms and show that the choice of capitalization depends on the context ("thing"/"running text"). I don't think that this is the case, since even the long dictionary quote above doesn't make such distinction. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

See for example

1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/abs/bp-time-for-a-change/10B594C7EC1ADD1C028C13F6D9D24ECC
2. https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Before_Present.html
3. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/era/vignettes/era.html
4. https://academic.microsoft.com/topic/19951013/publication/search?q=Before%20Present&qe=And(Composite(F.FId%253D19951013)%252CTy%253D%270%27)&f=&orderBy=0
5. What Is Before Present Or BP?

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

(I've converted your list to numbered, for convenience.) Here is what I see:

1. Doesn't contain lower-case "before present" at all, but has one occurrence of "before the present" in a direct quote from another source (check that paragraph, by the way).
2. Circular reference to the discussed WP article (see the footer there).
3. Doesn't contain lower-case "before present" at all.
4. Doesn't contain lower-case "before present" at all.
5. Doesn't contain lower-case "before" and "present" even as separate words.

How all this is supposed to prove your assertion? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

¿Que? They are all examples of capital B Before capital P Present. As you requested. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I have requested "[something] that uses both the upper- and lower-case forms and [thus can] show that the choice of capitalization depends on the context" to illustrate your idea that "In the appropriate context, each usage is correct; in the other context, each is wrong." Try to reread the discussion starting at least 7 levels above (your own comment from 14:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

What I have provided is evidence that, when writers are describing 'Before Present' as entity in itself, they use capital P. Which is essentially what Johnbod and I told you in our very first statements of opposition – it is you who needs to go back up the levels. This article is primarily about the entity or concept, not about how the term is used. You may want to redefine it to suit your agenda but don't be surprised if I don't agree to go along with it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you imply by "agenda", but I simply try to make this article MOS-compliant. What you have shown is that some writers capitalize the term. Nobody here ever questioned this fact. The problem is that this group of publications apparently always uses capitalized "Before Present", while another large group of publications always uses uncapitalized "before present" – beside the examples already given in this discussion, it's easy to find that people use lower-case "before present" when discussing the concept itself ([4], [5]) and when reporting date estimates, with or without the word "years" and with or without calibration ([6], [7], [8]). So far you've made several different claims to the contrary but each time failed to provide any supporting evidence. Please contemplate what exactly you want to prove, then formulate it clearly and show legible and unambiguous examples confirming your point of view. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

See link. Searching for "10,000 Before Present" returns more results. There is mixed use, but most seem to go with lowercase. Vpab15 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There aren't many - only 66 in total, and most using lc find it necessary to add "(BP)" after, to avoid ambiguity. I might support moving the article to "Years before present", which seems more heavily used anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No, they add "(BP)" as a standard way to introduce an abbreviation for further use in the text. (And the capitalization of the abbreviation is, of course, not an argument for or against capitalizing the full form, since many lower-case terms have standard upper-case abbreviations.) In any case, MOS:CAPS says that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia", and the lack of "substantial majority" has been clearly demonstrated. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Very strange to see a request for "100,000 before present" in a discussion focused mostly on radiocarbon dating, taking into account that "Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old". :–D — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is not " focused mostly on radiocarbon dating" - you are the first to mention it. As you must know, in geology it is routinely used for much older periods. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Please try to look at the discussed article and read at least the first sentence in each section (including the lead; for the "Usage" section, I would recommend reading the second sentence as well)... — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

That's the article; this section is the discussion. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion about renaming the article according to WP rules. WP:TITLE in general ("The title indicates what the article is about") and WP:LOWERCASE in particular ("words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text"). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I tried "million years before present" with similar result. The critical phrasing, as Johnbod suggests above is years before present. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If you think so, then show us examples without "years". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't too difficult. Every case on at least the first page of Google responses to "before present" "BP" -"years before present" says Before Present, with caps.

It seems to me that the easy and obvious way to resolve this dispute is to adopt Johnbod's proposal to move the article to "years before present" because that is the syntax most commonly encountered. That way editors can use [[years before present]] or years [[before present]] in running text as the sources do, and [[Before Present]] (BP) where that is appropriate (as in my Google search returns) and the redirects will take care of it --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC) expanded --22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I know that Google search is different for different people (even if not logged in), but for your search query, I see on the first page, among "not reliable sources" (like Quora, Reddit, Stack Exchange...) something like a journal article, a university website (~online book) and a report from the US NPS website with lower-case terms. And a single article in "Radiocarbon", which uses capitalization (although not in discussing what "present" and "the present" mean, implying that this is not a proper noun by itself, even when it means "1950" specifically), but generally differs from the WP style and nevertheless has two references to "Scientific Style and Format" by University of Chicago Press, to which I don't have full access, but which apparently recommends the lower-case name.

I have no objections against renaming to "Years before present" instead of just "Before present", but neither the title, nor the term in the text should diverge from the sentence case (the difference between "BP" and "bp", however, should be explained, with appropriate references, warnings and alternative notations). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, per above. P is not "the present" but Present, a formally defined epoch – 1 Jan 1950. Besides, capitalisation is conventionally used to distinguish uncalibrated (bp/"before present") and calibrated (BP/"Before Present") radiocarbon dates, so using lowercase here would be extremely confusing. – Joe (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

"Above" is a discussion with good evidence against capitalization. Regarding the use of capitalization "to distinguish", this is not an established standard, so using it without explanations is a bad idea anyway. And please don't confuse abbreviations with terms. For example, the distinction between "cal" and "Cal" is more or less clear, but between "calorie" and "Calorie" is not, and WP uses the lower-case word for both of them, in consistency with its general rules. I also want to remind everybody that "the debate is not a vote", so if you oppose applying the general MOS:CAPS rules, please provide substantial arguments (like references to published standards or at least some style guides – since usage statistics are clearly against your personal opinions). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

We are applying MOS:CAPS. Before Present is a proper noun, a specific calendar era. You haven't shown us any "usage statistics". The discussion above and below shows mixed usage, with more recent and more authoritative sources like Radiocarbon, the Oxford Dictionary and Taylor's textbook showing a preference for capitalisation. – Joe (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"Before Present" is not a noun at all. Mixed usage means that the "substantial majority" criterion fails. Recency and the perceived degree of authoritativeness don't matter in this situation. I don't know, which "Oxford Dictionary" you mean, but three out of four citations above from Oxford sources show the lower-case variant, and the fourth explains that both forms are used and that the capitalization convention is not universal. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. You quoted from it above. – Joe (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, so one out of four Oxford dictionaries uses the capitalized term, while mentioning that the lower-case form is also used. Doesn't sound like a solid argument to insist on mandatory capitalization... — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Weak oppose. Some quotes from books on my shelves.

• Gillespie, Richard (1986, orig. 1984). Radiocarbon User's Handbook. "Conventional radiocarbon ages are expressed as years BP (Before Present) where the present is defined to be AD 1950." (p. 21)
• Bowman, Sheridan (1995, orig. 1990). Radiocarbon Dating. "BP is variously referred to as 'before present' or 'before physics', but both mean AD 1950." (p. 42)
• Taylor, R.E. (1987). Radiocarbon Dating. "Before present" (index entry)
• Taylor, R.E. & Bar-Yosef, Ofer (2014). Radiocarbon Dating. (Second edition of Taylor's book cited just above) "Before Present" (index entry) (also lists "Before Physics")

The Taylor seems the most interesting one, since that changed from lower-case to upper-case for the second edition. Searching Google Books for '1950 BP "Before Present" ' finds both lower and upper case with a few more lower than upper. I'd say we're free to choose whichever we prefer. I think I slightly prefer the upper-case version; it makes it look like a named thing, not just a random pair of words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples! However, they also demonstrate the lack of "substantial majority". Thus, per MOS:CAPS, the lower-case must be used, regardless of personal preferences. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding an oppose to "years before present"; I agree with Vpab15 below that it is neither concise nor the most common usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral on the proposed change, but oppose years before present per WP:concise and WP:Commonname. Vpab15 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• On further consideration of the contributions made to the debate above, I withdraw my support for the "years before present" compromise. The article is about the concept "Before Present", abbreviated BP, not about custom and practice in its use in running text. Whilst both words are frequently written in lower-case when merely being used, the form currently used as the article title is that commonly used when writing about the concept and should stand. I continue to oppose the request for change. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. No, "before present" (nor "present") is not a proper name, it's merely a term of art. Our preferred style is to not capitalize terms of art. Interestingly enough, MOS:CAPS even has a section #Geological periods where it advises Do not capitalize outside a complete formal name: thus "the Devonian is a period" rather than "the Devonian is a Period", with "period" obviously having a specific meaning, just like "before present". Similarly, MOS:SCIMATH has in the names of scientific and mathematical concepts, only proper names (or words derived from them) should be capitalized, allowing for specific exceptions such as Big Bang, but I'm afraid we do not have that here: as demonstrated by the above evidence, usage in the relevant is literature is mixed, so we should default to lowercase. No such user (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  Before Present is a calendar era, not a geological period. Some examples of other calendar eras: Anno Domini, Common Era, Anno Mundi, Anno Hegirae. Note the capitalisation. – Joe (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think there's a general orthographic rule that titles of calendar eras are to be capitalized, or a MOS specification to that effect. Those titles are worth revisiting, by the way (offhand, it would not surprise me that they could qualify as an exception under the "substantial majority of sources" clause). However, I don't see that substantial majority of sources here. No such user (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  When looking at sources, as already explained above, you need to distinguish between [a] the substantial majority of sources where the phrase "million years before the present" is just being used in running text, where lower case is indeed the norm and [b] the significant minority of sources in which the concept itself is being explained: in these cases, upper case is the norm. This article is in the "[b]" category. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  @John Maynard Friedman: when you say "distinguish between [a] ... the phrase ... is just being used in running text ... and [b] ... the concept itself is being explained", are you referring to the Use–mention distinction? In general it may be necessary to indicate to the reader somehow that at term is being mentioned instead of used, and capitalisation is one way of doing that. However that is a matter of style, and Wikipedia's style MOS:WORDSASWORDS is to use italics, not capitalisation. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Mitch Ames: Thank you, yes, that encapsulates it neatly. But we are talking about an article name here. Yes, there are italic article names but they are special cases. I doubt you are suggesting that this article would be one such? What we have here is an article that defines and explains the term (in rather more words than the Oxford Reference noted above (heavily indented) does): the very existence of the article indicates to the reader that the term is being 'mentioned' rather than used. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, an article title is implicitly a mention and - by virtue of being an obvious title rather than use in a sentence - does not need italicisation to distinguish it. My point was that capitalisation in a source could be denoting a mention rather than denoting a proper noun, especially when explaining the term. Capitalisation in a source does not imply a proper noun, so does not imply that Wikipedia should capitalise the term. Mitch Ames (talk)

  Well, yes, note the capitalization:

  • Anno Domini: "The terms anno Domini (AD) and before Christ (BC) (Note: The words "anno" and "before" are often capitalized, but this is considered incorrect by some and either not mentioned in major dictionaries or only listed as an alternative.)" So "anno" is not capitalized, and "Domini"/"Christ" are proper names. Everything makes sense here.
  • Common Era: see the history – capitalization is a relatively recent trend. It still hasn't won completely, although perhaps can be counted as a "substantial majority".
  • Anno Mundi: the article and sources use the lower and upper case randomly. Another candidate to clean up.
  • Anno Hegirae: the article has only one unsourced occurrence of "Anno" (capitalized), but many sources don't capitalize it, as expected. "Hegirae"/"Hijri" is used as a proper name (like "The Exodus" as opposed to "a exodus").

  So all this also suggests that at least "before" should not be capitalized. And the fact that many sources don't treat "present" (even in this specific meaning) as a proper name has been demonstrated above. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why?

Why use BP, rather than BCE/CE, that more people understand? In which contexts are there reasons to do so? Do these reasons - whatever they are - apply to encyclopedia articles, or only to academic research publications? (I ask because I do not know - and I don't see an answer in the article.)

Answers to my questions may, or may not, be relevant to include in this article. In addition, they may, or may not, have bearings on the use of BP in other articles - e.g. (the reason I write this post) in Black Sea deluge hypothesis).--Nø (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I am no expert, but I guess some sources and disciplines favour one or the other. Perhaps CE/BCE is understood by more people, but the conversion is quite straightforward, adding or subtracting roughly 2,000 years. Vpab15 (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no big conspiracy. The notations are used for different purposes, they are not really competitors. Almost all uses of BP are minimum tens of thousands of years ago, most often in the millions and precise to the nearest thousand. It is a fancy way to say "ago" but the atmospheric atomic tests in the 1950s and 60s messed up radio-carbon dating. So specifying 1950 as the epoch avoids the problem and a new notation makes that clear in scientific literature. In common use, 'ago' is good enough. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

As JMF says, it's a question of distance. Prehistorians tend to use BP because of radiocarbon dating and because it's idiomatic to talk about things in the distant past happening X thousand years ago. Geologists use BP/ka/etc. because on their time scale, the 2000 years of the Common Era is a negligible difference. On Wikipedia, I like to avoid the unfamiliar BP and just say "years ago", but that's not a universal convention. – Joe (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I raise the question here because it was raised in connection with a specific article on events taking place roughly 5000 BCE. The general reader will want to know when it happened, and should be given an indication about the uncertainties involved in the dating. Just giving the years BP and linking "BP" to Before present does not seem like a satisfying solution to me, at least not as the present article stands. Not sure what to do; I'd like to see a solution that can be applied to the article in question and others like it (about radiocarbon-dated events in the last few (10? 20?) millenia); perhaps a new template or something. Just replacing the years BP by years BCE (somehow) would not be appropriate; among other problems it would not be in agreement with the sources cited.--Nø (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nø: Conversion between BP and BC(E) is a routine calculation so it does not matter that the sources use one or another: just add or subtract 1950, or 2000 if the date has been rounded to the nearest hundred or greater. Or use my preferred solution, which as I say is just to replace "BP" with the plain English "years ago". The problem at Talk:Black Sea deluge hypothesis is a bit more complicated because the article currently uses uncalibrated (14C-year) radiocarbon dates. Whether expressed as BP or BCE, these are simply not measured on the same scale as ordinary years and cannot be easily compared with them. Although it's just a personal draft at the moment, do consider reading User:Joe Roe/Archaeology conventions#Dating and chronology, as it covers many of these points. – Joe (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: It is specifically the uncalibrated radiocarbon years that I have in mind. I believe the only reason to convert the raw 14C measurements to a "year" (albeit a 14C-year), is to give an indication of a real year - and in an article on a past event, in a general encyclopedia, the year (with uncertainty) is far more relevant that the 14C reading - but we need to somehow qualify it with a disclaimer, as the year does not come directly from the source cited -- at least as long as we cite scientific sources and not another source written for a wider audience. Writing "years ago" does not solve the problem (that the info given is not derived in a trivial manner from what was in the source cited), and I think for events that can be assumed to have impacted human civilisations since roughly 10000 BCE or 10000 BP, most readers will find it easier to take in a year BCE than a year BP.--Nø (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Surely if it is 'roughly', then 'years ago' is the most appropriate phrase. You wouldn't violate wp:egg if you wrote [[Before Present|years ago]]. Whether you use BP or BCE (or BC, BH or BAM [sic?] for that matter) explicitly is subject to MOS:ERA: continue to use whichever notation was first used in the article. (If this is the first such, you may use your preference.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nø: I believe the only reason to convert the raw 14C measurements to a "year" (albeit a 14C-year), is to give an indication of a real year – you would think so, but this actually isn't the case. Radiocarbon years are the standard units for raw radiocarbon measurements and are usually presented alongside calibrated dates as a matter of good scientific practice. In older sources, they might be presented alone because calibration curves and/or reservoir offsets applicable to the sample were not yet available. Uncalibrated years shouldn't be included in articles because they really don't give any indication of the real year, at least not to a non-specialist reader. Whether those dates are expressed as BP, BCE, or "years ago" is a separate issue and pretty much just a matter of style. – Joe (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Glottochronology and similar

I've been looking at some papers on the phylogeny, age, and spread of major language families, and I've noticed that most of them use dates given in B.P. More specifically, of: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0005 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817972116 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0695 and Geoff Nicholls, Robin Ryder. Phylogenetic Models for Semitic Vocabulary. 2011. ffhal-00641450 ​https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00641450 (Apparently preprints don't have DOIs.), only in the 3rd could I not find "BP" used to refer both to dates of known texts and archaelogical evidence, and to dates the models predicted based on the amount of change languages apparently underwent. Also, and least in the first paper, it was clear from the page called 226 (35/53 on the pdf, in §7.1) that "BP" meant approximate years before 2000 CE or perhaps the time of writing (2015 CE), not time before 1 January 1950 CE.DubleH (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) This would go along with the first sentence under "Usage": "The BP scale is sometimes used for dates established by means other than radiocarbon dating, such as stratigraphy.[4][5]" DubleH (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. Most of these parochial scientists think its clear by itself that the computations start with the attestation of their test vocabulary, thus mostly shortly after AD 2000. Moreover, regarding the huge scatters involved, 50 years do not make significant differences.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:7127:2BCA:7529:7DB7 (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Resuming the discussion about BP, Radiocarbon years, and BCE

I'm not a scientist, just someone who is interested in pre-history in the Americas. There's a lot of confusion and contradictions in Wikipedia articles dating pre-historic human activities in the Americas. For example, in the scholarly and popular literature and in Wikipedia articles, I found three different -- and often contradictory -- dating systems used for the Folsom tradition and related articles: first, radiocarbon years (or uncalibrated radiocarbon years) which date the Folsom tradition between 11,000 and 10,000 years ago; second, more recent and presumably more accurate calibrated radiocarbon years which date Folsom from 13,000 to 12,000 years ago; and third, Before Present (BP) which cites either of the two ranges of dates. BP will also become more inaccurate with time if one doesn't know (and most don't) that BP doesn't mean "before present" but before 1950.

One example of why trying to get dating right is important is the transition of the Clovis culture (mammoth hunting) to the Folsom tradition (bison hunting) and the ongoing controversy about the role of humans in the extinction of many species of megafauna in the Americas. Was the extinction due to human hunting or climate change or something else? Did mammoths become extinct at the same time as the end of mammoth hunting by the Clovis people or a thousand years earlier or later? Did the Clovis people hunt the mammoth to extinction? Accurate dating is crucial to answering that question.

Moreover, for the average reader the different dates in Wikipedia articles for prehistoric events are confusing. All three dating systems -- radiocarbon years, calibrated radiocarbon years, and BP -- are cited and "reliable sources" exist for all.

If my understanding of the issue of three dating systems is correct, I would advocate that BCE (or BC) based on calibrated radiocarbon dates be the preferred usage in Wikipedia articles rather than BP or uncalibrated radiocarbon dating. BCE is more familiar to the reader and avoids the now mostly minor but increasing inaccuracy of BP. Smallchief (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss this, though I agree it's worth discussing. FWIW I've previously tried to summarise the current rough consensus at User:Joe Roe/Archaeology conventions#Dating and chronology with a view to eventually turning it into a guideline.

That's a very useful summary of issues and practices which I will keep on my watchlist. Thanks. Smallchief (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's just because I work with this on a day to day basis, but I don't find (calibrated) BP to be particularly technical or confusing. It's essentially just a scientific way of saying "years ago", which I think is the way most people intuitively think about the distant past. And given that prehistory is usually narrated in steps of a 1000 years (at best), it'll be a long time before the discrepancy between BP's Present and the actual present makes a significant difference. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe I think any guideline should start with a discussion of calibrated and uncalibrated dates. Editors need to understand that before they can decide how to use them.

And maybe mention other dating methods and how to handle them? Should we ever convert dendro dates to BP? I don't think we should. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)