Talk:Mount Everest

---

An event mentioned in this article is a May 29 selected anniversary.'

"The Years of Rice and Salt"

The top part of the mountain that was destroyed and then rebuilt to full hight, was it Everest? If so, it should be mentioned in an "In the Media" section.

-G

Ascents section and individual achievements

There have been many individual achievements on Everest. I do not want to detract from any of them, but if they were all listed in the ascents section, then the section would become far too long. The Timeline of climbing Mount Everest article was created so that these achievements could all be listed. Imo the ascents section is too long already. Any comments? Viewfinder 10:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Rest of Everest external link

I'm aware of the controversy on this page regarding external links. I've added a link to the Rest of Everest video podcast on the grounds that it is very informative about the mountain, the culture of the people around the mountain, and the experience of climbing the mountain from the north; and this information can't be integrated into the article. This seems to me to conform to WP:EL, but some may disagree. I'm not a contributor to this article, so I'll leave it to those who are to decide whether it should stay. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 11:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Measurement - again

The reasons for supporting 8848m are clearly laid out in the measurement section with several references. Moreover, we should not be changing the elevation according to the view of whoever happened to be the last editor. If anyone wishes to make the case for changing the elevation, please could they make the case for changing it on this page, and allow time for discussion before the main article is edited. Viewfinder 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole section is in need of a serious rewrite. There is conflicting dates - some sources have the India Survey's discovery via triangulation as 1854, others 1856, Wikipedia 1852. Saying that it was "recently found" to be 8848 is misleading: that was in 1954 or 1955 (1955 on Wikipedia - more discrepancies), and then varified/accepted by other sources/governments in 1975, and so "reconfirmed" by China. However, China's most recent measurements have not been accepted by most scientific and mountaineering organizations, namely National Geographic. There was much questioning of China's ability regarding equipment to measure the summit. So, despite China's refusal to accept otherwise, most other better-funded, better-equiped groups disagree with the Chinese measurement. I'm well aware of Nepal's disapproval, but that seems to be more political than scientific. This whole section is wrong and seems to be using information to support POV. At the very least, it needs to be rewritten to support one of two possibilities: (1) Sagarmatha is 8850m as supported by the best GPS equipment available, or (2) Sagarmatha is either 8850 OR 8848, depending on who you believe. In addition, one of the photos overlaps with the script. --Bentonia School 11:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think any of these matters require a "serious rewrite" to fix. Maybe the 1852 survey is incorrectly dated — I lack any sufficiently trustworthy sources to really comment, though Britanica says Its identity as the highest point on the Earth's surface was not recognized, however, until 1852, when the governmental Survey of India established that fact. Perhaps you can provide good reference for the 1854 and 1856 dates? Googling seems to find roughly equal number of references to each date. "Recently found"? Recently with resepect to 1852, I think; but I've changed the wording to clarify this. A good source for this (or 1954 if that's correct) would be nice too.

As to the accuracy or otherwise of China's survey, if we're just arguing about the difference between 8850 and 8848, that's a futile argument as there are simply too many sources of error for a 2 m difference to be relevant. Just for one thing, one recent Himalayan survey (admitedly to northwest of Everest) measured a mean difference of 2.96 m from the EGM96-derived geoid. In the same area, a second commonly used geoid (derived from OSU91) differed by 2.68 m from the EGM96 one. In other words, there is about a 3 m uncertainty in what sea-level actually means — hardly surprising in a subduction zone where the mass of the subducted plate will significantly affect the gravitation potential. And then there's the seasonal variation in snow depth (which must surely approach 2 m), and the inherent inaccuracy in measuring techniques used. So it's a pointless argument, and unless and until 8850 becomes the accepted figure, I see little point in changing the figure given in the article. As it currently stands, we mention both figures and explain where they come from. — ras52 12:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit rude of me to cite a Himalayan survey and not tell tell anyone what it is. Sorry about that! Bannerjee, P., et al. (1999). Geoid undulation modelling and interpretation at Ladak, NW Himalaya using GPS and levelling data. J. Geodesy 73: 79–86. — ras52 13:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think some of my wording has come across incorrectly. 1852, as far as I know, is the correct year that Radhanath Sikhdar calculated that Peak XV is the highest summit on Earth; I was just refering to descrepancies that exist elsewhere on the net. Some sources do state, however, that Gulatee made his calculations in 1954 and not in '55: http://classic.mountainzone.com/features/everestht/ , http://www.italysoft.com/curios/everest/ , http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/ootw/1999/ootw_991208/ob991208.html, while at least one more suggests '53: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/517730.stm.

I agree that arguing over 2m is ridiculous, however that's not what the argument is about. It's about what is the accepted height, and most sources say it is 8850. Whether it is true or not, there are far too many sources saying 8848 is not as close to the actual height as 8850 is. If we are using Internet sources, here are just a couple that support the 8850 calculation: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117459/Height-of-Mount-Everest, http://www.infoplease.com/spot/everest-timeline1.html#1996, http://pweb.jps.net/~prichins/everest.htm, http://www.100gogo.com/ever1.htm, http://www.mnteverest.net/history.html.

All in all, with all this disagreement, it is obvious that there is no official calculation of the height. Therefore, as I suggested previously, the article should give one of two responses: (1) Sagarmatha is 8850m as generally agreed upon by most sources, OR (2) There are two calculations that are suggested, and one can choose which ever one suits their fancy, depending on who they believe. Wikipedia should not claim, under no uncertain terms, that 8848 is the "official" height.

One final point: It was always my understanding that Sikhdar's calculations varied, and that he never came across an exact measurement of 29,000 feet. By averaging his measurements, he calculated 29,002 feet. I only have one citation for this, and it's one that I'm not too sure about: Tenzing & The Sherpas of Everest, by Tashi Tenzing and his wife, Judy, page 4, 4th paragraph. --Bentonia School 14:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ras52 makes the point about geoid variations well; there is no hard evidence to support 8848 m or 8850 m, and the claimed accuracies by both the Chinese and National Geographic are ludicrous. That is already in the section. But unless we are going to write "8848 m or 8850 m" throughout Wikipedia, we have to come down in favour of one or the other, although the measurement section should continue to present all the facts. I do not think we should accept the verdict of a Googlefight. Loads of wrong elevations are copied by websites. Many have not been updated since November 2005. Googlefighting still gives 7723 m for Ulugh Muztagh (so does Encyclopedia Britannica). No, Wikipedia should lead, not merely reflect a majority of websites.

• On the question of what should be regarded as official, for want of hard evidence from other sources I come down firmly in support of the cited pages of the governments of China and Nepal, and the mapping from the surveys of both countries, and against the National Geographic Society, who support 5682 m for Khardung La and 5749 m for Pico de Orizaba. It is notable that Bradford Washburn did not participate in the 1999 survey (not surprisingly given that he was 89 at the time). At risk of being accused of cynicism, I suggest that the 2 m change in elevation claimed by the NGS was a publicity stunt. The NGS should not be regarded as "official".

• The NGS survey is the only survey to support 8850m. All the other surveys, including the most recent in which Washburn participated, and the Chinese survey, support 8848m, assuming that we take into account the snow/ice cover.

• The 8848 m figure has been accepted for more than 50 years. I see no reason to change it because of a single GPS survey whose error margin exceeds the amount exceeding the proposed change. If we change it, we will need to change it on about a dozen other pages too, so we should think very hard before we change it here, on the basis of a survey by an organisation which may be august, but whose reliability on elevation matters is dubious. Other authorities may have bowed to the "respectability" of the NGS, but I do not see why we should. Viewfinder 15:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I think I've stated my case clearly enough. I also believe that both measurements should continue to exist in the article, but neither one should be regarded by Wikipedia as an official height; we are, afterall, supposed to be neutral. I do disagree with some of the arguments made here - especially the argument that 8848 has been used for 50 years: is an old misconception better than a new truth? Is it not just a matter of knowledge-evolution via better technology? And a publicity stunt? Can you elaborate? - but I agree that the margin of error is so great and the difference between the two measurements so slight that it really will come down to a matter of 'who do you believe?'.

I say keep them both in, but make no preference for either one. --Bentonia School 15:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Both measurements already do exist in the article, but as more surveys support 8848m I do not think it should be given more weight. I have added that 8850m is widely quoted. I hope that this is sufficient. Re the publicity stunt, OK that's conjecture but I don't think Wikipedia opposes relevant conjecture on talk pages, and that elevations are manipulated for political and commercial ends is surely not in doubt. Viewfinder 15:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So, I'm curious, if the 8850 measurement was manipulation, how has it benefited/harmed anyone? If it appears that the previous measurements supporting 8848 were not calculated from the highest rock point, then how does that certify it as more accurate, when the 8850 measurement supposedly did measure from the highest rock point? And, as far as I can tell, it seems 8850 is more highly favoured.

Despite this conjecture here on the Talk page, which is fine with me, it does read into the article as well. This paragraph

The elevation of 8,848 m (29,028 ft) was first determined by an Indian survey in 1955, made closer to the mountain, also using theodolites. It was subsequently reaffirmed by a 1975 Chinese measurement [7]. In both cases the snow cap, not the rock head, was measured. In May 1999 an American Everest Expedition, directed by Bradford Washburn, anchored a GPS unit into the highest bedrock. A rock head elevation of 8,850 m (29,035 feet), and a snow/ice elevation 1 m (3 ft) higher, were obtained via this device[8]. This figure is widely quoted, but it has not been officially recognized by Nepal [9], and the discrepancy with the above mentioned 2005 Chinese survey is significantly greater than the surveys' claimed accuracy seems, perhaps unconciously, to support 8848 in favour of 8850. This conjecture that you speak of is seeping into the article. It reads as if Wikipedia favours 8848 when it should remain neutral and favour neither one. I still think it should be rewritten. --Bentonia School 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The section appears to be biased because of two hard facts: (i) several surveys, including the most recent, support a snowtop of 8848 m, against just one which supports 8850 m, and (ii) 8850 m is not supported by the maps and surveys of the host countries. These facts should be sufficient to enable 8848 m alone, with a reference to the section, to appear in the summary. We should not fill Wikipedia with the likes of "8848 m or 8850 m". Even if there was 100% good faith by everyone involved with the NGS survey, it is still the odd one out. Note also that if we do (I hope we don't) decide to give the NGS figure in the summary, we should give at least 8851 m, otherwise we are being inconsistent with Mont Blanc and several other summits.

Still, if you wish to propose a rewrite of the section, please do so in draft, preferably on your sub-page, like I did last week). Then we can debate it before we amend the section,to prevent the section becoming the subject of an edit war. Viewfinder 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply. I was initially turned off by the overall pretentiousness of the editing of this article, and of Wikipedia in general. The article says 'the mountain has been found to be 8,848 m'. That reads very obviously as a support of 8848 and a rejection of 8850. You obviously reject 8850 and (your) bias is evident in the article. --Bentonia School 05:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter landing and mountain growing

I removed the comment about how Everest's (very gradual!) growth would theoretically make Delsalle's record beatable in the future. IMO this is just silly, since the rate of growth is so slow. If someone wanted to build a cairn on the top and then land a helicopter on top of it, that would be a more efficient way to "break" the record. And yes, millions of years from now maybe some other mountain will be higher. I don't think that's worth mentioning either. If anyone disagrees, please discuss here first. -- Spireguy 20:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrase "a record that of course cannot be beaten" should just be removed. It sounds a little pretentious. One day it might be possible to take-off a rotorcraft from another planet (maybe Mars. However Mars atmosphere doesn't help flying there), or from some kind of floating platform or something...--Vittau 07:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the comment that it of course cannot be beaten adds nothing to the article or should I say tells the reader nothing new. Add to the fact that the record being beaten is debateable...and then yes I would have to say it should be removed 89.241.172.234 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Climb for Peace edits

Sorry, but these are in breach of WP:EL section 4.1. It appears that the editor who posted them was very much personally involved with this project and linked website. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and if anyone could add descriptions of and links to all Everest climbs then the article would become much too long. Lance, please could you make the case for these edits on this page first, as per the above mentioned section. Thanks. Viewfinder 10:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If the climb for a cause described and linked is outstanding, in that in stands out above the many other climbs for causes, then yes, let these edits be restored. But I don't think that it is appropriate for Lance Trumbull to be the judge of that. Viewfinder 10:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

---How about making the Dalai Lama the judge of this - as he said about our United Nations endorsed climb and the upcoming film that documents it: "I am always impressed when, in addition to words of support, people actually undergo some physical hardship to further the cause of peace. Undertaking to climb Mount Everest under any circumstances takes great courage. The Everest Peace Project’s film Everest: A Climb for Peace is a tremendous achievement from several points of view. Not only does it document a spectacular climb of the world’s tallest mountain, but it also shows how the project brought together people from different faiths and cultures, who worked successfully as a team to accomplish their goal. It reinforces my strong belief that if we adopt the right approach and make a determined effort, cooperation, trust and understanding can always be established for a true and worthy cause." His Holiness the Dalia Lama http://www.everestpeaceproject.org/endorsements.php (here is the endorsement link)

Dear editor - While you and most people seemed to be more concerned about the negative and the worst of human nature - David Sharp controversy and "life-threatening thefts" - we were actually doing something positive and meaningful - something that highlighted the best in human nature. We had the first Palestinian and Israeli summit push. And world-history was made when Israeli Dudu Yifrah unfolded a joint (sewn-together) Israeli/Palestinian flag on the summit of Mt. Everest - I think Palestinian and Israelis climbing Everest together for peace is more news worthy than another negative story about theft on the mountain. LT

Hi LT, thank you for putting your case on this page. Here's my $0.02 worth. Wikipedia has become one of the world's most used, perhaps the most used, sources of information. There have been very many well publicised individual and team achievements on Everest. The fact that anyone can edit Mount Everest does not give everyone who has been involved with or supports such teams a licence to use Wikipedia to blow these achievements' trumpets. Wikipedia policy specifically discourages this. The ascents section was becoming too long. That is why I split off the Timeline of climbing Mount Everest article a few months ago. Imo, as I stated on this page not long ago, the ascents section is still too long.

Personally, I think your expedition website does merit an external link. It is not commercial and it promotes an important and topical cause. Mention of the Dalai Lama's support could be pointed out. The expedition should also be added to the Timeline article. But as you are the photographer, it did not seem proper to me that you added a link to the photo album yourself without raising the matter on the this page first, then re-added this link twice, and proceeded to create a new sub-section, rather than making your case on this page as directed by WP:EL. Still, if, in the next 48 hours, there are no subsequent objections to my above suggestions, and you then reinstate accordingly, I will not revert and I don't think anyone else will do so. But I don't think the expedition merits a sub-section of its own in the article's ascents section, and I'm not sure about the photo album link, there are too many such links in Wikipedia.

I can understand why you think your expedition should be preferred to negative sub-sections, but these address the general issues of rescue and theft, rather than trumpet just one of the many achievements on Everest. Viewfinder 20:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of the merits of this particular ascent, it could be a conflict of interest for User:Lancetrumbull to write the content (aside from correcting any obvious factual errors), and that's generally best avoided. That said, this particular expedition does seem fairly notable, having, for example, been featured on the BBC News site, and having been endorsed by the Dalai Lama, etc. The problem is that most expeditions are in some ways notable — see for example the Timeline of climbing Mount Everest, very few of which ascents are mentioned in the main article. For what it's worth, my opinion is that this ascent is worthy of mention on this page, but perhaps not in such great detail as the version that User:Viewfinder reverted. Like Viewfinder, I think the ascents section is already too long. — ras52 21:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---Hello, thanks for your responses. I am new to all of this and unfortunately, did not read all of the background information before I zealously proceeded. As far as the photo gallery - I just have not seen a photo gallery that is more comprehensive and that also contains cultural photos, and was wondering why the link I posted kept disappearing from the section until I checked the email box and found out that they were being removed - I did not understand the proper protocol - sorry. I do not think the current pictures of Everest are very inspring and having a link to a photo gallery (whether to mine or someone elses) may be a good idea....

More importantly, The Everest Peace Project's Everest Climb for Peace: I do strongly believe this is worth mentioning on the site - however, after reading both of your comments I am confused on how exactly I should proceed and where and what I can post. If one of you wants to put something up there, I am fine with that - or I am happy to upload something again. Can you please give me some final guidance of what can be done and where?

Thanks! LT

...And finally, here is the picture that should have been shown across the world - but sadly death and negativity won out as usual...here is Dudu Yifrah holding a joint - sewn together Israeli/Palestinian flag on the summit of Everest.

• Israeli Dudu Yifrah holds a joint Israeli/Palestinian flag on the summit of Everest
  Israeli Dudu Yifrah holds a joint Israeli/Palestinian flag on the summit of Everest

I am surprised that you did not click the "history" tag when you first noticed that the links were being removed. Let's wait for 48 hours before editing the main article again, to allow time for comment by more editors. Viewfinder 08:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted the details to the climb to Timeline of climbing Mount Everest. Viewfinder 11:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ascents section

I have already suggested that this secton is too long. I propose that most of it be transferred to Timeline of climbing Mount Everest, where imo it belongs. Comments from other editors are welcome, but unless there are objections to or adverse comment about such a move, then I will make the transfer. Viewfinder 12:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. Though I hope some details of the 1924 failed attempt and the 1953 first ascent will remain. — ras52 12:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have drafted a new Ascents section, with the material that I propose to transfer put into italics. See User:Viewfinder/everestascents. Comments and edits are welcome. Viewfinder 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. The only sentence I'd resurrect is the one about the Marquess of Clydesdale's 1933 flight over Everest. — ras52 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The new Ascents section needs a good proofreading and rewrite! It's obvious that it has been chopped, e.g. paragraphs are like intros (not summaries), references to people not mentioned earlier, abrupt endings... -- P199 19:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The new ascents section was drafted and open to scrutiny for several days before I posted it. Still, it is not set in stone. P199, if you think that you can improve it then you are free to do so - or at least to supply some more specific examples of how it might be improved. As far as I can see, the people referred to are all appropriately wikilinked. Viewfinder 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference 10 to the Museum of Science is Broken

Reference 10 to the Museum of Science for the rate of lateral movement is Broken. Can it be replaced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joelholdsworth (talk • contribs) 00:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

• I have added a link to the Internet Archive copy. RedWolf 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Hall's party" ???

"Hall's party" mentioned but no context given. Please complete the story! 130.237.45.208 08:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

West Ridge

I noticed that the climbing routes section is lacking anything in relative detail on the West Ridge route. I realize this isn't a major route but I feel it is important enough to write some form of short description. What are your views and is it worth the effort to write one? If we decide it is worth the effort I will compile the information and write. Michael Campbell 19:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you would write about the West Ridge Route you should know that this route was successfully taken done by less than ten people. So, there actually are more than 15 known routes to go on top. Where should be a cut? My opinion: if the route was of very high relevance, i.e. the north route of Messner to go on top alone & without oxygene. The direttissima routes are of relevance. These are also (two) routes which less than ten people climbed successfully. One of them, the third, was never done: the east direttissima.. Alas. West ridge route: first tried 1963 by Tom Hornbein and Willi Unsoeld. They absolved it partly, a part of the upper 2/3 third, coming out of the khumbu icefall valley. They went on the West ridge, beneath of some "too tricky" things in the upper third which forced them to go into the north wall (btw an "illegal bordercrossing" as the north wall is tibetian area), then go up in the (then so called) Hornbein Couloir on top, and climbing down on the southeast "normal" route. Btw the first overstepping of the Everest (go up one route, go down another route). Completely gone by a yugoslavian expedition in 1978 IMO, going north from the Khumbu base camp, +800 m with heavy icefall + stone fall, onto the Lho La saddle (west col, very dificult to go from south.., quite easy from north). Then turning east. "Everest the hardest way" - on ridges. 217.187.189.172 23:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

When did the mountain get named?

This article says 1865, the article for Andrew Scott Waugh says 1856, which is it?--Oskila 11:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (who is currently rewriting the swedish Mount Everest-article.)

How many died in the 1996 disaster?

I have heard 12, 15 (listed in the article) and 16. How many really? It says 12 in Into Thin Air. Nat2 22:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Also, Jon Krakauer isn't particularly against bottled oxygen. Nat2 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jon K wrote about the disaster on the south side. There was another disaster on the north route which cost additional 3 or 4 lives in an indian expedition. Sum is 15 or 16 dead people on Everest in 1996. BTW not the highest "life toll" as the 2006 Everest season had nearly 20 dead people including the passing of a dying englishman by more than 40 climbers without supporting him (to save the own chances to get on top instead of saving the life of another man..). 217.187.189.172 23:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the book again. Krakauer mentions the lose of life on the North Side. --Bentonia School 05:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

Would it make sense to semi-protect the page? I think it was semi-protected at one time. The ratio of vandalism to real IP edits is quite high. Opinions? -- Spireguy 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Lhotse 1955

Thanks to the anonymous contributor for the note and reference on the 1955 expedition to Lhotse. However, since they didn't attempt Everest, I thought it was more appropriate at Lhotse itself. I did keep a sentence about Schneider's map, but moved that to the measurement section. When I moved the rest to Lhotse, I also corrected it slightly, referring directly to the original 1956 AAJ source. -- Spireguy 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with deepest spot in ocean

Please correct the comparison with the deepest spot in ocean which is definitely not the Challenger Deep but instead the Witjas-Deep 1 (-11.022 m) also in the Mariana Trench. The article about Challenger Deep in Mariana Trench is incorrect too. User:easternsun 22.29 mest (utc+2) March 26th 2007

A small suggestion for naming this mountain

IMHO,Everest shouldn't be the legal name for this great mountain,local tibetan or napalese names should be used to describe it.I had just such impression Sir Everest seemed to regard this mountain to be the virgin land, and want to name it.--Ksyrie 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You should take your opinion to a blog; Wikipedia is about fact, and the fact is that Everest is the best known name for the mountain. Also, I am not sure that "Qomolongma" and "Sagarmatha" were originally applied to the specific mountain itself; correct me if I am wrong, but I think that they were applied more generally to the local range. Viewfinder 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that this has been proposed and discussed before; see the archived talk page for details. Ubernostrum 12:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Move-protected?

Why is the page move-protected? FictionH 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that people want to move it to Qomolangma, Sagarmatha, or Chomolungma, the "official" name. ALTON .ıl 08:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Clear-up

Everest is the "Highest" mountain on earth but it is not the tallest. The height of a mountain is measured above sea level. How tall a mountain is is measured from the base of the mountain. A mountain, sorry ive forgotten the name, exists quite a distance below the sea before it reaches its base, it is the tallest mountain on the earth.

I think it is in Hawaii and an innactive volcano, if anyone knows could they please verify this.

Read the "Measurement" section of the article, the issue is already addressed there. -- Spireguy 16:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Map

This article could really benefit from a Map locating Everest in the world... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junko_Tabei

-- 88.72.13.65 14:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

32 years ago her team of women reached the top of the mountain. -- 88.72.13.65 14:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling error in the section "Naming"

It now reads "pronunciation", should of course be "pronounciation". I can't change it, because I've only been a member for about 11 months. -- Henrik46 13:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually "pronunciation" is correct. -- Spireguy 15:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with Mount McKinley--explaining revert

I reverted the addition of the claim that Mount McKinley is often quoted as "the tallest mountain in the world." Let me explain. McKinley (or Denali, if you prefer) is indeed very large, and rises high above its surrounding terrain. However the concept of the "base" of a mountain is inherently ill-defined, so comparisons based on "height above base" are suspect. There are other mountains which have a larger vertical rise in a smaller horizontal distance, e.g. Annapurna I and II, Himalchuli, Rakaposhi. Hence a claim that McKinley rises highest above its base is sketchy, and requires some particular definition of base that would exclude the various Asian contenders; I have never seen such a definition.

In terms of what I have seen in my sources, I have indeed often seen the claim that McKinley beats Everest in terms of "height above base". So that might be worth putting in, with appropriate citation, along with a caveat about the slipperiness of the notion itself. But I would not support putting in the claim that McKinley is often quoted as tallest in the world, since I don't think that's supported by the sources. (If anything should be included along these lines, I would actually prefer a discussion along the lines of "while highest in absolute elevation, Mount Everest is not supreme in terms of local relief; it is bested in such-and-such ways by such-and-such peaks." That might, however, get too intricate.) Feel free to disagree, but please cite sources. -- Spireguy 03:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should include the caveat that Everest's vertical rise is beaten by other peaks, including Mount McKinley. The most authoritative source for this assertion (that McKinley's vertical rise is greater than that of Everest) that I've found is from PBS's NOVA program; it is also mentioned on a number of climbing pages, and is asserted in, of all things, "McGraw Hill's Conquering the New SAT Writing" by Christopher Black (pg. 190). Therefore, restoring with sourcing and qualifier. Sacxpert 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Spireguy here. As long as the concept of a "base" of a mountain is not well-defined, I suggest removing the "making Denali the tallest mountain ..." part of the last sentence. Also, your first sentence ("By another criteria...") should be rephrased, as this is pretty much the same criteria as for the Mauna Kea case, except for being on land. -- Gsv 11:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the Denali section further up in the paragraph to better integrate with the Mauna Kea section, and rephrased the second thing you suggested. For now, I'd say stick with the "making Denali the tallest mountain...." Reason: the best source I found, PBS's NOVA (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/denali/expedition/mission.html, and NOVA would qualify as a generally reliable source) specifically states: "Denali, in addition to being the highest peak in the northern arctic latitudes, has the highest base-to-summit elevation of any mountain on Earth, rising 18,000 feet from its base." I grant that the webpage cited ignores Mauna Kea, but I assume they're just assuming land-based mountains (since anything else is first and foremost an island). If someone really thinks the "tallest" statement should not remain, then I won't fight its removal, but to my mind, a respected scientific source has made the assertion, and is repeated with sourcing in the article. If someone wants to argue against it, I'd say that they should produce a source. Respectfully, Sacxpert 12:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Sacxpert for clarifying, and for finding a source. However the "tallest above base" statement still isn't true by most reasonable definitions. (I apologize in advance for a long addition to this talk page....) First, here's a controverting source: "Nanga Parbat is a mountain of extremes. Its gigantic bulk rises 23,000 feet (7,000 m) in just a few miles from the hot desert gorge of the Indus river, the greatest elevation gain on Earth." (Stephen Venables, Voices from the Mountains, p. 149.) This does not use the specific word "base", but hopefully the implication is clear. Now, even that source is a bit suspect, since other peaks have a 7,000 m rise in similar or a little less distance, but hopefully you see the point. (If you want to know, Nanga Parbat rises 7,000 m in 28 km, versus Denali's 5,500 m in the same distance. Source: topographic maps.)

As to the NOVA source, NOVA is, IMO, not a particularly good example of a "respected scientific source"; it is a journalistic source focused on science. Such sources are prone to repeating claims without checking them deeply. See for example the discussion of incorrect mountain heights here. I'm not saying that NOVA is a bad source; just not one that can be taken for granted if there is a clear possibility for confusion or subtlety that is likely to be missed by such a source.

So what I see is a claim about a slippery concept, backed by an OK source, but controverted by another OK source. So I would at least take out the "making Denali the tallest mountain..." part.

The larger issue is whether the "rise above base" should be included at all when it is ill-defined. For example, here 5,200 m, a certain fairly arbitrary height on the north slopes of the mountain near the Tibetan Plateau, is used as the base for Everest. Why not 4,200 m, which is equally close on the south side of the mountain? Similarly, 2,000 feet is taken as the nominal base of Denali/McKinley, for no particularly good reason. (It's the elevation of Wonder Lake, which is probably why this figure is used, but that's not very significant.) The 2,000 foot contour doesn't get within 25 km of the summit, which is a pretty long distance. So why not 3,000 or 4,000 feet, which hug the actual steep terrain of the Alaska Range? Or 7,000 feet, where the main base camp is (on a flat valley glacier)? Or why not go out further and use 1,000 feet or less? (These contours are not qualitatively farther than the 2,000 foot contour.) There isn't an established way to choose the base, so these numbers are not as definite as the sources usually imply.

It is true that Denali tempts people to talk about "rise above base" more than most other mountains, because, in many directions (say the southeast and northwest quadrants), it descends in a reasonable distance (30 km) to non-mountainous, gently sloping (though not flat) terrain. Hence there are many locations, in a range of distances and directions, that have elevations in the 500-3000 foot range, and one can use some number in that range as a rough "base"--provided it is acceptable to have the base lie tens of kilometers further away and thousands of feet lower than the valley glaciers abutting the mountain! But most large mountains lie in less compact ranges, with highly undulating terrain all around, so it is less tempting to assign them a definite rise above base---the location of such a base and its elevation is even less well-defined than for Denali. Everest is a good example, since while the Tibetan Plateau is a tempting "base", that's unfair to Everest, since the Nepalese side is much lower, even though it is more rugged.

Sorry for going on and on, but it's a topic that I have thought about a lot, and I just wanted to give people food for thought. As far as the article goes, I think I would be OK with something like the current paragraph, with the "tallest mountain" part deleted. But I would still prefer a more drastic change, to make it more precise, such as "while Everest rises 3,600 m in x km, Denali rises 5,500 m in y km..." Also, this issue should be raised at Talk:Mount McKinley as well. -- Spireguy 16:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Who speaks Tibetan?

Various sources indicate that "Chomolungma" does not mean "Mother [Goddess] of the Universe", but rather is the dwelling place of that goddess, who is called Miyo Lungsangma, which does mean "Mother Goddess of the Universe". Unless someone actually speaks Tibetan and can reduce these terms to their cognate roots, I suggest they be removed, as they are folk etymologies.

There is also a separate dispute as to the etymology of the Nepalese name, which at least one source (Gary Rosenberger, New York Times, 1987) claiming that "Sagarmatha" means "churning stick in the ocean of life". Again, either provide an authoritative etymology or remove it completely. --76.224.93.67 22:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

First mention of persons in an article

There is a generally accepted practice in writing to include a person's full name and significance to the story (e.g., Edmund Hillary, the first person to reach the peak of Everest) upon the first mention of that person in the story. Only then may the person be referred by last name only. Section 2 (Climbing routes) of the article violates this concept by stating "It was the route used by Hillary and Tenzing in 1953" before these persons are properly introduced later in section 3. A naive reader will NOT know who these persons are by section 2.

The problem can be fixed either by briefly describing Hillary and Tenzing in the article introduction, or by altering the text in section 2 to read, "It was the route used by Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay during the first successful ascent of the mountain in 1953." 24.196.113.190 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph citation

Regarding the last sentence in the first paragraph, that states:

"The conditions on the mountain are so difficult that most of the corpses have been left where they fell; some of them are easily visible from the standard climbing routes.[citation needed]"

A couple of different sources could be used to back up this statement:

World Tibet Network News, 1993: [1]

"Some bodies are carried down but others are left behind, usually because of risks involved in retrieving them. T.C. Pokharel, former head of the Nepal Mountaineering Association, estimates that more than 100 corpses are on Everest."

Everest FAQ Answers [2] written by Dave Hahn. [3] (Lengthy answer to why bodies are left on the mountain, but very informative and written by a three-time Everest climber, and expedition leader.)

Also found this article on EverestNews.com [4] which actually shows that some family members prefer the bodies stay on the mountain, as it is where the climber would want to be "buried". (Body in question was that of Andrew Irvine, George Mallory's climbing partner.)

"We would prefer that Sandy's body be left in peace; for us Everest has always been his final resting place.

Also of help may be the Wiki article on Green Boots which states his body was there for ten years, until a report from just last month stated his body was no longer there.

Thought that might help whoever is in charge of editing this article! :)