Talk:List of mountains in Peru

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Peru This article is supported by WikiProject Peru. This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.PeruWikipedia:WikiProject PeruTemplate:WikiProject PeruPeru articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Peru To-do: edit history watch purge Assess and prioritise articles (log) Check for copyvios at Special:Contributions/Priscilla D, tag as {{Db-copyvio}} where appropriate Create: Expand: new articles; top importance articles FAC / FLC: Peru national football team GAN: Merge requests: Amazonas before the Inca Empire, Chachapoyas culture Review: Shining Path, Universitario de Deportes Translate: National University of San Marcos Work on Lima, the current article improvement drive Wikify: articles needing attention Mountains Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Resolved

 – Typo in INEI 2005 source, Salcantay is in Cordillera Vilcabamba not Vilcanota

This list says the Salcantay is in the Cordillera Vilcanota, but both our internal Salcantay article and external sources such as peakbagger.com say it's in the Cordillera Vilcabamba, and there may be other similar errors. I'm going to fix Salcantay now, but I suggest maintainers of this list double-check the rest. — Komusou ^talk @ 04:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the info provided by INEI, the Peruvian national statistics office. If you want to make changes please provide an equally valid source. --Victor12 04:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize it's official data; but official reports have been wrong before, too ;-) Actually, I have NPOVed it (so to speak) by providing both versions, with an endnote specifying that the first version comes from the INEI source, and the other version from other credible sources. Independently of the "good answer" (if there's one), there was one larger issue of consistency here: this list was saying "A" yet sending the reader to an article saying "B". So, I have tried to source to death the contradictory claims on our main article Salcantay, as a repository of the sources about it. And now, both articles say "A or B" with footnotes sourcing each claim. It's not just Peakbagger.com but also Encarta, and tons of other websites that are contradicting the INEI information, so that really is enough to list both versions for now; the readers are given the sources for both claims and can make up their mind, until something better can explain the discrepancy (maybe the report 2006 or 2007 will have it "fixed"?). I have no idea if that's a typo in the INEI report (I'm taking your word for it), or some other reason, but it's far from clear and we currently can't give the readers a single one version. — Komusou ^talk @ 07:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good job! I'll try to do some research on this later. --Victor12 13:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes:

• From maps such as this one from Nikon.co.jp we can see "Vilcabamba mountain range (Mt. Salcantay)" to the west of Cuzco and "Vilcanota mountain range (Mt. Ausangate)" to the east of Cuzco.
• Most sources usually claim Salcantay as the highest peak of Vilcabamba Range, and Ausangate as the highest peak of Vilcanota Range.
• In a trek report of a guy from Standford, he did "Salcantay in the Cordillera Vilcabamba"
• One big problem with trying to sort this with the web is that most "sources" are tour operators and trek sites, not the most scholarly references, especially since a lot of them just plunder Wikipedia and can feed us our own errors. At any rate, most of them say Salcantay is in Vilcabamba Range, but still plenty other say it's in Vilcanota (such as [1][2][3][4]), so it's either an unsorted point or a common error.
• Interestingly, the homepage of trek site Salkantay.org says both cordilleras in the same breath (emphasis mine): « The Cordillera Vilcanota is an impressive range of mountains which include the massive Salkantay snowcapped mountain (6,264m) and three others over 6000m. Salkantay is an outstanding snow peak, located less than fifty miles northwest of the city of Cuzco in south central Peru. It is the highest mountain of the Cordillera Vilcabamba. »
• Maybe indeed Vilcabamba is considered by some to be a subrange of Vilcanota? Or it's just a common error due to the proximity of Vilcanota and Vilcabamba, both phonetically and geographically...

— Komusou ^talk @ 11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I rechecked the Compendio estadístico and it seems this whole confusion was indeed a typo!!! lol. It lists 11 peaks for Cordillera Vilcanota which is 80 km long. Then it lists 3 more peaks for a second Cordillera Vilcanota with a length of 100 km. This second one includes Salcantay, Pumasillo and Lasunayoc. As Cordillera Vilcabamba is not included anywhere in this report, it is quite likely that the second Vilcanota is actually a typo for Vilcabamba. --Victor12 15:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked an atlas published in 1996 by Instituto de Estudios Histórico–Marítimos del Perú (again an official source ;-) to see what's the relationship between these mountain ranges. According to this book they are separate mountain range even though they start from the same point, the Vilcanota Knot (in Spanish, knots or nudos are places where several mountain ranges meet), which is between the Cusco and Puno Regions. They then run in parallel in a NW course, Vilcanota is the eastern one and Vilcabamba the western one. This books identifies the Ausangate in the Vilcabamba mountain range. It doesn't mention where Salcantay belongs, though. I'll try to get more sources on this on Tuesday. --Victor12 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Re: typo:

Quite likely indeed:

* From all other sources, Vilcabamba's 3 highest peaks ARE Salcantay, Pumasillo and Lasunayoc ;-) Vilcabamba at Peakbagger.

* If you look at the table, your list has the peaks in decreasing order for each cordillera, but the first 11 Vilcanota go from "Ausangate 6,384" to "Yayamari 6,000", before jumping back to "Salcantay 6,271 - Pumasillo 6,070 - Lasunayoc 6,000", which also indicates that the last three are a separate batch from the previous Vilcanota batch.

I think we can now safely conclude that it's a typo and that the last three items tagged Vilcanota were meant as "Vilcabamba". I'm going to update the list with a note explaining why we deviate from the source.

— Re: "atlas published in 1996"

Er... Did you type that correctly, "This books identifies the Ausangate in the Vilcabamba"? Because Ausangate is the highest of *Vilcanota* not Vilcabamba. Either in the document or in your post above, that's the reverse typo from the INEI one ;-) — Komusou ^talk @ 21:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, my typo indeed. It's Vilcanota. Now I understand those poor guys at INEI :-) --Victor12 22:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There'll be another issue, which is that many heights of the INEI list seems to be, er, "cooked". I found it strange that so much heights were exactly 6,000 m, especially when the criterion was precisely 6,000 m too. Also, the Pucahirca is listed twice. In fact, sources such as Peakbagger give very different values, especially:

— Komusou ^talk @ 21:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Pucahirca, this mountain exists of several peaks: Southern, Northern and Central, that's why it's listed more than once. --ErickAgain 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many 6,000 m peaks, yes... I'll try to get better sources. No luck on Proquest, so that means I'll have to hit the library. --Victor12 22:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems we have to lose Alpamayo (5947 or 5957) also. Take a look at the following list:

Excerpt from Peakbagger Andes 6000-meter Peaks

See also Highest Mountains in Peru.

No.	Name	Elevation (m)
101.	Rasac	6017
97.	Hualca Hualca	6025
97.	Caraz	6025
94.	Tocllaraju	6034
93.	Quitaraju	6036
89.	Yayamari	6049
88.	Pucajirca	6050
84.	Nevado Chachani	6057
74.	Jatunhuma	6093
74.	Nevado Solimana	6093
73.	Jirishanca	6094
69.	Jatunriti	6106
67.	Chacraraju	6108
66.	Callangate	6110
63.	Yerupaja Chico	6121
61.	Hualcan	6122
54.	Pucaranra	6156
52.	Ranrapalca	6162
47.	Nevado Copa	6188
40.	Santa Cruz	6241
39.	Salcantay	6264
37.	Palcaraju	6274
34.	Nevado Ampato	6288
33.	Chinchey	6309
30.	Siula Grande	6344
29.	Nevado Chopicalqui	6345
28.	Huandoy	6360
26.	Huantsan	6369
25.	Nevado Ausangate	6372
23.	Nevado Coropuna	6405
13.	Yerupajá	6617
10.	Nevado Huascarán-Pico Norte	6655
6.	Nevado Huascarán	6746

--ErickAgain 22:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can always extend the list to all 5,000+ m peaks to keep Alpamayo and its pic, as long as we can sort our problems with sources. --Victor12 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

– Re: ErickAgain (Pucahirca twice): Good catch! But then, the list as it is remains confusing to the average reader, so each entry should have a qualifier about which sub-peak it is. Finding which is which isn't so easy, because there are, again, discrepancy between sources. On the one hand there's the list your provided from AllTheMountains.com, and on the other hand there's this other handy source http://www.andes-mesili.com/fr/les6000desandes.htm (with a large bibliography):

That's still a bit confusing (not counting the typo on "Purcahica"):

* Pucahirca Sur is way off between Andes-Mesili and AllTheMountains. Also, AllTheMountains says that "Pucahirca Sur" is called "Pucahirca Central" in the Carta Nacional, which doesn't help any one bit. And Peakbagger can't help here because they says they don't list subpeaks.

* It's funny how the "Pucahirca Central: 6.010m" is missing from the INEI list (since they seem to have cooked a few numbers so as to push them above 6000, but this 6010 isn't listed ;-)

Anyway, I'm going to add the qualifiers to the current list, going for "Sur" and "Norte". I'm not adding "Central" because it's too fishy for that at this stage. — Komusou ^talk @ 10:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a prolly-well-meaning new editor tried to update/delete half the table, I made those changes:

• Changed the lead section's criterion from 6000m to 5500m (we had previously discussed going down to 5000, but the most dubious peak in the list was "Sara Sara 6,000 vs. 5506" so 5500 should do for now to keep and update the list.)
• I'll try and source the elevation in the articles for Alpamayo, Huascarán, Taulliraju/Tocllaraju, and Yerupajá Grande so as to be able to contradict the INEI source and update the table here with related endnotes (the way I did for Salcantay and the previous deviations from INEI). Sourcing the other problematic peaks is open to volunteers... ;-)
• Unrelated: I've not-overlinked in the table each instance of region and range, so that each line is now independant. (When you use the table's sortable columns, you lose sight of the only bluelink for each region/range, so each line need to be independently linked).

— Komusou ^talk @ 14:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a confusion about the peaks. I have consulted an older source which as cited source have Anuario Estadístico del Perú 1971, Oficina Nacional de Estadística y Censos, Lima - Peru, tomo 3, pág 165-170. It also puts the three peaks Sarcantay(as spelled) 6271, Pumasillo 6070 and Lasunayoc 6000 in a second Cordillera Vilcanota, 100 km long. So, if it is some typo, it did not arise as late as 2005. A list of all peaks more than 5000 I have long ago put in the Swedish wiki sv:Bergskedjor i Peru, if for some value. Best regards – Xauxa (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia, so not sure of procedures for correcting pages that have many mistakes, so apologies if I tread on any toes. I found this page recently and there are so many problems with this list that in my view it would be best to re-write the page entirely using a reliable source. Almost every piece of data in the list has some fault - it is clear to me as something of an "expert" on Peru that this list has been compiled from several different written lists without any refence to maps or other data.

1.The list as it stands inlcudes peaks that are entirely separate listed as one name e.g. Tocllaraju/Taulliraju. Peaks that are the same listed under different name e.g. Tunsho is Huantsan, Rajopaquinan is Hualcan (different names on different maps , thats all).

2. The list also has heights that appear nowhere else in any reliable source e.g. Chopicalqui 6400m, Copa 6270m, Alpamayo 6120m...to name a few.

To improve this list I would suggest using the PIGM maps as the most reliable source, with the AV maps of the Blanca a secondary source and Jonathan de Ferrantis SRTM data (see www.peaklist.org) as reliable in areas with less topographic relief (not relevant to many 6000m+ areas in Peru unfortunately. Perhaps the most fundamental problem with the list is that no definition is given of what constitutes a 6000m peak. How much higher above the col does a peak have to be? In my well used and referenced lists on www.andes.org.uk I use a 400m re-ascent for a main peak, 200m re-ascent for a sub peak. While my figures for the re-ascent cut-off are somewhat arbitrary and other cut-off values are equally valid, this list needs to be re-written with more clearly defined criteria.

The photo at the top of this page 'huascaran norte' is in fact Huascaran Sur, from the southwest, with the Garganta Col at far left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien Gildea (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]