This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21082617 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
"How frequent are these events?" Seems like a weird as hell title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.175.113 ( talk) 18:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This article includes a citation of the form "A list ... can be found in <ref .../>.", which strikes me as counter to typical Wikipedia style, especially because the <ref/> ends up as a superscript not in-line with the intended text. Is there any accepted means of using a citation as a part of speech in a sentence on Wikipedia? If not, this sentence should be rephrased to be a bit more indirect, e.g. "Several other events of the same kind are suspected to have occurred during the Holocene epoch.<ref .../>". Rriegs ( talk) 01:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The theories of Immanual Veleikovsy as outlined in his three books "Worlds in Collison" "Ages in Chaos" and "Earth in Upheaval" postilated such an event in 775BC, 20 years before this cabnon spike was discovered' and he has a different explanation, why has no mention been made of it in this article, since its backed upo by thousands of pages of supporting evidence? 2.59.114.197 ( talk) 10:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that some of the generalization may need to be associated with the year of their publication. I added a statement (with a ref) how the current record is imperfect. Seems to me that we only know the lower limit of the frequency because missing data maybe should not be assumed to contain no spikes? Just my $0.02. Cheers. Stan J. Klimas ( talk) 22:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)maybe
I think this article should probably be moved to a broader article about such events more generally.
The title is currently incompatible with or at least not descriptive of the article contents which also has info on similar events in "#Frequency of similar events" and elsewhere.
It could also be moved to something like Cosmic radiation event (broader) or maybe even something like Cosmic radiation event candidate carbon spikes if really needed.
Content on the event in specific could go into a section in that new / renamed article.
See also section "#Rephrase article title" above. I agree with the IP editor that the article title is strange. Moreover, it's hard to find, and does not provide a good description of what the article is about. Prototyperspective ( talk) 23:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The very first line of the Wikipedia article states that the C14 spike was 1.2%. According to the April 13, 2023 Scence.org article, Marking Time, by Michael Price, the C14 spike was 12%, not 1.2%. Which of the two numbers is correct? 173.163.194.125 ( talk) 06:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21082617 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
"How frequent are these events?" Seems like a weird as hell title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.175.113 ( talk) 18:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This article includes a citation of the form "A list ... can be found in <ref .../>.", which strikes me as counter to typical Wikipedia style, especially because the <ref/> ends up as a superscript not in-line with the intended text. Is there any accepted means of using a citation as a part of speech in a sentence on Wikipedia? If not, this sentence should be rephrased to be a bit more indirect, e.g. "Several other events of the same kind are suspected to have occurred during the Holocene epoch.<ref .../>". Rriegs ( talk) 01:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The theories of Immanual Veleikovsy as outlined in his three books "Worlds in Collison" "Ages in Chaos" and "Earth in Upheaval" postilated such an event in 775BC, 20 years before this cabnon spike was discovered' and he has a different explanation, why has no mention been made of it in this article, since its backed upo by thousands of pages of supporting evidence? 2.59.114.197 ( talk) 10:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that some of the generalization may need to be associated with the year of their publication. I added a statement (with a ref) how the current record is imperfect. Seems to me that we only know the lower limit of the frequency because missing data maybe should not be assumed to contain no spikes? Just my $0.02. Cheers. Stan J. Klimas ( talk) 22:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)maybe
I think this article should probably be moved to a broader article about such events more generally.
The title is currently incompatible with or at least not descriptive of the article contents which also has info on similar events in "#Frequency of similar events" and elsewhere.
It could also be moved to something like Cosmic radiation event (broader) or maybe even something like Cosmic radiation event candidate carbon spikes if really needed.
Content on the event in specific could go into a section in that new / renamed article.
See also section "#Rephrase article title" above. I agree with the IP editor that the article title is strange. Moreover, it's hard to find, and does not provide a good description of what the article is about. Prototyperspective ( talk) 23:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The very first line of the Wikipedia article states that the C14 spike was 1.2%. According to the April 13, 2023 Scence.org article, Marking Time, by Michael Price, the C14 spike was 12%, not 1.2%. Which of the two numbers is correct? 173.163.194.125 ( talk) 06:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)