Talk:Mount Tambora/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dates

I am trying to fill in a Selected Anniversary for April 10; in so doing, I found the Mount Tambora article which currently states that April 10 was the climactic day. However, April 15 also is credited as the big day. Based on the page history, April 10 appears to be the consensus. If there are no objections, I would like to cite this day in Selected anniversaries. Ancheta Wis 13:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) Mav, sorry for the misunderstanding on the number of allowed events per day.

Interesting concept that they don't even agree what day it is. Yet they know for a fact it was caused by subduction. I think the Wikipedia should be on guard against religionists insisting theories are facts.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Info from book

Could someone add information where these quotes come from, i.e. a person's name or a book? Eruption of Mount Tambora link to Solar system, Planet Jupiter Earth ang the Sun in one LINE. Chek this website:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Solar [IMG]http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/4535/tamborafr5.gif[/IMG]

And for detail click this also:

http://myquran.org/forum/index.php/topic,5228.0.html

Or click: http://www.theislamicforum.com/showthread.php?t=8

See

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Volcano.jpeg

Mmm.. that's a picture of Mt St Helens?? DLeonard 06:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Lock?

Given that there seems to be little to add to this article and given that all of the legitimate changes in the past month have been reverts of vandalisms, both childish and subtle, is it worthwhile to ask for a vandalism-lock on this page? Ddama 18:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Tamboran civilization

I was reading about the recent possible discovery of the extinct civilization of Tambora in "Scientists Claim to Find Lost Civilization" (AP via Yahoo! News, February 27, 2006), and as usual went to Wikipedia to read up on what was known. Apparently nothing! We have no article on them, and this article on the eruption that killed the island population makes no direct reference to this terrible death of an entire people. (It just mentions in "Effects" a total death count similar to what the news article gives. Neither relate this number to the Tamborans.) Can we dig up some existing information about these people and add their extinction, a fairly significant event, to this article? Perhaps we'll eventually be able to create an article for the people from this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

While the main article gives April 10-15 for the time of the Tambora eruption, the last quote appears to ascribe the events to the July 11-15 time frame. If the quote is accurate, this discrepancy deserves explanation. I also agree that quotes should be sourced.

The cats are back - not sure how to get rid of them!61.88.124.221 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mining activities

There's a great big mine (Newmont's Batu Hijau) on that same island. It mines for copper and gold. I'll guess that what they mine is what poured out of Mount Tambora. Some info on what they found at http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/batu/ DLeonard 06:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Quality Assessment

I dropped the quality down 1 level. This article hasn't passed GA yet. It is of reasonbly high standard and i agree it just scrapes into the high standard - by the skin of its teeth Merbabu 07:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Compare it with its mate krakatoa then SatuSuro 07:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Can you show a picture of Tambora from it's side?

Need rewriting

This article needs a total rewriting. There is no inline citations to support claims, there is no archaelogical findings that has recently made, and there is too long unrelated story about Lake Toba. Images presented here are also misleading. Vesuvius? Smoke from Pinatubo? Therefore I'm going to make a heavy changes and to include some reliable sources. — Indon (reply) — 14:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, get rid of the vesuvius pic - lol. And work your magic through the rest of the article --Merbabu 14:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha, all right ;-). — Indon (reply) — 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The looooooooooong unreferenced quote

Does anyone know the source of that long quote? It appears to have come from the Java page back in 2003. It had no citation there either. [1]. I have asked the editor who moved it - who is still active on wikipedia - and waiting reply. Funnily enough, I have in an excellent academic standard book Nusa Tenggara a longish quote that although not identical covers extremely similar ground. It really is uncanny. What should we do? Firstly, i don't think either reference should go in there in their entirety as quotes - maybe as paraphrased snippets.

The reference is: {cite book 

 | last = Guillemard  | first = F.H.H.  | authorlink =   | coauthors =   | title = Stanfords Compendium of Geography and Travel (new issue) Australasia volume 2: Malaysia and the Pacific Archipelagos.  | publisher = Edward Stanford  | date =  1894 | location = London  | pages =   | url =   | doi =   | id =  } (cited in: {cite book
 | last = Monk, 
 | first = K.A.
 | authorlink = 
 | coauthors = Fretes, Y., Reksodiharjo-Lilley, G.
 | title = The Ecology of Nusa Tenggara and Maluku
 | publisher = Periplus Editions Ltd.
 | date = 1996
 | location = Hong Kong
 | pages = 
 | url = 
 | doi = 
 | id = ISBN 962-593-076-0}})

--Merbabu 14:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Merbabu, that also crossed my mind, but I'll get to that section later. Perhaps, I'll remove it ;-). — Indon (reply) — 11:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I have another 1 page article from the time. Similar content. But I am reluctant to type it in - too long! --Merbabu 12:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced quotes

I moved the unsourced looong quotes here. If somebody knows their sources, then we can put them back into the article.

== Quotes from 1815 accounts of the eruption ==

=== Explosion ===

"The concussions produced by its explosions were felt at a distance of a thousand miles (1600 km) all round; and their sound is said to have been heard even at so great a distance as seventeen hundred miles (2700 km). In Java the day was darkened by clouds of ashes, thrown from the mountain to that great distance (300 miles or 500 km), and the houses, streets, and fields, were covered to the depth of several inches with the ashes that fell from the air. So great was the quantity of ashes ejected, that the roofs of houses forty miles (65 km) distant from the volcano were broken in by their weight. The effects of the eruption extended even to the western coasts of Sumatra, where masses of pumice were seen floating on the surface of the sea, several feet in thickness and many miles in extent."

=== Pyroclastic flow ===

"From the crater itself there were seen to ascend 3 fiery pyroclastic columns, which, after soaring to a great height, appeared to unite in a confused manner at their tops. Soon, the whole of the side of the mountain next to the village of Sang'ir seemed like one vast body of liquid fire. The glare was terrific, until towards evening, when it became partly obscured by the vast quantities of dust, ashes, stones, and cinders thrown up from the crater. Between nine and ten o'clock at night the ashes and stones began to fall upon the village of Sang'ir, and all round the neighbourhood of the mountain."

=== Atmospheric disturbance ===

"The heat triggered a 'dreadful whirlwind', which blew down nearly every house in the village, tossing the roofs and lighter parts high into the air. In the neighbouring sea-port the effects were even more violent, the largest trees having been torn up by the roots and whirled aloft. Before such a furious tempest no living thing could stand. Men, horses, and cattle were whirled into the air like so much chaff, and then dashed violently down on the ground. The sea rose nearly twelve feet above the highest tide-mark, sweeping away houses, trees, everything within its reach. This whirlwind lasted about 19 seconds."

=== Gradual decrease ===

"The 'awful internal thunderings of the mountain' continued with scarcely any intermission until the 11th of July, when they became more moderate, the intervals between them gradually increasing until the 15th of July, when they ceased. Almost all the villages for a long distance round the mountain were destroyed. By far the greatest part of this destruction was wrought by the violence of the whirlwind which accompanied the eruption."

Thunderous?

The chronology section mentions "thunderous detonations". I suspect this is referring to the noise rather than the electrical phenomenon thunder. Yet the article links to thunder. If it only is describing the noise, then it should be delinked, or even an alternative found. --Merbabu 12:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Location map

Does the article need a location map? Ie, similar to the standard (in this case Bali): [2]. What do people think? --Merbabu 13:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thought so, but the article has already full of images. The map of Indonesia, I think, has served it. We don't have to make a locator map for Indonesia in this article, do we? Actually, I wanted to include images from commons, where it shows artefacts found during the excavation, but I guess I have to wait the article expands longer first. Just to avoid cluttering the article with too many images. — Indon (reply) — 13:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Article evaluation

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Well written, structured and referenced, contains interesting facts which are depicted in a propper encyclopdic style. Definitely a Good Article.

Minor suggestions:

  • Some terms are subject specific (jargon), most are wikilinks and do not need further explanation of terms, but there are still some that would need either a short definition or wikilinking (such as "pumice")
  • I'm not particularly fond of in-text quotes, makes it read like a ocumentary rather then encyclopedic article, but that is subjective, so not realy an issue.
  • Some peacock terms still exist in the article, excusable due to the magnitude of the events described ("enormous rafts").

GA-passed. --Qyd 17:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Woo Hoo!!! Well done to all editors involved, but overwhelmingly credit must go to User:Indon. This is the second GA that he can claim most responsiblity for in just 1 month (see Toraja).
Some comments:
  • i hope jargon is not discouraged, correct terminology about a specific topic is vital to an understanding of it - but of course, it must be properly explained or linked.
  • I think the quotes in quote boxes are great. They provide extra depth and context to the article - a much better experience. IN this case, they show notable people's reaction to it at the time and can only help a readers full understanding. The boxes are good cos they seperate this commetary from the encyclopedic content. This clear distinction is very important to maintain.
  • I can see you point on the peacock terms. Do you have any suggestions for improvement though? thanks --Merbabu 23:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparason to other eruptions

The geological information section states tambora was: 'the only VEI 7 since AD 1400.' According to the Volcanic Explosivity Index page, the next most recent 7 was Taupo in AD 181. Which eruption is this refering to? I'm guessing Kuwae but that's listed as a VEI 6. This should be sorted out & probably linked.

The 'magnitude' collumn in the comparson table later in the section is also a little awkward. First, it never states magnitude of what, and second, the scientific notation values are difficult to compare at a glance - inclusion of the VEI rating would be helpful. --Spyforthemoon 21:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I removed the clause: 'the only VEI 7 since 1400 AD', because it's a bit vague. I changed also the table based on your suggestion. Thanks ;-). — Indon (reply) — 22:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
According to this list (from the Smithsonian), there were no VEI 7s in the 15th century, so I suspect the statement is simply false. Good work... Mikker (...) 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Really? Take a look closely on Tambora, 1815. You can use search function, because there is only one Tambora there. And there's only one VEI 7. :-) — Indon (reply) — 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you'll have to spell it out for me. Tambora was a VEI 7... and there were no VEI 7s in the 15th century (or in between). Hence the statement 'the only VEI 7 since 1400 AD' is false. (Kuwae is a 6). Am I missing something obvious or something? Mikker (...) 21:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Tambora was a VEI 7 and that is the only VEI 7 since 1400 AD. So the sentence is correct, although now I remove the clause "the only VEI 7 sine 1400 AD", because wo do not need to refer this time information. We are referring only to Tambora, right? Not to other volcanoes. Maybe I didn't get what you mean. :-) Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 10:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Krakatoa the most violent eruption in modern history? Sound was heard from a greater distance and global temperatures lowered even more so that Tambora. Tambora ony killed more because of neighboring population. But as for the "largest explosion", Krakatoa was the largest, loudest, and affected global temperatures more so. The "deadliest" volcano was Tambora related to a soon after starvation of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.3.162 (talk • contribs)

Well, you have to include more than just sound. Based on VEI scale, based on the number of people were killed directly and indirectly, based on the ejecta volume, based on the longer term global impact, Mt. Tambora is more violent. You should watch some documentary movies from NGC or BBC about this. Oh, and "the most violent" term is taken literally from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The term wasn't come up from my head. — Indon (reply) — 08:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference between Tambora exploding in 1815 and Krakatau in 1883 is the fact that few people outside of Indonesia were aware of the Tambora eruption for many months as news at that time took months to reach places like London, Paris, New York due to it being carried by sailing ships. However when Krakatau exploded the news went around the world courtesy of the telegraph in a matter of hours. Tambora probably was a more powerful explosion than Krakatau but it cannot be scientifically proved.86.156.178.15 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC) I didn't realise that I wasn't logged in when I wrote the above. Apologies.The Geologist (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

An explosion--the rapid release of energy--would seem to involve a time frame. Tambora erupted over a period of roughly 3 years--1812 to April 1815, correct? Krakatau over 3 months in 1883. Tambora's main eruptions occurred over 10 days in 1815; Krakatau's over 2 days. Yes, Tambora ejected four times as much, but the explosive events of Krakatau must have been at least equal or may have been greater.Mytg8 (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions on meaning of a sentence

How is Tambora existence is estimated around 57 ka BP,[6] supposed to read? It's been reverted, so I'm must have guessed wrong. But right now it just doesn't make any sense - I mean gramtically, I'm not a geologist, so I don't know if it makes sense scientifically.

I assume 'Tambora existence' is supposed to be 'Tambora's existence' or 'The existence of Tambora'. Is this right?

57 ka BP seems to be a year, but elsewhere in the article we use AD/CE dates. Why is it different here?

Also, the main verb is currently 'is estimated'. If you move the prepositional phrase and the passive voice you get: around 57 ka BP someone estimated tambora existence This can't be right. Is the existence estimated to have begun then? Something else?

I appreciate help in getting this clear. --Spyforthemoon 19:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope I can answer your question one by one:
  1. ka is an abbreviation of kilo annum, which means 1,000 years, and BP is from Before Present. All of those have been wikilinked in the article, so you can read more on that page.
  2. I have changed in the article into "The existence of Tambora ...", thanks.
  3. BP is used for the units of time to report raw, uncalibrated ages and dates determined by radiocarbon dating. So 57 ka BP, means it is estimated by radiocarbon dating technique that the age is 57,000 years ago. We can't use AD/CE, because it is inexact to which year.
  4. Yes, the existence of Tambora is estimated to begin from 57 ka BP.
Thanks, it makes much more sense now. I did put the 'to have begun' part back in the article, but the rest seems clear now. --Spyforthemoon 16:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

— Indon (reply) — 13:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

current state of Tambora

Some information on the current state of Tambora would be good. I've seen travel books that give information on how to climb it, for example. -- Danny Yee 12:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be great, but I don't know in which section should that be incorporated. I found also a small paragraph of hiking route. Let me think first how to combine into the article. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 13:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe towards the end; after "Archaeological evidence" you could add a section called "Tambora today" and discuss tourism; hiking; wildlife; etc. Mount St. Helens, a featured article about a volcano has sections discussing the current status of the mountain, its recovery from devestation; etc. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you're timing is pretty good. I'm currently editing that part at the end of the article. Thanks a lot ONUnicorn. — Indon (reply) — 16:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have splitted Geological formation into Geographical settings and Geological history sections. I added information about hiking route (ascent routes) in the geographical settings and will add more about geography. Meanwhile, I've added also at the end after Archeological evidence, a new section about seismic monitoring. I avoid to name the section into "Tambora today" or something related to current/present, because it is not an encyclopaedic term. — Indon (reply) — 23:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Update

The article has been expanded to incorporate "other angles". That includes: Geographical Settings, Ecosystem and Monitoring. I hope this will pass FA. — Indon (reply) — 10:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarity

Couple of phrase I didn't understand:

  • What does this sentence mean: "the positions of the artifacts were still encapsulated as they were in 1815"? Were the artifacts encapsulated in 1815, or should it read something more like: "the artifacts were preserved in the positions they had occupied in 1815"?
  • "Sumbawa island is flanked to both the north and south by the oceanic crust, resulting in Mount Tambora rising in between" - in between what?
  • "The existence of Tambora is estimated to have begun around 57 ka BP. Its ascent has drained off a large magma chamber inside the mountain. The Mojo islet was part of this scenario in which Saleh Bay first appeared as sea basin (about 25 ka ago)." In what way is the inlet part of the scenario?
  • "After the artifacts were carbonized, it turned out to be charcoal from the heat of the magma, which is the evidence that an eruption had taken place." After they were carbonized? What turned out to be charcoal? And do we need any eveidence that an eruption had taken place? (cutting through 10ft of pumice and ash to reach the artifacts might be a clue?)

Yomanganitalk 16:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your copyediting. Some of them were back and forth copyedited by reviewers. I'll try to answer the above questions based on my reading to the source:
  • Yes, the latter is better, though it was literally taken from the source.
  • The last one was copyedited. The original sentence that I wrote is: "Sumbawa island is flanked to both the north and south by the oceanic crust." only. (I will remove in between)
  • Well, during its formation "scenario", the whole mountain, including the islet, were raised by the oceanic crust.
  • That term was also literally taken. It means that there was a kind of measurement technique of which artifact's components were analyzed (this is the "carbonized" term). From the analysis, it turned out to be made from charcoal. Well, it is a scientific procedure to make sure that the artifacts were really burned and burried because of eruption, not something else. I think that is the standard procedure.
Oh sorry, the last clause is better to be removed. You're right that we don't need any evidence about the eruption. ;-)
I hope I answered your questions above. — Indon (reply) — 16:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Still not quite clear on the carbonization. Something closer to:
"After they were tested using a carbonization technique, they were discovered to be composed of charcoal formed by the heat of the magma" ? Yomanganitalk 16:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes that is better. ;-) Thanks, but I've remove a bit of redundancy. — Indon (reply) — 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My last revert explanation

I did revert 2 edits: [3] by Panarjedde and Danny Yee with the following reasons:

  1. "The year 1816..." is redundant, because 1816 is already a year.
  2. AD is needed to define context with BC, so please do not remove it. However, Panarjedde has pointed one mistake that AD should be placed before the year and BC is after the year. I have corrected all of them in the article. Please read this.
  3. Danny Yee combined two sentences into one long sentence. I kind of disagree with it, because it makes less readable prose and prones to confusion. Smaller but crisper sentences are better.

So I hope I can explain my last revert. Thanks for your contributions. — Indon (reply) — 09:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Between 71,000 and 92,000 death tolls

I have reverted this number two times. To any editors who have read a source, please read first Mount_Tambora#Aftermath section. There is the explanation about different numbers. The source comes from:

Oppenheimer, Clive (2003). "Climatic, environmental and human consequences of the largest known historic eruption: Tambora volcano (Indonesia) 1815". Progress in Physical Geography. 27 (2): 230–259.

where Oppenheimer explains why there are different number of deaths. The safe number is > 71,000. The figure 92,000 comes from unfounded and based untraceable references. See this article:

Tanguy, J.-C. (1998). "Victims from volcanic eruptions: a revised database". Bulletin of Volcanology. 60 (2): 137–144. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

which explains the figures in detail.

So, before changing any numbers, please read the whole article first. — Indon (reply) — 09:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That clears up my questions. Aaron Bowen 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Global effects

This section states that Average global temperatures decreased about 0.4–0.7°C (32–33°F). This is wrong, a decrease of 0.4 C is not a decrease of 32 F. A temperature of 0.4 C is equivalent to 32 F, but that is not what the sentence is talking about. --Alonso 05:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. It's just a conversion error. The source is in celcius, but WP:MOS requires every numbers to be converted between the two metric systems. Thanks again. — Indon (reply) — 07:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

FA status without any photos?

Hmm, how is this FA if we don't even have a proper photo of the mountain? RedWolf 19:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the community consensus was that the article was deserving of feature status. --Merbabu 22:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There were beautiful photos about the caldera and the artifacts found there, but Commons' admins decided to remove them because they didn't believe emails that I received from the owner *sigh*. Does anybody have pictures/photos? — Indon (reply) — 07:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

i got 1 File:Mt tambora.jpeg From shinyditto12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.12.249 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That is tagged "© All rights reserved". We need freely licensed images (see Wikipedia:Image#Obtaining_images). -- Avenue (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Famine deaths

How is this accurate? "Agricultural crops failed and livestock died in much of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in the worst famine of the 19th century.[4]" since the death total mentioned is 200,000. And there were a million odd deaths from the potato famien in Ireland in the mid 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.125.89 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at hard evidence it is difficult to prove, but scientific evidence supports the claim that the death toll in the northern hemisphere increased by at least 10% of the expected. Logs of the Royal Navy - for the pedantics there is only one Royal Navy all others are Royal **** Navy, over the period 1814 - 1817 indicate that the temperature in 1816 dropped over the whole of the North Atlantic and most of the South Atlantic. These records are available for inspection at the National Archives in London. In 1816 many European records state that in the growing season of 1816 "Cold unremitting rain fell without pause. Crops failed to grow, rotted in the ground because the could not be harvested." When the death records of the previous and following years are compared there was a large unexplained increase in mortality, animals starved because the fields produced no grass and therefore no hay. The only common factor in all the phenomena is Tambora.The Geologist (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Heavy volcanic ash falls were observed as far away as Borneo,..."

Although distance is in the previous reference, it is, as well, needed f/ this phrase, please.

" It took centuries to refill the magma chamber,...":

Is there an estimate as to when????

Thank You, [[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How long is a piece of string? As a volcanologist it is a question we are often asked but we have no hard and fast answer. At Mount St Helens in 1980 the magma had been rising for some time before the initial eruption of March 1980. That was the first indication that the volcano was becoming active, by 18th May 1980 sufficient magma had entered the edifice to cause it to be de-stabilised and the explosion was then inevitable. Krakatau exploded in August 1883, yet it now protrudes above sea level and is growing at about 5 m per year in height. Estimates vary from a few cubic metres yearly to a few hundreds of cubic metres. So think of a number and you will be no more right than anyone else. Have fun.The Geologist (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvements

  • "Tomboro". Tomboro is not an equivalent name in the literature. This should be a footnote that explains Tomboro as a ancient transliteration, a native pronunciation or whatever it actually is.
  • How the subduction zone that raised the peak drained the magma chamber needs to be recast and better explained, from the sources.
  • "oceanic crust" The two plates involved probably already have Wikipedia articles and need to be identified. The article Flores Sea doesn't help here.
  • "ejecta volume of 1.6 × 1011 cubic metres" Unimaginable. A footnote giving the equivalent as a familiar landmass smothered by 100 meters of tephra would make this vivid for the average Wikipedia reader. .

Well try this 1.6 x 1011 cubic metres can also be written as 160000000000 cubic metres which is equal to a cube 5429 x 5429 x 5429 metres, or a cube whose sides measure ~17611 feet which is equivalent to a cube whose sides measure ~ 3.4 miles. If you want to know how big a landmass is involved buried by 100 metres of tephra then do the maths.The Geologist (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

New stat

Using only Wikipedia based sources, the 1815 eruption appears to be largest volcanic eruption in the past ~11,000 years in terms of tephra volume. I was unable to find a larger eruption more recent than 12,000 years ago, Campi Flegrei in Italy (200-300 cubic km). I need more research to back it up but this would be an excellant addition to the article. I'll work on it, if someone could help me out it'd be great. -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WEll i need more info about the longitude and latitude please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.224.147 (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hatepe eruption of 180AD was comparable to Tambora, estimated at 120 cubic km vs Tambora's 160. But estimates of such a thing are prone to large amounts of error.Cadwallader (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As Cadwallader says when a volcano erupts we then have to try and calculate how much material has been erupted - relatively easy if its basaltic lava plus volatile equals approximately 100%. However, when a volcano like Tambora explodes we have a problem. There is usually no or very little lava as lava, it is usually ejected as pumice, tephra etc, rises into the stratosphere and is carried away by the wind. Eventually it falls back to the ground which may be on land but often is out at sea meaning it is effectively lost. So what we do is measure the hole and arrive at a volume, add the pre-explosion height and calculate that volume, which gives some idea of the mass that has vanished. We use other factors too to cover the uncertainty of what we are missing and eventually a consensus is arrived at - which will inevitably vary from one scientist to another, but that aside it will be in the right order of magnitude. Incidentally the difference between the Hatepe and Tambora is about 40 cubic kilometres or a block less than 4 x 4 x 4 km. Hatepe and Tambora are both in the same order of magnitude and erupted similar volumes of material - DRE.The Geologist (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ecology

This line is rather ridiculous in the greater context of the article:

"Since 1972, a commercial logging company has been operating in the area, which poses a large threat to the rain forest."

Given that 100% of the vegetation on the island was completely destroyed by the eruption of Tambora in 1815, and this rain forest and all of its animals grew from nothing since then, it seems rather ridiculous to say that logging threatens the rain forest. Tambora is the greatest threat to the rain forest. But the rain forest was able to overcome it and grow back. Logging is just a minor hair cut in comparison.Cadwallader (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Language: Br Eng or Am Eng?

For a featured article, I was surprised to see this has a mix of Br Eng and Am Eng spelling:

  • Am Eng: kilometers (3 examples), sulfur (3), odor (1), colored (1), sulfate (4), traveled (1) Total 13
  • Br Eng: kilometres (13 examples), archaeologists (2), metres (9), crystallisation (1), centimetres (2), archaeological (1) Total 28

From the preponderence of spellings I'd guess the WP:ENGVAR that was origianlly used for this page was Br Eng, and it has got corrupted by the addition of some Am Eng spellings, but that's just a guess. Whatever is the Engvar of choice, it should be sorted so that the page uses one for the other, not both. 86.133.55.238 (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English would lean towards British English for this article. Driftwood87 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually "Meters" is the USA spelling, the rest of the world spells the word "METRES," and the rest of the world does use "meters" as a word to indicate a gauge such as a "Gas meter, water meter, electric meter," but kilometres is 1000 metres.The Geologist (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to note that sulfur is the only correct spelling now and is taught in schools in the UK. The "sulphur" form is outdated now.--Mevagiss (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Link to article on 1816 eruption

The article linked to is of very, very poor quality and contains far, far less information than we see here. Suggest remove link until that article is up to stantard. Or just delete it it is useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.22.9.252 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The section on the 1815 eruption

Lost height?

According to the referenced sources, the Tambora lost some height. Peaklist and Peakbagger showing now 2722 m height, also in Google-Maps it's about 2700 m. Are the GVP data now obsolete? --Sextant (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Volcanic Eve

A German geoscientist in the team was the first European woman and worldwide the first woman to conquer the almost impassable inner southern wall of this volcano.

Any reason not to omit "European" and "worldwide" (whatever that means)?

A German geoscientist in the team was the first woman to conquer the almost impassable inner southern wall of this volcano.

—Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Exploration of the caldera floor" section

Starting a discussion about whether that section should exist, and calling GeoWriter and Anthony Appleyard here. I won't be able to comment until tomorrow.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I copyedited that section; it was written in broken English. It doesn't appear to be supported by sources. It cites two sources. The first (Sanusi (15 March 2015). "Berikut Tips untuk Pendaki yang Ingin ke Gunung Tambora".) does not support anything about the GRV expeditions. It seems to be a tourist information page, giving tips for climbers. The second (Tambora Caldera in October 2013 and July 2014, Volcano research under extreme conditions. Short reports of "Georesearch Volcanedo Germany"; On: volcanedo.de) I'm not able to access for some reason.(I found it at [4]) It asserts that the results of the expeditions are "to be published", not that they have already been published, which is our usual requirement in Wikipedia.
That said, if we can find already published sources about the expeditions by GRV, I don't see why we shouldn't mention them in this article. However, the way they are currently discussed appears to give too much weight to the mere existence of the expeditions, and not enough weight to their findings. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I removed the section on 2 February at 21:13 UTC, but it was reverted a few minutes later. I was going to return to the article and restore the sentence about the caldera eco-system and the two caldera floor photos, but not as a separate "Exploration of the caldera floor" section - they could be included easily elsewhere in the article, but the reverting editor User:Anthony Appleyard was too quick for me, and I'm happy to discuss on this Talk page. The sentence about Zollinger in 1815, with its reference (although it is in German), could also be kept and perhaps a one line mention that recent expeditions have followed in his footsteps.
I said in my removal edit summary comment that "it is a lot of words telling us almost nothing about Tambora - it's self promotion of the editor and reads like a blog of their trip". (The user who added the text is User:Georesearch Volcanedo BLN). I still believe the text adds only a very small amount of encyclopedic content to the article. Almost all of the section is merely telling us that some people went into the crater a few times and they studied some features on the caldera floor and their findings will be published. One could probably write that in almost every mountain article in Wikipedia because it is just unverifiable anecdote. Some scientific findings could eventually turn out be of interest but none seem to be available. The sources linked in the text are a travel page of an Indonesiam newspaper, written In Indonesian, and the expedition group's own website http://volcanedo.de/index.html . What was the point of the expeditions, and moreover their mention in Wikipedia, if the findings remain unknown to the rest of the world? It's now more than two years since the first of the expeditions and, as far as I can tell, there is still no sign of any publications. The current description of the expeditions includes text such as "Moreover, only relatively short stays on the caldera floor had been possible due to logistical problems, so that extensive studies had been impossible." That basically means that any previous attempts didn't take enough support stuff with them - that's just stating the obvious isn't it? I don't regard the text of this section as encyclopedic, and it's content and style are too much in the style of National Geographic, GEO or other popular geographical or travel magazines.
Bearing in mind that the sources for the expedition are the group's own website and a non-English newspaper's travel article, I'd be interested to know why other editors believe this material should be kept. I suggest it should be removed. If, in the future, expedition findings are published (not self-published), then such findings could be added, if they are of good quality. GeoWriter (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I hate text (outside of leads, per WP:LEAD) that doesn't have inline citations. 'tis has unsourced paragraphs. I am not convinced that such expeditions should routinely be included in articles unless they have some attention in third-party sources; other volcano articles don't generally mention specific expeditions either. I am always open to being convinced otherwise, though, being only a fallible human.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems to be inclusionists versus exclusionists again. A serious expedition here is important to some. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Where are the reliable (preferably secondary) sources verifying the notability of this allegedly "serious" expedition? GeoWriter (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This has been unsourced for more than 8 months in spite of discussion. Unless reliable sources are added, the material needs to be removed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the text about the GRV expedition, because it is based on an apparently unverified self-published source. The editor User:Georesearch Volcanedo BLN who added this text in 2015 seems to have lost interest in it and has not provided verifiable secondary sources. I think the likelihood of any other editor finding such sources is remote. GeoWriter (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Citation for alternative name (Tamboro)

@GeoWriter: I've found this source for "Tamboro". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for suggesting a source reference. I don't have access to full content of Taylor&Francis journals, and Tamboro isn't mentioned in the abstact of the article that you linked to, so I can't give an opinion about the quality of this source reference. I did, however, find Tamboro in Zollinger (1855): Besteigung des Vulkans Tamboro auf der Insel Sumbawa und Schiderung der Eruption desselben im Jahren 1815, Wintherthur: Zurcher and Fürber, which may be also be a candidate to use as a citation for the name in this Mount Tambora article. Zollinger seems to have been a significant person in early studies of Tambora and is already mentioned in the article. Could one possible problem be that perhaps Tamboro could be only an (obsolete) German name, not an English name? Any comments? GeoWriter (talk, contributions) 22:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Possibly. Or it's just an uncommon spelling. I know about "k" versus "c" but I don't know too much about "a" versus "o". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed and unsourced tags

This article has accumulated a substantial amount of these, among with choppy paragraphs. The editor who brought it to FA status (Indon) is long inactive. The only editors in the FAC still active are @JarrahTree, Meursault2004, and ONUnicorn: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I am sadly not a vulcanologist or a geologist for that matter. For a start I don't know where to look for the sources. But I have seen that it's a common problem regarding articles about Indonesia. Meursault2004 (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Eruption of Tomboro in 1821

I found this image, but there is no information about "Eruption of Tomboro in 1821" on this article. --Hedda Gabler (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Tambora/Archive_1&oldid=1136253351"