Talk:Mount Pinatubo

This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Mount Pinatubo is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 25, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 6, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
March 14, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
March 28, 2010	Featured article review	Demoted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 15, 2015, and June 15, 2021.
Current status: Former featured article

Tambayan Philippines Top‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines 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.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Volcanoes Top‑importance

	Volcanoes portal 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 articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Top‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Southeast Asia Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-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.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Role of Katia & Maurice Krafft in evacuations

I think these two ought to be mentioned somewhere in this article. The Wikipedia page on the Krafft's states that their footage helped convince authorities that eruption was imminent and evacuation necessary. Certainly they saved many lives and the same year sacrificed their own in that line of work. Would surely be disrespectful not to mention this somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.187.112 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

date in article on Mount Pinatubo

text says "after 500 years of dormancy", however i feel this should be "after 460 years of dormancy"

Novarupta vs. Mt. Pinatubo

The referenced Mount Pinatubo eruption was not the largest of the 20th century. Some references have it as the second largest or the third largest. Please see the discussion at Talk:Novarupta. --Burntnickel 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

In the infobox last eruption date field there is a link to the Smithsonian Global Volcanism site that is appearing as a reference (a number is brackets). This is confusing as this is not the same as the same numbered reference in the main body text and it does not appear in the list of references. I'm not sure what the prefered solution to this problem is. Should the link be removed, made and independant reference or what? --Burntnickel 12:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made into its own reference --- it's pretty easy: I did it. hike395 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that. I wan't sure how to go about it. --Burntnickel 14:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Magmatic Eruptions: Which is Correct?

In the last paragraph of the "1991 Awakening" section, it clearly states: "The first magmatic eruptions occurred on June 3". However, this is contradicted two sections later in the first paragraph of the "Eruptions Build to a Climax" section, where it states: "On June 7th, the first magmatic eruptions took place". I would correct this information myself, if I knew which one was true. Anyone have any ideas? Curlyiain 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large amounts of new material redacted

The large amount of quoted PD material isn't appropriate to be simply stuck on the end of the article. I moved it to Talk:Mount Pinatubo/new material until we can integrate it back into the article. hike395 05:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trekking history of Mount Pinatubo

I have added a valuable information on the volcano's trekking history after its eruption in 1994. This information was from the wiki page of Dale Abenojar--Afrescom (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erupting?

The article says that Mount Pinatubo is an active stratovolcano. What is it doing now? Is it just smoking? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

active doesn't mean currently erupting. I've added a link to help clarify this. Its last eruption was in 1993; the bit of the infobox that said this was broken. -- Avenue (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So does active mean that it has erupted recently and could erupt again? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are monthly summaries of its activity since 1991.[1] Since 1995, the concerns have been over lahars more than eruptions, but yes, it could well erupt sometime in the future. -- Avenue (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Innaccurate

"Although the 1991 eruption was one of the largest and most violent of the 20th century, it was weaker than any of the historical eruptions uncovered by geologists. There is some evidence that eruptions at Pinatubo are getting weaker over time, but this is by no means conclusively established." The c. 1450 eruption was even weaker, with VEI of 5! See Global Volcanism Programme. Guanlongwucaii (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)GuanlongwucaiiHi!![reply]

The appearance of lunar eclipses

According to the article, "in the year following the Pinatubo eruption, the moon was hardly visible at all during eclipses, due to much greater absorption of sunlight by dust in the atmosphere," however in a previous section it is mentioned that sunlight was attenuated by only 10 percent. Such a decrease can readily be identified by instrumentation, but is hard to notice otherwise. If the moon was indeed hardly visible, this is more likely due to aerosol scattering, not absorption. I also think this bit requires a source. Odedee (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it active or dormant?

According to the "Activity since 1991" section, "Since 1991, Pinatubo has remained active, with twenty activity events reported in 1992, three in 1993, four in 1994, two in 1995, and one each in 1996 and 2002." But, under "The area since 1991", "Since 1992, the volcano has been dormant." Maybe it's fine, I have no clue -- I only bring it up because those two statements together confused me while reading this article. 31stCenturyMatt (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Text adjusted to reflect scientific status of active. Gubernatoria (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References used in the article

Some of the information in this article came from the sources listed below. If anyone requests more citations...:

Cynthia Banzon Bautista, The Mount Pinatubo Disaster and the People of Central Luzon

J.W. Ewert, Andrew B. Lockhart, Sergio Marcial, and Gemme Ambubuyog, Ground Deformation Prior to the 1991 Eruptions of Mount Pinatubo

David H. Harlow, John A. Power, Eduardo P. Laguerta, Gemme Ambubuyog, Randall A. White, and Richard P. Hoblitt, Precursory Seismicity and Forecasting of the June 15, 1991, Eruption of Mount Pinatubo

Richard P. Hoblitt, Edward W. Wolfe, William E. Scott, Marvin R. Couchman, John S. Pallister, and Dindo Javier, The Preclimactic Eruptions of Mount Pinatubo, June 1991

Remigio A. Mercado, Jay Bertram T. Lacsamana, and Greg L. Pineda, Socioeconomic Impacts of the Mount Pinatubo Eruption

Christopher G. Newhall, Arturo S. Daag, F.G. Delfin, Jr., Richard P. Hoblitt, John McGeehin, John S. Pallister, Ma. Theresa M. Regalado, Meyer Rubin, Bella S. Tubianosa, Rodolfo A. Tamayo, Jr., and Jesse V. Umbal, http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/newhall/index.html Eruptive History of Mount Pinatubo]

Ma. Lynn O. Paladio-Melosantos, Renato U. Solidum, William E. Scott, Rowena B. Quiambao, Jesse V. Umbal, Kelvin S. Rodolfo, Bella S. Tubianosa, Perla J. Delos Reyes, Rosalito A. Alonso, and Hernulfo B. Ruelo, Tephra Falls of the 1991 Eruptions of Mount Pinatubo

William E. Scott, Richard P. Hoblitt, Ronnie C. Torres, Stephen Self, Ma. Mylene L. Martinez, and Timoteo Nillos, Jr., Pyroclastic Flows of the June 15, 1991, Climactic Eruption of Mount Pinatubo

Stephen Self, Jing-Xia Zhao, Rick E. Holasek, Ronnie C. Torres, and Alan J. King, The Atmospheric Impact of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo Eruption

Robin J.S. Spence, Antonios Pomonis, Peter J. Baxter, Andrew W. Coburn, Mark White, Manuel Dayrit, and Field Epidemiology Training Program Team, Building Damage Caused by the Mount Pinatubo Eruption of June 15, 1991

Jean Tayag, Sheila Insauriga, Anne Ringor, and Mel Belo, People's Response to Eruption Warning: The Pinatubo Experience, 1991-92

Edward W. Wolfe and Richard P. Hoblitt, Overview of the Eruptions

Seperate eruption page

Would it be better to have a page about the volcano and a seperate page about the 1991 eruption event? TimKasoar (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds reasonable, since the Armero tragedy and the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens both have their own articles. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Most of the article is about the 1991 eruption. Separating it would reduce the remnant to little more than start level. Gubernatoria (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. "Separating it would reduce the remnant to little more than start level." this is one of the reasons why the page is undergoing a FA Review. --Guanlong wucaii 16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article has grown since this discussion? I think the 1991 eruption should be moved to its own page, or at least let's revisit the issue Ninjalectual (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article?

This article is so good! Why is it no longer a featured article? Has anyone vandalised this page?--Small Boss (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It met featured article standards in 2005, but standards have increased. The main reason it failed its FA review was the lack of references. --Avenue (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on global temperature

"This led to a decrease in northern hemisphere average temperatures of 0.5–0.6 °C (0.9–1.1 °F), and a global fall of about 0.4 °C (0.7 °F)."

I think it needs to be made clearer what measure of global temperature is being used here. A fall of this magnitude is not visible in either the CRU or GISS global temperature datasets:

CRU temperatures: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/glnhsh.png - figure from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

GISS temperatures: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Pagw (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cabusilan Mountains

These group of mountains which is part of the Zambales Mountain Range is verified by my references as just Cabusilan Mountains not Tri-Cabusilan Mountains. I am following the rules of verifiability per WP:Verifiability and WP:Verifiability, not truth. I could present ten more references to support just Cabusilan. Here, try using Google Books search for Cabusilan. Try searching for 'Tri-Cabusilan' and it will only give you books sourced from Wikipedia! Please stop spreading misinformation by using Wikipedia. Please read why verifiability is important. If Cabusilan is again changed to Tri-Cabusilan, then that would be considered as vandalism and reverted right away. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

infrastructures

In the intro it says "destroying thousands of infrastructures".

Infrastructure is a collective noun so it is already plural and does not need to have an 's' on the end. Philip Sutton (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CO2 emission

What was CO2 emission during explosion and eruption ?

What was total gas emission in atmosphere SO2 NO H2O CO2 etc ?

Please add this data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.92.193.141 (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good video at - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNpdwd53qgM Merlin-UK (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aetas

Regarding Aeta people some things seem to be wrong:

The Aeata live all over Luzon, not only around the Pinatubo, while other closely related tribes like the Ati live on other islands.
Aetas like other indigenous people in the Philippines have been driven from the lowlands to the mountainsides by the malayo-polynesian immigrants, thousands of years before the arrival of the spaniards.
The Aetas around Pinatubo have been living there since thousands of years as well, at least according to the already linked article. Which is interesting, as it means that Aetas have been living there during previous eruptions already.
Spanish conquestadores in the Philippines had near to no contact to the indigenous people they christened "Negritos". They fought or dealt with Malayo-Polynesian Datus who were in power of coasts and lowlands.

The majority of the today Filipinos, unlike Mexicans or Argentinians, are not of spanish descent, they are Malayo-Polynesians. This seems to be an underlying misunderstanding in this article. -- Käptn Weltall (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 February 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that the title as it is currently is correct. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 20:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pinatubo → Pinatubo – Same with Talk:Mayon#Requested move 23 December 2016. WP:Concise and WP:Commonname: The modifier/title is not needed since there is only one WP:Primary topic for the word "Pinatubo" and it is this article. The volcano is known by its proper name without the word "Mountain" or "Volcano". Based MOS:PHIL Places, the modifier is optional for well-known places. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. IMO, the class name, in this case "Mount", is a natural part of the name and is normally included as part of the name of the mountain per WP:NCGN. This is unlike Mayon where sources are torn between calling it Mount Mayon or Mayon Volcano. For Pinatubo, it's always Mount Pinatubo, never Pinatubo Volcano.--RioHondo (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:RioHondo. According to the Philippines Geographic Names Database, "Mount" is indeed part of its name. Volcanoguy 00:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a person following closely media and scientific reports at the time of the eruption in the Philippines and elsewhere, it's always been Mount Pinatubo. Innapoy (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Pinatubo. 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) 13:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mount Pinatubo. 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) 18:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Pinatubo. 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) 15:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Pinatubo. 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) 22:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

better img

Better than the gif image used in the eruption section. B137 (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request split

The following discussion 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.

Because there are many suggestions about article Mount Taal and these eruptions to merged. This time I want to request to split that eruption section into separate article namely 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.168.126 (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This event is a notable one and it deserves its own article. — Emperork (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support This eruption was happened almost 29 years ago but didn't have separate article until now. Because it was one of the deadliest eruption in the Philippine history and the second largest in 20th century, it has more notable to have own article than just a section of mount Pinatubo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the eruption is notable enough for an article of its own. The section is also way too long for it to be included in the article. ITSQUIETUPTOWN.public • talk 05:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agreed on its notability. Granted, not every single volcanic eruption should have its own article. However, this one is worthy of note, and should be easier for readers to locate if searched for. The 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helens has its own article, as does the 1883 Krakatoa event, and the 1815 Tambora event, and the 1886 Tarawera event, and the 1888 Mount Bandai event, and those were before Wikipedia existed. I have read that one of the reasons that this eruption does not have its own article, is because it was before Wikipedia's time. That doesnt seem to stand up well, logically speaking, due its obvious notability as a major volcanic event of the 20th century. The Pinatubo Eruption of 1991 wasnt in the 1800s, and was easily one of the largest events of the 20th century next to the Novarupta event of 1912, honestly another eruption I'd argue that should have it's own page, possibly, but that is for another discussion. Some volcanic events are notable enough to have their own articles, in my opinion. Maybe I am missing something? SageSolomon (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. It doesn't make sense not to have an article on the 1991 eruption, which is independently notable on many levels. In fact, I think someone should wp:be bold and just perform the split already.- Alternativity (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have performed the split, though there should be content in the newly created 1991 eruption section. Volcanoguy 19:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone confusion

At the end of the lede, what does "ozone depletion temporarily saw a substantial increase" mean? That ozone depletion increased ? Or that the level of ozone increased? The cited source doesn't even mention ozone. Bermicourt (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Science

What the history of mt Pinatubo 136.158.117.80 (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]