This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Volcanoes Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Low‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Climate change Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Shouldn't this be at Mysterious 1808 Mega-eruption? 68.156.95.34 (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it was long thought that it took place in 1809 or 1810 and is known in the literature as "1809 Unknown" When they find what blew then the title will be changed.Ericl (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then someone should put a note in the article explaining this. 68.156.95.34 (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that this article might have several factual inaccuracies, and may present theories or speculation as facts. My concerns are:

• 1. The title of the article says "1809", but the article and one of the sources describe the eruption as being in 1808.

• 2. The article states that the eruption was VEI 7, both in the title and the body of the article. The Science Daily source didn't seem to state that it was VEI 7. One of the sources described the eruption as half the size of the 1815 Tambora eruption, which I think would make this eruption a large VEI 6 eruption and not a VEI 7 eruption. Does any source actually state that this eruption was VEI 7? Is there a scientific consensus that this was a VEI 7 eruption? If not, we shouldn't be stating so definitively that it was VEI 7.

• 3. The lead says that the effects of the eruption overlapped with "the year without a summer." I'm not sure if this statement is actually true. An 1808-1809 eruption might have led to cool temperatures in the early 1810s, and along with the 1815 eruption contributed to the 1810s being an overall cold decade, but I don't think it is correct to say that the effect of the 1808-1809 eruption continued through 1815. Placing that suggestion in the lead section makes it sound like the 1808-1809 eruption was a major contributor to "the year without a summer", but I think instead that there is a scientific consensus that the 1815 Tambora eruption was the primary cause of the year without a summer, without earlier eruptions having a significant contribution.

• 4. The research by Dr. Caroline Williams seems very recent. Has this been accepted by the scientific community as a whole? One study doesn't equal a scientific consensus, and I don't think we should be presenting things as facts unless they have been widely accepted within the scientific community. If there is wide acceptance of this research, I would expect there to be additional sources published that back it up.

• 5. The "possible causes" section seems to only list things that couldn't possibly be related to the mystery eruption. The other volcanoes listed seem to either be known volcanoes that couldn't possibly have had an eruption of the appropriate size, or to be in the wrong place, or both. The mention of Thompson Island seems completely irrelevant, as an island first reported in 1825 could not possibly have gone missing due to an eruption in 1808-1809. Furthermore, the article and sources state that the mystery eruption must have been in a tropical location, so an Antarctic location isn't possible.

I think the whole article probably should be rewritten to make sure it only contains verified facts, and so that it accurately describes anything that is uncertain in uncertain terms. Also, the possible causes section should probably just be removed entirely. Calathan (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The 1809 comes from the Ice Cores, which point to an 1810 eruption, the historical reserches imply that it was probably 1808, but could have been early 1809.Ericl (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The Tambora eruption was HUGE, even for a VEI 7, and half of that would still be a seven. The magnitude scale goes on a power of ten. They don't usually use fractions or decimals for some reason. Ericl (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Check out any biography of Napoleon I and go to the part about his 1812 Invasion of Russia, there you will see that it was one hell of a horrid winter. While the 1809 event might have been somewhat dissipated by 1815, it certainly didn't help matters.Ericl (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The ice Core evidence is definitive, and the literary evidence has been published. There is no evidence to show that either the literary witnesses were lying through their teeth or that the reports are modern forgeries. What we have is the ice core evidence and the reports of witnesses that imply an eruption.
• IT's a MYSTERY eruption. We know it happened, but where and precisely when is anybody's guess.19:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Nobody's stopping you.19:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a note for anyone reading this: I moved the above replies out form within my comments since I felt it made my comments unreadable to anyone else who came along. Originally each bulleted reply was in response to one of my bulleted statements. Calathan (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to one of your points, the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora article says it ejected 160 km³ of material. Half of that would be 80 km³, which is a large VEI 6 eruption. The Tambora eruption may have been the largest eruption in recorded history, but it wasn't anywhere near the top end of the VEI 7 range. As far as I know, all of the VEI 7 eruptions in recorded history have been at the low end of the VEI 7 range. Calathan (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• 1. name changed to reflect period
• 2. scale of eruption changed to VEI 6 in line with sources
• 3. corrected to contributed to rather than the implied caused
• 4. additional sources added - the evidence at this stage seems to consist primarily of the Columbian and Peruvian sources from 1808/1809, the ice core samples, and tree rings.
• 5. potential location of any unidentified eruption narrowed to being possibly within the Rabaul/Tonga portion of the Pacific due to its isolation at that particular period of time, it being located on/near the equator, and its potential for volcanic eruptions in the VEI 6+ range.

I have left the tags on the article pending review NealeFamily (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the concerns mentioned above have been adequately addressed. The article is now neutrally written and well cited with reliable references. I think it would be appropriate to remove the remaining 2 issue tags. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had moved the page earlier, and I am not particularly fussy on where this page sits, however "mystery eruption" doesn't sound right. This is a volcano, not an Agatha Christie novel. The article makes no mention of this eruption mysterious. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first source given in the article is titled "Mysterious volcanic eruption of 1808 described", so calling it a "mystery" seems reasonable to me. However, I'm not particular about that part of the title either. It was the "1809" and "VEI 7" parts of the title that I thought were incorrect and particularly wanted to change. Please feel free to replace "mystery eruption" with something else if you can think of a better title (I'm having trouble thinking of a better one). Calathan (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I struggled with that myself (specifically the year), I will try and come up with something. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but something seems off about the "mystery eruption" in the title. What comes to mind when people think of "mystery eruption"s? Perhaps it would help to rethink the title... Dustin (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The eruption is believed to have occurred based on evidence, but its location is unknown. Wording that captures that might be better - Unlocated maybe NealeFamily (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rabaul is in completely the wrong place in the current map. It should be just east of the final A in "Indonesia". Can someone fix it? KarlM (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map is easily changed (it's generated from a list of labels, with coordinates). I've just removed "Rabaul" from the map, as it doesn't relate directly to the map's caption. But I also added Lima, Peru, as the article notes that a cloud was observed there, as well as in Bogota, Colombia. Ross Finlayson (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says: "An area in the tropics to the west of Colombia and Peru with candidate volcanoes and with little reporting at that time is the south-western Pacific Ocean between Indonesia and Tonga. This area had no European settlements other than a few missionaries in Tahiti in 1808." However, Tahiti is not between Indonesia and Tonga; it is east of Tonga.

I propose rewriting the second sentence as simply: "This area had no European settlements at the time." Any comments/objections? Ross Finlayson (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this change now. (Additional reference(s) might also be useful here...) Ross Finlayson (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]