Talk:Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD

A summary of this article appears in Mount Vesuvius.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Volcanoes B‑class High‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects 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.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 24, 2014.

Rename

I think 79 AD eruption of Mount Vesuvius would be a better title for this article. Volcanoguy 17:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an actual name for this eruption? I've noticed some previous eruptions have names, and are nowhere near as well-known, which is kind of confusing, for example the Avellino and the Mercato eruptions. The name, "79 AD eruption of Mount Vesuvius", is a bit of a mouthful. Even the Eruption of Pompeii, or to a lesser extent the Eruption of Herculaneum, sounds better and more organized than the current title. Surely there is a shorter alternative? --JezzDawga (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The informal name used by most people is probably "the Pompeii eruption" - this is used by the Smithsonian Volcanism program too, see http://volcano.si.edu - though three cities were buried, not just Pompeii.83.254.151.33 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@83.254.151.33: The problem with "the Pompeii eruption" is this: what Pompeii eruption are you referring to? More than 40 eruptions have been observed at Vesuvius since 217 BC, the latest of which occurred in 1944. The 79 AD eruption is perhaps the best known but it's not the only Pompeii eruption. Volcanoguy 12:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only one that did substantial damage to the town of Pompeii. ;) None of the post-17th century eruptions have even come close to pouring powerful, fresh torrents of lava and pumice on the ruins of the town. 83.251.170.27 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

overstatement

The first line of this article describes the eruption as "one of the most catastrophic and famous eruptions of all time". While this fits well in terms of fame, in terms of all eruptions in "all time", this isn't all that high in terms of catastrophe. It was a very large and catastrophic eruption, and larger than average, but still small compared to a number of other eruptions; this is especially true if one includes prehistoric eruptions and ones that have relatively documentation. Would it not be closer to call it one of the most catastrophic in "written history"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the number of victims directly killed by the eruption was probably much larger than at the Taupo or Mt Baekdu eruptions. The Minoan eruption of Thera, in the 16th or 17th cenbtury BC, was more violent and likely affected a wider area, but it probably didn't kill as many people, unless Crete and Rhodes were badly hit by a tsunami, which is very uncertain.83.254.151.33 (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current "one of the most catastrophic and famous eruptions in European history" looks about right if you believe Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2

The second reference from TIME magazine does not contain the information the citation is used for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.55.18 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Light vessel used by Pliny the Elder

According to my French version of Pliny's nephew's letter, Pliny the Elder ordered launching of quadriremes (your "fleet galleys") and took place in one of them, not in the light vessel first planned by him. Jean Marcotte (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

infamous

Is it really English to call an eruption "infamous"? Isn't the world only applied to morally reprehensible behaviour? Instead of "most catastrophic and infamous eruptions" wouldn't it be better simply to put "most catastrophic eruptions" and leave it at that? Sorry if this sounds pedantic.Campolongo (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the word is used more broadly than just being applied to "morally reprehensible behaviour". Wiktionary has: "having a bad reputation, disreputable; of bad report; notoriously vile; detestable; widely known, especially for something bad". The term can be applied to places and events of bad reputation (e.g. an infamous ship, an infamous trial), as well as to individuals. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the word "infamous" is misued. It strikes me as very slovenly to apply it to a volcanic eruption. The word always has moral overtones. It suggests wickedness. You can't call an avalanche, tsunami or earthquake "infamous".Campolongo (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ejection of lava

I've read an encyclopedia regarding volcanoes that when Vesuvius erupted in A.D. 79, lava was violently ejected out along with other volcanic elements. But why my edit regarding the ejection of lava during the A.D. 79 eruption undone or reverted? Does that mean I have to find more trusty resources? --Aki (my talk page; contributions). April 12 2016, 09:26 P.M. (PST)

Date of the eruption

The section "Date of the eruption" of the present version of this article begins, "The year of the eruption is pinned to AD 79 (that is, the corresponding year of the Roman ab urbe condita calendar era)" -- which contains a significant mistake. The ancient Romans never used the ab urbe condita dating on a regular basis, in part because there was no consensus which year Rome was founded in (the "traditional" date of 753 BC was only one of many used; when Jerome wrote his Chronicle in the 4th century AD, he stated the year of Rome's founding as 755 BC!), but mostly because the accepted practice would have been to date the year by the presiding Consul Ordinarius. For AD 79, those consuls would have been Vespasian & Titus. I'd correct the text, but I don't know which primary source -- if any -- provides the consuls who presided in this year, let alone the primary sources that provide the information that provides the date. -- llywrch (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "date of the eruption" section seems to follow one source (Rolandi): I provided a non-paywall link to that paper. The paper doesn't talk about ab urbe condita at all. I'm concerned that the whole section could be giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority viewpoint. But, I'm certainly not an archaeologist or classicist, so I don't know. —hike395 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Later --- apparently, the "ab urbe condita" phrase was put in by an IP editor (in this edit) who was trying to make the section less WP:POV. It doesn't look supported by any source, so we can delete it. —hike395 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The eruption happening in the course of AD 79 has never been seriously questioned by any notable historians or archaologists in the modern age. I figure there are a number of different things about the references to the eruption itself in ancient written sources that pinned it down to that year (Pliny isn't the only one mentioning it). The distinction between AD years and AbUC years was probably just added to remind the reader that Roman writers of the day did not use the BC/AD convention (of course!). It doesn't say that Pliny actually dated it by means of ab urbe condita.

The real issue with that section, a few years back, was that one opinionated editor (Botteville aka Dave), tried to WP:OWN that bit and push the view that scientific consensus had settled on a date in the autumn, not 24 August, for the eruption. There is an ongoing discussion about this, because certain aspects of the findings don't seem to square very well with an August date, and it is reflected in the text here, but Botteville wanted to make the article appear as if it was an open-and-shut thing and 99% settled. In doing so he ran over other editors, flatly rewrote major parts of the article without discussion and drenched that section in hopelessly arcane and weaselly prose to bend things to his point of view. This stuff was corrected after a while and after quite a few bad-faith edits. Strausszek (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we delete the section, condense it, or leave it as is? —hike395 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fairly good as it is now. The issue of the date is important, it just shouldn't become overly technical or POV-pushing. It's also an interesting example of how methods of dating ancient events really operate in practice. I left the comment also because Botteville sometimes revisits his old contributions, and he can be very tenacious. ;) Strausszek (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]