Talk:Cotopaxi

Untitled
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)

Image Position
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.

Base width
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)

Cotopaxi and Llullaillaco
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)
 * This was just now raised at WP:HD, and the raiser observed that multiple reliable sources disagree with the way the article was presented. As someone who's thoroughly uninvolved here, let me remind you that articles must not favor one position in a dispute over another: core project policy demands that we mention disputes when they exist, rather than making it appear as if all sources agree.  Let me also remind everyone that this policy is non-negotiable, by its own wording; continuing to obscure the dispute will result in sanctions.  Nyttend (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Multiple reliable sources" might say that the value of pi is 3.14, but it isn't. Objective reality doesn't care about allegations that sources are reliable.  Objective reality says that Llullaillaco erupted less than 150 years ago, and that an andesitic stratovolcano that erupted that recently qualifies as "active" in the terminology of volcanology.  (Note that this is not true of all types of volcanic activity.  Scoria cones that last erupted that long ago are not currently active in general.  But the big guys like Cotopaxi, Llullaillaco, Ojos del Salado, etc., are stratovolcanoes, not scoria cones.)  The myth that Cotopaxi is the world's highest active volcano has propagated for at least fifty years, partly due to nationalistic reasons, but mainly because the known information on things like Llullaillaco (not the only volcano higher than Cotopaxi with recent eruptions, btw) hadn't been collated yet, and because modern observational techniques hadn't been developed that let remote things like the possible 1990s activity at Ojos del Salado get detected.  It's still a myth. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I was about to suggest compromise language to the effect that no eruption of a higher volcano has occurred more recently than Cotopaxi's 1942 eruption, but even that is demonstrably untrue. Sabancaya is definitely higher, and has definitely erupted as recently as 2000 and possibly 2013.  There can be absolutely no doubt of that.  The myth of Cotopaxi as world's highest active volcano is precisely that, a myth, and Wikipedia does our readers no service by propagating it. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that a professional encyclopedia such as the Encyclopædia Britannica is considered a reliable source, and given the fact that it disagrees with you, it is clear that there is not unanimity in the reliable sources. I also note that your edit removes what the source says and adds something that's not in the source: the Britannica article says nothing about "was", saying only "is".  If you continue to remove this perspective, and/or if you continue to abuse the sources by making them say what they don't say, you will be blocked from editing.  Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good night. Britannica's text is as old as the hills.  That is the whole problem; more recent studies, which I have cited in abundance, make it clear that the Britannica information is outdated.  Why is that so difficult for you to understand?  I did not say, nor do I imply, that Britannica has stopped calling Cotopaxi the highest volcano.  More modern -- and more accurate -- sources, however,  have.  Meanwhile, the "reliable" on-line Britannica does not even MENTION Sabancaya (do a search for it), which by any imaginable criteria is one of the several Andean volcanoes that are not only higher than Cotopaxi but also more recently active.  Furthermore, its rudimentary mention of Llullaillaco calls it an "extinct" volcano, which is utter nonsense for a stratovolcano that erupted in 1877.  You can call on-line Britannica a reliable source, but that doesn't make it one.  Professional sources like the Smithsonian's Global Volcanism Program are a different story, and they are utterly clear on this subject.
 * Here's a proposal. Find me one source -- one -- that explains why 19,347 (the elevation, in feet, of Cotopaxi) is greater than 19,606 (the elevation, in feet, of Sabancaya); OR one that explains why 1942 (the year of Cotopaxi's most recent eruption) is more recent than 2003 (when Sabancaya definitely erupted; there is strong evidence at the GVP for several more recent eruptions as well).  If you can do EITHER of these things -- I'll be generous and not require both, nor will I beat the Llullaillaco or Ojos del Salado dead horses any more -- then I will cheerfully allow these edits to stand, even though they are complete garbage.  And don't feed me back that Britannica "reference"; it's part of the problem.  19347>19606; 1942 more recent than 2003.  Explain one of those things.  Otherwise you are knowingly putting information in this article that is demonstrably incorrect.  On your head be it; I will refrain from edits until you explain those inequalities. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2014 (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:
 * "The Andes of northern Chile to latitude 27° S are wide and arid, with heights generally between 16,500 and 19,500 feet (5,000 and 6,000 metres). Most of the higher summits are extinct volcanoes, such as the Llullaillaco, 22,109 feet; Licancábur, 19,409 feet; and Ojos del Salado, 22,614 feet." -"Chile". Britannica.com

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. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  23:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The whole active/dormant/distinct classification of volcanoes is not used by volcanologists: it isn't well-defined. That's probably why you are having disagreements. Given the imprecise nature of the distinction, I would just drop the controversial sentence. —hike395 (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well said, RacerX. I would also add that NPOV is fine when your subject is defined by people's opinion -- the meaning of the red light in a Steinbeck novel, why Rhett Butler didn't give a damn in GWTW, and so on.  Stating that 19347 feet is lower than 19606 feet, let alone 22109 feet, is not a NPOV violation; it is bloody well a FACT.
 * The problem, as I have pointed out repeatedly, is that there is NO definition of "active" that includes Cotopaxi yet doesn't include something both higher AND more recently active, or in the case of Llullaillaco and possibly Ojos del Salado, active nearly as recently but LOTS higher. The term "active" is still used in the profession, with acknowledgment that it gets fuzzy on the margins, as does "extinct" (applied confidently to scoria cones and other monogenetic features, although much more cautiously to stratovolcanoes like these guys).  The real problem is that there is a faction here that insists on perpetuating the outdated view of Andean volcanism that dates back to the mid-20th century and is still reflected in non-specialist (and, rather obviously, not recently updated) writing like Britannica, when more modern and more accurate information has superseded it elsewhere.  They don't get that a source that says things like "Cotopaxi is the highest active volcano" is by definition NOT reliable.  Things like this are one of the reasons why Wikipedia is viewed as a laughingstock by volcanologists in my acquaintance (including my family and a number of close friends, and to a considerable extent, myself, although I'm a nuclear scientist first and a volc about third or fourth).  But let them play.  I will say that some of the things that have been said about me here border on libelous, and I require apologies from some people, although I do not expect them to be forthcoming; if they won't get something as simple as 19347<19606 right, they're not going to get that right either. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, Britannica has FINALLY fixed their own bogus information. The referenced article no longer calls Cotopaxi the world's highest volcano, merely "among the highest," which is true enough.  Text changed to reflect this, and we can finally lay this one to long-overdue rest. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Fuji of the west?
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)

Translation of name
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
last major eruption was 1904. The cited source actually has a typo in it.
 * Not a typo, but a reference to a later, minor eruption in 1940 that did occur, and may have been repeated in 1942. "Minor" eruptions of Cotopaxi, as with many Andean volcanoes, are generally rather poorly documented, and the Smithsonian's Global Volcanism Program, which does a heroic job of trying to collate all those reports into a single data base, is put in a position of making judgment calls about their reliability.  They frankly concede they're not sure what to make of the 1942 report (although other sources I've read consider that eruption fairly definite), although they accept the 1940 one as certain.  Note that the GVP has a longer report of the 1903-4 eruption.  -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

First photograph ever taken.
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)