Talk:Mount Vesuvius/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The green mile

I temporarily removed this:

"The 79 eruption released about 1 cubic mile (4 cubic kilometres) of ash and rock over a wide area to the south and south-east of the crater, with about 3 m (10 ft) of tephra falling on Pompeii. Many of Pompeii's neighboring communities, most famously Herculaneum, also suffered damage or destruction."

which is a simplification of what was there. We keep repeating the same thing over and over in every subsection, which often happens in large articles with multiple contributors. In this case 1 cu mi is a very convenient number, much too convenient I suppose. It gets tossed around a lot without any backup or indication of how it was arrived at. Some say it was of tephra, some say of magma. Others use it other eruptions. It is so convenient, why not? It has become a figure of speech, like the last bullet of the last battle of the last war. In fact many writers give many different estimates: a third of a mile, 3.4 of a mile, and so on. Let's do something different, hey? Let's put in the estimate of someone who actually made an effort to calculate it with any credibility and can tell us his basis for estimation. Moreover, let's give the reference for that. There are plenty such numbers below in the article, we don't need another one here. We need to use a credible estimate of the overall characteristics. Alternatively, we could put in some statement such as "Estimates of the volume of the eruption vary ..." This is like the altitude of the column. It is only an estimate, but we need a credible estimate, not just a repeat of some wild figure copied over and over by writers too lazy to do the work. Vesuvius has provided us with enough drama; we need some fact. Please. The less conjecture, the more fact, the better. Thanks.Dave (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Insertions by Strausszek

Hello Mr. Strausszek. Gee whiz, I was not even finished making the argument. What was there was wrong and it was only partly corrected. There are a few points you did not get yet so I am reverting what you had and explaining this to you in discussion. Then I will will finish the section posthaste so this does not happen again. Then you may take another pass if you wish. The points you did not yet get are these. First, no one is questioning and never has questioned the veracity of Pliny's account. So, we do not need you to jump in on Pliny's side of an imaginary debate. I am going to replace that WP editor error shortly so you will not get the wrong impression. The debate is what date Pliny actually gave. As it turns out, he never said (most likely) August 24 at all. That was a copyist insertion. So, we are not arguing about his sincerity or his intent or his reporting of the date or any such thing, only about text alterations by copyists. I appreciate your loyalty to the man but this is not, so to speak, the man, but only a copyist. Second, I am trying to represent a source here, not just giving opinions. Your opinions without a reference are not called for. OK, that is what you think, but it is not relevant, you mistake the argument (my fault) and a reference would be required for those opinions anyway, if they were relevant, which they are not. Let me finish, then we can start in. Thanks.Dave (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

PS. OK, I finished my part of it. So, Mr. Strausszek, if you want to make any sort of loyalty argument, it has to be for the authenticity of the text in Mediceus, not for Pliny's ability to report or his accuracy in reporting. I personally think he probably left out the month but that is irrelevant. We do not know now what he said. Maybe someday an early MSS fragment will be discovered shedding light on the matter but for now all we have are the paradoxical MSS. So, follow the logic please (if my current alterations do not take care of it). We are not going to be interested in an essay on Pliny's reporting abilities. Whatever arguments you make please back them up with the opinions of credible reference persons otherwise they will have to be deleted as unsourced. Notice how I keep throwing in the little superscript numbers that link to the name of an article or book? I am afraid that is what WP requires. Thank you for your interest.Dave (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's get this straight - and you can stop talking down at me, okay?

• 1.Are you implying the date reference - ix kal septembres or any variant form - in Pliny was a scribal gloss from the outset, and that he never mentioned a date at all, in a letter he knew would be used as a historical source? If that's it, then you're making a conjecture that's quite new to the discussion. As far as I can see, it's unneeded too, in the context of Pompeii. Much easier to assume that another reading than the standard one is right.

Mr. Strausszek! I received your communiques. I am glad you got it all off your chest, but I dare say WP frowns on emotional harangues, so I will not pick up your invitation to argue in the emotional sense. Still, you deserve an answer, so I will give it. I know right now you are going to take what I say in the same vein, so I apologize in advance. I have to say, though, that if WP did not advise us to take other editors at face value, I would not be able to take you as such. There are serious questions in my mind concerning your maturity and MA-level and classical skills. Indeed, to me you sound like a juvenile or a straw man and there are plenty such on WP, and I have encountered many. But, following WP policy I take you at face value. I am sorry if you think I talk down to you. I adjust my level to the character I see; if that is up it is up, if that is down - well - I prefer to say if I judge that someone needs more explanation I give it in good faith. Why, did you really think my judging that you did not know certain information was an insult to your great abilities? My dear man, many people in my circle speak to me as a 4-year-old and sometimes I deserve it. Otherwise I bite my tongue. This is not a mature statement of yours. Better get used to the condition, son, there is a lot coming down the line.

In this point you seem to be refering to the last paragraph of the section. I'm following my authors there. They point out that many variants omit the month. No, they don't suggest he didn't supply a month. That is what I think but I did not put my opinion in the article, only in the discussion so it carries no weight. I often say conjectural things in the discussion I wouldn't say in the article. What are discussions for? Whether he supplied a month or not, copyists obviously felt free to change it at will, as some use other months. Their implication is, some original to which some of the copies are related did not have a month. Otherwise we have to presume that each and every copyist omitted the month on his own initiative. I think I said "month" did I not? I can't really see the problem. I qualified my language very carefully. Beyond this, I cannot really understand your statements. Scribal gloss? No one has mentioned any glosses here, which are scribal explanations. We are talking about variant texts. From the outset? But Pliny wrote it from the outset or else his secretary or someone employed by him (he was very rich). I think he may have omitted the month for various reasons, perhaps it was already well-known, or whatnot, but I did not express this view in the article. We can't express our own views there. Whether the omission was his or someone else's, there are many variants of this text. How can you judge that any if them is "right?" Now let's see, your concept of a "standard text" needs considerable thought on your part. I believe the "standard" was chosen for the antiquity of the MS. It did not change because there was insufficient reason to change it. Now there is. This is far from being an anomalous situation in classics, it happens all the time. Standard is only a tag, it carries no logical authority. Fact is often stranger than fiction and new discoveries often bring startling revelations. Your view I dare say is medieval - we must not question the authority of the standard just because it is standard. The word means nothing in this context and carries no weight.

• 2. I wasn't mounting a lot of effort to show that Pliny was veracious, but to show that he was serious about what he wrote in the letter. Your wording in the first half of your earlier edit pass made it sound as if the date were just a stylistic device (and now I can see you think Pliny would have left an essential part of it out, in kind of the same way as one sometimes leaves out the pronoun when it's obvious: Went to sleep. Didn't wannn know so looked the other way - hmm, you should get some reliable philologist who's written about this precise subject to back the claim up...). Besides, you idn't seem to understand the difference between Pliny and the lost Tacitean account being independent as statements (no, they wouldn't have been, of course) and their lines of textual tradition being independent of each other, which they are.

I see. You appear to have written some of the stuff I removed. Well look, you can't achieve excellence without stepping on toes. Sorry, it can't be done. You gave no references, and everything you said was conjectural or incomprehensible. I didn't want to get started along these lines, but if you have a classics background, my advice is to keep it to yourself at least until you have had a chance to get further in your studies. You don't understand dates. I WAS working from philologists. As an example, literary references often omit a.d. (ante diem) because it is understood. Pliny omitted it. Without it the date makes no sense at all, unless you already know what is meant. You know what, I suggest you read Roman calendar, which though short of references, was written knowledgably. As for the independence argument, in all the ancient history I've studied (no offense but it is not a small amount) independence means of a different origin; thus Tacitus, who uses Pliny, cannot in any way be writing independently of him, at least when he uses his accounts and concepts.

• 3. To make sure what we're talking of would get understood even by people who are not familiar with classical philology and text criticism, I added a paragraph to my post here on the discussion page that was aimed at that kind of readers, not at you. I indicated that was rhe reason: as you observed yourself, anyone can edit and erase here and people sometimes tend to blame the last person who edited for the entire text of the article or section at the point in time when user X jumps in.

I don't see any answerable concept here.

• 4. Rules of good editing practice on WP are generally just that, rules, not a body of statute law. It's very useful to have sources indicated at statements or facts that could be questioned of course but that doesn't mean every statement or every step in a line of reasoning or a review of what happened, of what some scholars are saying or arguing bout, has to have its own citation. Nor that it's useful to remove everything in any article that doesn't parrot a direct statement of the same by a footnoted "good source". If that was it, a lot of things would become impossible to write about here in an even half-decent way even when there's no major difference of opinion between people in the know, because a fact or a distinction or condition underlying a line of reaoning, description or explanation can be so blindingly obvious no "informed or reliable source" has ever needed to assert it. Strausszek (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Look at some good articles that have a star. Try Charles II. WP is really quite insistent of refs for all but common knowledge.

Well Mr. Strauss. You did get it off your chest and I do not believe there is any chance of your forgiving me for the gross outrage I have done to your work and your self-image. The emperor Titus said he did not care what people said of him and if they said things about previous emperors, why those emperors were divine and could defend themselves. (See Titus). We can't all be among the best emperors. Nevertheless I do beg you to forgive me, even though I know there is not much chance of it. As excuse for the insult (of which WP expressly warns you every time you open an edit page) I can only offer a desire for excellence and to get all the lies off of the Internet, seeing that it influences so many. In a sense I am putting the people above you. I do apologize. Edit as you like. I'm flexible. I will however insist that WP policy be followed and will follow it as best I can myself. You have a tendency, I believe, to mistake your opinions for established fact. I will be watching this article. The key theme here I would like to express is that this is not a blog, it is an encyclopedia. Cio and best wishes. I do not know that there is much value in going on with this conversation but if you really, really need an answer I will attempt it in good will. Ciao and best wishes.Dave (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Before the mountain started forming

That first paragraph on the eruptions needs a geologic reference. It has a partial reference and much to my surprise that ref, put in in 2006, is in proper format, one of the few in this article to be so. It must have been part of the original good article. The ref has the 25000 mya but it lacks the prior rock formations. The sentence looks valid enough so I'm not changing it. I am going to try to find a proper geologic ref. If anyone knows of one, let us know, hey?Dave (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Volcanoes of Southern Italy might be a good source. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I own that book, but I have no geological knowledge. I can look up specific points if you want me to, but you will have to be very specific (for example I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "25000 mya", or which ref you are referring to in connection with that). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the ref. The "mya" is an error. I meant, 25K ya (our abbreviations are almost as bad as the Roman). I found the book, Google Books in English (my Swedish is terrible) and will look in it. It is reviewable. If by chance I find a page I cannot access I will ask you. Thanks.Dave (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

PS This is really quite suitable and must be the one used by the section's original author. If he had only put us onto it I wouldn't have to be doing this now.Dave (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The date of the Avellino

We are giving (until I change it) a date of 2420 BC ± 40 BC on this eruption, implying also that there was a cluster, some possibly later. Pity tis tis true and true tis tis pity, there is not a reference on this date. One of the sites in the section gives a graph with about 2400. The problem is, all the dates I can find are several hundred years later. This date has a tolerance, which implies a scientific determination of some sort. In our articles and elsewhere the date, equally scientific, is about 3780 BP or so, or about 1830 BC. Well. Understand the usual I-told-you-so about references. The only ray of light is that the 2420 might be K-Ar - it doesn't say - whereas the 3780 is CO2, and within 5 years of now. Ideally someone should go back in the technical journals and try to find out where the 2400 came from and by what methed. And then one should evaluate all the CO2 dates one can find and compare the two. Then one should make a determination. No way. YOU do it. I'm taking out the 2400 as unreferenced and putting in the CO2 date with a good and credible reference, which I found almost immediately. Now, I have a couple of comments. This is approximately the 12th number I have had to change or remove because it either did not match the reference or had no reference. I notice also the distinctly juvenile quality of the sites - those that most resemble a comic book are preferred. Please, no comics. If you are in high school get ahead of yourself a bit and learn how to do a good reference to proper scientific authorities. Thanks.Dave (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Further development "The Mercato eruption also known as Pomici Gemelle or Ottaviano 6940 BC ±100 years, VEI 5, followed a smaller explosive eruption around 11,000 years ago (called the Lagno Amendolare eruption"

How can an 11000 ya eruption follow a 6940 BC eruption? Of course. The view of mine expressed above is far too good for the situation. This is vandalism plain and simple. Someone plugged in some phony dates with phony tolerances to make it look good. I should keep these dicussions shorter, I spend time on vandals and straw men that could be used to better effect. I will have to check and correct all those dates. In fact most of the numbers in this article were probably manufactured, I wish I could say by well-meaning persons, but they look like vandals to me.Dave (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Vesuvius from Pompeii (hires version 2 scaled).png Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Vesuvius from Pompeii (hires version 2 scaled).png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious claim: It is the most densely populated volcanic region in the world

"It is the most densely populated volcanic region in the world".

The source for this claim seems to be a promotional article in "The Guardian" promoting a TV show about archeology. Is this a credible or reliable source ? Here are some facts to consider:

Java 128,297 square km 138 million people density 1,064 people per sq km. Campania 13,590 sq km 5.95 million people density 440 people per sq km.

Java has at least 20 recently active volcanos and Campania has one. Java has 1.5 volcanos per 10,000 sq km and Campania has 0.75 volcanos per 10,000 sq km.

Java has almost two and half times the population density of Campania and double the density of active volcanos per unit area.

The claim by some 3rd rate journalist that the Vesuvius region is the most densely populated volcanic region in the world doesn't really hold up.Eregli bob (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

error: prominence

Expected: number in feet or metres. Found: Gran Cono. 204.191.89.147 (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like someone has mistaken the term "prominence" with "prominent locations" or something similar. "Gran Cono" is the Italian name for the crater of Vesuvius and a popular excursion destination. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Exact Number of Deaths in Eruption on the 7th of April, 1906

Hi, I'd just like to ask if there was an exact number for the casualties for the date above. Here's the section name, and the sentence that doesn't provide an exact number:

Eruptions in the 20th century

The eruption of April 7, 1906 killed over 100 people and ejected the most lava ever recorded from a Vesuvian eruption.

Now, compared to other eruptions, this is practically recent, being the 2^nd eruption that this page states. 100 is no number to imply rounding if you compare to some other figures. Also, a later date possibly has a number that has a seemingly closer estimate.

Unless the number this topic is situated on resides between 101-109, it would be nice to see a closer figure if possible.

Thanks. --JezzDawga (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just realised a mistake. This is the 2nd most recent eruption.

Also I have seen that the French Translation contains some quite more detailed, and informs the reader about much more exact times, dates, and figures, some of which are not even mentioned in the English Translation, for example deaths from the 1944 eruption.

This is pretty confusing and the only suggestions for it is that people either:

A) Cannot be bothered anymore with this page

B) Have stopped acknowledging the page, which seems to happen a lot here

C) The French Translation being incorrect or out of date

D) The rule disallowing people's research, and even then I don't know if this rule was or was not broken or if it is regulated for the French and only the English

or E) This page is for the basics about Vesuvius, and not the geology, which even the French Translation has a separate page about the Geology of Mount Vesuvius, and it is absurd the English Translation contains no such page.

I don't know what is going on, and I don't even understand French. But please, even a separate page that goes into detail about these things, because I'm starting to think Wikipedia can be a bit of a layman's dictionary with big fancy words, relevant to certain pages and not all of them, of course.--124.180.111.50 (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC) (Stamp shows IP, but it's still me, JezzDawga, just cannot be bothered to log in)

eruptions in the 20th centurt

It Erupts everyday.. good luck surviving because you are DEAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.120.113 (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The second paragraph seems to include conflicting dates. It seems to suggest that the eruption started and ended on the same day with 5 days in between.86.139.161.23 (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: wording change

In sec. 5.1, Before 79 AD, second paragraph, the sentence "However, the style of eruption changed around 19,000 years ago to a sequence of large explosive plinian eruptions, of which the 79 AD one was the last."

Could we change "last" to "most recent"? Last seems to imply an end to the sequence, which of course we can't know, as the periods between large Plinian eruptions, per the given approximate dates, range from 2000 years to 8000 years. Getheren (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaius Claudius Glaber?

The article remarks on Spartacus' encampment being on Versuvius but that distorts the attributed record of the event. It was because his slave army defeated the Roman Praetor Gaius Claudius Glaber on its slopes. It was not because the Thracian and his followers were there (the modern view reflecting the understanding we now have of Volcanology) but because the military forces of Rome were beaten. The view of the ancient sources (Versuvius was a place) should be respected.

Therefore it is where Spartacus defeated a Roman Army led by a Roman Praetor.86.166.108.139 (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2012

A very small grammatical error in the last sentence of the opening paragraph currently:

"The two other major active volcanoes in Italy, Etna and Stromboli, are located the islands of Sicily and Stromboli respectively."

Should say "are located ON the islands of..."

just trying to help!!

Kgfreak021 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Dru of Id (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Modern American English would say "in Sicily" and "in Stromboli". The distinction between "in", "at" and "on" seems to have been abandonned in modern American English, in favour of using "in" exclusively.Eregli bob (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The distinction hasn't been abandoned, but the correct choice often depends on the context. For example, a volcano might be "in Sicily", as a geographical division, but "on the island of Sicily", as a geological feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:37C5:3179:218:F3FF:FEF1:1346 (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit required - Section Casualties from the eruption

The third paragraph begins "Thirty-eight percent".

This should certainly be represented as "38%" 81.152.63.82 (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

Mount Vesuvius is also famous for being the place of one of the major battles during the Third Servile War, where Spartacus and his men descended from the mountain using clusters of vines to attack the rear flank of the Roman legion sent to squash the rebellion but were ultimately defeated by this ingenious military tactic of Spartacus. The battle and Spartacus' ingenuity illustrated to Rome that Spartacus and his rebel slave army were a far more intelligent and formidable foe and threat to the Roman Empire than originally thought.

76.105.9.181 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Added a link to Battle of Mount Vesuvius in "See also". Dawnseeker2000 14:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2015

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Vesuvius#The_Two_Plinys :

The two Pliny's

Pliny's uncle Pliny the Elder was in command of the Roman fleet at Misenum, and had meanwhile decided to investigate the phenomenon at close hand in a light vessel. As the ship was preparing to leave the area, a messenger came from his friend Rectina (wife of Bassus) living on the coast near the foot of the volcano explaining that her party could only get away by sea and asking for rescue. Pliny ordered the immediate launching of the fleet galleys to the evacuation of the coast. He continued in his light ship to the rescue of Rectina's party.

Rectina, the woman the letter for help was from, was the wife of Tascius, not Bassus. This as cited in the letter from Plinius Minor: " accipit codicillos Rectinae Tasci imminenti periculo exterritae.... I would like to see Bassus changed to Tascius

regards, An observant visitor.

145.109.4.97 (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- verified against primary source —hike395 (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent dates

This article begins by referring to the 'famous AD79 eruption' (with links) and then changes to an AD85 eruption (with no links). Both refer to the two Plinys and are clearly the same event. Where did AD85 come from?

As far as I can tell, the only despute with the date of that eruption is to the month, not the year, of occurrence. Gehyra Australis (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed them back - no idea why anyone would think that AD 85 was the correct date. Mikenorton (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2015

please Greymat (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The reference [2] for 'An estimated 16,000 people died due to hydrothermal pyroclastic flows.' no longer exists.

Brandonscript (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I've added an archive URL. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

I'd like to request a small copyedit to "Mount Vesuvius was regarded by the Romans as being devoted to the hero and demigod Hercules". It's always a bit iffy on what to call the child of a mortal and a god in Roman mythology. This commonly would just be "hero" *or* "demi-god", but not both. Making things more complex, Heracles ascends to godhood, so while in the next sentence he would still be a demi-god, at the point where Mt. Vesuvius is dedicated to him, he is an honest-to-god god, and demi-god becomes flat-out wrong. Side-stepping the issue by removing both, and just linking Hercules in this sentence -- and removing the link in the next sentence -- is probably the easiest, and almost certainly a net positive. The text I propose is "The Romans regarded Mount Vesuvius to be devoted to Hercules", also changing passive voice to active, and unlink the name in the next section.

Side-note: this is a lot of red tape for a simple change. 92.64.31.85 (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Danski454 (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

numbers dead

I feel there must be some estimates of the numbers a. Dead in the volcanically effected area. b. in just Pompei. The Guardian has an estimate here of 2000 for Pompei: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/31/new-discoveries-at-pompeii-come-amid-renaissance-at-site but gives no source. ELSWHERE in wikipedia 2000 was listed for vesuvius, but it maybe all circular pointing back to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.7.24 (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Image of crater

Does anyone have a problem with the removal of the recently added image of the crater? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Vesuvius_crater.jpg

1. It does not really illustrate either the general structure of the caldera, nor does it show anything specific that would be of interest. 2. I’m not sure if it’s a faithful reproduction of the original photo or if the original has aged poorly (the date stamp shows that the photo was taken in 1994), but the image has a strong magenta bias. This makes it, for lack of a better term, aesthetically displeasing. No offence meant, I just found it particularly visually jarring to scroll down and see two nearby images with such radically different colour balances. SmallMossie (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. I have removed the image because the colour is misleading. The image colour seems faulty or added by image processing. The crater almost certainly does not have this purplish colour in natural light. Other, more reliable, images are available on Wikimedia Commons. GeoWriter (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request

Need to modify the listing of 20th century Vesuvius eruptions. The March-June 1933 eruption is not given. See Zies (1934) - Volcanic activity in 1933. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, p. 246. (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/TR015i001p00246) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1A10:7724:949B:E608:8BFD:5CB3 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. A characteristic of the eruptive history of Vesuvius is the long duration of many of its eruptions. The Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program database lists Vesuvius' most recent eruption as 1913 to 1944 - see https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=211020 . This seems to imply that a 1933 eruption would actually have been an eruptive episode during the 31-year-long eruption. GeoWriter (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of a mischaracterization. It wasn't erupting for 3 decades. Regardless of preference, the article text should be modified/rephrased to reflect actual early 20th century activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:E846:FD00:5084:1093:E383:25D5 (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Check out the Appendix of this paper, starting on page 22. Indeed, Vesuvius was continuously active between 1913 and 1944, with a lava lake in the crater and periodic outflows from the crater. There was a final large eruption in 1944 that seems to have caused Vesuvius to lapse into repose. —hike395 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)