Talk:Fitz Roy/Archive 1

Why Cerro Chalten and not the original name mount/cerro Fitz Roy?
Even though the original aboriginal name is Chalten, the recognised name for the mountain in the official cartography is Fitz Roy. No matter how much we consider this a legitimate claim, the fact is that the mountain's official name is not Chalten. To name the article in this way is misleading and incorrect.

don't want to suspect anything, but why is not the original name taken for this boundary-mountain as main name? First of all, it's the international name recognized, secondly it's the more neutral one. Chalten is an argentine city, additionally the region is currently disputed, so it gives a kind of partial note towards Argentina. by the way, when I opened this site, it was the first time that I saw this mountain is called Cerro Chalten. Kind Regards --194.203.215.254 09:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Chaltén is the original (aboriginal) name. The name of the town comes from the mountain and not the other way around (it was founded only 2 decades ago). The mountain is not within the area of dispute, and the Chileans also call it Chalten (see the Spanish article). If you really thing this article should be changed to Fitz Roy, please propose it at Requested moves. Thanx. Mariano (t/c) 09:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ok, thanks for the explanation about the name. You are right, Fitz Roy was the name given by Perito Moreno in the 19th century, and the other one is the one used by the mapuche before, my mistake/confusion. Concerning the dispute issue, I can only agree with you 50%. It's right to say that the Mountain Chalten is no subject to the dispute, but only begining the top of the mountain towards north (where there is a settled border). but from the top of the mountain towards south its still undefined, and that part still belongs to the Cerro Chalten, don't you agree? Cheers. --194.203.215.254 11:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmm, to the south the limit goes to Cerro Torre I think, also a settled matter... Mariano (t/c) 12:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * you are not sure, huh? ;-) well...I would agree to you concerning it goes direction Cerro Torre, but I guess, we both know that Cerro Chalten is the beginning of the 60 km area with undefined borders according the 98 treaty, independently of what we think would be logical. Cheers --84.58.37.62 13:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The reference for the naming of the mountain is "Viaje a la Patagonia Austral" by Francisco P Moreno, published in Buenos Aires in 1879. In this book, under the entry dated 2 March 1877, Moreno explains that the native inhabitants also called other mountains Chalten, and therefore he felt at liberty to bestow the name Fitz Roy. TomSutherland909 (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like some argument as to the name in the past. I have edited the article to reflect the name of the article as it stands as of this edit. There needs to be some consistancy, not renaming the subject every paragraph. All alternative names have been left in the intro. For the record I prefer Cerro Fitz Roy. Jaydec   (talk)  03:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This page must have been started by some English non-climber (the Capt's family perhaps?). The page should be Cerro Fitz-Roy. It's an insult to the locals.  Cerro Torre isn't Monte Torre. The Denali/McKinley controversy (native/popular/State v. National naming) doesn't hold here.  We don't say Mount Nuptse or Mount Lhotse since "tse" already translates to "peak" or summit. Go with the local geographic name. 66.122.34.11 (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Location
Where is Fitzroy itself actually located? Many Chilean publications, as well as the Spanish Wikipedia, mention it as being between both countries. Besides, the exact boudary in the area from Cerro Fitzroy to Cerro Daudet is officially undefined.


 * The above linked map has been poorly researched. Cerro Paine Grande and Cerro Murallon are approximately 2,750 m and 2,800 m respectively. Elevations of 3,248 m and 3,600 m have long been discredited.


 * The border area between Daudet and Fitzroy is uninhabited, and in such circumstances the border is generally held to be the watershed divide. This can create problems where the course of the divide has not been determined. In 1998, the year of the statement on the map, there was still uncertainty about the course, but the publication of SRTM data in 2003 settled the course. I have created a map on which I show the course. It is clear that the border passes through Cerro Murallon, and Cerro Gorra Blanca, but between these locations, its course depends on the watershed divide.


 * I have created a relief map on which I have marked the course of the border along the watershed divide, and this clearly places Fitzroy on the Argentine side. Viewfinder 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Has either the Argentinean or the Chilean government officially endorsed the border along the watershed divide or is the border still officially undefined?


 * I do not know, but probably not; most likely, they still "agree to disagree". But I do not see how any border that passes over Fitzroy summit would be compatible with other parts of the border which are defined and agreed on. I think that the 1998 Buenos Aires statement refers to "Fitzroy" in the vaguer sense, referring to the Fitzroy group rather than the actual summit. Viewfinder 11:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Fitz Roy's summit defines the Argentina/Chile border. See: 1998 Agreement between Chile and Argentina (Spanish). Jespinos 00:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(Transferred from User_Talk:Viewfinder) The Fitz Roy's summit defines the Argentina/Chile border. See: 1998 Agreement between Chile and Argentina (Spanish).If you have problems with Spanish, see the following link:. Towards the north of the Fitz Roy's summit, the border is defined. You can see it in the next map: Jespinos 01:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Jespinos. Thank you for your information. Your links provide verifiable evidence that Chile and Argentina have agreed that the border detours from the watershed, to place Fitzroy on the border, and clarifies the course of this border. Such a border is not topographically logical, but if it has been officially agreed by both countries, then it is the correct border. I will update the article.


 * Still, the border is not topographically logical. It crosses the Upper Torre glacier in a manner that is unusual. It also means that if the border between Cerro Torre and Murallon, which is at present undefined, becomes defined, then it will have to follow a course which will deviate substantially from the icefield ridge connecting the Torre/Fitzroy group to the Moreno group to the west. This can be seen on the relief map, which shows the course of what would be a more logical border. Viewfinder 03:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Buenos Aires/General Carrera Lake, O'Higgins/San Martín Lake and others, drain exclusively to the Pacific Ocean and nevertheless are binational lakes. Hence, the problem is more complex than it looks. Is not simply to determine the watersheds. Jespinos 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The discrepancies do come up due to that the Chilean/Argentinian border is not defined by 100% via the watershed neither 100% via the highest mountains, but a mix of them. As far as I know, the already defined border starting @ Fitz Roy and ending @ Mount Daudet is based on the highest mountains. Inbetween there are fix points like Mount Murallon, Mount Torre, but on the lower regions, it seems to be undefined on which method to use, which gives us an explaination, why the Chilean-Argentinian border is the last border to still be defined on this planet due to its complexity. Its all the spainards fault, they changed their mind about the definition every time ;-) --84.58.37.62 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Chile deletion
Please stop vandalizing this page, while deleting relation to Chile of this Peak, there is no reason why and it won't change reality towards some Argentinians aspirations. It's only a Wikipedia article. Thanks --81.210.237.88 00:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The coordinates need the following fixes:
 * Lat 49° 16.277'S, Long 73° 2.593'O

meira (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The coordinates in the infobox are correct. Ratagonia (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Check out the french version page
Has a nicer (named) sky line picture. "Monte" is stupid. Use "Cerro". 143.232.210.150 (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This newer 1st photo is better. 198.123.48.35 (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)