User talk:Al2oh3

Welcome!

Hello, Al2oh3!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, –CaroleHenson (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radiocarbon calibration

Please read this article. The raw carbon 14 date is not the correct date. All radiocarbon dates must be calibrated for precision. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, B2K is also vastly outnumbered by the use of BP for radiocarbon dating as far as I can tell, I've never come across a paper before that used B2K instead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm familiar with the article. Thank you. There are two issues here: one is the recommendation by the International Commission on Stratigraphy to use B2K dates, rather than BP dates. The second is that I have had the skeleton dated again. We were not able to replicate the original 14C date. The skeleton has apparent cut marks inflicted by flint tools, so it dates from the time of human habitation in Ohio. Perhaps the safest way to report the age, until we find more definitive evidence (work in progress), would be ~13,000. Al2oh3 (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I had no idea that you were personally associated with the specimen. Unfortunately unless this redating is published somewhere I'm not sure we can include it. ~~Given that it has cut marks and is from Ohio, is the radiocarbon dated specimen in the 2015 study the same as the "Firelands ground sloth" specimen with cut marks described in the 2012 paper?~~ EDIT: I checked and they're different specimens. As far as I can tell, the use of BP over B2K is the de facto standard on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Year_numbering_systems and is more widely used in scientific papers. I think we would need to gain broader consensus by calling some kind of discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers before B2K could be considered standard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#b2k_dates. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you stated that the specimen has cut marks, but according to MacDonald et al 2015. the Millersburg specimen has no indications of having been killed or processed by humans. Is this because they were previously overlooked? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the cut marks were previously overlooked. Al2oh3 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is clear that BP is way more commonly used, especially on Wikipedia. The ICS has recommended changing the standard, however, and technically all nations that are signatories to the UN Charter (as ICS is a UNESCO organization) are obliged to follow the standard. Realistically, it may be years or decades before everyone catches on. It might be worth thinking about introducing B2K dates, in addition to BP dates or calendar dates, to help speed up the transition.

No, the Firelands specimen is different. Both the Holmes County specimen and the Firelands specimen have cut marks, and both are on the femur. The marks show up, although somewhat blurred, on the 3D virtual image of the skeleton that is online. Some of the new information about the skeleton should be published in October of this year, with more to follow over the next year or so. I would prefer to not disseminate it until it's all gone through peer review and published in journals.

The dating on the Holmes County Megalonyx is somewhat problematic. In 1890-1891, the skeletal pieces were stabilized with some sort of glue, probably animal glue. In 1896, when the skeleton was mounted, it was painted black. Missing pieces were replaced part with wood replicas, and partly with plaster, and also painted. In 1982 the paint and some of the glue was removed using PineSol. At the moment, we do not have an unadultered sample of bone with enough bone collagen to provide a replicate date. We do, however, now know exactly where the specimen was collected (it's location had been reported in rather ambiguous terms), so may be able to obtain fresh sample in the near future. Al2oh3 (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]