Talk:World's tallest geyser erupts

Original reporting

Source notes:

• Alan Glennon, NCGIA, UCSB (can be reached through Department of Geography phone)
• Yellowstone National Park Office of Public Affairs can be reached by phone. See www.nps.gov/yell

Date Changes

Please see wiki style guide for times and dates. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Style_guide#Date_and_Time Alan Glennon 20:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

comment 1

Why is this being reported at all?

If we reported every time a geyser erupted we'd have already used up every possible creative title for 'Old Faithful erupts. Again.'

This is not very interesting news (geysers erupt all the time) and there are no sources cited that may be checked. So, as if in contradiction, the story reports such a common event that there is no merity in posting it, and the story has no checkable proof that the event occured. Paradox or not, this shouldn't be an article here.

Re: comment 1

While I agree that it is not critical news, it is news. As far as the significance--it's an event that has not happened in 19 months, and it is the "biggest" of something.

For instance, see a bbc report on an earlier eruption of the geyser: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/736229.stm

In terms of verifying the event, you could simply call Yellowstone National Park's Visitor Center.

So?

It's a natural event that occurs every so often, there's no reason it couldn't or shouldn't have erupted. There's no significance to it.

Re: So?

Even if a natural occurence is somewhat expected--for example, a large storm, earthquake, or landslide where no injuries occurred--when it happens, it is often worth reporting.

I would agree, however, that the story is not of "life and death" importance. It's something I would expect located deep within the environment section of a newspaper.

Editors of major news outlets may agree with you --- wikinews is the first and, so far, only news outlet carrying the story.

Re: So ?

Well, looks like the Associated Press just came out with it: http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/05/24/build/wyoming/29-steamboatgeyser.inc

Sources

The sources listed on the main page indicate Alan Glennon may be involved in reporting this article as an original reporter. In order to do so, Wikinews requires contact information for original reporters; usually a user page suffices if the user has registered with an e-mail address (this is kept confidential from all other users including admins.)

Original reporting also involves the reporter listing their sources of information outside themselves, such as links to websites, books or references, etc. Phone calls, e-mails, and other source materials would be listed in the notes section, which might be a section on the discussion page or a separate sub-article (in this case, World's tallest geyser erupts/Notes.) - Amgine/^talk 23:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Sources

Source contact info added to: World's tallest geyser erupts/Notes

Discharge

Associated Press and an NPS press release are reporting 11,500 gallons of water discharged. Should be an order of magnitude higher. Thus, the wikinews report has not provided a discharge for this eruption---it simply makes a comparison based on past activity. I've asked for a clarification from the NPS.

To elaborate... I did a few calculations on the NPS/AP discharge amount. If it's true (11,500 gallons over about 20 minutes) and the Park Service webpage is also true (4.5 minute Old Faithful eruption emits ~8400 gallons)... then the Steamboat eruption could be characterized as emiting 1/3 the amount of water per minute as Old Faithful--a strange eruption for the world's tallest geyser. If it's not true, good for us! Alan Glennon 02:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, the AP reports that geyser is within the North Geyser Basin area--which doesn't exist. The eruption took place at the Norris Geyser Basin. They should have done a wikipedia search ;)

The Scoop

Despite the various statements about significance, it is interesting to note that this story came online to wikinews almost a full day before the Associated Press report. The story was listed under "Latest news" and on the wiki RSS feed about five hours sooner than other outlets.

Mainly, I wanted to see how this wikinews thing operated. It's been interesting. Alan Glennon 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Pretty messy, isn't it? <grin> This has been an interesting article, and I'm very glad it's here. Your introduction has been rather more agressive than most; no toes in the water before being chucked into it head first. Looks like you float! Thanks again - Amgine/^talk 01:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Misc.

Geysers are a part of the syptoms displayed by unstable earth; there's been a certain amount of discussion about the long-dormant volcano in/near Yellowstone erupting, and with dire consequences.

The fact that 'the biggest' geyser erupts 'the biggest' and/or more frequently, is a harbinger of how unstable to ground under Yellowstone is. The Discovery Channel had a show on, just weeks ago called "SuperVolcano" on this topic.

Normally I don't jump on the bandwagon with Kassandra tales...no genuine catastrophe has ever come with a warning...but the number of earthquakes are high, and getting higher. Higher in frequency, and higher in force. But at this point most people are more involved with who's marrying J-low and how their stock prices are going.

There's documentation on this; I'm not going into it because it's relgious, and that's probably discounted here. But I think this is the part known as "The Sixth Seal" or "The Upheaval of the Earth". Other interested individuals are welcome to mail me, directly.

--Brian@Fahrlander.net

RE: Misc.

Steamboat Geyser, nearby earthquake frequency and magnitude, and other ongoing thermal behavior at Yellowstone National Park appear to be following normal activity. ~Alan G.

Geyser?

A link directly to wikipedia's Geyser article might be nice...I found myself wanting one.

Rational Comment

It is unfortunate that there are some users of WIKINEWS whose creative contributions by means of comments extends only to meaningless carping. My interest in reading about these details derives from recent articles in New Scientist about the stability of the whole Yellowstone area. Whilst the regularity of Old Faithful is widely known, to those like me who are interested in unusual natural phenonmena, the details and significance of the Geyser mentioned in the article were not. The question arises of why someone not interested in something would bother to follow it up just to be able to start a debate about what others might or might not be interested in. The commentator's point about verifiability is completely wrong. Scientists will be recording and correlating all such data and extrapolating it to produce trends and predictions in an area of such hugely important geological interest as Yellowstone. Congratulations, WICKINEWS editors. Keep reporting the news and please ignore those who wish to apply their own criteria of interest to all of us. To the commentator, please move on if you are uninterested and don't waste your time and ours on exercising your penmanship in an attempt to detract from an interesting article.