Jump to content

Talk:Hekla

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


How big is Hekla?

[edit]

It´s said that Hekla is 1491 meters in the article itself but in the right side of the page it is says that Hekla is 1488 meters. Which is right? 18:52, 27 november 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.210.42 (talk)

It's gradually melting, so both were probably correct at the time written. MrGulli (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hekla is a stratovolcano

[edit]

Hekla is a stratovolcano, not a tuya (as this page was changed to read). See this page |Global Volcanism Program: Hekla Summary for confirmation, which is a reliable volcanological source published by the Smithsonian.

The cone of Hekla is built up of overlapping lava flows and pyroclastic deposits, which pretty much fits the exact definition of stratovolcano. It did not erupt subglacially, as a tuya must. There do not appear to be any reliable reference sources which state that it is a tuya. Thanks. Seattle Skier 08:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Stamp IS 1948 25a-400px.jpg

[edit]

Image:Stamp IS 1948 25a-400px.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


— Save_Us † 09:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze Age eruption

[edit]

I have a source stating unequivocally that Hekla's eruption in 1159 BC had a catastrophic effect on Bronze Age Britain - (see Timeline of prehistoric Scotland) - causing 18 years of bad weather. This is: Moffat, Alistair (2005) Before Scotland: The Story of Scotland Before History. London. Thames & Hudson. I presume this is the same eruption that the Smithsonian reference has as "950 BC(?)". From the reference section Moffat is probably quoting Steven Mithen's (2003) After the Ice, but I don't want to use an historian to correct a geological site without access to a primary source. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 15:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a major rewrte of this article on a subpage of mine (that I could really do with getting round to finishing). The agreement between sources on Hekla's ancient eruptions doesn't seem great, I currently have 3 dates for this eruption in the same paragraph, 2 of which are pretty much the same. Anyway if you have a look at User:JMiall/Hekla you can see there's a reference givng 1120±50 BC. I'd be tempted to go with this one just because it gives an uncertainty. JMiall₰ 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'll leave you to update the article - just so long as I am not out badly of line on the Timeline of prehistoric Scotland. Thanks. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's some discussion of the uncertainty surrounding the date of this eruption in "Excavating words: a geological tool; human histories unravel geological mysteries" by Stefi Weisburd, Science News, 9 Feb 1985. This article quotes two Californian researchers (Pang and Chou) as settling on a eruption date of 1100 B.C., with an uncertainty of +80 years and -60 years, after considering ice-core, radiocarbon and historical dates. This is quite similar to the 1120±50 BC range, and the source cited in User:JMiall/Hekla does seem to refer to Pang's work. (I can't seem to download the full document, so I'm not entirely sure.) -- Avenue (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you guys are actually thinking about changing a 950 BC eruption date that has been established in the scientific literature based on 1) a 1985 news story where some guys are speculating about simply "moving" a radiocarbon date to match their own historical theories and 2) on unreferenced lecture notes put up by some unknown unaffiliated guy who runs a catastrophe website? Neither one is a reliable source in any possible universe. Stuff like this is why Wikipedia has no credibility. GVP Webmaster (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm happy to put in whatever there is a good citation for. At present the article cites GVP which gives a date of '950 BC ?' with no other information about how well established this is. I have not looked into this in detail other than sticking both dates in my draft article for now but if you have easy access to good, preferably peer reviewed journal or book, references for 950 could add them to the article or post them here? JMiall₰ 02:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The GVP website does give a long list of sources, but it's not obvious to me from their titles which would be a source for the 950 BC date. My comment above aimed to add to what we knew about the source of the 12th century BC eruption dates. I agree the two sources we have so far for this don't seem very strong. -- Avenue (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

I've copied a major expansion of this article from userspace so for full edit history see that page as well. As I've been working on this for a while I hope that I've managed to incorporate the edits to the article in the meantime, apologies if I have missed a few. JMiall₰ 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Commas removed for consistency
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 km, use 4 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4 km.[?]
fixed several
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 4 km.
1st instance of each unit spelled out. Too many to spell out each one.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
I think this referred to 'mins'. Now fixed
I think all of these are either quotes or are refering to centuries
changed to H1
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
Not fixed yet
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
'is considered' in lead has ref later
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), ization (A) (British: isation), travelled (B) (American: traveled).
words mentioned above set to British spellings
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
'some' fixed, 'a few' - some vagueness necessary here as these are basically quotes, 'several' - fixed, 'many' - I think most of these are OK, 'any','all' - look OK
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
I think I have fixed all these
Not yet... JMiall₰ 21:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Units

[edit]

The peer review for this article has said 'Units need to be consistently in both metric and English units for all measurements / numbers given. {{convert}} may be useful here'

I'm unsure that this will make the article better, particularly the readability of the eruption sections which are currently quite dense with numbers and units. The 1st exception in MOS:CONVERSIONS may apply as this is a scientific article to some extent and I would have thought that converting the 1st instance of each unit should be sufficient. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? JMiall₰ 22:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eruption of 1991

[edit]

I translated most of the (very good!) article over into German and thereby remarked some little mistakes.

- "The eruption, which was preceded by sulpherous smells and earthquakes, started as a Plinian eruption, producing an ash cloud reaching an altitude of 11.5 km within 10 minutes which had travelled over 200 km to the coast within 3 hours."

Which coast is meant here? The nearest coast to Hekla would be the south coast of Iceland which is not more than about 30-40 km away from the volcano.

- "By the second day the activity stopped in all but one fissure where the main crater formed. During these 2 days 800 m3s-1 of lava were produced, slowing to 800 m3s-1 for most of the eruption."

One of these chiffres can't be the exact one. Reykholt1 (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ash cloud travelled NNE to the coast. I've also fixed the incorrect flow rate. -- Avenue (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eruption of 2010

[edit]

Here is a link for today's (April 19) eruption. Nå viser også vulkanen Hekla tegn til utbrudd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pl77 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, breaking news: "Second Iceland volcano erupts, described as 'Gateway to Hell'". Digital Journal. Retrieved 2010-04-19. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently a false alarm. A Hekla webcam had been adjusted to point at Eyjafjallajökull but someone forgot to relabel the web page. [1] --Insider201283 (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Activity

[edit]

Doesn't Grimsvotn erupt more often than Hekla?71.171.137.64 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so easy to answer, as nobody lives near Grímsvötn ("Hekla". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved 2008-12-18., "Grímsvötn". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved 2008-12-18.). There are more eruptions in the last 200 years, but Grímsvötn has some uncertain eruptions. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HRC

[edit]

This terrorist group should be added. I guess in popular culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eruption of 1782?

[edit]

A cleric of the Ro(od)klooster monastery in a Brussels Joannes Franciscus Van der Auwera noted that in the summer of 1782 the sun looked awfully red and hazes obstructed the sunrays. He saw rockets shooting through the sun. First he thought these were miraculous signs, but later he read that the Hecla had erupted. As proof that it had a natural, volcanic cause he wrote he could smell sulphur and that the hazes weren't damp.

In het jaer 1782 waer der eenige teeken te zien in de zonne van eenen aenstanden onderganck. Van den 18 julii tot de 3 augustus was de zonne vervaerlyck [...] want savons van 6 uren zoo lang als hy zinbaer was, kwam er eenen droegen nevel, die de stralen belettende en toonde daerdoor een schrickelyck vuerachtig en bloedvervig gesicht. Onder tussen zag men vuerpylen door de zonne schieten [...] Ik hebbe dan in de historien den natuerlycken oorspronck gelesen, de welcke schreven : wy hebben in het yland Eysland in de Nord Zee ontrent 15 à 16 dagen beginnende het midden van julii tot augus. een tempest gehad in den berg Hecla van vuer en solfer, stof en asschen [...] Van dezen berg kwam zoodanig stof, dat den gheelen aertsbol door vloeg zoo dick dat de straelen van de zonne wirden door wederhouden. [...][etc]

Source: A. Maes (ed.), 'Simpele Waerheyd - Kroniek van Roklooster (1777-1809) van J.F. Van der Auwera, Pittem, 1972, pp. 13-14.

(I have no experience editing wikipedia, but sincerely I hope this might be helpfull, if more sources can confirm a 1782 eruption. Unfortunately Van der Auwera doesn't specify his source. Regards, Reinout 25/6/14) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.128.253 (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this would fit well with the eruption of Laki in 1783-1784 which covered much of Europe with a cloud of gasses. Did the cleric write anything about this eruption the year after or is it likely that he got the year wrong? JMiall₰ 11:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You must be right, apparently this conventual wrote the chronicle in 1790-1791. The editor, Maes, notes that according to the Encyclopedia Italiana (!) XVIII the Hekla erupted in 1933. Probably this note is wrong too, as you state that the Laki erupted in 1783. Well, at least we have an eyewitness testimony from Brussels now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.128.253 (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main picture is NOT Hekla

[edit]

The current main picture ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hekla_II_(15642636575).jpg ) is NOT Hekla, it is of a mountain called Þríhyrningur (Translates as Triple-horn). (It's an honest mistace, the photographer pointed the camera in the correct direction but Þríhyrningur is in the way)

See this Google maps link, where Þríhyrningur is in the foreground and Hekla is in the background: https://goo.gl/maps/U4Zc2

193.4.113.34 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)gummih[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out, I've taken care of it by replacing the photo. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thank you 194.254.24.227 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Hekla. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hekla. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pop culture

[edit]

apart from that this section is extremely big in comparison to the rest and full of unimportant trivia, in the "organisation" part there are several inter-wiki-links that are not helpful and not according to wp rules. please review and repair! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.43.76 (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044040279770&view=1up&seq=12&q1=orfa
Mount Hekla plays a role in the Ballet Orfa (1852). I'm a noob Wiki editor so somebody else please put this citation in and mention it in the culture section. 199.111.225.232 (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested improvement

[edit]

Could the geology section be improved for the lay reader perhaps by a better explanation of modern geological understanding ?. This is a complex volcano in an almost unique tectonic intersection on land that has thrown up recent surprises to some such as its dangerous pyroclastic current potential, and of course economic risk outside Iceland.

I noted that correctly the volcano is described as transitional alkaline basalt, but this fails to convey the range of actual eruptives and their implications early in the article in a volcano that usually exhibits not only very short warning of significant eruptions but no warning of the type of eruption which ranges from effusive to explosive and no comment of factors such as potential gas content of eruptives which can be related in other volcanoes to time between eruptions. The article first mentions the historic rhyolite eruptives outside the geology section and does not comment on the modern compositional analysis of its historic eruptions or 2000 eruption that must exist in the academic literature.

i have only addressed these issues superficially with opensource academic references in the general attempt I made to improve article

Possibly the historic eruption section could be improved by a table or timeline but ideally these improvements should be made by someone who understands the volcano and literature better than me as I have never been to Iceland and suspect that some such data might be hidden behind pay walls or in languages I do not know.ChaseKiwi (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChaseKiwi (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hekla&oldid=1250627076"