Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Coropuna/archive2

TFA blurb review
Coropuna is a dormant compound volcano with several perennially snowbound conical summits in the Andes mountains of southern Peru. Its highest peak reaches an altitude of 6377 m above sea level, making the Coropuna complex the third-highest in Peru. Its thick ice cap is the most extensive in Earth's tropical zone, with several outlet glaciers stretching out to lower altitudes. Below an elevation of 5000 m, the vegetation belts include trees, peat bogs and grasses, as well as agricultural areas and pastures. The Coropuna complex consists of several stratovolcanos composed chiefly of ignimbrites and lava flows, on a basement formed by similar material from the Middle Miocene. The complex has been active for at least five million years. Current activity occurs exclusively in the form of hot springs. The Inca archaeological site of Mawk'allaqta is on the volcano's slopes.

Just a suggested blurb ... thoughts and edits are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

St Francis of Assisi
raised this on his talk, so I'm addressing it here. (Although we worked for weeks on this article, I focused on prose in individual sections, and never actually got to read the entire thing through ... I missed this section.)
 * Can we know why it was particularly important for Cotahuasi?
 * The two parts of the St Francis of Assisi sentence aren't connected; there are two different thoughts there= two sentences.
 * Today, ... to this day ... redundant ... and take care with MOS:RECENT to specify what exactly is meant.
 * The sentence is awkward; localized? The reader doesn't know what that means. (Iri's question?) So I consulted the source to try to understand what was being said here.

Iri says, "It might be worth finding a Spanish speaker (ping for SandyGeorgia) to ask es-wiki if anyone there has any idea about why the locals believe a medieval Italian is living on their mountain as I can't be the only reader who finds it odd." The source is in English, and culturally, I don't find this at all odd. Different saints are patrons/protectors of different things in the Catholic religion, and I've seen all kinds of customs similar to this throughout my time in Latin America ... but that still doesn't help understand what the sentence is trying to say. The source says:

And so on; there is plenty in the source to expand the sentence enough to help the reader understand how this came to be, and the source is in English. Will come back to this when I have time; five of us working made tons of progress on the article, but I never found time to read the whole thing. Someone with better prose than I might figure out how to fix the passage. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll reply in this section to keep the thread together even though it probably violates something; my concern with this section is that it seems to raise more questions than it answers. Sure, Catholicism has lots of patron saints who don't necessarily have an obvious connection, but as I understand it the locals don't believe just the St Francis is the patron saint of the mountain, but that St Francis has . That is definitely typical Catholicism; if the sources genuinely don't say how this belief came about then so it goes since we can't speculate in Wikipedia's voice, but every reader who gets to this section is going to be confused by it. (I don't really buy "Flying Francis appears in centers of Franciscan influence that are located in highly volcanic or seismically active regions"; the spiritual heartland of Franciscan belief in Italy has no shortage of active volcanoes but I never heard of a connection between Francis and (e.g.) Vulsini.) &#8209; Iridescent 08:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First the cultural part, then the source-->text dilemma.

One key is the sourced phrase, "among today's Peruvian peasantry". I am not surprised at all. Odd local customs tangentially related to religious beliefs are legion in the hispanic culture. Although they often originate among those with less formal education, they often become widespread cultural norms and expectations. To this day, I get very odd looks when I nervously scurry to pick up a purse that a guest in my house has set on the floor, or to ask a child with a seashell in her pocket to leave it outside. Of course I know intellectually that dire consequences are not going to befall my household because someone set their purse on the floor or brought a seashell into my house, but these are nonetheless cultural practices of dubious and odd origins that become the norm. Still does not seem odd to me that peasants have these beliefs, even if they don't exist in other countries and we can't understand how they relate to Catholicism. How does Cuba's brujeria relate to Catholcism? It doesn't; but most practice it. No Venezuelan woman will ever set her purse on the floor or bring a seashell into your home, no matter the level of their education. Does that make sense? No.


 * So, to the source-->text dilemma, the source a) explains this is a peasant belief, b) says it appears to have been triggered around a local Peruvian (Cuzco) friary during Colonial times as a response to seismicity (that explains the local custom, not found for example in Italy), c) was furthered by wealthy Indigenous nobles through artwork, and d) is related to themes of rhetoric against the oppressor. We have enough to craft one sentence.  If it's hard to do, safest is just to directly quote the source.  I am not a good wordsmith; you do it,  :) :)  The other issues I listed should also be fixed in that section. Coropuna is not just a volcano; it is a tourist site and a holy site; we have to address this content even if briefly. Also, Iri, re "physically living on the mountain", the source mentions "angels", which aren't such a stretch: I missed the part where you come up with physically resurrected and living there?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see how to read the pious among today’s Peruvian peasantry believe that Saint Francis has alighted on top of an active volcano in any way other than that he's physically there. (The alternative—that Francis has changed from human to angelic form—really would be heresy at burned-at-the-stake levels, since Francis was human and it's an article of faith that angels are sinless, unchanging and unchanging beings of pure spirit). &#8209; Iridescent 15:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The same source later describes angels; this dilemma can be solved by just directly quoting the source if necessary. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * A week has gone by! I am working on the entire thing, Jo-Jo; my prose is not great, and I was hoping Iri would do it, but I am going to dig in to these sources and try to come up with something for the whole section.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a go if nobody else does, but I'm really reluctant to get involved with writing on religious beliefs unless it's a religion with which I'm very familiar, particularly when the sources are unclear or confusing, and I know nothing whatsoever about Peruvian folk beliefs. It's very easy to misrepresent someone's beliefs and either cause genuine offense, or (this being Wikipedia) give someone a pretext for feigning offense, and spend the next few months being hauled off to every noticeboard under the sun by angry sockpuppets and people canvassed in off-wiki forums. In the current climate, the rent-a-mob which the WMF are egging on will jump on any opportunity to attack a process they consider 'elitist', and it won't be good for anyone concerned if they're turned loose within FAC. (Because you had that extended absence, I'm not sure you fully appreciate just how far the purge has already gone. Go to Special:Preferences and switch "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" on to highlight blocked editors, then look over talk archives to get a sense of just how many editors have disagreed with the wrong people and been kicked out.) &#8209; Iridescent 16:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah … I see what you mean … OK, I will take great care, and propose something here for both of you. Considering the targets on my head, I shall be kicked out soon enough anyway, so I can take the risk :) :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Digging in

 * , there's a lot to work through here; I'm really sorry I never made it to this section in the time we were working on the article. First, could you have a look at this source?  My interpretation there is that the word apu means mountain, not God.  Search the article for every instance of the word, and I'm fairly sure it is an Inca word for mountain. I'm not sure we even need to introduce that word here, but the article now is saying it means God, where I am reading differently.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Next, on Coropuna was considered to be the most important God (apu) of the region:
 * The source says:
 * Muchas otras tenían también igual prerrogativa o importancia regional como Huanacauri, Pachacamac, Pariacaca, y Coropuna, las que se convirtieron en los Apus más importantes de cada región.
 * so we have the most important of that region but we haven't clarified in the new section here what region we are talking about, as distinguished from these other regions. What are these other regions in relation to everything else in the article? Those regions aren't defined in this article, so we don't know how they relate to the big picture. So why not avoid defining the region at all and just say "an important regional God"?  Also, because we are at the beginning of a new section and topic, we haven't said by whom it was considered so important. I believe we should be introducing the Incas in this first sentence, per the source:
 * Still working, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Still working, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Moving on to the next clause, second-most important in the andes, I find answers from the source on this:  We can now say an apu is a mountain deity.  And "site of one of the most sacred oracles in the Inca Empire is worthy of mention! As well as "site of a major temple". There's a lot in this google book snippet that is useful and makes the rest more understandable.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * On the third clause, a holy mountain, it seems like that should be the first thing we establish, and there is info available in that source to explicitly specify the timing ("pre-Spanish") -- because I am concerned about the introduction of the new wording to the article, "an example of how Spanish concepts has been adopted by native populations", which I am not sure is quite accurate (Colonial friary, peasants, etc doesn't equate to "Spanish" concepts"). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Fourth clause, about importance to Cotahuasi, I think we can rephrase that. From the source: we found out that Coropuna was considered the most important apu of the southern region, which was my question on the earlier clauses.  We still can't be sure how they mean southern as relates to the rest of the article, so still think we can be less explicit on the wording here while getting the idea across.  I think instead of "particularly important for the town of Cotahuasi", we can say "especially around the town of Cotahuasi", or "centered around the town of Cotahuasi", eliminating the question about, why more important there than elsewhere?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop for now … to ask if I am on the wrong track, and if I should attempt to rewrite the entire thing, going through all the sources, as in these samples. I think we have enough information in the sources to re-write all three paragraphs in the Mythology section, and bring more clarity, hopefully without getting me kicked off of Wikipedia sooner than next week, when I probably will be anyway :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll reply to this tomorrow, but I think you wanted to post this on the main FAC page rather than the talk page? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No ... while we are working to hash out new wording here, the Coords shouldn't have to sort through all of the back-and-forth to figure out if the FAC is ready for promotion. As soon as I've generated new wording, and we've come to consensus on something, then we can translate that to the main FAC page.  (I say this as someone who had the pleasure of reading through about 5,000 FACs once upon a time-- the Coords know we're working it out on talk, they don't need all the gorey length, which will also be off-putting for subsequent reviewers.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary

 * Here's my stab at it:

In the Inca Empire, Coropuna was a sacred mountain, especially for the people of Cotahuasi. It was regarded as the most important mountain deity (apu) of the southern region, and the second-most important in the cosmology of the Andes. The mountain was considered to be an abode of the dead – a large village where holy people received the souls of the departed, who lived there in the afterlife. In different mythologies Coropuna is instead the starting point for the deceased on a journey to Surimana – the place where the local populations originated. Sometimes Coropuna is seen as a male entity while Solimana volcano is seen as a female one. Local people continue to observe these ancient mortuary rites today.

An enduring Franciscan influence from a colonial-era Cusco friary, the "pious among today's Peruvian peasantry" revere a "Flying" St Francis of Assisi, who is believed to await the souls of the dead on top of Coropuna. Other poorly recorded legends are associated with Coropuna. One story narrates how a brother tried to deceive Coropuna and other mountains, and was turned into a deer. Another legend tells of a conflict between Coropuna and other local mountains against an interloping Inca. A third story states that a troupe was transporting precious metals for Coropuna and Solimana when the animal leading it was shot by a hunter; the mountains then castrated the hunter.

, does this solve the problems? Jo-Jo, does this accurately reflect the sources? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me, but having read this article so often in its various stages I'm probably not the best judge; you probably want to find someone with no prior knowledge to see if it's confusing to them. &#8209; Iridescent 06:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's much better than the current text, with the caveat that I didn't check for text source integrity (that is easier to do when the text is in the article and the references not throwing big red errors). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was unsure if we say "Inca Empire" or "Incan Empire". I'm pretty sure I kept all the citations attached to the right bits of text, but I made two small adjustments to the citations per the way I re-arranged the flow.  I combined Lara p. 162 and Lara p. 163 into 162–3.  And I combined two citations to the end of one sentence, rather than citing each little bit. I am out at a meeting all day today, but can write two or three sentences on tourism when home.  If you like this new Mythology text, please feel free to drop it in yourself, unless you want me to do it when home later.  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, if we are in agreement on this bit, then I would prefer to hat off the comments on the main FAC, since long FAC commentary can discourage new reviewers. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've implanted it after checking for source-text integrity, minus the second part with Surimana as it doesn't seem like the source supports the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've implanted it after checking for source-text integrity, minus the second part with Surimana as it doesn't seem like the source supports the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Tourism
Curiously, while looking at this source for the Mythology section, I realized for the first time that there was text in hidden sections there. Earlier, I thought the only text there was the limited amount at the top of the page. We do have enough information to write a sentence or two about tourism in the area, which I suggest we append to the Climbing section, renaming it to "Climbing and tourism". This goes back to my earlier concern that we don't explain why it's a tourist site and what draws people there, and that source does have some info, albeit hidden, on the topic. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "we don't explain why it's a tourist site and what draws people there" is really an issue, but that's possibly a cultural thing; you know more about Latin America than me. I'm from the Catskills and now in the UK, and JJE is from Switzerland, all three of which are places with a strong climbing culture in which there really doesn't need to be a better explanation for "why do people climb this mountain?" than "because they need to climb all the peaks on the list to get the badge". In the case of this particular mountain, which appears to be fairly easily accessable with a town nearby, a road running up much of the length, and reasonably near the backpacker trails, one could argue that "why isn't there more of a tourism industry?" is just as valid a question. I assume that the "mincetur.gob.pe" in the URL means that source is an official government tourism site, but (with my very limited Spanish) I don't see anything contentious, so I personally wouldn't see any problem with paraphrasing the whole thing into a "tourism" section. &#8209; Iridescent 07:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "mincetur.gob.pe" is indeed the website of the Peruvian Ministry of Foreign Trade and Tourism. I think some expansion on tourism information can be done, although it would be somewhat sparse still. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "mincetur.gob.pe" is indeed the website of the Peruvian Ministry of Foreign Trade and Tourism. I think some expansion on tourism information can be done, although it would be somewhat sparse still. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ping regarding lead section and some rewrites
...that were carried out in this edit by. I am parking a general comment here that I've seen the questions there but will reply tomorrow owing to it being late in Switzerland. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Was waiting to hear from you on that ... some of that seemed to ask for excess detail for the lead. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry 'bout the delay, but between some university homework and the effects of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Switzerland it's going to be slow. I agree that some of these notes are asking too much detail. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Stay safe! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, getting back to this. I've stripped out a lot of questionable maintenance tags in the lead and some debatable word choices, as they are IMO asking for excessive detail. Also, I don't understand the distinction the edit was trying to draw between "Inka polity" and "Inka people", and the notes section is definitively not the same thing as a reference section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I support this edit, and found many of the requests excessive. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)