Talk:Pico de Orizaba

Old comments
Sorry, the edits by 201.240.223.182 are mine. I thought I was signed in, but wasn't. If you don't like what I did you now know how to contact me.

I also have lots of pix of the Pico: should I post one/some of them? (see the Orizaba page for an example)--Lavintzin 16:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, go for it. Be bold! –Hajor 17:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Orizaba is not the third highest volcano in the Western Hemisphere, there are very many highest volcanoes in the Andes. Viewfinder 07:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Elevation concern
The elevation in the main article DOES NOT MATCH the one in the chart. Which one is it? The 4600m or the 5600m? It's a huge difference.

It is definitely 5600m. (Sources do vary considerably in the cited heights, but not *that* much!) --Lavintzin 03:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The main article is talking about the companion peak. So you can see in the pictures what a difference 1000 m makes. --Lavintzin 03:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The main article is confusing, it will edit it. Thank you for drawing attention to it. Viewfinder 07:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed

 * "If sea level were to rise 714 meters, connecting the Arctic-Atlantic with the Pacific oceans in British Columbia, the Pico would still rise over 4,900 meters above sea-level, and would be the highest peak on a continent stretching from the new shoreline in British Columbia to what is now the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. That continent would include the mountain ranges of the western contiguous United States, such as the Cascades, the Sierra Nevada, the Rockies, and the various Sierra Madre ranges"

Since a sea level rise of more than about 60 m is impossible, this scenario is rather pointless speculation - MPF 11:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what was removed was put there to clarify the prominence concept. It is quite interesting, but others can decide whether or not to restore it. Viewfinder 14:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was put there to clarify the prominence concept and to make it clear what an outstanding mountain this is. I would vote to restore it too, though since (as I remember) I was the one that put it there, I won't do the restoring. --Lavintzin 23:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This aspect is worthy of pointing out, but I still find the hypothesis hard to understand, even in its current revised form -- The Pico de Orizaba is ranked 7th in the world in topographical prominence; if the sea level were to rise by 714 metres it would become the high point of an insular continent stretching all the way to British Columbia.  What's an "insular continent"? To pick nits, the Panama Canal already sort of divides North from South America, so I don't understand how rising sea level would make them any more of a "continent," insular or otherwise. --babbage 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The hypothetical landmass is described an an insular continent because it would be too big to be considered to be an island. The rising sea level scenario illustrates the prominence concept, even though in practice such a rise cannot happen. Re the Panama canal, note that man made changes are not currently included; from a topographic prominence point of view, the Americas and Eurasia-Africa are both considered to be single landmasses, which they were before the Panama and Suez canals were dug. I hope this clarifies the hypothesis. Viewfinder 19:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I put in a different version which doesn't mention sea level rise---feel free to revert back to one explicitly mentioning the concept, but I don't think it's necessary here. The importance for Orizaba is that it is a dominating peak, higher than anything else for a huge distance, and deserves a world ranking. The details of prominence are less important, and mostly distracting in this article. If people need a clarification of the idea of prominence, they can click on that link. IMO, anyway. -- Spireguy 23:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"The" Pico
I'm changing the first mention of the mountain to say "The Pico de Orizaba" instead of just "Pico de Orizaba". As I remember, someone recently deleted the "the" in a number of references to the mountain, mainly in other articles. It is not a straightforward issue.

The Spanish name is actually "El Pico de Orizaba", and "El" is the definite article, which usually is translated by "the". For those of us who think of the name in Spanish even when using it in English, leaving the article off is like leaving "the" off "the White House", "the Caribbean Sea", or "the Rocky Mountains". "Caribbean Sea lies north of Colombia and Venezuela", or "President returned to White House" sound like bad English, and similarly (to me at least), saying "I saw Pico de Orizaba" or "Pico de Orizaba is higher than Popocatépetl" sounds like bad English. So my vote would be to consistently use "the Pico de Orizaba" or "the Pico". The rest of the current article already does that, so the change I just made makes it fit the pattern.

I probably will change other instances of the name as I find them in other articles, but don't have the time/energy to do it systematically.

If others disagree, it would probably be good to discuss it here.

--Lavintzin 04:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the introduction should be changed to
 * "El Pico de Orizaba (from Spanish, "The Peak of Orizaba") or Citlaltépetl (from Nahuatl citlalli = star, and tepetl = mountain), ..."
 * or some such? —wwoods 05:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the es: version says
 * "El Citlaltépētl (del náhuatl ... También es conocido como Pico de Orizaba."
 * —wwoods 06:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Prominent vs. prominent
This phrase in hte lede has got to be re-worded:
 * ''It is the second most prominent volcanic peak in the world after Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro.

To most readers unfamiliar with topographic prominence that will sound a bit odd, as the most common usage of "prominent" in English connotes well-known as well as high/er. It's not sufficient just to pipe a link to topographic prominence, the term has to be explained here. Not everybody are prominence junkies....Skookum1 (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible promotional addition
An IP editor keeps trying to add instructions for visitors to search for "summit orizaba". I had assumed that it was innocently adding tourist instructions and reverted with appropriate messages, but if you do that search the first hit is for a tour guide company called "Summit Orizaba". So it looks like it's really an attempted commercial promotion, and worth keeping an eye open for. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  17:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of Glaciers
According to UNAM Geographer Lorenzo Vázquez Selem, Pico de Orizaba had five glaciers in the 1960s, but only has two now. This Wikipedia article says that there are nine. The source is in Spanish:

http://cij.reduaz.mx/gama/SE%20DESHIELA%20EL%20PICO%20DE%20ORIZABA.htm

"Sobre las variaciones que ha ejercido el cambio climático en el Pico de Orizaba, el más elevado de la República Mexicana con 5 mil 747 metros de altura, comentó que en 1960 este volcán tenía cinco glaciares, de los cuales sólo le quedan dos."

Anyone have any comments? Should I go ahead and make the change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draykyle (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Age and provenance of Citlaltépetl name
There was a line in the text which I deleted, claiming the name Citlaltépetl was in general use by Náhuatl speakers at the time of the conquest. This is a dubious claim (though a romantically desirable one, perhaps), and should not be included without some kind of authoritative documentary support. I have read, but don’t remember where, that the name was invented in the late 19th century by an outsider (a Frenchman?) who (manifestly)knew some Náhuatl but was not a native speaker. I know it was not the name used by Orizaba Nawatl speakers.