Talk:Outburst flood

message: Deluge (prehistoric) →  — Deluge is a non-scientific term with biblical connotations. And prehistorical is irrelevant here. Megaflood is the common geomorphological term (see new citations: O'Connor & Beebe; Burr et al.) Gaianauta (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Someone might want to add a link and some text, referring to the Storegga Slide. --89.53.95.144 (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storegga Slide 

message: I am currently very unhappy with the state of this page, and am particularly dismayed by the style of language used in many sections. This is meant to be an encyclopedia article, yet it is written like an incredulous article from a tabloid newspaper. Over the next few days I shall be adjusting some of the language to make it more suitable for Wikipedia. If anyone wishes to preserve the article in its current form, please leave a note here explaining why this absurd and unprofessional style should be maintained.
- Polocrunch
I agree. I have no real knowledge of this subject, and looked it up to become better informed.  Sentences beginning "Evidence is mounting that..." that do not quote sources are suspect, to say the least.  Please could someone who knows what they are talking about take a broom to this article! BrainyBabe 22:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too. However, I want to enphasize that this article can be mostly saved by simply removing the first subsection "Great flood" (it's inconnex and unreferenced. Also the title of the article is misleading, because 'deluge' has biblical connotations, whereas 'megaflood' is the term applied in the academia for all the events listed below. Also the word prehistoric is pointless in the title (being pre or post historical is irrelevant to the process). Changing those two points, the rest of it will certainly be of interest to many geoscientists and interested people, and collaboration in this article will burst certainly. I added two scientific references in the first paragraph to support the relevance of this article. Gaianauta (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

text: No, that eskeptilism is genuine among the scientific community, and it should just be better referenced. I'll try to do that. The flood of the balck sea is a recent idea that will need some time to be checked independently. Gaianauta (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: unhappy

message: Should anything be added about Leonard Woolley's 3.5 m thick layer of mud he discovered at Ur? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wooley's mud stratum? 

message: I thought that this article was about dry or partially occupied basins filling suddenly due to some catastrophic event.  The examples in North America, and some others, describe events of lakes emptying catastrophically.  I imagine that there is another article in Wikipedia that could more appropriately host these items.--King Hildebrand 18:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, emptying or filling: it depends where you're standing. The catastrophic emptying of a lake may not permanently fill a basin (Lake Missoula); neither did the Johnstown Flood. Breaking down encyclopedic articles into the smallest possible fragments arranged alphabetically as in the Index, is a sign of dictionary thinking. The treatment here should remain encyclopedic. --Wetman 20:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emptying or filling? 

message: I don’t think this deluge was the model for Plato’s Atlantis.  It happened about 6.300 years before the invention of writing.  I have hard to believe that an oral tradition could continue for that long without distorting the original story beyond recognition.  The most likely model for Atlantis is the Minoan civilisation.  Between 1630 and 1600 BC the volcanic island of Santorini exploded creating a tsunami in the Mediterranean.  When the tsunami hit Crete it laid cities in ruins and contaminated the soil with salt.  This catastrophe led forward to the fall of the Minoan civilisation.  Plato’s description of the destruction of Atlantis is similar to the collapse of the Minoan civilisation as perceived by contemporaries.  The descriptions of springs and rocks fond on Atlantis mach those that can be found a volcanic island such as Santorini.  Also, Atlantis shared some cultural features with the Minoans.  The explanation is that Plato had access to the library of Solon.  It contained Greek translations of old Egyptian manuscripts describing the Minoan civilisation and its fall.  In fact, Plato refers to Solon travelling to Egypt and there being told about Atlantis!  Solon did travel to Egypt but Plato embellished the things he come to know.  Anyone who have any objections?
2007-07-24  Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
:Objections to what? Are you proposing any edits to the article? TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Caspian Sea flooding the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea 

message: Reading that last section, it is very different from the rest of the page.
The first article seems original, the second is debatable to me, but the rest of the section has almost no links (except two to Holocene, one of which looks as if it should actually be expanded to Holocene Impact Working Group). In addition, it begins to read like a newspaper article:
So far, astronomers are skeptical but are willing to look at the evidence, said David Morrison, a leading authority on asteroids and comets at the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif.
Direct quotations are also used and citations are missing. History shows that it was all added at once (except the first paragraph) by 199.64.72.252. Talk page shows that the IP address is a shared one and has been cited a few times for vandalism or near-vandalism.
For that reason, I am going to revert said changes; if you have any objections, you may put the stuff back on and leave a comment as to why you think the content should be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMacWin95 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio in Tollmann's hypothetical bolide ? 

message: I have removed these references which were in the middle of the main article text, and were not directly ascribed to any part of the text. If someone recognises them and can reference them properly into the text, please do so:
M. Arnthein, "Sediments and history of the postglacial transgression in the Persian Gulf and the northwest Gulf of Oman, Marine Geology 12:245-66
J.T. Teller, J. Lennie et al., "Calcareous dunes in the United Arab Emirates and Noah's Flood: the postglacial reflooding of the Persian Gulf"Quaternary International '68-71:297-308..
--Dumbo12 (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References removed from article 

message: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v400/n6745/full/400613a0.html
71.173.15.71 (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible reference for the article 

message: Some more maps would be good, with before and after as well. 70.51.9.124 (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rqimg 

message: All very interesting, and could make a nice essay, but in the end someone has to interpret what types the floods are, and that, at least, is OR. Some have no types, others seem to change types. I suggest we get rid of the types and, at least, order them chronologically. I say at least because I don't quite get what the idea of the article is. 'Deluge'? What exactly is that? And 'prehistoric'? The article goes back five million years, but there must have been a lot of huge floods during that time, so what really are the criteria for inclusion? Doug Weller (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd assume that any large flood pre-dating recorded history, and for which contemporary geological evidence exists, is an appropriate inclusion. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, and I presume as far back as we can go using RS? I'm happy with that. Well, almost. Why the article title 'Deluge'?  Ah, looking at the first version, it was a split-off from Deluge (mythology). The word 'deluge' in my mind is hard to separate from the use of it in mythology. To me, a 'deluge' has a meaning over and above being a large flood, but maybe that's just me. Doug Weller (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, "deluge" is the commonly accepted scientific term for "flood". --Gene_poole (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: No, it is not the commonly accepted term for a flood. I have read numerous scientific papers about floods of all types  and virtually the only time that they used the term "deluge" is in reference to discussing legends and mythology about catastrophic flooding. In a geological sense, the term "deluge" is most often used by Old and Young Earth Creationists, who often call the Biblical manner that they interpret Earth history "Deluge Geology", and fringe catastrophists. In contrast, geologists and Earth scientists talk about "flood geology" or "flood geomorphlogy" when they write about even catastrophic flood events. Essentially, "Deluge" is a word that is rarely used scientific writing. This word is commonly used in popular writing, i.e. magazine and newspaper articles when discussing various scientific discoveries to make article more intertaining for their readers. In addition, scientists call glacial outburst floods "Jökulhlaups" and for the really big floods, the scientific term typically used is "megaflood".
For a practical demonstration of the frequency at which either "deluge" or "flood" is used in scientific writing, go to the Geomorphology home page and used the "Quick Search" at the top to search for each word in "title, abstract, text" of papers. A search for "flood" produced 331 papers and the search for "deluge" produced only 1 paper. In that one paper, the term "deluge" does not refer to a flood. Instead "deluge" refers to a massive rainstorm of 30.5 inches in 16 hours. This example clearly shows that "deluge" is clearly not the "commonly accepted scientific term for "flood" as stated above. In fact, it is very rarely used by geologists and other scientists. On the other hand, it is very commonly used by Old and Young Earth creationists, fringe catastrophists, and other pseudoscientists.Paul H. (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks Paul. Any suggestions for a better name for this article? Gene? Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: As paul says, deluge is rarely used in scientific papers. Gaianauta (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Most of my knowledge of the subject is mythology-related. I have no preference for one over the other. The article title should reflect the most common scientific usage. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I would suggest as a title "Prehistoric Floods and Megafloods". Also, the material on Megatsumanis might be moved to the Megatsunami article in Wikipedia? It seems it belongs better there.Paul H. (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both ideas seem good. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Please, keep it just Megafloods, that's the scientific term. See references i added to first paragraph. Check also new comments in last sections. Gaianauta (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree with removing the megatsunami part, it is puzzling here. I don't agree with including prehistoric flood in the title. Many magafloods are not prehistoric (such as outbursting lakes formed by landslides). Please see also new discussion on title change below. Outburst flood and Megaflood have been suggested. Gaianauta (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flood types - OR? - and general question on article 

message: This is bad writing.  Firstly, it could be read as "this is a description of type 1 floods", secondly it is oral presentation phrasing rather then written phrasing, it needs to be absorbed into the first sentence and finally the repetition makes it sound trite and it become ineffectual. Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed. I removed that clssification because of lack of referencing. I'm slowly implementing an academic one, as i find the time for it. Gaianauta (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is tyoe ''#'' 

message: The Great flood section is inconnex, unreferenced, and misleading from a geological point of view. It seems as original research to me. I never heard of that classification before, and it talks about floods that are neither referenced nor in the scope of the article. I suggest simply removing it. Gaianauta (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.  You're completely right.  You'll find that things get added to articles, and if no one is watching, it just stands.  Also, you'll have to remember that certain editors will try to establish some Creationist or biblical "science" into articles so that they can link it.  I'm not saying that's what happened here.  But "Great Flood" is often a code word for the biblical flood.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This will become a nice article! Gaianauta (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I also think after this is done we will be able to remove the original research template. Gaianauta (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: clean up

message: the red sea is also said to have dried up at one time. Just granpa (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  red sea 

message: Although a rapid rise in sea level, "Persian Gulf Flood" is not by definition an "outburst flood." The rise in sea level associated with Late Pleistocene through Holocene sea level rise did not involve "a catastrophic flood involving the sudden release of water" as an "outburst flood" is defined. Therefore, the discussion of the Persian Gulf Flood" belongs in a different article such as one that discusses postglacial sea level rise either regionally or locally. Paul H. (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Persian Gulf Flood 

message: It seems I am repeating what others have said already about various aspects of the article but, as a former student of geomorphology, I was amazed that there were no cited sources in the section on "Glacial lake outburst floods in North America (15,000 to 8,000 years ago)".Tundern (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  	Glacial lake outburst floods in North America (15,000 to 8,000 years ago) 

message: This recent source says "In the early Holoce" - no suggestion this meets the technical criteria for an outburst flood. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell, wrong source and broken quote, what in the world was I doing? I meant to write that the source, which is "The early Holocene sea level rise" here  says "In the early Holocene, most of the Gulf was dry except along rivers, but RSL was rising and was penetrating the Strait of Hormuz. By ca 7000 BP marine waters had advanced over 1000 km and had occupied most of the floor of the Gulf" Doug Weller talk 18:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We go by what the academic sources say. If they don't call it an outburst flood, IMHO we shouldn't. The operable word though seems "sudden release of water". The (correct) source I mention above suggests this was not a sudden release of water. "RSL was rising" "relative sea level (RSL) refers to the level of the sea as observed at the coastline." Rising isn't sudden. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Persian Gulf 

message: In my understand, outburst flood, glacial flood and glacial outburst It’s same things, that is why we need to create REDIRECTS.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.115.7.85 (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative names