Talk:1257 Samalas eruption

First sentence

@Dudley Miles and Moaia:I see there has been a bit of editing back-and-forth on the first sentence. I am not convinced that the new version is un-stilted compared to the old one. Worth noting that there was some discussion at FAC about the first sentence, which might be worth considering. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I changed it from "The Samalas volcano erupted in 1257", because "the Samalas volcano erupted" really isn't idiomatic English, and "Samalas volcano erupted" obviously isn't the title of the article. If the title of the article doesn't appear naturally in the first sentence, then nothing there should be in bold face. Moaia (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"Very large volcanic eruptions can cause significant human hardship, including famine, away from the volcano due to their effect on climate. The social effects are often reduced by the resilience of humans."

Starting a discussion about whether this sentence should remain in the article. I don't think these are "banal" statements, especially since not everybody knows what the impacts of volcanism are on society. Also, removing these sentences leaves the preceding one as a one line paragraph, which is bad writing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the latter point, and I think another interesting and useful sentence could be added from the source (which is very valuable - relevant, well-researched and free). I agree also that not everybody knows the impacts of volcanism on society, and there are a lot of common misconceptions among those who have some idea of it, but it's not the place of an article about a particular volcanic eruption to discuss the societal impacts of volcanic eruptions in general. As I say in the edit page, that's the place of articles about volcanism, anthropology, or climatic historiography. Compare the articles concerning the better-known Tambora and Krakatoa eruptions, which refer to changes in the climate - not to mention societal impacts from climate change, another level of specificity - only in the specific context of the eruptions concerned. We already have an article about volcanic winter (and, our source suggests, the volcanic winter of 1257-1258 was actually not as devastating as might have been expected); let's get a strong link to that article instead, and leave this page to discussion of the 1257 eruption itself. Kielbasa1 (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

True, but two-three sentences about the more general context as an introduction to the - far more numerous - sentences that discuss Samalas specifically would be warranted IMO. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 19:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I would delete the whole paragraph. It does not tell the reader anything which they would not already have known. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose it is being discussed here. Do you have a view? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 update

So I have completed my 2020 update on the article and there are some sources I need a second opinion about:

• Organizzazioni emotive recensione di Organizzazioni emotive (intelligenti e creative): tra welfare aziendale, responsabilità, partecipazione e resilienza, di Luciano Pilotti, Milano, McGraw-Hill education, 2019 is an Italian language source that could be used to add a subsection for Italy (currently only England has one). It does not detail its own sources that much, however.
• Observed and Projected Hydroclimate Changes in the Andes does mention Samalas as the forcing agent for hydroclimate changes in South America. But Frontiers Media is a somewhat questionable source from what I know.
• A robust equatorial Pacific westerly response to tropical volcanism in multiple models discussed a weather pattern that develops in the tropics in response to volcanic eruptions - and cites Samalas as an eruption that could trigger such a process. I am mostly wondering if one subsection or several bullet points in the "inferred effects" list are the best representation.
• O registro isotópico de deuterium e as variações paleoambientais nos últimos 2500 anos do nordeste do Brasil is a Portuguese language source that discusses the impact of the Samalas eruption on Brazil. On the one hand, most of the discourse on the 1257 catastrophe is either Eurocentric or global. On the other hand, this is just an offhand mention of deuterium isotope ratios.
• Volcanism and global plague pandemics: Towards an interdisciplinary synthesis does correlate the evolution of plague bacteria and pandemics to volcanic eruptions like that of Samalas, but I am not certain how to formulate it in the article.
• Global and Polar Region Temperature Change Induced by Single Mega Volcanic Eruption Based on Community Earth System Model Simulation is about a computer simulation of the global climate impact. I believe however that the status quo on this article was to not discuss individual climate models unless they offer some unique insight.
• These two are Indonesian-language sources that discuss the volcano. I can't read Indonesian and I am a little wary of using Google Translate to get the content from there.
• SPATIAL ANALYSIS AND GEOMORPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CORAL REEFS ON THE EASTERN PART OF LOMBOK, INDONESIA discusses the mining of the Samalas eruption deposits and its impact on Lombok's coral reefs.

Also, I should probably have considered this earlier, but I am not sure if this source should be used as it is in the article:

• Reconciling the climate and ozone response to the 1257 CE Mount Samalas eruption discusses various modelling efforts on the impact of halogen emissions from the eruption. Currently it is cited in the article to justify a statement about how ozone depletion resulting from the eruption caused increased UV radiation to reach Earth's surface, and causing epidemics through immunosuppression. This probably needs a more dedicated source "ozone holes cause epidemics though immunosuppression" but I am not well-versed in medical sources.

MEDRS

Courtesy notice to SandyGeorgia as they have experience in both FA maintenance and proper sourcing of medical claims. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm really swamped, Jo-Jo ... could you excerpt for me here the specific medical claim that concerns you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:The medical claim in question is The resulting increase in ultraviolet radiation on the surface of Earth may have led to widespread immunosuppression in human populations, explaining the onset of epidemics in the years following the eruption. (Source) The "volcanoes lead to increased UV radiation" claim isn't a problem but this one is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Jo-Jo, it looks like it could be sourced: see PMID 29136080 as one example, albeit not a broad one. I will ping WT:MED for something better from someone more knowledgeable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, since no one else has responded, I've taken a closer look at the source myself. Considering it is journal-published, and there are (independent secondary) reviews discussing the medical concept generally, I feel it is safe to include mention, but from the wording in the source you use, I think you might make it more clear that this is a hypothesis. I realize that is covered by the word may, but it won't hurt to go the extra distance on this one.

• One hypothesis is that the resulting increase in ultraviolet radiation on the surface of Earth may have led to widespread immunosuppression in human populations, explaining the onset of epidemics in the years following the eruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:I wouldn't consider it necessary for a non-medical claim, but going the extra mile for the medical claims seems reasonable ... so done. Should that source be added as well? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I think adding that source would amount to WP:SYNTH ? It's just one of the many that came up when I was attempting to make sure this was a valid medical concept. I guess if anyone challenges the statement per MEDRS, you could add some sort of explanatory footnote, but I really think we'd be getting synth-y to do that, and I think making it clear that it's a hypothesis should cover it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

2021 update

Mostly done, save for the following:

• This one on possible impacts on Easter Island.
• This one on a possible but questionable volcanic link to hurricane activity changes.
• La città e il vulcano. Il comune di Como e le conseguenze dell'eruzione del Samalas (1257-1260) for the reaction of one Italian city.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

A list of sources for 2021 that deal with the Italian article. I want to know how they are received by 2022's literature before employing them, I don't know these sources too well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

2023 update

Mostly done, save for the following:

• Some preprints awaiting publication: [1] and [2][3][4]
• "Ekaykin, A. A., and A. N. Veres. "Temperature shifts in Central Antarctica after major volcanic eruptions in the second millennium of the Common Era." АРКТИКИ И АНТАРКТИКИ 69.3 (2023): 375" unknown source and do we need a discussion on temperature of Antarctica?
• Impact on New Zealand but the attribution to Samalas is considered "tentative"
• Source on cultural impact, but I don't know the publisher or the author's affiliations.
• A source discussing decreased snowfall over Antarctica

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This book seems like a reliable source, but I have neither access nor can I read Bahasa Indonesia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Second-order

Re-examining some older sources I had parked here:

• (Decision) Opted to empty the "refideas" section since I now have time and patience to make a line-by-line evaluation.
• (Decision) This viewpoint that Arctic ice expansion started before Samalas does not seem to have gained widespread acceptance, so I won't cite it.
• (Question) The current list of large eruptions in "Intensity" is somewhat arbitrarily spliced together. Does anyone have a summary source or anything that discusses the largest Holocene explosive eruptions?
• (Question) I am not sure that the list of individual tree ring sites in "Aerosol and paleoclimate data" is necessary. If yes, we need to expand it.
• (Question) This source linking the Black Death and more precisely the evolution of the straint to the Samalas eruption. It seems like it has drawn some academic support; SandyGeorgia?
• (Question) Is there any objection to including the Italy source?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this a book or a series or something else?

I've used individual publications from this source, but I dunno if this is a book or a journal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

VEI classifications seem inconsistent

This page references the Santorini eruption and the Tierra Blanca Joven eruption as other examples of VEI 7, but they seem to be VEI 6 based on recent literature and their own articles. I'm not a volcano expert, so I will leave it to someone who is, but I think this is grounds for removing those examples from this page. LinkUCSB (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the other articles are confusing tephra volume and dense rock equivalent volume - the VEI grade is about tephra volume, not DRE, and can't be inferred from the DRE without a conversion factor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)