Jump to content

Talk:Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 18:38, 12 April 2024 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Date of the eruption

The section "Date of the eruption" of the present version of this article begins, "The year of the eruption is pinned to AD 79 (that is, the corresponding year of the Roman ab urbe condita calendar era)" -- which contains a significant mistake. The ancient Romans never used the ab urbe condita dating on a regular basis, in part because there was no consensus which year Rome was founded in (the "traditional" date of 753 BC was only one of many used; when Jerome wrote his Chronicle in the 4th century AD, he stated the year of Rome's founding as 755 BC!), but mostly because the accepted practice would have been to date the year by the presiding Consul Ordinarius. For AD 79, those consuls would have been Vespasian & Titus. I'd correct the text, but I don't know which primary source -- if any -- provides the consuls who presided in this year, let alone the primary sources that provide the information that provides the date. -- llywrch (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "date of the eruption" section seems to follow one source (Rolandi): I provided a non-paywall link to that paper. The paper doesn't talk about ab urbe condita at all. I'm concerned that the whole section could be giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority viewpoint. But, I'm certainly not an archaeologist or classicist, so I don't know. —hike395 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Later --- apparently, the "ab urbe condita" phrase was put in by an IP editor (in this edit) who was trying to make the section less WP:POV. It doesn't look supported by any source, so we can delete it. —hike395 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The eruption happening in the course of AD 79 has never been seriously questioned by any notable historians or archaologists in the modern age. I figure there are a number of different things about the references to the eruption itself in ancient written sources that pinned it down to that year (Pliny isn't the only one mentioning it). The distinction between AD years and AbUC years was probably just added to remind the reader that Roman writers of the day did not use the BC/AD convention (of course!). It doesn't say that Pliny actually dated it by means of ab urbe condita.
The real issue with that section, a few years back, was that one opinionated editor (Botteville aka Dave), tried to WP:OWN that bit and push the view that scientific consensus had settled on a date in the autumn, not 24 August, for the eruption. There is an ongoing discussion about this, because certain aspects of the findings don't seem to square very well with an August date, and it is reflected in the text here, but Botteville wanted to make the article appear as if it was an open-and-shut thing and 99% settled. In doing so he ran over other editors, flatly rewrote major parts of the article without discussion and drenched that section in hopelessly arcane and weaselly prose to bend things to his point of view. This stuff was corrected after a while and after quite a few bad-faith edits. Strausszek (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should we delete the section, condense it, or leave it as is? —hike395 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fairly good as it is now. The issue of the date is important, it just shouldn't become overly technical or POV-pushing. It's also an interesting example of how methods of dating ancient events really operate in practice. I left the comment also because Botteville sometimes revisits his old contributions, and he can be very tenacious. ;) Strausszek (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the date in the infobox from "24 August 79 AD or 24 October 79 AD" to "24-25 August 79 AD (probable)". First of all, it is a known fact that the eruption occurred over a two-day span. This was not noted in the infobox before. In addition, mainstream scholarly consensus has always favored August 24 as the date of the eruption, and, as I said in an edit summary, that date "should be given preeminence." I am not exactly an expert on the mountain or the eruption, but I have read some material about it and watched the Pompeii the Last Day documentary, and I can say that reading this article is the first time that I can recall the mention of a date other than August 24. I also find the section "Date of the Eruption" to be confusing and poorly sourced. Display name 99 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This new find could tip the scales in favour of late October or November, but we should await the scientific discussion which will surely follow, before we make any definite change of date: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/16/archeological-find-changes-date-of-pompeiis-destruction 83.254.130.142 (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP editor above -- there is a new finding in the Regio V excavation of Pompeii that indicates an October date, but that has only been reported in the popular press. I cannot find a scientific paper about that finding, only a web site posting. There will clearly be a scientific debate: let's not get ahead of it. —hike395 (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; I'm writing with regard to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Vesuvius and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruption_of_Mount_Vesuvius_in_79_AD

I've just finished a 9-year project on the Eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in AD 79, and the Letters of Pliny the Younger about that event. The book will be published by Routledge in March 2022. The book offers a number of corrections and clarifications to the nature, sequence, and date of the eruption, and the evidence for each.

I have posted some results on my professional blog: https://quemdixerechaos.com/2022/01/07/the-date-of-the-ad-79-vesuvius-eruption-in-the-textual-sources/

This link contains a video presented last week to the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America. It specifically explains why the Aug. 24 date is the date that Pliny the Younger recorded in the written sources. There is also a link to the book at the publisher's website; the book examines all the archaeological evidence for alternate (autumn) dates.

There has been much debate about the date recently; this book project has been an effort to clear that up.

I have not previously engaged in any requests for edits on Wikipedia, so I apologize if I don't yet understand all the protocols; I just want to provide the public with the most recent and sound arguments and evidence. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Pedar W. Foss, Professor of Classical Studies DePauw University, Greencastle, IN USA Pfoss (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (And really, no pressing need to move per WP:TITLECHANGES). No such user (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD → AD 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius – I think AD 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius is better title of this article than "Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD". Because, Other volcanic eruption articles are different style title. For example, 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, 1883 eruption of Krakatoa and so on. So I think AD 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius is better title of this article to same with style of other volcanic eruption articles.--Miamiaim (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Miamiaim (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I asked Miamiaim to open a discussion here, because I reverted their move after they moved the article without discussion when there had been an RM last year already. I don't have any opinion one way or another about what the correct title should be. --rchard2scout (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. (also there's no need to ping when replying on talk pages)—blindlynx (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the extensive move discussion from last year, three options rose to the top:
  1. Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD (present title)
  2. AD 79 Mount Vesuvius eruption
  3. Mount Vesuvius eruption
I would suggest that we decide between these alternatives. In particular, AD 79 Mount Vesuvius eruption is more WP:CONCISE than the proposed AD79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius that is proposed, and a number of editors noted that conciseness.
Article titles have five criteria. I like to make tables to decide between choices. Here's my analysis of the 3 candidates against the 5 criteria (values are more relative than absolute):
Criterion Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD AD 79 Mount Vesuvius eruption Eruption of Mount Vesuvius Notes
Recognizable High High High
Natural High Med Med current title did well in Google search
Precise High High Low Many editors wanted to disambiguate the date
Concise Low Med High Argument that this is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, current title has extra words
Consistent Low High Low Per Miamiaim, there is a article title pattern

Looking through these, AD 79 Mount Vesuvius eruption is the least flawed, so I would support a move to that title. Pinging participants from last year to get more opinions: (Steel1943—Telecineguy—Bring back Daz Sampson—Jnestorius—Cthomas3—Volcanoguy—Voello—Axem Titanium—Sirfurboy—Rjdeadly) — hike395 (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still prefer CE to AD for the same reasons as before. The event took place before Christianity was a major religion and the historians who documented it were not Christian. There is no need for us as editors to imbue it with extraneous religious markers. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "AD 79" is better than "79 AD" for consistency with AD 79. I wouldnt mind a wholesale switch to "79 CE" but not just for this one article. I still personally prefer "Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79" as I said above, but it's a fine call and I am comfortable with "AD 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius" as well. jnestorius(talk) 18:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with the first two suggestions. "Eruption of Mount Vesuvius" is too vague as it could refer to any eruption from Vesuvius. Volcanoguy 02:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to AD 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius as proposed. If we are going to get into a CE versus AD discussion, let's round up all events with AD titles and propose this en masse; same if we are going to propose "Foo eruption" titles versus "eruption of Foo" titles. BD2412 T 04:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as presently formulated. Several different arguments are being made here, and we probably need to deal with them individually. "Eruption of Mount Vesuvius" strikes me as more intuitive and more easily remembered than the year. With respect to the era, I don't regard BC/AD as particularly sectarian; they're traditionally used by classicists and historians without any religious implications, and it's a mistake to suppose that "CE/BCE" are purely secular, since a) they're still based on an old calculation of the birth of Christ, and b) many people use the 'C' to mean 'Christian' rather than 'Common'. I would call it a wash as far as one being "more secular" than the other, but one is certainly more recognizable. With respect to the placement, as Necrothesp and jnestorius point out, "AD" traditionally precedes the year, although I'd add that it's technically not incorrect for it to follow the year, either. For that matter, it used to be common for "BC" to precede the year also, although that's now old-fashioned. But because we have three different issues under consideration—and it occurs to me that "Eruption of Mount Vesuvius (AD 79)" might be just as good as "Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in (AD 79, 79 AD, 79, 79 CE, ETC 79)", maybe we should lay them all out on the table and take a straw poll on each issue. And by straw poll, I mean a show of hands, not a lengthy argument about each issue. Discussion would be more appropriate if we can narrow down the possibilities a bit more. May I suggest the following? If participating in this suggestion, please indent replies beneath this post, so we can just see where people stand on each issue (we can debate each one later).
  1. "Eruption of Mount Vesuvius...", "Mount Vesuvius eruption...", or "(year) eruption of Mount Vesuvius"?
  2. If "Eruption of Mount Vesuvius..." or "Mount Vesuvius Eruption...", natural language disambiguation ["...in (or of) AD 79/79 CE"] or parenthetical disambiguation ["...(AD 79/79CE)"]?
  3. "AD", "CE", or no era?
  4. If the era is "AD", before or after the year?
P Aculeius (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edited the first two parts in light of Avilich's post below. P Aculeius (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1: "Mount Vesuvius eruption..." would probably be the most easily distinguished formulation, since there have been many other notable volcanic eruptions, and readers are more likely to remember which volcano it was than what year it erupted, or be sure about how to formulate the year at the beginning of a search. 2: parenthetical disambiguation seems better to me for the year, since natural language seems awkward for this purpose. But if we use natural language, I think that "of" would be more encyclopedic than "in". 3: I think that the era is useful, but not essential since it's AD/CE. I dislike CE for various reasons that I won't go into, so it would be a distraction to me. AD would not, so it's my preference, followed by no era. 4: if there's a consensus for AD, it should precede the year. P Aculeius (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mount Vesuvius eruption in 79 was suggested in the previous discussion and seems a decent compromise between WP:CONCISE and WP:NDIS. It's common for dates to come last in article titles, as a qualifier of minor importance, even if articles on eruptions do not follow this rule as the nom pointed out. Era style can be omitted in whatever option is eventually chosen: "79 eruption of Mt. Vesuvius" doesn't sound particularly strange. Avilich (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To give a clear position, I oppose the essence of the original proposal. "Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in [year]" sounds natural, there's nothing wrong with it, and there's no need for consistency with every single wikipedia article on eruptions. The only change I really support is removing the era style altogether. "Mount Vesuvius eruption in 79" as I suggested above is an acceptable compromise. Avilich (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The AD/CE argument is ludicrous. Whichever you use, you are still dating from the supposed birth of Christ! Virtue signalling by using CE instead of AD makes no sense whatsoever. It's also not what we generally use on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to agree with you, but I'm concerned that the era (which was agreed upon previously, and which seems to have a majority here) is distracting from the basic question of whether the article title should be formulated as "Eruption of Mount Vesuvius", "Mount Vesuvius eruption...", or "(year) Eruption of Mount Vesuvius". Maybe my earlier post contributed to that. P Aculeius (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Calendar months aligned with seasons

"(Note that the Julian calendar was in place throughout the first century AD – that is, the months of the Roman calendar were aligned with the seasons.)"

Well, not more "aligned with seasons" than in today's Gregorian calendar. I really have no clue what was meant here, but the remark in the brackets, as is, is absurd. 83.28.217.137 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eruption_of_Mount_Vesuvius_in_79_AD&oldid=1218608034"