Talk:774–775 carbon-14 spike

Gamma-ray burst

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21082617 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs) 10:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Rephrase article title

"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)

Rephrase vs ref superscript

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)

Veleikovsy deserves credit

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)

Because it's pseudoscience. See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE - we don't give weight to fringe explanations just because they exist. Daß Wölf 13:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Section on frequency of similar events

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

Move to "Miyake events" or similar as the article is not about this one event only

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)

I added the description of the 774-5 event as the Miyake event based on [1], but usage of it as a general name for such events seems to be much more common. I think the 774-5 event is important enough to deserve its own article, but a separate article on 'Miyake event' would be helpful. This name seems slightly more common than Cosmic radiation event, and in addition there are solar and galactic cosmic radiation events. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The article Cosmic radiation event would be broader and probably have separate sections per type with one for "Miyake events". Maybe splitting the article would be a good idea, contents of this article could then be transcluded in the broader Miyake event article. Do you know if there's a better title than that for the new article as in descriptive of the article content rather than a name? If this is the best way to go forward could somebody create the new article and move (or copy?) some contents from this article to there? I think it's an issue that this solution would duplicate lots of content in this article as related/similar events and so on are still relevant here. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect C14 spike percentage statement?

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)

I think 12% is a mistake. Most sources say 12 permill, which can be shown as 12‰, that is with two small circles at the bottom instead of one. 12 permill is equivalent to 1.2%. The permill symbol may have been mistaken for percent. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my question and explaining the permill vs % issue.

Bruce 173.163.194.125 (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)