Talk:Miyake event

Merge

Apparently, Miyake event is a name given to the 774–775 carbon-14 spike. C messier (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There has been consensus not to merge. Renerpho (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Miyake event with 774–775 carbon-14 spike. Apparently, Miyake event is another name for the 774–775 carbon-14 spike. C messier (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Miyake event seems to be a generic name for such events, not just the 774–775 event, suggesting that this might be the better title for the combined page. Klbrain (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose We would also have to merge the 993–4 event in, and I feel they’re all independently notable. I’m just not seeing a clear rationale for a merge, especially because of the wording of the original proposal. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This is whitewashing the Japanese scientists efforts and is unacceptable. 173.93.143.249 (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lumos3: (creator of the article) --C messier (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. "Miyake event" should be the name of a combined article. Zero^talk 11:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I oppose a merge. The 774-775 event is a major topic in its own right with a vast literature. "774-775" has 31,800 hits in Google Scholar. Merging it would be like merging Alfred the Great into Anglo-Saxon kings. "Miyake event" is obscure. It has only 102 hits. However, I agree with keeping it because we need a generic name for the events and I do not know of a better one. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Except for the first few years after the 774-5 event was published, when no other such events were known, most articles concerned the general phenomenon either as the main theme or a major theme. It is true that the specific name "Miyake event" is less commonly used, but the issue of article title is secondary to the issue of merging. Zero^talk 13:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Even taking that into account, there is still a far larger literature on 774-5 than on the subjects of the great majority of Wikipedia articles. This also applies to 993–994 carbon-14 spike, which is not mentioned in the merge proposal, and which also deserves its own article for its use in combination with dendrochronology to date L'Anse aux Meadows. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I would also say that the first discovered events (774-5 in 2012 ^[[1]], and 993-4 in 2013 ^[[2]]) deserve their own pages given the number of scientific articles dealing with them. The other 3 (or 4) confirmed Miyake events [(Zhang et al, 2022)] were discovered more recently and therefore do not yet deserve own pages. Nevertheless, the title "Miyake events" is absolutely appropriate as it has been in use for a while and is used in almost every paper. Although there is almost a consensus on the solar origins of these events ^[[3]], the question is still open as to what exactly caused them and if indeed the same mechanism is behind all these events ^[[4]]. They have been recorded only in paleo proxies and we don't have anything from historical times to compare them too, and the term "Miyake event" is more than appropriate for the next few years. Not the least, it is one of the rare natural phenomena named after a woman which adds to the term's positive aspects. 130.92.203.190 (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I think the literature establishes there's now an identified range of historical events under which the 'Miyake event' is an appropriate conceptual category. Given that the origin, properties, and effect of each of these events is not well understood, and recent literature at [5] suggests there may be different mechanisms at play, the 774-775 page should no longer be the landing page for general information on the broader research about this topic. There needs to be some work done on these two pages to make that clearer as work on this phenomenon continues. Vrxces (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2023 (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.

New event identified at 14,300 bce

It appears researchers uncovered another event. I am not familiar enough with the material to trust myself adding this content correctly. Feel free to do so yourself if you don't have that problem. Press release here https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1003947? but the paper itself is not release yet AFAICT.

PS. The page speaks of 5-6 events but the list a couple of lines later has more dates than that; we may want to update the number or explain the discrepancy.

— SkyLined (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind: I just noticed in the edit history that @Lkingscott added what appears to be the event I refer to above right before I created this section. It appears I converted 14,3000 years ago to BCE by mistake; the event was at 12,300 BCE, 14,3000 years ago.

— SkyLined (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

See below, someone vandalised my entry Lkingscott (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

New identified event in 12,300 BCE text removed

I added the text about the latest event. This was removed without IMO good reason. I am not getting into a war so I put my text below in case someone wants to use it or modify whatever inaccuracies it contains and use it.

The history shows that a user with only a url keeps deleting the text, claiming he is an expert. User_talk:77.57.202.171

The new event is a Miyake event according to reliable sources, so should be in the article, possibly with a caveat that it requires confirmation from other sources. The references are good (maybe I did not put the best references but someone else improved them). If the person who vandalised the page has more information, then the reason why it is not a Miyake event which should not be in the Wiki page should be put in the wiki article, with references and not simply remove it. Or alternatively state in the talk why it should not be in the article.

There is also no reason to delete the comparison with a recorded non Miyake event and how, where and by whom the latest discovered event was discovered. It may need confirmation but this can be stated and there is still no reason not to include a wider description of it.

Expansion of the origins of Miyake events is needed in the article, not just a reference to an external article, otherwise Wikipedia would simply be a set of references to external articles.

Here is my deleted text:

The biggest ever Miyake event so far discovered was reported to have occurred in 12,300 BCE, according to the analysis of ancient tree rings found in the French Alps. For this study, an international team of researchers, including the Collège de France, CEREGE, IMBE, Aix-Marseille University and the University of Leeds, measured radiocarbon levels in ancient trees on the eroded banks of the Drouzet River, near Gap, France, in the Southern French Alps. This newly identified 14,300-year-old storm is roughly twice the size of the most recent events 774 CE and 993 CE events.

The origin of Miyake events is not understood as some of them have lasted up to 2 years. The largest recorded solar storm event is the 1859 Carrington event, which released roughly the same energy as 10 billion 1-megaton atomic bombs. It caused disruption in early telegraph systems and would likely have caused widespread disruption in modern electronics and communications. However the Carrington Event was roughly 80 times less powerful than the 774 CE Miyake event.

Lkingscott (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, although the source [6] cited in version [7] of 9 October is better than the source cited above. I will restore the 9 October version unless someone gives a good reason not to. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)