Talk:Mount Mazama

Future events

Anyone have an approximate timeframe for the events described in the Next Phase? section (and that ? needs to be removed, so I may edit that to something else)? Given the thickness of the walls of the crater and the slowness (in human terms) of geological processes, I'd assume this is several million years in the future, as are any potential future eruptions. I just want to clarify for the geologically-challenged that their hotel reservations for next summer aren't in danger.

I was surprised to learn there is still volcanic activity. I would have assumed that the massiveness of the explosion had completely emptied Mazama's magma chamber, and that by now any magma plumes or subduction zones or whatever had moved sufficiently to make Mazama an extinct volcano, but I'm not a vulcanologist--I just took a geology class in college. I guess 7,000 years isn't long, though (in geological terms). cluth 11:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dubious

llao rock is a dacite flow down a glacial valley, not a pyroclastic flow. Source: http://www.nps.gov/archive/crla/notes/vol10-3b.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.248.3.2 (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the statement that the breach of the rim will cause massive flooding. Unless the rate of erosion, once the rim is breached, is comparable to the rate of water release, the water level will simply be constrained by the low point in the rim. Verisimilus T 13:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

While the water would initially flow only at the level of the low point in the rim, water flowing over this point would rapidly cut the notch deeper increasing the flow rate and the rate of erosion. This is a positive feedback cycle that could rapidly empty the caldera one started. It would take a considerable reduction of the rim to even begin this process, so any flooding would likely be far in the future. The was a similar concern at Pinatubo. --Burntnickel (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but there is no reference to state such nor geologic equivelant. Only ice dams erode fast enough for these types of 'massive floods. I believe that without a firmly established reference (IE: USGS), this statement needs to go. And I'm removing it. It's been six months without a reference. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that without a source it should go; thanks for removing it. Your statement about ice dams isn't true, though; unconsolidated tephra can also wash away very quickly. For example, a massive flood (c. 80 km³) escaped from Lake Taupo after deposits from the Oruanui eruption were breached. (See the Manville and Wilson paper cited there for details.) For a U.S. example, see McGimsey, R. G., Waythomas, C. F., and Neal, C. A., 1994, High stand and catastrophic draining of intracaldera Surprise Lake, Aniakchak volcano, Alaska: in Till, A. B. and Moore, T. E., (eds.), Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1993, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin B 2107, p. 59-71. -- Avenue (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Status

What is the status of this volcano - extinct, dormant or active? In the "future activity" section, it says "Assuming no large eruptions destroy it first" which would suggest it's either dormant or active, but it isn't stated which explictly.

Shouldn't there be an entry for the status in the infobox? Seems like a pretty basic (and important) bit of information. 86.147.160.133 (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The terms active, dormant, extinct don't seem to be favorite terms of vulcanologists. However, a listing by Iwatsubo 75% to the bottom, in Volcano and Hydrologic Monitoring suggests it is potentially active. Other parts of this same summary indicate the last eruption was 700 to 800 years ago. —EncMstr (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay but what's the safety conditions of residents around the Volcano, I do understand that Vulcanologists don't like the term but shouldn't they be an estimated time of possible eruptions? Wiki talker (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Mount Mazama "Recreation section" - yes/no?

Not anything big, but while reviewing the Mount Mazama article, it seemed a little odd that the majority of the article deals with scientific & historical information on the volcano; Physical geography, Ecology, Native History, Eruptive history, Geology. Then the small very last section is "Recreation". For such a well written "hard science" article, "recreation" really does not seem to fit. Much of the same recreation information can be found at both the Crater Lake National Park and the Crater Lake articles which are linked to from here. One would expect this in articles on a park or lake, the inclusion in an article made to feature the dramatic explosion of a large shield volcano almost 8,000 years ago and it's historical effects on nature, geology and the indigenous peoples? Seemed out of place. Not too relevant, but worth noting that people probably don't look up Mount Mazama to find encyclopedic information on recreation. It's be similar to reading about the Missoula Floods hoping to find information on eastern Washington fishing. 😉 Crater Lake and the park are what people would be searching.

But @Ian Rose: raises an interesting point when he stated, "Given this is featured article and community review didn't appear to have an issue with this section, suggest discussing on talk page to find consensus for your change". I had missed the featured article star. I would certainly feel that if others felt the section fits, it could remain. My feeling is that it makes for a clearer, less cluttered, concise article if it sticks to way it was originally created back in 2012, and continued for many years, without the inclusion of less relevant information already viewable in other articles.

Thanks for your time & consideration. → 72.234.220.38 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

ps. ping'n @Ceranthor: the administrator who submitted this article for its FAC consideration [1] →72.234.220.38 (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I've seen this post as well. I think for the sake of comprehensiveness that section should be kept, we are not obliged to have it on only one page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to comment @Jo-Jo Eumerus: As I mentioned, it's no big deal either way. Tho, I see lack of clutter and clarity is strived for on the better Wikipedia articles. That's why this one struck me as odd. Using the example I pulled out of the air, would one think that sections discussing the fishing and boating on lakes left behind by the millennia-ago Missoula Floods would fit in that article? As with that one, the Mount Mazama article started out as, and has mostly been over some years, a similar scientific and historic write up on events taking place millennia-ago. The "recreation" section was a somewhat recent addition. Just food for thought. →72.234.220.38 (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I think it's fine as is, since the section is already quite short compared to recreation sections for comparable volcano/mountain FAs. But I'm not entirely opposed to shortening it if that's what consensus dictates. ceranthor 13:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we revert to stable version and discuss?

So the intro has said "Indigenous populations have inhabited the area around Mazama and Crater Lake for at least 10,000 years, and..." for more than a year, and it is that text which was promoted to a Featured Article. I reverted once to the stable version, but Kevin McE has edit warred back to the new phrasing.

The stable version's phrasing is consistent with the cited sources. The first one cited in the Human history has an "Original Visitors" section that doesn't say "A human connection with this area has been traced back to before the cataclysmic eruption of Mount Mazama.". What it says is, "A Native American connection with this area has been traced back to before the cataclysmic eruption of Mount Mazama." The next source says "Fiery avalanches sometimes interrupted the lives of Native Americans near Mount Mazama -- (pre-Crater Lake volcano) -- more than 6,000 years ago." It does not say "Fiery avalanches sometimes interrupted the lives of humans near Mount Mazama -- (pre-Crater Lake volcano) -- more than 6,000 years ago." It's why the body of the article says "Native American people have lived in the area near Mazama for at least 10,000 years."

Changing the intro to say "Humans have inhabited the area around Mazama and Crater Lake for at least 10,000 years" with the edit summary "to suggest that it needs to be specified that these are of any given race is to betray an assumption that "humans" will be presumed to be of white European heritage. I think we should assume better of our readers" is a creative and novel approach that isn't found in sources or in the contents of the article. Both the sources and the article take the position that it the first inhabitants need to be explicitly called out as Native Americans or indigenous people, rather than blandly lumping them in with all humans as if the distinction is of little importance. The earlier edit summary is facetious and obtuse: "I'm guessing indigenous populations of other species have been there a lot longer". Nobody reads "indigenous populations" as implying animals and plants. If that were the only issue, then why not change it to "indigenous people"? Regardless, with a Featured Article that has been stable for since May 2018, we should keep it as it was until consensus has been established. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It is rather disingenuous to quote my edit note without admitting the content of your own.

We are talking about humans. Anyone with even the least knowledge of human history will know of what race the humans in question would have been 10,000 years ago, so why specify? We wouldn't refer to the cave paintings of Lascaux, the construction of Great Zimbabwe or the crafting of Jomon pottery as having been done by the indigenous people, although obviously the artists/builders/potters obviously were indigenous to those areas. This is a case of referring to Native Americans in a manner in which we would not refer to others. That is discriminatory, unnecessary, and unencyclopaedic. I am frankly appalled that you think it necessary to make a distinction, and that "blandly lumping" all humans together is precisely what any commitment to racial equality demands.

"Both the sources and the article take the position that it the first inhabitants need to be explicitly called out as Native Americans" You know what the sources say: you have no idea why they chose a form of words. And if you think that in the context of North America 10000 years ago, you credit the reader with very little knowledge by saying that it "needs to be explicitly called out". The article does not take a position: the article is the result of collective input from many editors, is not frozen, has had many changes since May 2018]. Kevin McE (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Disingenuous in what way? My edit summary was not snarky, facetious or obtuse in any way: "this change is inconsistent with the contents of the body, which the intro is supposed to summarize. It is written with awareness of the casual pretense of "history" beginning when non-indigenous people arrived. If you want an article that pretends blindness to white European bias, I'd suggest a rewrite of the human history section on the talk page first". What is the problem? Changing the intro but not the body leaves the article in a broken state. If you want to change the body, you should probably seek consensus in a case like this.

"This is a case of referring to Native Americans in a manner in which we would not refer to others." Yes. Yes it is. Deviating from what our sources say is original thought.

"That is discriminatory, unnecessary, and unencyclopaedic." In your humble opinion. Wikipedia does not correct reliable sources. We respect them. If you think the sources are wrong, you have to take it up with them. Perhaps this change would right a great wrong. But, "on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses."

The reason for respecting the stable version of an article is that it very likely represents the preference of many editors. Many have made changes, and yet your diff shows us that in all that time, this wording in the intro was not changed. I made a slight change to accommodate your worry that readers -- whom you say are knowledgeable about history and should be given credit for being intelligent -- will be unintelligent enough to think that "indigenous population" could refer to animals. Even though the same sentence refers to "local folklore", which is something animals and plants do not have. We should probably stick with "indigenous populations", since it's very clear from context and common sense.

So it bothers you that native peoples in North America are described differently than Zimbabwe or Japan. We have to ask why you're the only one who is bothered. Why none of the other editors who have worked on this? But more importantly, why none of the sources? If you can show there are any sources who agree with your opinions, and that in fact significant (not fringe) experts agree that the other sources are wrong to highlight indigenous people rather than just people, then I would agree that due weight requires covering both points of view or at least writing in a way that doesn't favor one over the other. I will change my mind if shown sources that support this change. But what I see in the sources is a non-controversy. All the sources are in agreement, so there's no two points of view to balance. We should take a tone and general word choice that is consistent with reliable sources, until we are shown citations that there is any significant dissent. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

We are obliged to follow the facts of sources, not the writing style. Indeed, we are obliged to apply an NPOV, formal tone in our writing style. I do not believe that redundant specification of race is justified, nor that it is proper encyclopaedic practice. Kevin McE (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Kevin McE, please don't edit war. There is clearly no consensus for your change, nor any attempt as far as I can see to get consensus. As usual, you have just acted unilaterally, in the process upsetting the people who actually produce FA content. Unless you can show consensus for your change, the stable (and rational) version should remain. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do.

My argument here is an attempt to build a consensus around a less racialised phrasing, based on an entirely sound principle essential to our MoS. What is your contribution doing? Kevin McE (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Which policy or guideline says we're "obliged to follow the facts of sources, not the writing style"? WP:WIKIVOICE and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch are saying tone and style do indeed matter, and our tone should reflect due weight. Which reliable sources agree with you that the phrasing here is "racialised" or "redundant"? I think the change would have consensus if the necessary support was cited. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't claim to be citing a policy, but clearly we are obliged to use properly derived and sourced facts (WP:VERIFY) but that we choose proper phrasing and tone for that ourselves (as you absolutely correctly refer to). So we have the fact from your source (there were people there) which is properly included in the article, and we have the vocabulary they use (indigenous people) which we can choose to use or not. And I am suggesting that it would be preferable not to use it, for reasons I have already spelled out.

Because that is how Wikipedia works: we might be standing on the shoulders of giants who do the bulk of creating and building up articles, but all should be trying to improve articles where we see something that we believe should be improved. And we all have an equal right to do that, because no-one owns any article. Kevin McE (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

What you’re doing is making up your own reality. The consistent pattern in our sources is not nothing. They could easily use generic terminology like humans or people, but instead they consistently choose indigenous people, Native Americans, First Peoples, etc. It means something. You invert that, ignore what sources tell us, citing nothing. And why? Because you say that’s how Wikipedia should work. How do we know that’s how it should work? Because you say so. I have no idea why you would expect anyone to find that convincing. You’ve made no case at all. The predictable outcome is that consensus will be against the change. I see no reason for frustration or resentment. Any time no sources and no policy are cited, the proposal will go down in flames. Obviously. Right? It’s a predictable outcome. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Of the many problems here, the biggest is that no one is helping Dennis out (apart from Jim, acting in an admin role ... much appreciated). This can have a negative effect, not just on this editor, but on article review processes in general. I'm not comfortable saying anything more than that until I've had a chance to discuss recent problems with ERRORS admins ... I need to find out their perspectives, and I intend to be respectful of those perspectives. But yes, there are serious problems with the process here that need fixing, urgently. It's not much of a contribution, I know, but I don't want Dennis to think he's out in the wilderness here, shouting where no one can hear him. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm suggesting one change of phrase. I don't see how these comments relate to that. Kevin McE (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Various people ... Native Americans, certainly, but lots of people ... sometimes feel strongly about what terms are used to describe them. The rules don't make sense, a lot of times, and they change over time, which can be very frustrating for editors. Sometimes editors get stressed over this, especially when they feel like they're being pulled or pushed in two directions at once. Dennis, I don't know if you felt like you needed any moral support here, but I'm offering it just in case. Other than that, I don't have any input here. - Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

"Various people ... Native Americans, certainly, but lots of people ... sometimes feel strongly about what terms are used to describe them." An excellent reason to use the simplest and most inclusive term possible: humans. Kevin McE (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

what does this mean "the mountain collapsed"

How does a solid mass collapse, unless it's into something like a void beneath? If a void, how could it possibly form (do magma chambers somehow drain themselves away?) 2.96.206.125 (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. The major eruption emptied the magma chamber and the overlying edifice collapsed because it was no longer supported. I have added some text to the article to clarify this. GeoWriter (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks!2.96.206.125 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Contradictory information

At first it says: "Mount Mazama originally had an elevation of 12,000 feet (3,700 m), but following its climactic eruption this was reduced to 8,157 feet (2,486 m)."

This implies the height was reduced by less than 4,000 feet or 1,300 meters.

Then it says: "This eruption, the largest known within the Cascade Volcanic Arc in a million years, destroyed Mazama's summit, reducing its approximate 12,000-foot (3,700 m) height by about 1 mile (1,600 m)."

This implies that the new height is closer to 6,800 feet rather than 8,157.

Which is it? And why repeat the same statistics twice right at the start of the article?Spongue (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)