This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Lincancaur and Lincancabur are one and the same, and on the Chile/Bolivia border. Claims by Argentine sources like the above, which also give some seriously wrong elevations, are FALSE. Viewfinder16:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Argentino. Volcan Licancabur is 72km due west of the point connecting Argentina, Chile and Bolivia (marked by Cerro Zapaleri). The border between Bolivia and Argentina runs east from Zapaleri, and, using SRTM data, I checked it carefully and found nothing higher than Licancabur. My other reputable source is "The Andes: A guide for Climbers" (3rd edition, 2005). The author may be Scottish but he has climbed hundreds of mountains throughout the Andes and has an international reputation. There is a complete list of 6000 metre summits with at least 400 m of prominence, and there is no mention of any 6000m+ mountain with the name Licancabur, Lincancaur or anything similar. If any source can supply more accurate idea of the location of this mystery 6,600 m peak on the border, I could check the location more carefully, but I don't think any such source will be found because, quite simply, the peak does not exist. There may be a lower peak called Lincancaur, but I cannot find it on any topographic map. Viewfinder18:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you have convinced me, but i'm still a bit exeptical, can you please tell me the ISBN number of that book, so i can go to the National Library and check it? Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN0-9536087-2-7. Author John Biggar. The 6000 m peak list and heights (which were compiled with my assistance) are also listed here. I think many sources, both from Argentina and elsewhere, are using old AIGM elevation data, which are often wrong. Viewfinder21:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the issue of Lincancaur I propose removing the comment at the bottom of the page that this mountain exists.
First if this mountain does exist and is in Argentina and is important then it should be in the main listing along with some current reference that places it there. I have searched somewhat diligently for such a reference and can not find it. I did check the government of Argentina site listed above and could not find it there. I suspect they have cleaned up this site in the last 6 years. I have found 2 old references that seem to explain why this could be an error. [1] is from 1899 and talks about setting the border between Chile and Argentina with one early proposal including a Lincancaur (peak or volcano). And [2] is from a 1919 historical document by a geographer from Uruguay. He lists "Principle Mountains of South America" and includes "Volcan LluUaico 6,620" and immediately below it "Volcan Lincancaur 6,000". He makes no indication of the particular country.
Secondly, I have read every edit page and the original wording was "The Lincancabur mountain, located between Chile and Bolivia, has been wrongly referred to be in Argentina under the name Lincancaur with a height of 6,620 m; no such mountain exists."
looking at dates I believe this was an attempt to provide clarity on the issue after the above talk discussion. It was vandalised and reverted several times until this point. This looks like more vandalism to me but it was not reverted after. Instead people tried to clean up the english and added a fact tag. While changing it back is an option I personally prefer removal as listing something that does not exist is plain odd unless there is widespread belief in something that is known to be incorrect. That would need a citation as well. Jemmaca (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been a good source for mentioning Licancabur here. I also went through the edit history, and found: oldid=50752567 (2006-04-29 by Viewfinder, the page was created 2006-04-17, by Argentino, both above in the discussion)
"The material for this page was originally extracted from the list of highest mountains here (now wayback). It is claimed that it source is the Instituto Geografica Militár, but it is very inaccurate."
The "wrongly referred to be in Argentina" was added 2006-10-10 (by an Argentinian User:Marianocecowski)
Later (2006-10-24, oldid=83385847) the same user who introduced the "originally extracted", removed it "(rm redundant external link, info is from other sources)"; I take the meaning to be that many updates had been done. But that was also the source for this claim.
Some IP in 2010-01-13 changed it to "wrightly" (sic!) and "does exist", and 2010-03-03 a "citation needed" was added.
Research Disputes in the area could explain very old claims though, but they would then affect a big number of mountains, see Puna de Atacama dispute. Sadly the 1899 document mentioned above doesn't work, but its 1899 date seems to relate to that dispute, that shows that the NE-most point of the disputed territory could have included the mountain.
The old source mention that it was located in the Salta Province, but in that article it is noted that the very NE part of that province already in 1834 formed its own province Jujuy Province. I haven't dug up old borders of either though.
Conclusion I'll remove it, it doesn't belong, neither for the modern area of the country, nor as a single mention, as the dispute most probably would include many more. One could possibly add dispute as some sort of mention. Ponken (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
