Talk:Anthropocene/Archive 1

Archive 1

Additional source

There's a new paper up on GSA Today. Might be worth working into the article. Rl (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Zalasiewicz, Jan (2008). "Are we now living in the Anthropocene". GSA Today. 18 (2): 4–8. doi:10.1130/GSAT01802A.1. Retrieved 2008-01-26. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Formatting of reference links

Is so important. Refs 2 and 4 are now broken, and cannot be verified because they are bare URLs. We should really be using the {{cite web}} template to do refs, filling out the url, title, author, date, and access date so people can still use something like the Wayback Machine to verify a reference. Murderbike (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Homogenocene

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merge complete. I feel the arguments for merging are more compelling than the arguments against. Indeed, Homogenocene is a subset of Anthropocene, and unless more can be said about this stub, it should be merged here. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone added a request to merge Homogenocene into this article. Homogenocene refers to our current epoch, in which biodiversity is diminishing and ecosystems around the globe are becoming more similar. Thus Homogenocene is a subset of Anthropocene. Please indicate whether you support or oppose a merge and your reasons. On August 1, 2009 we will tally the comments and merge or not.

• Support. While the two words are not synonyms, the term "Homogenocene" is contained within the meaning of "Anthropocene." I suggest that the content of the two articles be combined and a reference to Homogenocene made in the lead of this article. "Homogenocene" would then redirect to this article. Sunray (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• No opinion but I suggest that Anthropocene should be kept if there's a merge. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The two terms were invented independently. It is interesting to follow there continued use on a separate basis. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. They are separate topics, after all-- though I can understand wanting to bring them under a tidy heading, I don't think it is appropriate. -- mordicai. (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Too different. Just not the same thing. Polargeo (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment You all don't want to merge a neologism that basically has the same definition (current geological epoch is close enough to the most recent period in the Earth's history...[that] constitute a new geological era) that has been used maybe twice ([1][2]) into this neologism? One person "coined" a new word and had a second repeated it. Good enough for a WP article. So for those that claim there is a difference, what is it? -Atmoz (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is a bit loose with "era", "period", and "epoch"

These three terms have precise meanings in the context of the Geologic time scale. In general, there are five main levels geologic time units of global importance, from longest to shortest: Supereon, Eon, Era, Period, and Epoch. The Holocene is described as a "period" in the main text, when conventionally it's an epoch (although it is called an "epoch" in a sidebar).

If the Anthropocene is a variously called an "era", a "period", and an "epoch" at different parts of the text. This should be clarified. Please refer to the article Geologic time scale for guidance. Rebel Prophet (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anthropocene

According to the initial papers and reports, the suggested start date was the eruption of Tambora in 1815. This had more to do with having a globally detectable datum, but it corresponds well with the Industrial Revolution. This should be referenced and added in. 24.174.84.238 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Found a link: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2008/2008012526150.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.228.141 (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: "Anthropocene" gets 470 Google hits, mostly scholarly. Not yet in general use, but certainly current use as a term in discussion. -- The Anome 12:23, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Another note: I've just written the Paul J. Crutzen page, and found his original article, and it appears to say:

• anthropocene start mid 18C (not that a hard start date exists, mind)
• its in IBGP newsletter (not? global ch?)
• ps: its up to 2040 hits now... quadrupled in a year.

Now 6,170 hits. I will add this to my list of articles to consider working on.--NHSavage 23:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

23 Mar 2007 = 44,100 hits. OldDigger 09:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

13 Mar 2008 = 86,100 91.153.51.158 (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Holocene epoch started ~10,000ya so the Anthropocene period cannot also start then unless it is a component. However it seems that the Anthropocene can only be seen as sensibly starting in the 18C, ie. when a noticable change to past 'cycles' was observed, and that was why the term was coined. OldDigger 08:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anthropocene more likely to be accepted as the most recent age of the Holocene epoch? [3], [4] OldDigger 17:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC) More up to date with lots of references: [5] OldDigger 22:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but it it is to be used scholarly, it won't be separate from the Holocene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.18.206 (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_in_the_United_States&action=history User:Arthur Rubin

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_in_the_United_States&action=history User:Arthur Rubin 99.155.149.30 (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous "See also" links

Is there any reason for the following links to be in the "See also" section?

• Effects of global warming
• Scientific opinion on global warming
• Planetary management

If so, please explain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the way scientists define Anthropocene, it is a period in time where we greatly affect the planet's ecosystems. Global warming fits into this because, according to theory, we caused global warming, which in turn affects our ecosystems. All three of those links seem to tie in to the article. Feel free to correct me if my logic is flawed. Ishdarian|lol^wut 09:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That argument could be used to add all eleventy-seven articles on Global warming to the "See also" section. I think "effects" might be plausible, but "scientific opinion" cannot belong. We need to choose one global warming article there, and stick with it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think Effects of global warming should stay and the other two should be omitted. Ishdarian|lol^wut 09:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin is more concerned with Climate change denial than the clear point of this article, see Talk:Politics of global warming (United States) (for background see 2010 "The Climate War" by Eric Pooley a Businessweek editor), Denialism, Merchants of Doubt the 2010 book, *Talk:Climate change denial*, Michael Specter's 2009 book "Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives" ISBN 978-1594202308, Talk:Climate change in the United States, or in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Arthur+Rubin , User:Arthur Rubin/watch ... a long trail of Obscurantism. 99.190.90.189 (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to provide as much information towards global warming as you can, but Arthur is right; there needs to be a limit to how much relevant information is published to these articles. We both agree on Effects of global warming being included in the article. If you can provide your reasons why Scientific opinion on global warming and Planetary management are directly relevant to this article, then perhaps we can discuss including them. Ishdarian|lol^wut 10:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

wp:tea User:Ishdarian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.144.211 (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article to stop the slow edit war and added a link to Effects of global warming to the see also section. Please discuss concerns here rather than reverting w/out discussion. Vsmith (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Origins of term: already used in 20th century

The article says that Paul Crutzen coined the term in 2000, but a book search with Google turns up books from the 1960s and 1970s using the term. As an example, in the German journal Polarforschung (Vol. 76, nos 1-3, p. 39, Kiel, Germany, 1960) the term is used in an English-language article: "...in the so called 'Anthropocene', the era that started with the industrial revolution about 200 years ago."--Biologos (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to correct myself: The quote above is from a volume that was published in 2007, not 1960. Google made a mistake. But there are several other instances of antropocene in older literature.--Biologos (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition section

The definition section has very little in the way of an actual definition for the epoch, and it's totally unsourced. Needs lots of help. Troodon311 (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Fernandez-Armesto, Felipe. "Civilizations, Culture, Ambition and the Transformation of Nature" The Free Press 2001. This excellent history will contribute to the discussion of dating the start of the Anthropocene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmboyd99 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this part ( ;:1[5] ) an error or an internal reference of that reference, or ?

Is this part ( ;:1[5] ) an error or an internal reference of that reference, or ? From The Anthropocene may have begun as early as 14,000 to 15,000 years before present, based on lithospheric evidence; this has led other scientists to suggest that "the onset of the Anthropocene should be extended back many thousand years";:1[5] this would be closely synchronous with the current term, Holocene. 99.181.155.142 (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Holocene, Early Anthropocene Hypothesis

References to the Early Anthropocene Hypothesis seem mostly from around 2003-2005, but the field has moved quite a bit since then, as more scientists have gotten interested.

The Holocene, August 2011 is a whole issue on the topic.

The challenge of dating the beginning is that if one accepts Ruddiman's general idea, the effects appear as a divergence from the expected CO2/CH4 trends, and the divergence would have been very small at the beginning, and of course noisy.JohnMashey (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge Early anthropocene in 3.1 section?

The other article, Early anthropocene, is shorter than the <<"Early anthropocene" theory>> 3.1 section of this article, and has only some information which is missing here. Should that other article be merged in this article's 3.1 section? 76.10.128.192 (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it should, and the rest of Early anthropocene should be deleted as a POVFORK as stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early anthropocene NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Orbis Spike

I wrote this. Not sure where it goes, if anywhere.

The Orbis Spike refers to an observed drop in global CO2 levels at the beginning of the 17th century, centered on about 1610. Scientists believe this downward "spike" in CO2 was caused by the deaths of about 50 million native Americans after smallpox and other diseases were imported to the new world by Europeans. The abrupt ending of farming by millions of native Americans allowed forests and other vegetation to regrow thus pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. The Orbis Spike is a candidate marker for the beginning of the Anthropocene - it marks when the joining of the Old World and New World is first observable in the geological record. Orbis is Latin for "world" and the name represents when disconnected people became joined.

Sources: Guardian, ScienceDaily, Scientific American, Nature (original paper). -- GreenC 01:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sediment Layers?

So is it possible to improve this article with a mention of sediment layer findings that show human activity as a clearly distinguishable layer? For example, perhaps the uppermost crust contains lots of finely dispersed lead as a result of worldwide tetra-ethyl use, there may even be something extending back a little further if soot is evident in the layers? I think that would really cement this article about a new geological era! Zaphraud (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Another marker would be the change in C¹⁴/C¹²-ratio in marine sediments after the widespread use of fossilic carbon. Of course, that is only discernible as long as carbon dating goes, 45000 years it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.37.2 (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You can see Roman lead in Greenland ice cores William M. Connolley (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC) (well alright, you can't and I can't but appropriate analytic techniques can William M. Connolley (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC))

Certainly, in 100 million years our current strata layer will be very distinct with all sorts of odd fossils and chemical mixtures. Flight Risk (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

New Science paper

The new Jan 2016 Science paper from the "pro-Anthropocene" guys on the Working Group presents a nice review of some of the arguments, and some extra detail not covered here. I added what I thought looked most important. DanHobley (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

corporocene

t human activities accelerate or exacerbate global warming. from the text this suggest there is no anthropocence and only global warning, no surprise for someone who apparently thought of the term anthropocene around 1980 independendly. but technically wrong, global warming is not by far the most outstanding characteristic of anthropocene geology. perhaps extinctions are, the rate of extinctions compared to background is higher than the high number in the article. even if adaptions as blind shrimp though toxins are considered "evolution". thus pollution is, and probably the best date is when pcb's and dioxins become common. or even measurable in the sediments. somewhere around 1920. another thing would be when humans started the big burning, some 100k years ago and more or the evolving of cattle raising, that shaped a geological phenomenon (sahara) and may possibly be reconstructed millions of years from now still. (after all we are gone then and the desert might return to green, but i don;t think so, we are the last life on the planet. probably future alien observers will call it the terminal phase of the mortocene 08:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)~

Deleted section 'Criticism of concept'

I deleted a section that began:

In his 2015 book Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital, Jason W. Moore argues that the term anthropocene is misleading, because it ascribes to humanity as a whole what is in fact a product of a particular form of organization in a subset of human societies.

I did this because it is not evident that the author is notable. This suggests to me [I would be happy to be proved wrong] that the text has been added to advertise the book. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The author is not unnotable, and although the book is very recent, it has received many reviews. – Epipelagic (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, in that light I've undone my deletion. [I can't say I'm convinced by the thesis though. Was capitalism or goat herding the cause of the Sahara desert? He/she would be on firmer ground for climate change.] I still think that it is arguably wp:fringe / wikt:hobby horse / wikt:straw man. Some of the proposed start dates for the Anthropocene predate capitalism. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to me that objective facts such as unrestrained population and consumption levels are enough to explain the anthropocene without bringing in ideological complications. Surely it's enough to examine what humans actually do without muddying the waters by adding what humans think about what they do. Still, if ideological and political perspectives generate enough interest out there, then perhaps they should have a mention somewhere in the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the longish quote and the section. Quoting and referencing a just published book has the appearance of promotion. Needs a bit of time to gauge reception and significance. "Capitalocene" seems a rather odd made-up word although the concept seems valid. Give it time. Vsmith (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The Beginning?

The opening paragraph says the Anthropocene started "in the 19th century when the activities of the humans first began to have a significant global impact."

Both earlier discussion on this talk page, and the Holocene article say it began in the 18th century. Either one makes its own sort of sense to me, but I wonder if there's some consensus. Cadwaladr (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now read Paul Crutzen's paper on the subject, and he proposes a beginning in the late 18th century, so I'm changing it. Cadwaladr (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There may be evidence to suggest that the anthropocene started some 8 thousand years ago, with the advent of agriculture. I'll find some articles in the near future. Sippawitz (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Formal subdivision of the Phanerozoic timescale is not simply a numerical exercise of parceling up time into units of equal length akin to the centuries and millennia of recent history. Rather, the geological timescale is based upon recognizing distinctive events within strata."[6] Zalasiewicz et al. (2008). The megafaunal extinctions of the Quarternary may also qualify as the start of the anthropocene, one-hundred to fifty thousand years ago.[7]. This is also the time when many ecologists are marking the beginning of the current sixth mass extinction period.[8] The planets biophysical state is a complex and dynamic system with sub-systems that evolve and transition over time. The great megafaunal extinctions might represent the lower bracket if one were to put an error bar of when we crossed over to the anthropocene. It will be interesting to see what the GSA comes up with.[9]Thompsma (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As noted in the article here, if the onset of the Anthropocene is put at the beginning of regular agriculture, then the period would cover most of the Holocene as it is. This doesn't sound like a very good idea, and it's not as if /pre-modern world/ humans are the *only* species capable of large-scale imprint on ground ecosystems. Elephants have had a major impact on the African savanna, for instance, and so had mammoths in Eurasia during the ice age. A "recent Anthropocene" definition (anywhere between the 16th century and the 1960s) is more useful and more likely to gain acceptance from the scientific community. 83.251.164.50 (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthropocene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061003050034/http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~claussen/papers/ruddiman+al_qsr_05.pdf to http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~claussen/papers/ruddiman+al_qsr_05.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference suggestion at the 2.4 Geomorphology section

Dear all, i noted that in the section "2.4 Geomorphology" the references are missed. There are two references that are pertinent, and that should be provided there. Both are "review papers" published in the journals Geomorphology and Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. The references are:

Tarolli, P., Sofia G. (2016). Human topographic signatures and derived geomorphic processes across landscapes, Geomorphology, 255, 140-161, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.12.007 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X15302282) (this is an invited review paper). This reference should be provided after "This includes the paths of roads and highways defined by their grading and drainage control".

Brown, A.G., Tooth, S., Bullard, J.E., Thomas, D S.G., Chiverrell, R.C., Plater, A.J., Murton, J., Thorndycraft, V.R., Tarolli, P., Rose, J., Wainwright, J., Downs, P., Aalto, R. (2017). The Geomorphology of The Anthropocene: Emergence, Status and Implications, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 42, 71-90, doi:10.1002/esp.3943 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/esp.3943/abstract). This reference should be provided after "Direct changes to the form of the Earth's surface by human activities (e.g., quarrying, landscaping) also record human impacts."

EarthSurfSoc (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Just adding a note here since EarthSurfSoc forgot to mention that they are one of the authors. - MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; EarthSurfSoc is one of the authors of the two suggested references.

EarthSurfSoc (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anthropocene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140416132256/http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~avf5/teaching/Files_pdf/Ruddiman2003.pdf to http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~avf5/teaching/Files_pdf/Ruddiman2003.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~claussen/papers/ruddiman%2Bal_qsr_05.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Degenerative societies.

There is nothing new about degenerative societies. Why would you want to call that the New Human? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.159.51 (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

ka?

What does the unit of measure, ka, used in the first graphic represent? I got zip in an engine search.Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It means thousands of years - see Year#SI_prefix_multipliers. Mikenorton (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If it started around 1950, what the heck is "KA" doing here?Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anthropocene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151224052554/http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/MCC/Lewis_DefiningAnthropocene_2015.pdf to http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/MCC/Lewis_DefiningAnthropocene_2015.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140831221523/http://chcinetwork.org/anthropocene-humanities/ to http://chcinetwork.org/anthropocene-humanities/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hitting the news?

I noticed this term in the news and wondered if there was progress we could use to update the article? Search Google News for Anthropocene Tayste (edits) 20:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Split Holocene into three distinct subsections?

Re these changes I don't see why they're so relevant to this article. Splitting the Holocene into geological divisions has very little relevance William M. Connolley (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the text about subdivisions of the Holocene is of little relevance to this Anthropocene article (because the subvisions of the Holocene have not been put into context for the Anthropocene). If the Holocene and its subdivisions are to be mentioned in e.g. the lead section of this Anthropocene article, I think that their relevance to the Anthropocene would have to be much more explicit, instead of the context-less statements that have been added/removed in the past few days. GeoWriter (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Anthropocene

Why is the section for "Nocturnality" important and what are the goals for this section? ~~MCKENZIE MUNGAI 2/22/2019~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memungai (talk • contribs) 17:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Exact dating

Although the decision has yet to be made on this point - as the article indicates there is a lot of debate - when they finally settle on a start date for the Anthropocene, it's looking to be at minimum a direct calendar year (i.e. 1950), or even an exact month, day and hour if an event such as the Trinity test is chosen. Would it be worth noting in the article that this will make the Anthropocene the first and only epoch for which an exact start time is known? (By extension, this would make the Holocene the first and only with an explicit end time known.) 136.159.160.122 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If it happens like that, it will be. But until it does, it is a detail. So (IMO anyway), yes but not yet, --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Article Terminology

@Impartial: Well I seem to be entering the chat four months late but the wikipedia pages use more neutral terms than "anthropocene", why are we using anthropocene links rather than just "climate change" and "Holocene extinction"? First you say it's a "misleading edit summary", but while I assumed good faith, it now seems like that was a pretext for your preferred version of the text based on your immediate re-reversion of my extremely mild line edits. Ogress 17:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Why should the article on the Anthropocene not use the term Anthropocene in its section headings? Reliable sources on the topic use the term, and also use "anthropogenic", which is other term you expunged. And your edit summary was "grammar" - at best irrelevant to the edit you made.

If there is a consensus for these changes, then all is well, but it definitely was not an appropriate drive-by edit without a summary. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

My edit summary criticism isn't being argued here. But I was editing the {{main}} links, which on Wikipedia are Global warming and Holocene extinction. I didn't "expunge" them; I simply linked directly to the main article, which I understand is the MOS for the usage of {{main}}. I didn't remove anthropogene from the text, this was literally {{main|Global warming|Holocene extinction}} in place of the redirects present in {{main|Anthropogenic climate change|Anthropocene extinction}}. I've got no ax to grind; this is just "when it says 'see the main article X', we should probably actually be linking to the main article". Also, the bit about the ice age was just to clarify what was a weirdly constructed bit about the ice age cycles. Ogress 18:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you think you did, but what you actually did was change the way the page reads, so that the links read with the article titles rather than the redirects that use the language of this article. If the MOS mandates that sort of thing, I am certainly unaware of that mandate and tend to disagree. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to a new section, as I do not think it fits with the conversation above. For what it's worth, that conversation still stands. --Hobomok (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary both have the word "Anthropocene" as being stressed on the first syllable (not the second). Shouldn't we change the pronunciation here to reflection better sourced dictionaries than Dictionary.com or at give preference to the more common pronunciations? Mikeopoe (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Make a Disambiguation Page for Anthropocene

Hi, i would like to inform you, that i've been searching "Anthropocene" at the English Wikipedia, and i found so many pages that are Anthropocene-related. Can you please make a disambiguation page for it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealLTG (talk • contribs) 20:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Lack of figures to back up information

I found this article very informative but would care to see some more pictorial representations of the data or information to show the differences between the Anthropocene and past eras. John.waswill (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Globalism

Added sources regarding globalism and its impact on the environment. Also added 'controversy' in bold due to lack of consensus on Anthropocene. Mggale (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Our other article called Human Impact on the Environment

FYI, I have not decided whether to propose a merge from the other article into this one. If you have comments please add them at the other thread located here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Memungai.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 February 2019 and 31 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ranya22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Savlatt.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nalyd24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Improving the Articles Objectivity

Hi Everyone,

The article uses neutral language, emphasizes facts, and gives coverage to the breadth of perspectives about when the Anthropocene Epoch should be dated. However, the objectivity of the article could be enhanced by including any opposing viewpoints.

Here is a source that questions the naming of the Anthropocene Epoch. Link --Mikabella95 (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, and I'm not sure about using the Aeon article listed, but I've added a few articles that question the Epoch's name in the "Humanities" section. Moore and Haraway's "Capitalocene" is a popular one, and Haraway/Edge Effects Magazine's "Plantationocene" has been getting some play recently. Further, there's a lot of argument from scholars in a few fields regarding the colonization of the Americas, beyond just Maslin and Lewis' paper and book, which I've added there.

I think incorporating these humanities sources into the body of the page instead of listing them under "Humanities" might help. These are important academic conversations about the Epoch and environmental degradation, and constitute current scholarly discussion about the Anthropocene, so I think they deserve attention alongside other ideas in page's body as opposed to the small section "Humanities" under the "in culture" section of the page.

They have more in common with the AWG and Lewis and Maslin, and even more currency than Ruddiman, I'd say, than they do that Nick Mulvey album they're currently listed with (which I'm skeptical should even be listed). Hobomok (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm coming in later, but looking over and evaluating the article, I do agree there could be more attention given to opposing viewpoints, such as the following by conservationist Dave Foreman, who discusses the topic here --CassiopeiaDream (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I recommend against adding anything from Dave Foreman given his history of racism. There are critiques of the Anthropocene from notable academics beyond someone like Foreman that could be added to the page. —Hobomok (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Study Spam in Culture Section

Might make a pass at trying to clean up the article’s culture section. There are a LOT of people quoted and a LOT of studies drawn from, and at this point it seems to be largely new/single-purpose accounts adding studies that those accounts may or may not be affiliated with. Thoughts?—Hobomok (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Temporal Marker: Antiquity

Is this a necessary subsection? It looks like Original Research to me. None of the cited sources are directly claiming that "Antiquity" be a starting point for the epoch, some of the sources are strange here (Khan Academy?), and I have not seen it in any Anthropocene debate to date like I have others (Early Anth, Colonization of the Americas, Industrial Rev., Great Accl.). Those four seem to be the ones that matter and are part of the debate across fields currently. Perhaps it should be removed?--Hobomok (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2053019618756682 2601:405:4A80:B950:4017:B60:6021:81FE (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This is one article. The removed discussion also draws from Khan Academy rather than other journal articles. Note that other proposed start dates represented on the page have multiple citations to support that these are major discussions. These other proposed start dates (Neolithic farming, colonization of the Americas, industrialization, Great Acceleration) are also the main ones referred to in current debate over whether or not to study the Anthropocene as an unfolding geologic event.--Hobomok (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)