Talk:Machu Picchu

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Enniks, Sesxb7 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Tdbdh4, Athroop, Hpdhw2.

Mudslide cuts train access

Historical note: This mudslide has cut train access to Machu Picchu for the first time in many years of crowded tourist flow through the archeological site and community. This historical note will currently offer a helpful/useful logistical warning to travelers planning to visit soon.
At some point in time (after repair?) it should be re-phrased in terms of its importance as it affects the history of tourism to the site.
Wikidity (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is highly unlikely that the mudslide will have any long-term affect on the site at all, and the cutting of the rail route for a few days in irrelevant in terms of Machu Picchu and its history. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a unique event: The rail line was blocked a few years ago by a rock slide. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters how many times it occurs - the railway is not Machu Picchu. It might, doubtfully, merit a mention in the Aguas Calientes, Peru article or possibly PeruRail, but not here. The railway is a transport link. Mentioning inevitable hickups on that would be like putting a mention into Portsmouth Historic Dockyard that tourist visits were affected when the railway network was severely disrupted by heavy snowfall over southern England in January. Looking at the news article that was linked, it looks like severe whether had affected the whole region and that undue weight was given to its affect on access to Machu Picchu. These kind of things are likely to be seasonal. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

3D Model of Machu Picchu

Is it appropriate to add a paragraph that points out that there is now a detailed 3D model of Machu Picchu on Google Earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmolsen (talk • contribs) 06:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The article already contains a link in the upper right (click on the numerical coordinates for the location) from which a user can select any mapping software they wish to use. Google Earth is one of those options. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing there to indicate that there is now a 3D model available. Anyone who had previously looked on Google would have no reason to go back as there was nothing worth looking at previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmolsen (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Would the following addition to the article be considered of sufficient educational merit please?

3D Laser Scan

In 2005 and 2009 the University of Arkansas carried out detailed 3D laser scans of the entire site. The scan data is available for free download for research purposes (xfef pointing to Uni of Arkansas download data).

Also would it be acceptable to insert the following External Link please?

"Machu Picchu model for Google Earth"

A similar link is provided in numerous other Wikipedia pages, including the following to mention a few. They also have the numerical coordinates mentioned by Barek above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Computing_Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_Tower,_Faisalabad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Mar%C3%ADa_del_Naranco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Future_(Yalta) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megyeri_Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metropolitan_Government_Building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryggen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheong_Fatt_Tze http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennybacker_Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Arabic_Studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schloss_Johannisburg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Teatro_Falla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_MK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnos_Grove_tube_station http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giza_pyramid_complex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giza_Necropolis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Al_Arab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibition_Park,_Newcastle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_Tower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89glise_de_la_Madeleine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Towers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King's_College_Chapel,_Cambridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Schonell_Bridge

Pmolsen (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Still looks a little bit like advertising to me, sorry. I mean, you can mention the laser scan but don't say where you can get it. Use a reference, so if people want to learn more, they can see the reference. Hope this helps --Tommy2010 03:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The coordinates exist so that no mapping software is given a marketing advantage by having preferential treatment over any others - so I disagree with adding a direct link, and suspect the links in the other examples should be removed (need to look closer when I have a chance). That said, if a third party reliable source mentions the 3D model and can be used as a source, then it may be reasonable to add sentence or two mention without the link in the body of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I will refrain from adding a link for now and will check the other pages referred to in a couple of weeks. That said, I think you will be doing Wiki users a big disservice if you remove those links. A 3D model of a place or structure is the best way of describing it. It means more than a thousand words about the item. What does it matter if the model is in SKP (GE) format rather than DXF or OBJ or a dozen other formats? They can all be converted from one to the other anyway.

Several organisations such as CyArk and many universities have embarked on major 3D modelling projects of heritage sites. When the 3D models of those works are published will Wiki also ban any reference to them? As with those the vast majority of Google 3D models are created free of charge and for no commercial gain. They are mostly done by private individuals like me who do it simply for the challenge. In the case of Machu Picchu it was over 1,200 hours of work.

You say above that the proposed link seems like advertising. Almost all external references in Wiki are to pages that contain advertising (usually by Google). That is a simple fact of life these days and is the sole reason that most web content is free.

Most significant events are also reported on by hundreds of reputable media outlets. Every time one particular media source is quoted as a source in Wiki you are boosting that company's profile and hence profits. They are not charity organisations. It would also be naiive to think that media outlets are not providing content to Wiki anonymously to boost their own profiles.

Most media articles also contain the name of the journalist. That reference boosts his profile and hence ultimately his income, yet there is no attempt to censor that information.

If it is simply the fact that I am the author of the model that bothers you would it help if the reference was instead added by say the Peruvian government or the University of Arkansas?

Barek, would you consider Christopher Heaney to be one of the reliable sources that you refer to? Pmolsen (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that you were the author, that opens a whole new set of problems, see WP:COI. Also, for reliable sources, see WP:RS.

The argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a red herring, and has only flagged other issues. As for links, the models are already reachable via the coord tag (try clicking on it, one of the options is Google Earth), the whole point of that link is to provide the information along side multiple available options, so no one map system stands out promotionally over the others. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see the point that someone reading this article might be very interested to learn that there is a 3D model. However, it is inappropriate to add text to the article which does nothing more than highlight a particular external website (particularly with such detailed text). Wikipedia has to have fairly blunt methods of dealing with the hundreds of spam additions made every day, and it is generally felt that the spamming of high-quality material is still spamming, and should be removed to avoid every article becoming little more than a series of promotions. As mentioned above, the best way to handle this would be to find a published reliable source (something by Christopher Heaney probably would be very suitable) that contains a fact relating to the model, then add the fact with a reference. The reference could perhaps contain a very brief statement about accessing the model (ideally, the reference would include that information, and we would only need to refer to the source). An ideal fact would be that the model revealed certain information, rather than simply that the model exists. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I am not proposing adding text to the article "(particularly with such detailed text)". What I am proposing is simply an external link at the bottom like this:

• 3d Model of Machu Picchu

It would be identical to that included in hundreds of other Wiki pages, examples of which are listed above:

Barek, with regard to your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment, I reproduce the following quote from that page:

"When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

In this case we are talking about an external link that is absolutely identical in form and substance to over 100 other Wiki pages hence my use of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a red herring at all.

The only relevant consideration is whether those links in the other pages are valid or should also be removed. A 3D model in most cases provides a researcher with unique information not available via words and photographs and hence I believe those links are very worthwhile, assuming the function of an encyclopedia is to provide ready access to relevant information about a topic. Pmolsen (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me (however, is "3d" or "3D" appropriate?). I suggest you wait to give other editors a chance to comment. Suggestion: It is usually not a good idea to debate procedures with experienced editors because there will be factors you may not have encountered (a very important one in this case is that standard practice usually overrides the wording of an essay). Just stick to asking questions about the particular case (adding the link to this article). Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the link to the 3D model. I also removed the wmf.org link (which I think is now here) because it just links to a large pdf which has only a very small item relating to this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

1981 or 1971

The lead says that Machu Picchu was declared a Peruvian Historical Sanctuary in 1981, but in Machu Picchu#History we find: An area of 325.92 square kilometers surrounding Machu Picchu was declared a "Historical Sanctuary" of Peru in 1971. This edit added "(page previously mentions 1981?)", so that text needs to be removed, and the date verified. Also, the misguided "325.92" needs to be replaced with "326". A reference would be handy!

Google finds lots of sites supporting 1981, but the sites I have found are not at all reliable, and have probably just copied the text from each other, or from here. I found two sites supporting 1971, but that could easily be a typo which was copied from one site to the other. This example says An area of 326 square kilometers surrounding Machu Picchu was declared a "Historical Sanctuary" of Peru in 1971. The same site says 1981 on its main page. I'm hoping that someone has a book or other suitable reference, and can clean up this point. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Filming at M-P?

An edit that has been removed a couple of times says The song "Kilimanjaro", from the 2010 Tamil Movie "Endhiran", ... was filmed at Macchu Picchu in Peru. but it only cites Wikipedia. If it was acttually filmed at M-P it's significant, otherwise it's piffle - but I can't find a good source. Anybody out there know? = DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Twin towns

I was thinking of removing the new "Twin towns" section (added in these four edits) because it seems trivial, and the flag icon is intrusive. However, looking around shows these are accepted elsewhere (example). Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I added this, and I can see where you are coming from with the Union Flag being intrusive, but as most town sections have twin town sub-sections. The fact that Machu Picchu is uninhabited is irrelevant Haworth has Machu Picchu on it's page, so I believe this page should stay as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolstijers (talk • contribs) 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lynntas, 14 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Reference for smallpox infections among the Incans prior to Spanish incursion is: McNeill, W.H. 1976. Plagues & Peoples, p. 183. Thx, I'm a "newbie to Wiki, & have Anthropology degrees. I am also an experienced editor, & may want to contribute to Wiki. Lynntas (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your contributions! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 01:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Strokes song 'Machu Picchu'

Is it relevant to mention it in the media section? Pritstick94 (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. The current items are somewhat dubious but at least have reasonable notability and relevance to the topic of the article. I do not know the song, but to warrant mention here a song would need to be do a lot more than mention the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the son actually about Machu Picchu, or does it just use the name as a metaphor? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File:80 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009 - edit.2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:80 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009 - edit.2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 18, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-06-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Machu Picchu, with the peak Huayna Picchu behind it. Perhaps the most famous Inca site, Machu Picchu is situated on a mountain ridge above the Urubamba Valley in Peru. It was probably built as an estate for the Inca emperor Pachacuti in the 15th century, but abandoned soon after during the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire. Although known locally, it was unknown to the outside world before being brought to international attention in 1911 by the American historian Hiram Bingham, and it is now an important tourist attraction.Photo: Martin St-Amant

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" Based on "Secret of the Incas"

Don't know how relevant this may be, but "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was based on the movie "Secret of the Incas" (1954) with Charlton Heston. They even ripped off Charlton Heston's costume for Harrison Ford's (fedora, leather jacket, tote bag, pistol, khaki, etc). 209.77.229.154 (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem relevant to this article - it's not like "Raiders" was filmed at MP, or even references it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ashlar Masonry was not invented by Incas

This article is a bit biased and reads in many places like a travel brochure. It makes it seem as if the building techniques at Machu Picchu were somehow revolutionary or new. The fact is that the buildings of Machu Picchu were built in a manner remarkably similar to many buildings which predate it by over two thousand years. For example, the building techniques used in Mycenae, which had been built 2600 years before Machu Picchu, are remarkably the same .

Here is a photo comparing the lion gate at Mycenae with a doorway at Macchu Picchu:

This the lion gate at Mycenae, built built around 1250 B.C

and this is a doorway at Machu Picchu built around 1450 A.D.

I tried adding this to the article but the important information was removed by DavidWBrooks with the comment "What does Greek architecture have to do with MP? That seems a really unnecessary parallel.." I am leaving the information here for discussion as to whether it should be included or not.KoshkaCoon (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the chances that the Inca knew anything about Greek artchitecture are very slim, this interesting material needs (IMHO, of course) to be added as a separate section pointing out that the apparently coincidenctal parallel exists - I reverted it because it was placed in the article in such a way as to imply that MP was at least partly inspired by Mycenae or its equivalent. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Addition of such would need to be supported by reliable sources (scholarly works, not popular press stuff) noting the significance of the observed parallels. Vsmith (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In general, it is not appropriate to add commentary to an article unless the source specifically comments on the topic of the article. Even if that is satisfied, it is not necessarily helpful to note, for example, all building techniques that are similar to those mentioned in this article. It is not as if someone is claiming (at least not in this article I hope) that the Incas were the only people to ever build in this style, so a reason would be needed to add this observation, despite its interest. Also, there are only so many ways of assembling stone blocks, so perhaps the similarity between the photos is not particularly significant (a source would be needed to clarify that). Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The face?

Would it be acceptable to mention the literal "rock face" in the article? (Look carefully at the photos.) 142.167.187.130 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Only if it is part of the local lore (I've never heard it mentioned). Thanks to paredolia, every place with rocks has at least one "face". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The Spanish pronunciation given is wrong. My father is from Peru and he has always, consistently, pronounced it as [matʃu piktʃu]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.238.239 (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I forgot to sign that. The bot got to it first. 70.107.238.239 (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. Without the "k", Picchu means something different. I will change it. Dger (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Creation Date - Correction Required

Someone review & correct the following: "The Incan people started building the "estate" around 14000BC..." 14000 BC?? Later it says 1450 (AD!). Check the following link for more accurate information: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/274 86.47.181.194 (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Mac.

Thanks, that's just recent test edits which I reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yale controversy

Makes me wonder - what if a university from Peru went to Connecticut, grabbed a bunch of artifacts concerning colonial America, and took them back to be put on display in Peru for several decades?

What would be the reaction of Yale University to that? Just wondering.
--Atikokan (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I seen who This page was last modified on 13 July 2013 and in 25 July 2013.but in now in View history tab,i cant see that!!! is it a problem?or Wiki not show all modified date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelson1942 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The article mentioned that all of Birmingham's actions of taking the relics to Yale were legal. What makes it legal? Was it Peru's government? Institutions in Peru claimed that Birmingham and his men were stealing? On what grounds is this claim. A mention of the laws of Peru that detail the removal of relics and historical items would help the understanding of the argument between Yale and the archaeologists of Peru. Enniks (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

a problem in date

I seen who This page was last modified on 13 July 2013 and in 25 July 2013.but in now in View history tab,i cant see those in dates list !!! is it a problem?or Wiki not show all modified date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelson1942 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

travel blog

Because so much has been written in so many places about Machu Picchu, this article has to limit "external links" to sites with unique information. That's why I have removed a travel blog added by an Anonymous IP ... it's a very good blog, well-written and researched, but it doesn't add enough important, unique information. Our readers should know that if they follow an external link from this article, it will add something new and difficult to find otherwise. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Photograph in the Early encounters section

The photograph in the Early Encounters section it titled "Man sitting on ruins" and is dated 1911. The photograph depicts a mule in the background. Although I don't know the location of the photograph I think it is unlikely that the ruins pictured are of Machu Picchu as no mules were taken up to Machu Picchu in 1911.

If the picture is not of Machu Picchu I think it should be removed from the article.

Ian3060 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hydropower project threat?

The whole hydropower project "threat" seems remarkably POV. It is taken as fact that this project will somehow have a negative effect on the site, but no details are given as to who is saying this. The specific "threat" is fairly vague in the text, but the closest thing I see to a threat in there is that the powerplant may be disruptive to an alternate access route and some nearby hot springs, both of which sound like tourist destinations rather than the site itself.

Although this entry looks well-cited because it had 3 citations in 2 paragraphs, but two of these are just travel sites describing the geography of the area and have nothing to do with the power plant. The only remaining site is a terse headline-only site entirely in Spanish that says the project is occurring. If this section is to remain in the article, it should 1.) be better cited and 2.) be more balanced, explaining who is saying it's a threat, why they think that and what the opposition things. As it is now, this reads like advocacy. Personally, I'm in favor of culling the whole section. For now I've marked it as neutrality disputed. 0x0077BE (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, seems like the section hasn't had any defenders come forth so I went ahead and culled it. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Human Sacrifice, Aliens and Mysticism section

I've removed the paragraph about L Ron Hubbard as that bit of info may fit in his biography or the religion article, but is rather irrelevant here. Vsmith (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for additional citiations

There are a few passages, particularly in the "History" section, which require many more citations. If anyone could cite the claims in this section, it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFish291 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 6, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-07-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Machu Picchu, a 15th-century Peruvian Inca site located 2,430 metres (7,970 ft) above sea level, as viewed from Huayna Picchu. Established c. 1450, the settlement was abandoned at the time of the Spanish Conquest the following century. Although it remained known locally, it was not brought to international attention until after Hiram Bingham visited the site in 1911. Machu Picchu is now a popular tourist destination and UNESCO World Heritage Site, and restoration efforts are ongoing.Photo: Martin St-Amant

Hydropower unit troubles

Hi All, just a heads up that the units in the description of the hydropower system in Threats are probably faulty. I'd fix them, but the relevant source is in Spanish and behind a paywall. The problem is that we're quoting 105 cubic metres of water, but I think we need a unit of volume per time, presumably cubic metres per second. 105 cubic metres per second seems like the right order of magnitude for a 280MW plant, but I can't see the article to check. Thanks, 118.208.175.89 (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I had actually meant to cull that whole section months ago, but I guess I missed the second paragraph. I finished the job now. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2014

On the section of the page entitled "In Media", there is a picture of two men to the right side of the page. One is Esteban Paveletich. You've misspelled his name, leaving off the "h" at the end. When clicking his name, it takes you to a page saying no page exists. However, if you do a search under the correct spelling of his name, with the "h" at the end, you'll see he has a Wikipedia page. Please correct.

75.185.139.187 (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. He doesn't have an English wikipedia page, but there is one with that spelling on the Spanish wikipedia page, so I think you are right.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A small problem

The 'History' section seems to contradict 'Early encounters', 'Demystifying the discovery of Machu Picchu' and 'Cultural artifacts: Dispute between Peru and Yale University'.

'History' says that 'Hiram Bingham' (re)discovered Machu Pichhu, while 'Early encounters' comments that 'Maps found by historians show references to Machu Picchu as early as 1874.' Again, while 'History' says that 'The ruins were mostly covered with vegetation except for the cleared agricultural terraces and clearings used by the farmers as vegetable gardens … Bingham was not able to get a full extent of the site … ', while 'Demystifying' says that 'Hiram had claimed that all the ruins of Machu Picchu were covered in a dense vegetation. Contrarily, the photographs depict the ruins in a clear open space. The letters and photographs suggest that Machu Picchu was not isolated in wilderness, but rather connected and populated by several indigenous families.'

A more subjective (and possibly controversial) discrepancy is observed between paragraph 12 of 'History' and 'Cultural artifacts: Dispute between Peru and Yale University'. 'History' takes a clearly Imperialist position on the tensions between the explorers and the local people, and the Yale – Peru dispute which followed. In contrast,'Cultural artifacts' has a markedly revisionist tone.

In conclusion, 'History' seems to have been written first, from the traditional viewpoint, while the following sections appear to have been added later, reflecting a more contemporary outlook.

While it is certainly necessary to give both sides of the argument, would it not be better to move all of this into 'Cultural disputes', under two subheadings, one for each side?

By the way, could somebody please find a better title for this section? Thank You. Jose Mathew C (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Building material

Would be interesting, if anybody knows, to say what type of rock (other than "local") was used in the construction. 98.170.192.214 (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Photos

IMHO, this article has too many redundant photos, including several similar panoramas. This is a not uncommmon issue with articles about famous places - many editors have their favorite photo(s), often ones they have taken - and as I've found in other articles as well as a disagreement here, different editors think different photos are unnecessary. In that case the default becomes to leave them all in, and the article gets hard to read, especially on mobile devices (which is why this matters).

Personally, I'd kill the middle panorama, which is mostly redundant, and the top photo with mist.

Anybody else have an opinion? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely. I think I stripped out a whole bunch a few years back, but they seem to breed. We should only keep photos that serve to illustrate the article, not overwhelm it with pretty pictures. If people want to see lots of pretty pics, they can go to Commons. The aim of Wikipedia is to educate. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Demystifying the discovery

The article on Machu Picchu as written does not mystify Bingham’s rediscovery of Machu Picchu. The section “Demystifying the discovery” refers to Bingham’s “glorified” discovery. This is certainly the case that Bingham, who was good at telling the story, did embellish and exaggerate in later years, especially in his book “Lost City of the Incas”. At the time of his exploration of Machu Picchu he was more scholarly and factual in his writing. It is primarily in his book “Lost City of the Incas” written many years latter that he used a more elaborate style. Hugh Thomson, who provided the introduction to the edition of the book published by Weiderfield and Nicolson in 2002, highlights the elaboration of Bingham’s style of writing. Thomson also refers to Alfred Bingham’s article.

If the facts of his exploration are presented in this article using his writing and records at the time, rather than relying on his book “Lost City of the Incas”, then there is no exaggeration to explain. Therefore there is no need to demystify: "hazardous tropical jungle", "most inaccessible path in the Andes", "isolated in wilderness".

Alfred Bingham had access to “the voluminous files of Hiram’s Yale Peruvian expedition at the Yale library and the thousands of his photographs preserved at the National Geographic Society.” I don’t have access to these, but from what I have researched I don’t totally agree with Alfred’s assertion that: “It was not hidden in the jungle but largely exposed by local farmers who had cleared the ruins to grow crops.” and “The most misleading impression given by my father’s accounts was that the ruins were all but hidden in the dense vegetation. Photographs he took on that first day but never published tell a different story. From the highest point in the ruins he took a series of pictures giving a panoramic view of the site to the east and south. It shows that a large part of the city had been cleared by the Indian families: they had removed the overgrowth from the terraces on which the buildings stood in order to obtain level land for corn and other crops. The trunks of felled trees lay where they had fallen on top of many of the buildings, but few of the ruins were hidden.”

The April 1913 volume of the National Geographic Magazine has many photographs that show the site before the major clearing was undertaken. These include Page 499 overview of the western side and the Sacred Plaza taken by H.L. Tucker in 1911, and Page 432 of the west side after 10 days of clearing in 1912. The photograph on page 433 is a repeat of the shot on page 432 but after the vegetation was removed. The terraces and building that could not be seen in the photograph of page 432 are now clearly visible.

Going back to Hiram’s description of what he saw on his first visit was cleared agricultural terraces with buildings covered in vegetation. The agricultural terraces had been cleared by a couple of farmers a few years earlier so they could grow crops, but they were unable to remove the large tree trunks. There were so few farmers that they would not want the effort or see the necessity to clear the vegetation from all the buildings. I don’t think the Quechua families “had removed the overgrowth from the terraces on which the buildings stood” but from the agricultural terraces. These terraces were built to allow level ground for growing crops and which the Incas had filled with rich soil imported from elsewhere. The terraces that had been made to provide level ground for buildings were not suitable for agriculture and hence would not have been cleared.

The final point about not initially valuing his findings at Machu Picchu is correct. He was looking for the old Inca capital of Vitcos and none of the clues fitted, so he was correct in assuming that he had not found Vitcos. He later returned his attention on Machu Picchu as he appreciated the well preserved nature of the ruins because they had been left undisturbed since the time the city was abandoned. As Bingham failed to identify the ruins at Espiritu Pampa as Vilcabamba Viejo, he erroneously theorized that Machu Picchu was Vilcabamba Viejo.

For the above reasons the section “Demystifying the discovery” is out of context, confusing and not totally factually correct and I propose that it be deleted from the Machu Picchu article. A revised version may better fit on the Hiram Bingham page. Ian3060 (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

40% of the opening paragraph is about the pronunciation and etymology of Machu Picchu. Reading it is like wading through treacle. Consider moving the etymology into a footnote per WP:LEADCLUTTER. Firebrace (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not just a footnote, but trimming it and moving the tymology elsewhere would be a good idea.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017

im hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking youim hacking you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.88.125 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Machu Picchu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sacredland.org/world_sites_pages/M_Picchu.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101208190623/http://entertainment.oneindia.in/tamil/exclusive/2010/endhiran-machu-pichu-111010.html to http://entertainment.oneindia.in/tamil/exclusive/2010/endhiran-machu-pichu-111010.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Machu Picchu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207033208/http://caminoincatrail.com/galeria/index.html to http://www.caminoincatrail.com/galeria/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312211652/http://globalheritagefund.org/onthewire/blog/emergency_measures_to_protect_machu_picchu to http://globalheritagefund.org/onthewire/blog/emergency_measures_to_protect_machu_picchu
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wrightpaleo.com/pdf/MP%20East%20Flank%20Report%20Pt%201%20Cover.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wrightpaleo.com/pdf/MP%20East%20Flank%20Report%20Pt%202%20Text.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wrightpaleo.com/pdf/MP%20East%20Flank%20Report%20Pt%203%20Drawings.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Daily Life of Machu Picchu

Is it appropriate to add the daily life of the people who lived there? Is it any different than normal life in the Inca Empire? How did they live? It was mentioned that it was an estate of Pachacuti, so did they all work for Pachacuti? What did they grow and eat? How many people even lived there? These things may also be important for the subject of Machu Picchu. Enniks (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Additions of subsections Daily Life of Machu Picchu as Royal Estate and Agriculture to Machu Picchu History Section and reorganization and update of information within the History Section

Enniks and Sesxb7 are adding in new sub sections under the History section. We are editing the first paragraph to remove dead links to sources. We are adding in two subsections with information about the Daily Life of Machu Picchu as a Royal Estate and Agriculture. We are moving the rest of the information that was after the first paragraph of History and before the First Expedition subsection into it's own section called Encounters. Enniks (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Addition of a source for an internet poll in the Introduction section of Machu Picchu

The internet poll of the New Seven Wonders of the World did not have a source so I found one and inserted it.Enniks (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Improvement of grammar and clarity of the Daily Life as a Royal Estate section

Improved sentence structure and grammar of the content. Also added more links for users. Also added a picture of a llama at the ruins of Machu Picchu. Enniks (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Improvement of agriculture section

Added a picture of the terraces to go along with the paragraph about terrace farming. Also linked several other articles including Incan agriculture, irrigation in Peru, and Incan engineers for the paragraph on Kenneth Wright. Sesxb7 (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Improvement of paragraph structure in agriculture section

Fixed the sentence structure of the paragraphs in the agriculture section because they were confusing. Sesxb7 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)