Talk:Popocatépetl

Puebla

I'm tempted to put "The residents of Puebla, an even merer 40 km east of the volcano", but I probably won't. (Not that bold.)--Lavintzin 23:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Don Gallina?

Joecashfire inserted the name "Don Goyo" along with "El Popo" as a common name for Popocatépetl. A quick Google confirms that some (reportedly Nahuatl speakers) of those who live near the volcano call it "Don Goyo" (= Gregorio). But I question (1) whether that is an important enough fact to include right at the beginning of the article, and (very relatedly) (2) whether it is accurate to say that the volcano is "commonly referred to" by that name. I have lived in Mexico for going on 36 years, and much of that time have lived within sight of the volcano, and I speak Nahuatl and have spoken with people who live on the slopes of the volcano, and I had never heard the name before.

I'd suggest moving the reference to a later part of the article, and reporting it somewhat differently.

--Lavintzin 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I, live in la isla pitufo and I personally know that Don Goyo is far more popular than "El Popo", I say Keep. Joecashfire 05:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Legend of Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl, cross reference

I just wanted to drop in to point out that the legends mentioned here are similar in form to the oral creation stories attributed to Mount Hood, Mount Adams, and Mt. St. Helens (the first article linked is the only one which contains the citation). I'll mention it here but not add it to the live article since I grew up seeing all three of those mountains from my bedroom window, but have only that close to Popocatepetl once in my life and never laid eyes on it (overcast weather that day). It's interesting, at any rate.

Persist1 08:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting stuff which you can find elsewhere

Madman2001 (Talk) (removed back image link, also removed map since it is visible at Trans-Mexican volcanic belt)

I don't know what a "back image link" is. Was this a "bad image link"?

In any case, I question the rationale for removing the map (not that it was a great map in my opinion). Should nothing ever be repeated in different articles? The picture of Popo and Ixta and the Paso de Cortés appears elsewhere too. (*I am not recommending that it be removed!*) If the point is to make Wikipedia as compact and space-efficient as possible, it makes sense, but if the point is to put information that is likely to be interesting and useful in front of the readers, I think the map (or a better one) should stay in. If I were coming to the article with little or no knowledge of Popo I would rather not have to guess which of the linked articles I would have to click on to see a map showing me where the mountain is located.

Does that make sense?

--Lavintzin 15:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Lavintzin, yes, I should have said "removed bad image link". My mistake.

As far as the map goes, it doesn't make a lot of difference to me. I thought that the article was a little crowded, and that seemed the least interesting of the images and was available elsewhere.

By all means, re-insert it. Madman 16:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tepetl

Teptl in Nahuatl actually means hill not mountain.

Taken from: http://www.mrs.umn.edu/academic/history/Nahuatl/engl-nah.txt—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.133.100 (talk • contribs)

Sure, Popocatépetl is a 5-km high hill. Uh-huh!

Seriously, to expect a one-to-one correspondence between words in one language and words in another is quite unwarranted. Showing that a word can mean 'hill' doesn't warrant the conclusion that it does not mean 'mountain'. Hills and mountains differ only in degree, not in kind: when is something a hill rather than a mountain even in English? You might expect another language to have a word that could mean both. Nahuatl in fact has such a word: tepetl. (In some variants there are words like tētelli or tepetzintli that more specifically mean 'hill'. In those variants tepetl is likely to more unequivocally mean 'mountain'. Even there tepetl is likely to be the general word with the others used only when you want to be precise.)

--Lavintzin 01:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it pronounced in nahuatl, [popo:katepe:tɬ]? Does it have a stress on the penult like in Spanish?--87.162.6.147 (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That link is dead. In modern Nahuatl "tepec" is hill and "tepetl" is mountain. For example Chapultepec is grasshopper hill and Citlaltepetl is peak of the star. In Nahuatl the emphasis is invariably on the second to the last syllable. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

That is incorrect. Tepetl means both mountain, hill and forested mountainous area (monte in spanish). Tepec is an obsolete locative form of tepetl only found in placenames and it means "on the mountain/hill". Cahpultepetl is the "Grasshopper Hill" Chapultepec is the location (e.g. a settlement) located on it. Similarly in classical Nahuatl Popocatepec would mean "On popocatepetl". The reason Cahpultepec is translated as "hill" and citlaltepetl as "mountain" is because those are the words that apply to geographc features of that particular size in english - not because there is a semantic difference in Nahuatl. The Nahuatl term "tepetl" does not include information about the size of the hill/mountain.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sleeping/White

Somebody (189.135.53.57, whoever that is) keeps reverting "White Woman" to "Sleeping Woman" in this and the Ixtaccíhuatl article. The context is the (supposed) "Aztec" legend. Ixtaccíhuatl does not mean "Sleeping Woman" but does mean "White Woman". If the mountain is now locally called the "Sleeping Woman" in Spanish that's cool and might be noted elsewhere, but it is irrelevant to the legend. I'd go bail it is not called "Sleeping Woman" in local Nahuatl, unless by backtranslation from Spanish. (Kochtoksiwatl? Kochtikasowatl? Never heard of such a thing.)

Please leave it be, 189.135.whoever (and you might register, while you're at it.)

--Lavintzin 23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Expansion: section on the monasteries

The article makes a mere mention of the monasteries on the slope of Popocatépetl. Being an integral part of the mountainous landscape and history of human presence in the land (not to mention being proclaimed a World Heritage Site), it will certainly be an improvement to devote a section to this religious ensemble. Thanks. Joey80 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Monasteries on the slopes of Popocatepetl

Could anybody please help me with the links? I'm making an article on the World Heritage Site and I really need help Thanks. All I need is to get the links fixed.

Better reference(s)

Please see Talk:Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl#Better reference(s). -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 16:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The "legend" as recounted sounds very hokey/pastichey, and I don’t believe it is an Aztec myth without some documentary support. (That such a story is told somewhere in Spanish as being an Aztec myth I don’t doubt at all—but so what?) The referenced website (same site referenced three times) gave a very different story; I have deleted those references as being misleading. If they are to remain the story they tell should be the one in the text.

Somehow the Tetelcingo story (which is sourced) had gotten deleted, I suppose by accident. I have restored it. (Note that the Pittman reference had remained, but without any reason left in the text for it being there.)--Lavintzin (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Glaciers

What precisely is your interest in misinforming the public about glaciers on the mountain when there hasn't been any for the last five years? The mountain used to be snowcapped year round - now it only has snow periodically in the summer and winter seasons as everybody who lives within a 100 kilometer radius of the volcano can tell you. Sources show that 53% of the glaciers were gone in 2001 and the melting has continued at a rapid pace for the last ten years - so why is it so unbelieavable to you that the mountain no longer has any glaciers? If you insist that I must show a source that describes complete extinction at this point then at the very least I will remove the information about glaciers altogether because it is factually incorrect. Then the burden will be on you to provide information that the mountain still has a glacier. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You better assume good faith. That was rude and uncivil, and you ought to step back. You have provided absolute no citations that support your assertion. Furthermore, I do not edit on what I believe (because I don't frankly give a shit about the volcano from a personal standpoint), I edit based on what can be shown with a reliable source. And in fact, it is upon you to prove the assertion, since the long-term edit said there were glaciers, your citations show there are glaciers, and you have shown nothing otherwise. I would suggest that your maturity level be increased if you want to deal with me. And you better learn something about Wikipedia, because your incivility is not acceptable. Stop it. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider your own behavior addressing others'. I have made not personal attacks or incivil comments - you have however been uncivil and dismissive from your first edit. You have been here less than three months and still think you can tell me to "learn something about wikipedia". The long term edit was unsourced. Your comment about "maturity level" is a clear cut personal attack.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Let's stick with the article. There was evidence of glaciers for a long time. Until there's exculpatory evidence otherwise, then are we to assume that they magically disappeared? No, we don't. Think of every geology article that includes glaciers? Do we update them annually, and if NO ONE publishes anything, we default to the "let's not mention it" position? But what if the glaciers actually increased in size instead? If we delete every thing because we don't have up-to-the-minute data, then it will get crazy here. Furthermore, personal observation is not acceptable as a reliable source. There were glaciers during this decade. There were glaciers in the past few years. Given how closely studied the volcano is, I personally would assume a paper would have been published stating that the glaciers are gone. BTW, my point on your incivility was inferring something about my thinking that you could not possibly know. Your edit summaries are not what I would find very nice either. But, let's move on. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's a source that says "The year 2000 is considered the date for the extinction of the glaciers based on field observations." Here's a second: "The extinction of glaciers of Popocatépetl volcano was eruption-forced." And in fact one of the sources cited in the article [1] says that "Hence, the glaciers of Popocatépetl volcano became extinct in late year 2000." Yet this citation is attached to a sentence that reads "Over the last decade the glaciers have greatly decreased in size, partly due to increased volcanic activity in the period, and partly due to warmer temperatures"—the sentence ought to read "By 2000, the glaciers had become extinct, partly due to warmer temperatures, but largely due to increased volcanic activity." As the text stands now, though, the references do not support the sentence, and an earlier bit ("The residents of the city of Puebla, 40 km (25 mi) east of the volcano, can view the snowy and glacier-clad mountain almost all year") is also wrong, because the mountain is no longer glacier-clad. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

According to this source, "Studies made for the last 7 years of eruptive activity reveal a strong glacier retreat forced by global, regional, and local climate changes, as well as by volcanic activity." In other words, the glacier might have retreated significantly, but no mention of "extinction." Here is a citation from 2011 that states "Popocatépetl hosts two small glaciers that are monitored mainly by aerial photographs taken nearly on a monthly basis." This photo from 2009 clearly shows two glaciers, and NASA identifies them as such. I am completely agnostic as to whether there are glaciers on the volcano or not. Don't care one way or another. But every recent article states unequivocally that the glaciers exist, albeit substantially smaller. As I asked the other editor to do, bring one article that states that the glaciers are extinct that was published after the 2011 article that states they are there, we should revise the article. Right now, we have no reliable source that states the glaciers are gone. I have no clue about the previous articles that you have listed, but since we are supposed to use reliable sources, the more recent ones state the glaciers are there. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Though I do not know for sure, but both articles that you have cited were based on "field observations." It's possible that better surveys using satellite imagery (which we think as of standard now, but 10 years ago, there was no google earth that gave us these images). I did get rid of the silly travel guide information.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

[2] and [3] are both abstracts of papers presented at scientific meetings, and they postdate the first source you listed ([4], also an abstract of a paper presented at a meeting). So they're all equally RS, but the two that say the glaciers are extinct are more recent.

As for the citation that states "Popocatépetl hosts two small glaciers that are monitored mainly by aerial photographs taken nearly on a monthly basis", this has a date of 4-Aug 2001 on the Unesco site ([5]), but this is certainly originally published in 2000 (Huggel, C., and H. Delgado. "Glacier Monitoring at Popocatepetl Volcano: Glacier Shrinkage and Possible Causes." In Beiträge Zur Geomorphologie: Proceedings Der Fachtagung Der Schweizerschen Geomorpho-Logischen Gesellschaft Vol. 8, No. 10, July 1999, Bramois, edited by C. Hegg and D. Vonder Mühll, 97-106. Birmensdorf: WSL, 2000); if you go to this site you'll find the full citation, which links to the Unesco site (that you also linked to) for purchase. So it's not a 2011 article, it's a 2000 article—and the references I've provided, including one which is already cited in the article, say that the glaciers are extinct and are more recent than the ones you've cited. (Except for the NASA photo, but I don't think a photo description trumps a scientific paper, do you?) --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a Reuters article which says that the Popocatépetl glacier went "into oblivion around 2000"; the article quotes Christian Huggel, one of the authors of the "Glacier Monitoring at Popocatepetl Volcano" (though he's not quoted on the Popocatepetl glacier, but it shows the reporter was talking to the right scientists). Here is a 2008 article from the Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research saying the glacier is extinct; two of the authors are Christian Huggel and H. Delgado-Granados, whom I assume are the authors of "Glacier Monitoring at Popocatepetl Volcano". --Akhilleus (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's another article that says the glaciers are extinct, "Chronicle of a death foretold: Extinction of the small-size tropical glaciers of Popocatépetl volcano", Global and Planetary Change 56 (2007) 13-22. Again, two of the authors are C. Huggel and H. Delgado Granados, and I think it's possible this article is based on the 2003 abstract I linked to before ([6]). --Akhilleus (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm bored out of my mind about this discussion. As I've said, I don't care whether there's glaciers there or not. You have presented little evidence of the disappearance of the glaciers, but go ahead and change it. It's not like Wikipedia is filled with accurate information anyways, but we're not going to keep science from curing brain cancer if this is wrong. Do whatever you want. I don't care. And apparently no one else does. It's better than reading long drawn-out discussions on this. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Eruption

The news website is reporting it is erupting today ?? Or is this recycled old news ? Eregli bob (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The only source seems to be http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/637110/MILLIONS-at-risk-as-Mt-Popocat-petl-volcano-threatens-to-blow which is exceptionally tabloid.

The 5 April 2016 edit by Jackvinson leaves a dangling prepositional phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.187.242 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Lava Type

This article includes a description of the lava as Andesite, but links to Basaltic Andesite instead. Which is a correct description of the type of lava? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.36.132 (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"Eruptions" section

So we get one line about all 500 years of recorded history, including whole five words about a major 20th century eruption, and then 12 paragraphs covering everything from an eruption to an ash spurt in the last 20 years. Is ash coating snow or six airlines cancelling flights really of such historic importance? 78.0.216.219 (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Plane crash

Hi. I think the 1949 plane crash shouldn't only be in the "See also" section Aminabzz (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)