Talk:1257 Samalas eruption/Archive 1

Question about source
In the Historical and Social Consequences section, Paragragh 3.

I question the verifiability of source no. 88,Dodds and Liddy 2011, stating that: "The price for corn increased in Britain, France and Italy." Since the Samalas eruption was in 1257, corn had not been introduced into Europe yet. The page in Wikipedia under "Corn" states that: "After European contact with the Americas in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, explorers and traders carried maize back to Europe" Gibson and Benson, "Origin, History and Uses of Corn". http://agron-www.agron.iastate.edu/Courses/agron212/readings/corn_history.htm.

Mdashman (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Michael Ashman
 * Mmm? Corn has been in Europe for a long time before the discovery of the Americas. Maize comes from the Americas, yes, but it isn't the only one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I got it now. People believe that "corn" refers to corn which is more recent, but it actually refers to cereal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Contesting some recent edits
I've removed a few sections recently added by as I don't think that their inclusion is adequately justified, to whit: In general, bit of original research here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The section on the Khmer Empire appears to assume that these droughts were somehow linked to the Samalas eruption, but the source does not say such at all - the only thing that the source attributes to Samalas is an unusually wet year after the eruption, and it explicitly says that long droughts and wet periods are apparently not linked to volcanic activity. Also, given that that source is over a page long, it should be cited with pagenumbers, per WP:CITEVAR.
 * This does not appear to be a reliable source; is the blog author a recognized expert in historical and historical climate patterns? The second source is already used in the article, but doesn't mention Cochin or the river at all. Perhaps under a different name?
 * The London section is a bit overlong, I think. That there was a famine there does not deserve that much WP:WEIGHT in my opinion, it is not so much more important than events elsewhere in Europe for instance.
 * Anasazi: The source again does not link the drought to the eruption, and the timecourse does not fit. Also, I've never heard any theory that the North American megadroughts were caused by a volcanic eruption.


 * Jo-Jo Eumerus Understand your concern WP:OR. Would agree if you want to stay fixed to WP rules. But, interesting part about WP articles, it is like community kitchen where stuffs gets thrown into the pot, depending on the cooks in the kitchen. Here in WP, each articles takes its own style and rules, depending on the consensus of the active editors on a specific article ;) :D .. Now coming to this article, the impact of this eruption is only recently being understood, just in the last 3 to 4 years. This is one of the largest eruption in the last 10,000 years, meaning the entire human civilization. What I have thrown in the pot, may seem disjointed. By putting it here in WP, expect we can get more active interest, as the the entire history after 1257 does have to rewritten. Hope you agree we stir the pot ! :) Prodigyhk (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a number of things - citation style for example - are decided by the first cooks to put together a meal - or first cook as it is here. We'll need a recipe before adding any ingredients; any info on https://scholar.google.ch/scholar?as_ylo=2017&q=%22samalas%22&hl=de&as_sdt=1,5 that is not in the article yet, for example. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit to the lead section
At the risk of sounding like an article "owner", are you sure that the London famine is important enough to merit explicit mention in the lead? My impression is that it is mostly just the best documented consequence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Citation style
There is a complaint by 2605:6000:EF43:8500:15BB:34DC:C406:6F90 (on User talk:2605:6000:EF43:8500:15BB:34DC:C406:6F90) that the current sfn citation style is bad. I do think that rp instead takes up more text in the read version and looks uglier. Nevermind that undiscussed citation style changes are frowned upon? Has any third party any ideas? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This sub-par article has a confusing mess of citation styles, caused by your use of a laborious citation method that eats up space and bytes and confuses editors. Also, please stop making very disruptive blind reversions. You do not WP:OWN this article. 2605:6000:EF43:8500:3016:293F:330B:164 (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It was not a blind revert. For one thing, there is no support in the article that a) the Babad Lombok is the thing that gives the mountain its name or b) that it being a book is important for this article. Never mind that the sources do not support this etymology either. The sfn + ref style is very well established, not something I came up one day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Your blind reversions are unrelated to citation formats and all the other stuff you listed. So stop conflating the issues. 2605:6000:EF43:8500:3016:293F:330B:164 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No; is reverting your undiscussed citation change,  removing an unnecessary and misspelled word,  partly removing an unnecessary change in ordering (but I am willing to be overridden on this) and a bit of unsourced material,  a (failed) typo fix,  removing a duplicative reference and formatting an external link,  fixing an omission,  removing a bunch of original research as explained above,,  fixing some citation issues,  addressing a valid issue by an IP,  repairing an unclear statement,  adding a category and  a reword. And you don't have an exception to CITEVAR, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Does the Great Lacuna in Codex Regius refer to this or is it just a fire?
172.76.124.97 (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.76.124.97 (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Eldr nam at æsast, en jörð at skjál faok hár logi  við himni gnæfa.  Fár treystist þar fylkis rekka eld at ríðané yfir stíga.  Sigurðr Grana sverði keyrði.  Eldr slokknaði  fyr öðlingi, logi allr lægðist  fyr lofgjörnum.  Bliku reiði, er Reginn átti.
 * Fires set Earth's surface ablaze, high as Heaven.  Few Countrymen dared ride or leap over raging Aurora.  Warriors drove Grain with swords.  Fires slain nether; low enough for lofty old Men.  Clouds swelled black; until Rain was born.
 * – Translated by Jason Mushorn172.76.115.148 (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * – Translated by Jason Mushorn172.76.115.148 (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly not; Codex Regius was written in Europe whereas Samalas is in Indonesia; too far away for the eruption to be noticed in such an explicit manner. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

So, not so certainly?172.76.124.97 (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is from Iceland, they had plenty of local vulcanoes to pick inspiration from, rather than very hypothetically collection testimonies from Indonesia. Besides, that would totally be original research. --Raminagrobis (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Other sources to use
Seeing as I am doing another article expansion round, listing https://scholar.google.ch/scholar?start=80&q=%22AD+1257%22+OR+%22AD+1258%22+OR+%22AD+1259%22+AND+-%22samalas%22+volcanic&hl=de&as_sdt=1,5 and User talk:Ealdgyth here as a reminder to myself to use them. Left also some comments in the source about problem sentences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of selected volcanic eruptions
Source: Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program for VEI.

I've been looking at the sources provided - https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joc.891 and https://web.archive.org/web/20060701152210/http://volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm - and it seems like many of the data in the table are unsupported or omitted. I think that we could make a table on the basis of Oppenheimer 2003, but not one on the basis of the GVP listing as it'd be either cherry-picked or way too long. Or we use a more recent source, such as the "VEI7" source in the article. Opinions? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)