Talk:Before Present

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 limited youngsters, regrettably followed by too many younger and limited "scientists".2A02:8108:9640:AC3:F1DB:BFF5:FEAF:8D9 (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2020 (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)

BP people

In two or three decades, it will be interesting to mention the last BP person alive. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2021

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 ([1], [2]) and when reporting date estimates, with or without the word "years" and with or without calibration ([3], [4], [5]). 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)