This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cotopaxi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Whoever keeps re-editing this to call Cotopaxi "the world's highest active volcano" needs to get their facts straight. It is definitely NOT the world's highest active volcano. Llullaillaco volcano is historically active and is several thousand feet higher. See the Global Volcanism Program reference cited in the Cotopaxi article (follow links to the Llullaillaco page) for details, which are corroborated by other sources. Whether Ojos del Salado (which is higher yet) is "active" is a matter of definition and conjecture; no historic eruptions have been observed, but it is in a remote area, and the youth of some of the ejecta argues in favor of recent eruptions. But there is no doubt about Llullaillaco.
Bill-on-the-Hill 14:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree with that. In Ecuador they always tell tourists that Cotopaxi is the highest active volcano, but that's a damned lie. Even tourist guides believe it themselves. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:26, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that the center-aligned image was overlapping the table in my browser (Safari 2.0.3 / Mac OS X 10.4.6), like so:
...So, I went ahead and changed it. It could probably still use a bit of refinement, though.
I found which source had the claim about the base width (NASA) and made it into an inline citation. Since the base of a mountain is an inherently slippery concept, it's important to cite this specifically. -- Spireguy 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of the external links are probably redundant and/or too commercial, and should be deleted per WP:EL. I may come back and prune later. -- Spireguy 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please leave the Llullaillaco reference in place. Historically there has been a problem with misguided edits trying to claim that Cotopaxi is the highest volcano in the world. Citing proof that there's a higher one has succeeded in fending those off. Don't mess with success. -- Bill-on-the-Hill ( talk) 03:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Throwing my two cents into the ring. If you really want to present both sides to achieve a NPOV, then a quality article should also state the rationale for one argument over another.
Here's the problem. Try to write and explain the reasons why Britannica considers Cotopaxi as highest active and not Llullaillaco and you soon run into difficulties. Britanica does not think Llullaillaco is lower, does it? NO. Britannica says Cotopaxi is 19,347 ft and also says Llullaillaco is 22,109 feet.
So Britannica must consider Llullaillaco inactive then right? Well prepare yourselves for a shock. Not only does Britannica consider Llullaillaco to be inactive, but in fact states that it is extinct! That's Nonsense!
Here is the quote in context:
It is my understanding that for a volcano to be considered extinct it must have no activity for many thousands of years and be expected to never erupt again. Furthermore, read
this well sourced section from the volcano page. Llullaillaco clearly lies within each and every definition of "active volcano" from every source in that section and clearly lies outside every definition of "inactive volcano". If there does exist a definition of active volcano that excludes Llullaillaco, it would almost certainly exclude Cotopaxi as well.
Sorry I wrote the second half of my post out of a vague memory of when looked into this a while ago and I said some things that are not true. However, it does seem that based on this section, Llullaillaco should certainly be considered "active".
Not all RSs are equal. In my opinion, Britannica has discredited itself with the "extinct" statement and should not be used as an RS on this particular subject when there are better sources available like GVP.
A respected organization that has dedicated its work to the specific topic in a detailed and scientific method should outweigh one that just generally touches on a variety of subjects. -- RacerX11 Talk to me Stalk me 23:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it me, or does this thing look almost exactly the same as Fuji-san? If I were going to film a movie I wanted set in "Old Japan", I'd probably film it in Ecuador instead, knowing Cotopaxi is there to provide a convincing Fuji backdrop. Probably be a lot cheaper! -- 70.131.56.200 ( talk) 03:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that translation for "Mass Of Fire" confirmed anywhere? I raised this in the Mars Volta Octahedron trivia section last week and i dont think anyone could prove it's right... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.211.16 ( talk) 22:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
last major eruption was 1904. The cited source actually has a typo in it.
I was just reading a newspaper and found that Andre Roosevelt, an American explorer and photographer and Guy Henry Bullock, 1938 British Minister to Ecuador, took the very first photograph of the volcano's crater. Here is a 'clipping' of the article but I'm not sure if you need to have a subscription or not to view it. It is the 16 June 1938 edition of The San Bernardino County Sun, though it is an AP article. It even states that Andre is "a distant relative" of President Roosevelt. MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 20:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cotopaxi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Whoever keeps re-editing this to call Cotopaxi "the world's highest active volcano" needs to get their facts straight. It is definitely NOT the world's highest active volcano. Llullaillaco volcano is historically active and is several thousand feet higher. See the Global Volcanism Program reference cited in the Cotopaxi article (follow links to the Llullaillaco page) for details, which are corroborated by other sources. Whether Ojos del Salado (which is higher yet) is "active" is a matter of definition and conjecture; no historic eruptions have been observed, but it is in a remote area, and the youth of some of the ejecta argues in favor of recent eruptions. But there is no doubt about Llullaillaco.
Bill-on-the-Hill 14:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree with that. In Ecuador they always tell tourists that Cotopaxi is the highest active volcano, but that's a damned lie. Even tourist guides believe it themselves. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:26, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that the center-aligned image was overlapping the table in my browser (Safari 2.0.3 / Mac OS X 10.4.6), like so:
...So, I went ahead and changed it. It could probably still use a bit of refinement, though.
I found which source had the claim about the base width (NASA) and made it into an inline citation. Since the base of a mountain is an inherently slippery concept, it's important to cite this specifically. -- Spireguy 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of the external links are probably redundant and/or too commercial, and should be deleted per WP:EL. I may come back and prune later. -- Spireguy 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please leave the Llullaillaco reference in place. Historically there has been a problem with misguided edits trying to claim that Cotopaxi is the highest volcano in the world. Citing proof that there's a higher one has succeeded in fending those off. Don't mess with success. -- Bill-on-the-Hill ( talk) 03:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Throwing my two cents into the ring. If you really want to present both sides to achieve a NPOV, then a quality article should also state the rationale for one argument over another.
Here's the problem. Try to write and explain the reasons why Britannica considers Cotopaxi as highest active and not Llullaillaco and you soon run into difficulties. Britanica does not think Llullaillaco is lower, does it? NO. Britannica says Cotopaxi is 19,347 ft and also says Llullaillaco is 22,109 feet.
So Britannica must consider Llullaillaco inactive then right? Well prepare yourselves for a shock. Not only does Britannica consider Llullaillaco to be inactive, but in fact states that it is extinct! That's Nonsense!
Here is the quote in context:
It is my understanding that for a volcano to be considered extinct it must have no activity for many thousands of years and be expected to never erupt again. Furthermore, read
this well sourced section from the volcano page. Llullaillaco clearly lies within each and every definition of "active volcano" from every source in that section and clearly lies outside every definition of "inactive volcano". If there does exist a definition of active volcano that excludes Llullaillaco, it would almost certainly exclude Cotopaxi as well.
Sorry I wrote the second half of my post out of a vague memory of when looked into this a while ago and I said some things that are not true. However, it does seem that based on this section, Llullaillaco should certainly be considered "active".
Not all RSs are equal. In my opinion, Britannica has discredited itself with the "extinct" statement and should not be used as an RS on this particular subject when there are better sources available like GVP.
A respected organization that has dedicated its work to the specific topic in a detailed and scientific method should outweigh one that just generally touches on a variety of subjects. -- RacerX11 Talk to me Stalk me 23:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it me, or does this thing look almost exactly the same as Fuji-san? If I were going to film a movie I wanted set in "Old Japan", I'd probably film it in Ecuador instead, knowing Cotopaxi is there to provide a convincing Fuji backdrop. Probably be a lot cheaper! -- 70.131.56.200 ( talk) 03:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that translation for "Mass Of Fire" confirmed anywhere? I raised this in the Mars Volta Octahedron trivia section last week and i dont think anyone could prove it's right... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.211.16 ( talk) 22:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
last major eruption was 1904. The cited source actually has a typo in it.
I was just reading a newspaper and found that Andre Roosevelt, an American explorer and photographer and Guy Henry Bullock, 1938 British Minister to Ecuador, took the very first photograph of the volcano's crater. Here is a 'clipping' of the article but I'm not sure if you need to have a subscription or not to view it. It is the 16 June 1938 edition of The San Bernardino County Sun, though it is an AP article. It even states that Andre is "a distant relative" of President Roosevelt. MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 20:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)