Talk:Mount Etna

message: According to a local legend, the soul of Elizabeth I of England now resides in Etna; a deal she did with the devil in exchange for his help during her reign Preposterous. We can't respect every bit of nonsense invented by every ignorant fool under the aegis of "NPOV". Or can we? Put it back if you think this is Wikipedia-worthy. Wetman 19:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Legends

message: There are no references. slambo 17:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted GA 

message: :I've added a topographic map. -- Avenue (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map request 

message: Vandalism by unregistered users is still a problem, I ask that others as well as myself watch this page and revert vandalizing changes (I.E. making the page read that it is erupting today) Snoop0x7b 08:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I'm not sure why I am unable to edit this article.  In any case, I believe the Sicilian spelling of Mongibello should be changed to Muncibeddu, in accordance with the usual atonic o > u vowel change/maintenance and the usual ng > nc mutation, as seen in so many examples: manciari, tìnciri, fìnciri, etc.  Since I cannot change it, would someone please.  Thank you.  //Calicchiulusiculu 16:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongibeddu > Muncibeddu 

message: This article has been semi-protected for a week as per a request at WP:RFPP. A Train take the 23:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: I am in the middle of my school project about Etna, that must be delivered to my teacher at 2.4.09, and suddenly the article dissapeared... What am I supposed to do now ? Start over ? I don't know why you removed it, but if you did it to improve the article, couldn't you just replace it AFTER you had finished the "improving"? I am sorry, if I "sound" aggressive, but on this project, depends my seven day vacation in Italy with my classmates. Please, put it back SOON.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.171.237 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just some vandal. The article was reverted to the last full version about 1½ hours after being vandalised. You can access previous versions through the "history" tab at the top of the page. -- Avenue (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks a lot! I just finished my school project and it will be delivered on time. Thanks for your article. Great job...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.171.237 (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the article ?

message: I think "EtnaAvió.JPG" is a better image than "Catania-Etna-Sicilia-Italy-Castielli CC0 HQ1.JPG" in which I can barely see the mountain. --Burntnickel (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was changing it back as you typed! Yes I agree. Eve Hall (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: Mt.Etna is a mountain is Sicily
It is in Italy and it's last Eruption was in 2008.
This was bad!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.191.79 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad facts about Mt.Etna 

message: It is claimed to be the biggest (tallest?) in Europe,  but the linked page about the Seven tallest volcanos on each continent apparently claims that Mr Elburz in the Caucasus is the biggest in Europe.  So which is right ?   And do volcanos on islands near a continent count as being on that continent, anyway ?Eregli bob (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article only claims it is the largest active volcano in Europe. Elbrus is not active. -- Avenue (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biggest in Europe ?

message: A section or link about the geology of Mt Etna would help improve the article: type of lava/rock, why the volcano is so active, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrystomath (talk • contribs) 16:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology 

message: A lot of news → Google Search - "Mount Etna and the 15 minutes"
The event occurred on Monday, July 11, 2011.
Is it a Truth or just a Fake news ? a Fraud ? a Pseudoscience ? - 111.251.199.246 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Disappeared 15 Minutes" 

message: In the Unusual Characteristics section, it is mentionned that smoke rings were produced in 2011. The reference link is for a youtube video that is a repost of the 2000 smoke rings recorded by Geoff Mackley (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbV98Z0QP-k&feature=player_embedded and http://www.emergency.co.nz/archive/etna.html). I haven't been able to find a reliable source for the 2011 smoke rings.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.177.232 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoke Rings 

message: In the article, there's a claim stating that Mount Etna is around 0.5 million years old. It then provides a reference to http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Italy/description_italy_volcanics.html which does not state or support such facts. While I think the claim is actually accurate, a better source would be good.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.211.150 (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation #8 doesn't seem to support the facts provided 

message: i still dont undestand this article...? it says its the largest in europe and yet there's several that a larger...? just a bit confused :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.28.89 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 10 November 2012‎
The article says that Etna is the largest ACTIVE volcano in Europe.
There are larger volcanoes, but they aren't active. Randomguywithanaxe (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion...

message: The "recent eruptions" section tends to overtake the whole article, and seriously violates WP:NOTNEWS. Especially for the last five years, pretty much every activity is covered in detail, overshadowing more important events from the past. I intend to go through it and do some serious pruning. No such user (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent eruptions 

message: Mormegil 87.18.29.26 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand Czech 

message: Why does it mention Mungibeddu as Sardinian name for the mountain on the island of Sicily. I guess it should be Sicilian!? --195.176.191.86 (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it should! Thanks for pointing that out - there was a letter "n" missing from the language code. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sardinian -> Siclian 

message: The article currently makes the following statement:
::"A study on the damage and fatalities caused by eruptions of Etna in historical times reveals that only 77 human deaths are attributable with certainty to eruptions of Etna, most recently in 1987 when two tourists were killed by a sudden explosion near the summit."
I do not see how anyone could have done a study on damage and death 'in historical times'.  In most of the cases of the known eruptions, the details are not such as to make a determination of numbers of dead or estimate of damage possible. The language used is also filled with waffle words.  What does deaths 'attributable with certainty to eruptions of Etna' mean?  Does it exclude heart attacks? Does it exclude collapsed architecture? Who is doing the attributing?  And when? To judge from the rest of the sentence, actual bodies need to be counted. I don't see how that criterion can be applied to 'historical times'. IMHO, this is just WOO, and ought to be removed.  It has all the marks of revisionist minimalism.  --Vicedomino (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatalities and damage 

message: The article features a definition of Aetna deriving it from a Phoenician word.  The authority cited is Adrian Room, a geographical etymologist. His opinion is an outlier, however, and does not appear to have caught the attention of the world; indeed I can find it nowhere else.  The Encyclopedia Britannica's latest version of its article on Aetna (2013) still promotes the standard etymology, which is given only second place in the article only to be dismissed.  The other languages of the Wikipedia adhere as well to the traditional etymology. Standard Wikipedia recommendations for dealing with multiple opinions (WP:NPOV), specifically,  are 
::"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. 
I do not personally object to Adrian Room's hypothesis being mentioned, but it should not lead off the paragraph, lending undue weight to its eccentric idea.  It might perhaps find a place in a footnote.
--Vicedomino (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology section 

message: In the section on "Etymology", the word Aetna is etymologized in the first paragraph.  The second paragraph seeks to etymologize nicknames for Mt. Etna.  In my view, this is trivia, and might be removed.  What it says is:
::"It is also known as Mungibeddu in Sicilian and Mongibello or Montebello in Italian (The Italian word literally meaning Monte mountain and Bello meaning beautiful, but the Sicilian word is actually thought to be from the Latin mons and the Arabic ??? jabal, both meaning mountain, producing a tautological place name, "mountain mountain").[11]"  (the ref. reads:  "Note di toponomastica" (PDF) (in Italian). Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 March 2009. Retrieved 20 August 2011.)
The paragraph provides a perfectly good etymology for Montebello (or, in the Sicilian dialect, Mongibello, which is easily understood) in Italian. Then it offers an etymology which is a combination of Latin and Arabic; that etymology, as the paragraph admits, produces a tautology, 'mountain mountain', making the etymology inferior and probably wrong. If there is a choice between a good etymology and a problematical etymology, should one even bother to mention the problematical one?
Additionally, checking the reference for the problematical etymology, one finds a document without an author and without a date.  The reference was originally displayed on an Italian web site araldicacivica.it, though it has been removed.  It looks like 'original research', a survey of how place names come into being in Italy from various ethnic and linguistic influences.  It is, IMHO, the work of an amateur compilator, and is likely self-published.  I do not think it qualifies as a 'reference' according to Wikipedia standards.
I would recommend that the second sentence, "Then it offers... 'mountain mountain'", along with the ref., be deleted. I would not be unhappy to see the entire paragraph disappear, since 'beautiful mountain' is trivia and contributes nothing.
--Vicedomino (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology section (again) 

message: The article makes the following statement:
::"Contrary to widespread reports of up to 15,000 (or even 20,000) human fatalities caused by the lava,[17] contemporaneous accounts written both in Italian and English[18] mention no deaths related to the 1669 eruption (but give very precise figures of the number of buildings destroyed, the area of cultivated land lost, and the economic damage)...."
and cites as proof the on-line article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  The on-line article, however, makes no such claim, and does not mention either number.  Additionally, the phrase "human fatalities caused by the lava" creates a 'straw-man', seeing that in the case of Aetna lava is not the killer.
It happens that the number 15,000 is mentioned by the Encyclopedia Britannica, but in the 5th edition (1817) article on "Aetna", at page 246. The number is applied, however, to the earthquake of 1266 at Catania, not to the eruption of 1666.  The date of 1266 happens to be wrong, a slip of the pen for the earthquake of 1166, which happened in the reign of King William II of Sicily, as the EB's article on "Catania" makes evident.  See also, M. Barratta, I terremoti d'Italia, p. 27.
The sentence quoted needs to be revised, and a different reference supplied.
--Vicedomino (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of dead, 1669 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mount Etna. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722070430/http://boris.vulcanoetna.it/ETNA_andman2.html to http://boris.vulcanoetna.it/ETNA_andman2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Paroxysm at Etna, 16-17 November 2013.webm will be appearing as picture of the day on July 25, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-07-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Paroxysm at Etna, 16-17 November 2013.webm]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: " Ash from these eruptions has been found as far away as south of Rome's border, 800 km (497 mi) to the north."
Rome is abut 500 km from Mount Etna as the crow flies. Ash does not travel by road.
--79.42.143.11 (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong data 

message: Greetings,
figured people here might be interesting in the draft for an article on the 1669 eruption that I am writing at User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/1669 Etna eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's launched and at 1669 Etna eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on the 1669 eruption 

message: hello, I would like to point out this graphic file [] from Commons that illustrates a simplified diagram of the geology of Mount Etna. The text is in Italian, but it could be explanatory and useful for this article. Cheers --Antonov (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology of Etna