Talk:Radiocarbon calibration

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

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Intersect method

Is it necessary to include the section on the intersect method, seeing as we know it to be the incorrect method? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.168.37.30 (talk • contribs)

It could certainly be removed, but I put it in as I thought it was a useful explanation, and would help clarify the right method. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C14 half life

As per this, another difference between uncalibrated ages and calibrated ages is that the former use an old value of 5568 years for the half-life, which differs from the correct value of 5730 years. This should be mentioned and explained in the article. Zero^talk 00:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered in the parent radiocarbon dating article, but I agree it would be best to add it here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)`[reply]

IntCal20 is now out

IntCal20 and related have been released:

©Geni (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still confused

"Uncorrected dates may be stated as "radiocarbon years ago", abbreviated "14 Cya".[3] The term Before Present (BP) is established for reporting dates derived from radiocarbon analysis, where "present" is 1950. Uncorrected dates are stated as "uncal BP",[4] and calibrated (corrected) dates as "cal BP"." remains unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8108:9640:ac3:61ba:41cb:5788:1115 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something doesn't make sense

Supposedly, wood from 1890 was used to set the standard. So wood from 1890 should have a radiocarbon age of 60. But according to this calibration curve (based on this article), it's 110. Why? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What standard are you referring to? There doesn't appear to be any mention of 1890 in the article and as far as I'm aware that year does not have any special significance in radiocarbon dating. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained in Calculation of radiocarbon dates and for example in the references A guide to radiocarbon units and calculations and this from the Scottish Archaeological Research Framework. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the lead

I boldly rewrote the lead almost from scratch, as I did not think it was good. In the process I removed a 1977 source that might be good for historical information but is obsolete for modern conventions. Zero^talk 07:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the Stuiver & Polach 1977 source is obsolete. It has been cited 1790 times since 2020 according to Google Scholar. But the alternative reference you provide is more accessible and certainly acceptable. PaulaReimer (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulaReimer: It is an important historical article, no doubt. The problem is using it for modern nomenclature. Even if the nomenclature is the same now as in 1977, a 1977 source does not suffice to establish that. Please feel perfectly free to write more about reporting standards with modern sources, but consider whether it should be in the lead or later. Zero^talk 03:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I get your point. PaulaReimer (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are not required in the lead, except for quotations. The lead should be an unreferenced summary of the referenced main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's only true if the same facts have citations in the body. Of course, facts in the lead really should be in the body too and if they aren't they should be added to the body. Zero^talk 13:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And anyone rewriting the lead should first update the main text with references (if necessarry). Dudley Miles (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such obligation. A good edit is one that improves the article, not only one that ticks all the boxes. In any case there were more citations in the lead in the previous version. Zero^talk 01:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

I do, however, see that the MoS only says that excluding citations from the lead is common, not that it is recommended against as I thought. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor PaulaReimer: I guess I wasn't clear enough about the year of testing. I was attempting to paraphrase "For this purpose 'present' refers to 1950 so you do not have to know the year in which the measurement was made." from the source. That is, the reason for using "before 1950" is because "before now" requires knowing when "now" is. I think this point should be made somewhere. Zero^talk 12:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is that well explained in the source. PaulaReimer (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point about needing an explanation about why 1950 is used. Maybe better change it back then? PaulaReimer (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Before 1950" seems bizarre to a novice reader so something should be said, but choose your own wording if mine is inadequate.. Zero^talk 14:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've tried re-wording this. PaulaReimer (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]