Talk:Toba catastrophe theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Most studied super-eruption[edit]

I've tagged this declaration and moved it to the bottom of the lede section over concerns that it's a fairly trivial statement. It's probably obvious enough just looking at the vast number of refs and WP:ELs currently listed, and I can't even conceive of a List of super-volcano eruptions by amount of study article. At the same time, I suspect the supporting refs could be repurposed to say something more relevant and meaningful, so I didn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.... -- Kendrick7talk 01:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There are articles where I could fill a whole Lancaster Bomber with these tags and happily drop them. Not the case here. I could possibly see how it may have been jarring in its original place, but if this eruption really is so important that the comment is true then I think it good to put it in the lede. Excessive detail would (exagerating to show the point) be: John Doe swam in the lake in 1949. If there are no further objections, I would like to remove the tag at the end of the month. Op47 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting estimations of occurance[edit]

The first sentence says "occurred some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago". Then, in the next section the time frame is given as "The Toba eruption or Toba event occurred .... about 75000±900 years Before Present (BP)".

± 4,000 or ± 900? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveOak (talkcontribs) 07:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have now changed the intro to reflect the discussion in the sections "Supereruption" and "Volcanic winter and cooling". The dating "some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago" is unnecessary imprecise when there is now a consensus that the event occurred about 75,000 years ago. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

[Citation needed] tag on third paragraph should be removed.[edit]

The tag has been applied to this sentence:

>>Both the link and global winter theories are highly controversial

The discussion of the controversies presented in the body article, all properly cited, is evidence that the matters are controversial. No source could be more authoritative than that. In any case, the description is in the nature of a prelude to the material that follows rather than a claim of fact about the subject. It thus does not call for citation.

DavidPreston (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


Twice it is stated (correctly) that the eruption did not significantly alter the climate of East Africa. So how in the world could it nearly wipe out humanity? The claim is heavily contested anyways.[1][2] Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


the reference link is host not found: Petraglia, M.; Korisettar, R.; Boivin, N.; Clarkson, C.; Ditchfield, P.; Jones, S.; Koshy, J.; Lahr, M.M.; Oppenheimer, C.; Pyle, D.; Roberts, R.; Schwenninger, J.-C.; Arnold, L.; White, K. (6 July 2007). "Middle Paleolithic Assemblages from the Indian Subcontinent Before and After the Toba Super-eruption" (PDF). Science. 317 (5834): 114–116. -- correct URL appears to be Teledyn (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor issue with reference to H. Florensis[edit]

Was just looking at the article after reading about new research conducted on H. Florensis which would suggest information in the Toba article is now inaccurate.

This article says that H. Florensis' survival after 50,000 YBP is now considered to be an open question. Newer research is finding a lack of H. Florensis fossils post-Toba.

Just asking if this needs to be updated or is there further clarifying information? (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really; the Toba catastrophe occurred more than 70,000 years ago, while H. floresiensis survived to at least 60,000 or 50,000 years ago, so clearly survived the event. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)