Talk:Mount Erebus

Untitled
The Air New Zealand crash into Mount Erebus was an event of great significance in New Zealand. There is a fine small stain glass window and memorial plaque in St Matthew-in-the-City Church in Hobson Street Auckland.

I thought the lava lake had receded now? David.Monniaux 09:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would you consider part of the Pacific Ring of Fire? Urania3 19:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is considered to be part of the Pacific Ring of Fire.The Geologist (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

total area covered
In the first paragraph under "Geography", there is this sentence: "Within the past year, small ash eruptions and even a small lava flow have also been observed coming from vents near the lava lake." It needs to be changed because without a reference to the date it was written, it's impossible to know what "within the past year" means. Mrchaotica 01:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Small ash eruptions accompany the ongoing Strombolian eruptions.The Geologist (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Life?
Is there a zone where plants can grow due to the heat from the lava lake? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically there is a zone where plants could grow,but there are no plants in Antarctica and the emissions of gases C02 etc would preclude this along with the fact that the zone lies beneath the ice.The Geologist (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, there are (non-vascular) plants on Erebus due to geothermal heat. A small amount of moss grows at a place called Tramway Ridge. I've been there several times. Halidecyphon (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Mount Erebus
Mount Erebus is in ANTARTICA AND IS ONE OF THREE VOLCANOES ON ROSS ISLAND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.227.20 (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above should read ANTARCTICA - there is a "C" missing. The name Antarctica is derived from it being the "Anti-Arctic" or "Opposite Arctic" as in "antipode".The Geologist (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Improper spelling change
This is one of the articles with an improper change of national varieties of English due to problems with convert as discussed at Template talk:Convert. In this case, the improper change was accomplished in this edit by User:RedWolf. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article should really use New Zealand spelling, since the mountain is part of the Ross Dependency. The improper change was made by an anon in these three edits, a few months before RedWolf's edit. -- Avenue (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you go back further, it was "meters" again--so when did it get changed to "metres" before that change you mentioned?

Apart from the USA and those countries that it influenced to use American English notably Israel, the international term for linear measurement is "metres" and a "meter" is the device that measures such as "depth meter, volt meter, gas meter, electric meter," whereas height length is metres or derivatives of such as kilometres - one thousand metres.The Geologist (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There are no internationally recognized claims to Antarctica or parts thereof. As the article you pointed to says, "Under the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty System, to which New Zealand is a signatory, no nation may make efforts to enforce sovereignty or territorial claims over the Antarctic continent proper."


 * And the only research stations in that Ross Dependency are American


 * In any case, it still illustrates quite well the sneakiness and impropriety of a change inserted in the guise of adding a conversion template, in any case. The biggest problem with that change, unlike the earlier ones, is that the change RedWolf made is not visible when another editor looks at that differences page.
 * Do you see what I'm talking about? There is no "metres" spelling on that difference page.  That is a serious problem with this template; it should require specification of the spellings to be used in all cases.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I accept that the first version of the article giving its height used "meters", and that using conversion templates can slip spelling changes in "under the radar". Characterising RedWolf's edit as sneaky does not seem to assume good faith, but let's let that slide. The main point we should address here on this talk page is whether US or NZ spelling should be used in this particular article.
 * Yes, New Zealand's claim is not internationally recognised. However, the relevant guideline says that articles' spelling should reflect strong national ties to a topic. (This policy trumps the one about retaining the existing spelling.) It could be argued that even unrecognised claims indicate a fairly strong national tie, but that's not the strongest argument available here.
 * New Zealand does have a base on Ross Island (Scott Base), although so does the US, so that could be argued either way. The critical tie that New Zealand has to the mountain, in my view, is that its worst disaster in recent history occurred here. Hundreds of New Zealanders lost their lives, and the following inquiry was highly controversial. As a result, most middle-aged New Zealanders have at least heard of Mount Erebus. That is why I think we should use NZ spelling here. -- Avenue (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume the lack of response means my arguments were accepted. I've finished changing the spelling used in the article from meters to metres (Droll started doing so). -- Avenue (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Mount Terror
Has anyone else noticed that it says that Ross named Mount Erebus "Mount Terror"? If that is the case, then why isn't this one called Mount Terror instead of... Mount Terror?--24.24.142.225 (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't it says Ross named the two volcanoes Mount Erebus and (Mount) Terror AFTER his two ships Erebus and Terror.The Geologist (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Way Too Technical!
How is someone without a geology or volcanology degree supposed to understand this sentence:


 * The composition of the current eruptive products of Erebus is anorthoclase-porphyric tephritic phonolite and phonolite

without having to go to three further articles? I followed the link to phonolite but that article is, if anything, even more technical than this one!

Wikipedia science articles should be aimed the educated but non-specialist reader; instead they read like graduate school exams. I realize people like to show off, but any article that requires half a dozen other articles to be understandable is a complete waste of time. PainMan (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry that you feel you wasted your time. The beauty of the Wiki system is the links to follow and discover new stuff. If each technical term had to be defined each time used ... what a waste of resources. The links are there to follow. And yes, there is always room for improvement ... so jump right in! Placing a distracting tag at the top of the article because part of one section offends is rather insulting to your fellow editors - as is the show off comment above, please read WP:Agf. Vsmith (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately ALL science uses its own language, if someone is interested in a particular branch of science - in this case geology / volcanology, then I am afraid that sooner rather than later you are going to be exposed to the scientific terminology. I was 9 (I am now in my 60's) when I discovered geology, and I learnt then that technical and scientific terms would be used, so I went and found out what they meant to the bafflement of my supposedly better qualified geography teachers. I sympathise to a certain extent because we scientist tend to baffle the innocent with our terminology but there again if you want to "play" in the science section learn what it means and involves. Knowledge gained is never wasted only the ignorant consider it to be a waste of their time and then usually are the ones who tell us that we think we are so clever because we know more than they do or want to you can't have it both ways.The Geologist (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Amen to the geologist ! Don't play if you don't understand...Learn and then say that ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.176.244 (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

To the person who wrote the above - Thank you! Too many people want science explained in simple terms that border on the ridiculous. Once again, Thank you.The Geologist (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to express agreement with the original poster, not on the issue with the excerpt in particular or the manner in which it was broached (I can see how it could be perceived as brusque, tactless, or offensive), but in the general philosophy of Wikipedia. It is my understanding that Wikipedia's purpose is to make accessible to the lay person general knowledge, trivia, and curiosities. In other words, the main audience is non-experts, average Joes if you will. From personal experience, I know Wikipedia is discouraged as a credible source in even undergraduate studies. I don't even think it is relied on at the primary or secondary levels. Thus, overall, those using Wikipedia are the general public, not experts in their fields or graduate-level scholars. For the same reason you would not introduce quantum physics into a 3rd-grade science textbook, Wikipedia articles should refrain from overly relying on technical jargon. Perhaps a separate Wikipedia can be created for those wishing to exclusively discuss topics over the heads of the general public, but for the rest of us schmoes who just want to gain perfunctory knowledge or a general overview of a topic without researching it for hours on end as if writing a doctoral thesis, a layperson's treatment is greatly appreciated. Articles fraught with esoteric, technical jargon not only discourage those not equipped to decipher, parse, and navigate such daunting academic material, but also run the risk of the reader fundamentally misunderstanding what he or she is researching. You can argue that gaining more knowledge is never wasted time, but not everyone has all the time in the world to research subjects and I'd bet more often than not, many would give up on gaining the little bit of knowledge that could be gleaned in a few minutes of reading if they were forced to invest hours of research as well. By saturating a text with erudite, arcane, or abstruse language with the hopes of encouraging readers to travel further down the rabbit hole and emerge a veritable academic pundit or scholar, you are inadvertently making knowledge inaccessible to the masses, who, even if they had the time, patience, diligence, fortitude, and persistence to jump from article to article in an effort to enlighten themselves, just might not have the mental capacity to comprehend or retain it all. Thus, it would indeed be a waste of their time.

I don't consider myself unintelligent, but I frequently find myself frustrated when following link upon link in much the same way the original poster has detailed. Often, after reading several, if not dozens of articles, I find I have not absorbed the information I was originally seeking, nor have I gained substantial background or related knowledge either. Mostly, I am frustrated, dismayed, confused, and generally remain in the dark. If I am in the minority with this sentiment, then so be it, but at the very least, the original poster seems to agree.

In short, you can argue that gaining more knowledge is never wasted time, but the reader is not guaranteed to gain that knowledge if he or she is repeatedly sent to articles above his or her level of comprehension.

At the risk of offending and demeaning both myself and the general public, I urge the Wikipedia "experts" to "dumb it down" when writing these articles. To proffer an oft-quoted tenet, K.I.S.S.: Keep It Simple, Stupid. (No offense intended).

I do realize there is a "Simple Wikipedia" spin-off site. Personally, I think that Wikipedia itself should be the one striving to bring knowledge to the uneducated masses and "Complex Wikipedia" should be the spinoff. It's about the greater net benefit to the greater number of people. Simplified writing not only makes the knowledge more accessible, but streamlines knowledge acquisition, making for efficient learning that is not time-consuming. That's just my two cents. I hope I have not offended anyone. Reading the previous entries, I get the impression the "experts" do not like to deign to compromise their academic integrity by simplifying their writing styles. If the goal is a better-informed public, I beseech thee to change that mindset. Thanks for listening to/reading my opinion. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Continuous eruption claim
I've added a cite tag to this claim in the lede. Has Erebus been under continuous observation since 1972?--Froglich (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes - but it was known to be in a state of eruption in 1841 when it was named by Sir James Clark Ross, Again in 1907-1909 when members of Shackleton's expedition climbed to the summit and reported a pulsating lava lake. It was in 1972 that the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology set up an observatory.The Geologist (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ice towers
Shouldn't the ice towers/geysers be mentioned? They are a pretty remarkable feature. 71.75.136.51 (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just added a new section on them: Mount Erebus Robert Walker (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Mount Erebus isn't on mars, is it?
In the section on ice fumaroles, there seems to be a random sentence about martian ice caves. I'm not sure if it's relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.164.161 (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Erebus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312011946/http://erebus.nmt.edu/index.php/general-information to http://erebus.nmt.edu/index.php/general-information
 * Added tag to http://erebus.nmt.edu/
 * Added tag to http://erebus.nmt.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

MEVO Closed in 2016
MEVO closed in 2016 , should update article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.79.208.160 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Terra Nova Expedition
I am slowly working on pages regarding the Terra Nova Expedition and was wondering if the following details should be included here
 * the list of people from the Terra Nova who climbed Mount Erebus (Lead by geologist Raymond Priestley and included Tryggve Gran, a Norwegian ski specialist; Frederick Hooper, formerly a steward on the Terra Nova, Able Seaman Harry Dickason RN, Petty Officer George Abbott RN and geologist Frank Debenham)
 * during their climb geologist Frank Debenham had the idea of a 'Polar Research Institute'
 * Given that the Terra Nova team is mentioned in the historic sites, I think they could also be listed in the Climbing section. With that I was thinking the Climbing section could do with being before the Historic Sites.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain.r.d (talk • contribs) 10:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguity in Height Ranking
The article states: "Mount Erebus ( /ˈɛrɪbəs/) is an active volcano, the second-highest in Antarctica (after Mount Sidley) and the southernmost active volcano on Earth."

I take issue with the ambiguous wording. The sentence implies that, amongst active volcanoes on the continent of Antarctica, Mt. Sidley is first highest/tallest and Mt. Erebus is second highest/tallest. The "Mount Sidley" article states, however, that Mt. Sidley is a DORMANT volcano, that is, NOT ACTIVE. That is a contradiction. Should the sentence not read, "Mount Erebus is the second-highest volcano in Antarctica (after Mount Sidley)"? Personally, I don't know this fact to be true, but I know, as it stands, the "active volcano" qualifier makes it false.

I will edit it for now and if someone is more knowledgeable on the subject, please correct/edit accordingly. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)