Talk:Mount Everest/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

"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

Can someone please let me know if it is ok to add a link to my website in the Everest External Links section. My website is called Mount Everest The British Story and can be found at http://www.everest1953.co.uk As the title says, the site gives lots of useful information on the British Everest Expeditions from 1921 to the present day. --Mallory24 | Talk 20.08 18 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

You are forgetting that the greatest denivelation in the world(above the sea level) is between Nanga Parbat over Indus Valley -which is about 7000m(!). Regards.Tad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.3.147 (talk) 04:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Three responses: (1) why say "above sea level"? That just confuses the issue, since you are talking about the height above the Indus Valley. (2) The drop Nanga Parbat-->Indus is actually exceeded, over a smaller horizontal distance, by a few peaks, e.g. Dhaulagiri; however NP does beat Everest in terms of vertical relief at most every scale, and is almost unmatched in overall vertical relief. (3) As far as the helicopter landing goes, it's absolute elevation that matters, not vertical relief. -- Spireguy 14:08, 28 August 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)

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)

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)

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)

Mauna Kea. But BTW Mauna Loa, adjacent to it, is still active, is insignificantly smaller, and presumably shares the same seafloor base, giving the same relation to Everest to an active and an inactive.
--Jerzy•t 11:27, 19 December 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)

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! :) --ArielGold♥ (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

2004/5 Incident?

I seem to recall there being an incident more recently, either 2004 or 2005, which was reminiscent of the 1996 disaster. There was a National Geographic (or IMAX) crew filming a documentary on Everest when the weather turned and killed 4 or 5 people on one side of the mountain, and perhaps some others (a Chinese group?) elsewhere or the next day. The crew stopped filming to help people. Am I just imagining things, or did this really happen (and wasn't it a part of this article earlier)?

This could be what I am thinking of. Thanks. - IstvanWolf 22:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Replacing - Enhancing Picture

I propose to replace the picture from the International Space station with this imagemap. The good news is that it is more accessible as the writing can be read and links can be followed. It does mean that International Space station will not be wikilinked as there is a bug in the imagemap (documented elsewhere). Anyone agree or disagree? It is possible to make this a template is the coding needs some protection. If you move your cursor over the picture then you will see how it works. Note: I have a mini stub for "Rong River" .... anyone know more than a sentence? Victuallers 10:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Done as explained above

Victuallers 12:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I had some feedback concerning the problem that you could not click on the article to expand it. It now gives advice ... Victuallers 12:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mt. Lamlam is recognized by many as being the tallest mountain in the world from below sea level, a fact supported by U.S. Geological Surveys. Mt. Lamlam extends in to the Marianas Trench, the deepest trench in the world's surface, which is created by the meeting of the Pacific and Philippine tectonic plates. Textbooks have listed Hawaii's Moana Kea as the world's tallest mountain for years, but Mt. Lamlam is actually taller by approximately 4,057 feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.16.147 (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

1951 Klavs Becker Larsen expedition

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Everest&oldid=174134668) revision mentioned a 1951 expedition. The statement towards the end of the sentence (regarding the sherpas) may or may not be true (I cannot read Danish), but the ascent attempt was true, so I guess it should stay.

I'll try and get a translation of the da wiki page for Larsen, and add the info for it.

Malcuthrad (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sagarmatha meaning

SagarMatha means Goddess of the Ocean: needs to be corrected (planetrmg) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetrmg (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor inaccuracy spotted

From the article:

From the South Summit, climbers follow the knife-edge southeast ridge along what is known as the "Cornice traverse" where snow clings to intermittent rock. This is the most exposed section of the climb as a misstep to the left would send one 2,400 m (8,000 ft) down the southwest face while to the immediate right is the 3,050 m (10,000 ft) Kangshung face. At the end of this traverse is an imposing 12 m (40 ft) rock wall called the "Hillary Step" at 8,760 m (28,750 ft).

But on the Kangshung Face article, it says 3,350 m (11,000 ft). Please fix the one that is wrong. Thanks. 84.121.137.200 (talk) 23:40, 27 December 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)

For those who still measure by feet, can we lose the converter in the info box and manually enter the height, so that it shows the (widely accepted) 29,028 feet instead of the converted figure of 29,029? I know it sounds trivial, but Wikipedia's number looks very odd indeed.

Vytal 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If the original measurement that 8848m is based on was done in feet (29028ft -> 8847.7m -> 8848m) then it seems very strange to do this rounding and convert back to 29,029ft. We should manually enter 29,028 ft. 221.133.86.7 (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Viewfinder (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be more accurate to say that Geoid uncertainty limits the "precision" of (some) measurements, as opposed to the "accuracy" of those measurements. More generally, this article appears to conflate the two distinct concepts of accuracy and precision, by using the word "accuracy" for both. However, as people seem to be rather touchy about edits to this article, I have not made any corrections there, and don't plan to. Dave Butterfield (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2008 (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)

There is strong evidence, one might say overwhelming, that Norgay was first on the summit, but I don't see that in here. We have the faithful Sherpa's confession to the contrary in 1955 (most likely bought and paid for, but as likely untrue) yet nothing of Hillary's original statement after the descent (delivered while while still lightheadeded, no doubt, and perhaps more honest than he'd intended to be) describing how he reached up and grabbed his guide's hand and was pulled to the summit. It's the 21st century and long past time to put Anglo-centrism behind us, don't you think? johngranacki 22:54, 28 May 2008

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easternsun (talk • contribs) March 26th 2007 20:28, 26 March 2007

(My edit does not respond to that.)
--Jerzy•t 21:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

_ _ While "The deepest spot in the ocean is deeper than Everest is high" does not necessarily need a citation, the clause follow, which does not simply restate it: it relies on assertions that the trench is properly shaped, and/or deep and/or wide enough at corresponding points, to accommodate "the whole mountain down to sea level", which is not usually defined.
_ _ Do you imagine it can't get worse? It can! The occasional practice of "climbing Everest from sea level, i.e. trekking on foot from the ocean to Base Camp, suggests the second version is true only if the whole Indian subcontinent, and perhaps at least the whole Tibetan Plateau, will fit underwater, either without deformation, or with deformation that makes the sea-level surface convex and spherical instead of its natural concave and spherical shape. IMO, not likely, and probably not worth having to clarify. Perhaps the second clause should simply be dumped, unless there is a reliably researched "Everest vs. Challenger Deep" site!
_ _ Oh, and can a norther border of Everest's foundation be clearly specified other than by using the whole Eurasian continent? (... I assume we can all agree to discard islands, at least. [wink])
--Jerzy•t 21:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not forget that when you put the whole mountain, plateau and the subcontinent underwater, it displaces the ocean and raises the water. Just ask Archimedes. :P --Kvasir (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there more information on Witjas-Deep? SteveD 19th May 2008. 23:46 pm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.165.193 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2008 (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)

Wow, that really blows. I'm glad someone did something right at the English language Wiki for once! Now, if only we could get rid of some of the (unreadable to English speaking people) unicode characters in so man of the articles, and if they really need to be there for artistic purposes, replace them with PNGs or JPGs! Zaphraud (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2008 (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)

Mtn heights are of interest primarily in the context of the prospect of climbing them. The issues of "what constitutes the base" can be bypassed by talking about the elevation above the highest practical location from which summit expeditions are mounted, and IMO this is as encyclopedic as the elevation. ("Ask the man who owns one." And don't mtns belong to those who climb them, really? No one else wants more than to look at them.)
--Jerzy•t 11:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Is there any discussion out there that talks about measuring Everest from the sea base? --Kvasir (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Jerzy. First, mountain heights are of interest for many reasons, e.g. geology, scenic value, weather, general knowledge...many people are interested in how high Everest is without wanting to climb it. It's important not to have a climber-centric viewpoint.

Second, it's important not to confuse "base" with "base camp", which is the "highest practical location from which summit expeditions are mounted." For one thing, placing supreme importance on a base camp amounts to the same climber-centric viewpoint I objected to above. Also, base camps are often rather high up on the slope of the mountain (by any topographic/physiographic definition), e.g. Paradise, Washington, Piedra Grande hut on Pico de Orizaba, or for that matter, the summit of Pikes Peak (quite easy to get to, but not exactly at the "base"!). -- Spireguy (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (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)

Well, I know Nepali, Sagar=world, matha=forehead. So, in a metaphorical way, sagarmatha means the "head" of the world, I guess. Thanks.--Eukesh 18:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In nepali Sagar = sky (saagar = ocean, sagar != world). The main article has an error!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ar458 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The real height

The real height is 29,035 feet - that there is an error margin of 6 doesn't mean you are supposed to subtract 6 (and could some wikipedia operator fix that shitty hack which inserts coordinates to generate real html that works in all browsers) http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117459/Height-of-Mount-Everest

--IceHunter 02:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is just plain wrong. The 1999 NGS survey is not the most recent. There is no mention in EB of the more recent Chinese survey that is referenced in the measurement section, and the 1999 survey is out of line with all the other surveys. If the 29035ft figure is supported by new surveys and becomes recognised by Nepal and China, then I will be in favor of us supporting it. Viewfinder (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New Ext Lks

Tagging of ascent count stats in lead section

The link to the list of Everest ascents is included in the External links section. Perhaps it should also be linked from the lead section, but I cannot create this link. Reason: although the lists are not mine, the site is mine. Viewfinder (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't put lks to anyone's external sites in the regular sections of articles. As i said in my edit earlier tonite (that i've moved to be the next subsection of "New Ext Lks"),

Ext lks should not appear in the body of the article except as footnotes.... If the topic of the ext lk belongs in the article, summarize it in a clause or a section, or paraphrase it at length, and put the ext lk as a footnote with a ref tag, verifying the summary.

But if the article doesn't need, e.g., an exhaustive list of summit climbs, to cover its topic encyclopedically, then

1. if it's beyond the scope of the article, but still encyclopedic, it can be paraphrased into an article (or a main-namespace list) and given an internal (wiki-)link, marked up like

   [[List of Everest ascents|Several thousand climbers]] have reached its summit.

   covers it, or

2. if it's of potential interest but not encyclopedic anywhere in WP, an entry in the "External links" secn is in order.

Having said "1" above, i should hedge: facts and ideas are not subject to copyright, but ways of expressing them are, and the compilation of a list sometimes constitutes a copyright-protectible work. (Thus, if you think we need a List of Everest ascents list "article", talk to our copyright mavens before you invest much time in paraphrasing someone else's list.)
--Jerzy•t 06:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mallory/Irving controversy ext lk

• Mallory and Irvine: The Final Chapter -- controversy

I proceeded with adding this to "Ext lks" without discussion, bcz

1. it is not new to the article
2. otherwise i'd be removing good-faith material without discussion

Ext lks should not appear in the body of the article except as footnotes, and this one is no exception. If the topic of the ext lk belongs in the article, summarize it in a clause or a section, or paraphrase it at length, and put the ext lk as a footnote with a ref tag, verifying the summary.
(I'm not taking any strong position abt the ext ref as a long-term part of the article, but rather keeping the AFAIK reasonable request for prior discussion from impeding the (at least short-term) remedy for the misplaced lk.)
--Jerzy•t 05:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Life-threatening thefts

The Life-threatening thefts section seems very small and innaccurate. It resuses the same exact sentence as earlier in the article and also mentions that David Sharp had a party while in the other section it suggests that he in fact did not. Can someone fix this? --DFRussia (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This section is very short and very vague. I think it would be more informative if there was a brief explanation of what kinds of things were stolen, or how common a problem this is. As an example, the article states that thefts from Victor Negrete's camp contributed to his death. What was stolen from his camp and how did this contribute to his death? Are people stealing food, oxygen, water, medical supplies, blankets? Should the reader be left to guess these things? Shelshula (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Summit" as a verb

Summit is a verb! Well, it's a transitive verb meaning "submit", and it's climber jargon for "reach a summit" (intransitive) and for "reach the summit of" (transitive). But i was disappointed to discover that none of my three excellent standard dictionaries recognize the jargon (and of the three, only the 2nd International has the "submit" sense).
So i'm joining the editor(s) who've been replacing its usages in the article as a verb. Sadly. (Something needs to be done about the widespread ignorance of the value of the jargon senses of the verb "to summit", but this article is not the place to do it: it'll happen outdoors, as one hiker at a time is converted to mountaineering.)
--Jerzy•t 05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

sagarmatha, meaning

sagarmatha doesn't mean goddess of the ocean either. it means 'stirring stick of the ocean'. to the nepali speaker - the name is in Sanskrit rather than Nepali I think. Remember the Mahabharata story about the churning of the ocean to produce Soma?

You are right! 202.52.243.122 (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

China closing access

Anyone think it noteworthy to mention that China has decided to close access to Chomolungma for the Olympic Torch run? It will affect the mountaineering community immensely. Here's what I have from Explorers Web:

Chinese closing Everest - thousand or more climbers and staff affected Last year, rumors that Mt. Everest will be closed during the Olympic torch event were denounced by CMA & CTMA but this morning a notice was sent out to Everest north side expedition leaders stating that the mountain will be closed until May 10.

According to another reliable source, no group visas to enter will be issued before the date.

Considering the need for acclimatization and infrastructure, climbing Everest north side this spring will therefore be short of impossible. This is a serious blow to Everest climbers and related personnel, many of whom got the notice only one week before their Everest approach is due to begin.

Reportedly, Chinese officials also attempted to convince Nepalese authorities to close the icefall on the south side of Everest this spring until May 10, and try not to have summits during the period. Nepal has reportedly rejected this request.

Not only Everest, but also Cho Oyu will be closed during this period. In many cases, permit, porter, staff and infrastructure fees have already been paid by climbers and outfitters. Those who can afford it, now try to reroute to Everest south side - putting a dangerous strain on this side of the peak, with close to 70 permits reportedly issued there already this season.

Protests are now being put forward by mountaineers to Chinese officials. "I don't blame CMA/CTMA in Lhasa," a western organizer told ExWeb over phone from KTM this morning, "Beijing is taking over." --Bentonia School (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

sounds noteworthy Viewfinder (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all this info i really enjoyed it and hope to someday be standing on the summit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.102.2 (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This information has helped me heaps so thank you all for sending your informatiom i got a a+ for my homework wich is really great so ounce again thanks i have enjoyed reading everything and may you be able to help more people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.106.244 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Real Height

In 1999 the American Alpine Club revised the elevation of Mount Everest according to a study done by Bradford Washburn from 8848 m to 8850 (29,028 to 29,053). The mountain range is being driven further into Asia by tectonic plate movement and is steadily moving northeastward; between 3 and 6 mm a year. Ref79 (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The above mentioned "revision" is given due weight in the measurement section of the article. It is out of line with all the other surveys, including the most recent by the Chinese, and the most recent survey in which Bradfoed Washburn participated in the field. It is not recognised by Nepal either. Until more evidence comes forward that 8850m is the "real height", I reaffirm my opposition to its use by Wikipedia. Moreover, if the above mentioned revision, which is based on a rock head measurement, is accepted, it should be amended upwards by a few metres to take into account the perennial summit snow and ice cover. If it is not, then Mont Blanc should logically be lowered by about 18 metres and the South Pole lowered to below sea level. Viewfinder (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have to concur with ViewFinder on leaving the height at 8848m. While I think the evidence indicates Everest is growing in height per year, snow cover also varies. As well, 8848 remains the officially recognized height by Nepal although I'm not sure if the PRC gov't has officially changed any of their maps to reflect their 2005 measurement. There might be some theories out there why Nepal sticks to 8848 given the plausibility of the newer meansurements, but I will not speculate here. At this point, leaving the height at 8848 seems to be quite reasonable. RedWolf (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting to GA and FAC status

I would like to see this article at least get to GA and then on to FAC. I have recently added some missing citations but there are several where I am unable to find sources for, such as the Nepalese gov't deciding on the Sagarmatha name in the 1960s or the person who came up with the name. What I am proposing to do, unless there are reasonable objections, is to remove all unsourced material and place it either here on the talk page or a subpage. I may also try to figure out who added the information by reviewing the page history to try and coax the editors to provide the citations. I think the vast majority of objections raised on the original FAC nomination (from 2004!) have been addressed although I think there needs to be a culture section added. Once the unsourced statements have been removed or properly cited and the culture section added, I will nominate for GA unless others feel there is other missing sections. RedWolf (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The stuff about Sagarmatha is broadly accurate (though I've never heard of Baburam Acharya), and at least some of it could be surced to Walt Unsworth's book - I'll see what I can do with that later today. Otherwise I agrestandards for featured articles are higher now than they were in 2004, and I think there are quite a few other things which would need fixing. One thing that jumps out is that the ascents section suffers badly from recentism; at the moment an incident which got a few headlines in 2006 gets more space than all the pre-war expeditons combined. Some of he more recent stuff should probably be spun off into the timeline or else separate articles, if they don't exist already. A thorough cleanup and reorder of some of the sections is also probably needed - there are sections like "Life-threatening thefts" which seem to have been deposited at random, with no obvious connection to the material which surrounds them. I'll have a think about what else needs doing. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've sourced some of the section about Sagarmatha; Unsworth certainly confirms that it's a recent invention, and that the local population know the mountain as Chomolungma. However, he doesn't say anything about the underlying political reasons for the renaming, so I've got no objection to these being removed if they can't be sourced. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Statements needing citations removed

I am removing unsourced statements and placing them here until the editor who added them or someone else can provide a reliable source. I will try to identify and notify the author of the statement using the page history but if added by an anonymous IP, I won't bother.

So, for starters

1. "The name Sagarmatha was thus invented by Baburam Acharya."
   • The first claim of Acharya coming up with this name was added on May 23, 2006 with this edit by Mysandesh. The original edit was subsequently reworded but the claim that Acharya came up with the name is unsourced. RedWolf (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
2. "The exceptionally heavy southwest summer monsoon of 2005 is consistent with continued warming and augmented convective uplift on the Tibetan plateau to the north."
   • Added on Oct 23, 2005 with this edit by 131.111.244.52. It was subsequently moved to the Measurements section by another editor. RedWolf (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

China - Tibet

I'm not sure when China was systematically changed to Tibet in the article as a top level territorial entity, but as far as I know it was reverted to "China" in August 2007. "China" should be used when international issues are concerned such as talking about the interntional border, or when talking about Nepal as well in the same sentence. There isn't a problem using "Tibet" when talking about local topics. The equivalent Nepalese subnational entity to Tibet is the Sagarmatha Zone of Nepal, and I don't think this is mentioned anywhere in the article. I have included these in the intro and table to introduce the basis of using "China" and "Tibet" seemingly interchangeably throughout the article. --Kvasir (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Measurement

I think the infobox should be edited to say something like "See Measurement Section" and link to it, because it is so widely disputed as to what the actual height is.

Also, just a side note, I had noticed several people here say that National Geographic recognizes it as being 29,028 feet (8,848 m) tall, but they recognize it as being 29,035 feet (8,850 m), as seen on this page.

Icefall5 (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's significant that even though the dispute exists, it is about a difference of 2 meters out of almost 9000. (Not to mention the natural variation in snow cover, which makes complete precision impossible, and geoid issues....) It's important not to give undue weight to what is a pretty trivial issue. Maybe, since people do get quite exercised about this, it needs to be referred to the Measurement section, but I would vote for downplaying the whole issue. -- Spireguy (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"A rock head elevation of 8,850 m (29,035 ft), and a snow/ice elevation 1 m (3 ft) higher, were obtained via this device.[17] Although it has not been officially recognized by Nepal,[18] this figure is widely quoted." — if it's widely quoted, we should use it as well, no? Daniel (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that "widely quoted" does not mean either "more widely quoted than 8848m", "quoted by the most reliable sources", or "official". -- Spireguy (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know the name of the person who holds the record for most number of climbs to the summit of Mt. Everest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normtrika (talk • contribs) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling correction required in "Discovery of the highest mountain" section in main article

The final paragraph of the "Discovery of the highest mountain" section reads:

George Everest opposed the name suggested by Waugh and told the Royal Geographical Society in 1857 that Everest could not be written in Hindi nor pronounced by "the native of India". Waughm's proposed name prevailed despite the objections and in 1865, the Royal Geographical Society officially adopted Mount Everest as the name for the highest mountain in the world.

Note at the beginning of the second and final sentence, Waugh's name is incorrectly spelled as Waughm. This simply needs correcting to Waugh.

Winter Ascent Section To be added

A new section should be added for winter ascents, first one being by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krzysztof_Wielicki

Malayalaam

Why is Sagarmatha written in Malayalaam in the article? Malayalaam (as far as I know) is not spoken near that area.

Good point. I've removed it. Perhaps there is a good reason for it and someone will post here. But maybe not.--Paul (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2008 (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.)

When I google most accounts, I find that Mt. Everest was named by Waugh in 1856 during the survey, but it didn't become "official" until the Royal Society in London voted to accept the name in 1865. I would suggest that the article reflect such a sequence.Mastercare (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1856 it is (6th August for the "announcement", apparently). Have added a link from the Times (October 4th, 1856) to reflect that. Treated more-or-less as "official" in another article casually referring "Mount Everest" (October 6th) whilst decrying run-of-the-mill "popular" mountains such as Mont Blanc. Harami2000 (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Nepalese name Sagarmatha has absolutelly no claim to being an original local name for the mountain, no people speaking Nepali ever lived near Everest. Sherpa/Tibetan name is the correct choice, but I doubt Everest will ever be overthrown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.65.255.1 (talk) 08:46, 15 October 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)

There seems to be a new organization that purports to reverting the name from Everest to Qomolangma, http://www.mountq.org. Not sure of their credibility, but they seem to be legit. How does Wiki determine their credibility, by the way? Mastercare (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding pictures of the first expedition to the summit and a view from the summit of mount Everest

--Liketohelp (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.presscluboftibet.org/UserFiles/Everest_Expedition_4.jpg

The image is of Tenzing Norgay on the summit of Mount Everest at 11.30 a.m. Tenzing waves his ice-axe bearing the flags of Great Britain, Nepal, the United Nations, and India.

Photo taken by: Sir Edmund Hillary, May 29, 1953

original arcticle at :

http://www.presscluboftibet.org/china-tibet-54/mount-everest-expedition-1953.htm

Helicopter landing?

The article states that the helicopter landed on the top for two minutes, but according to this interview by National Geographic, the pilot says that he landed twice. The first time was for 3 min 50 seconds, and the second time was for 4 minutes. This may be inconsequential, but the second landing was important because of the controversy surrounding this incident. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0509/whats_new/helicopter_everest.html
-- Amssports06 (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not on the summit, i'm pretty sure.
--Jerzy•t 11:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The article states that he landed on the summit, twice.
--Amssports06 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My chopper informant was mistaken. BTW, i reworded

Delsalle had also performed a take-off two days earlier from the South Col, leading to some confusion in the press about the validity of the summit claim.

to

Delsalle had also performed a take-off two days earlier from the South Col, and some press reports suggested that the report of the summit landing was a misunderstanding of a South Col one.

on the assumption that their confusion was like mine. This also avoids need to verify how the confusion came about, rather than simply that it occurred.
--Jerzy•t 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As the NG article cited above makes clear, two minutes is someone's minimum standard for qualifying as having landing, so the accompanying article was misleading until changed, as i shall do.

But NG suggests no "controversy" beyond "Nepalese authorities claiming ... violat[ion of] their air space", which hardly seems encyclopedic. Are you suspecting some other controversy?
--Jerzy•t 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is cryptic in saying

Nonetheless, the summit landing is unconfirmed. This event does not count as an "ascent" in the usual fashion.

I made a guess that my insertion of "(unwitnessed)" expresses, more clearly, the intention of the first sent. The second is too vague to try to retain, and someone who can figure out for sure what it was getting at (The usual fashion for "ascent" is putting one foot above the other? "Ascent" for choppers means non-hover landing? (Unspecified) ascent statistics for whatever reason don't list it?), but we should consider a replacement. In any case, i've eliminated the apparently unnecessary back-and-forth change of subject by moving my replacement for the remaining sentence; if i'm confused about how to fix it, fix it in a way that avoids rather than restoring confusion.
I notice an inexplicable lack of any mention of Everest re a landing at the records site, and tried to fix our description of that. Again, accidentally replacing a meaningless statement with a possibly false one is probably an improvement, since a false one can be fixed while a meaningless one simply makes the reader feel either stupid for not understanding, or superior to us in not having said something so stupid. (But note that NG also describes Lt. Col. Madan Khatri Chhetri's record as "unofficial". Can it be that a hover landing is not a "landing", but a takeoff from a hover landing is a takeoff? Saying so would be a significant improvement of clarity, if verifiable. Perhaps a chopper enthusiast will read the record-setting rules, and edit and footnote accordingly.)
--Jerzy•t 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what the old Eurocopter ref, now dead, said, but my replacement for it is at least adequate. Would the NG one appearing above be better than mine?
--Jerzy•t 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I tired to search the actual feet on how high a helicopter can fly up to Everest? It is interesting with the thin air that even the base camp is too high for helicopters to bring necessities such as food and emergency aid. Are the Eurocopter's able to fly in this area which has been an issue for years to bring some form of mechical transportation to Everest. I have heard they want to bring an commerical use hotel near the base camp but I have no idea how this can be possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.66.119 (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation

what's IPA for 'Chomolungma'? -LambaJan (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I know the IPA so I guess what I'm really asking is how is this pronounced? Is the 'ch' sounded as chair or chrome? The alternate transliteration, Qomolangma, seems to imply the 'k' sound. The vowels I'm guessing are two 'o' (hose) sounds followed by either a mid back vowel (fun), or a low front one (John), and finished by a schwa (the). Is this correct? is the middle vowel (fun) or (John)? Thanks -LambaJan (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always heard it pronounced with 'ch' as in "chair"; the 'q' is often used for that sound. I couldn't quote a reliable source for that offhand, though. Not sure about the third vowel. -- Spireguy (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In IPA it would be tɕʰomolaŋma or tɕʰɔmɔlaŋma or a combination of the two (I'm not sure whether both the o-s are pronounced o or ɔ or if there is one of each). In norwegian the pronounciation would be written: Tkjhåmålangma (kj and ng representing single sounds). The reason for the difference in spelling of the third vowel is because the tibetans write the name with what is usually transcribed in english as a u (as it in other words I guess is prononced) but in this word pronounce it like an a. I'm not an expert at the name or tibetan language, but this is how I've understood it. (And it makes sense everywhere I check.) 195.0.201.246 (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ("Siffuor Kuzmuus" on the norwegian Wikipedia.)

Associated with pronounciation, should a note be added to the effect that the correct pronounciation of 'Everest' is 'Eve-rest' rather than the much more commonly accepted 'Ever-rest'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.26.100 (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is from MountQ.org: How do you pronounce "Qomolangma?" For westerners, the following pronunciation is acceptable: CHEW-muh-LONG-muh (IPA: ‘tʃu: mǝ ‘lɒɲ mǝ) (audio pronuciation) This pronunciation also applies to the accepted alternative spelling "Chomolungma." The Asian pronunciation is not easily performed by most individuals in the west. It involves two sounds made with the throat that are part of the Chinese and Tibetan languages, but not in conventional Western languages, particularly English.

(source: http://www.mountq.org/04_faq.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastercare (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect translation

Sagarmatha (Nepali: सगरमाथा meaning Ocean Head) is not correct. In Nepali सगरमाथा means world's head. सगर means world and माथा means head. The writer must have been confused because of a similar Nepali word सागर which means ocean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nushnp (talk • contribs) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Sagarmatha" (सगरमाथा) is composed of two words "Sagar" (सगर) and "Matha" (माथा). "Sagar" (सगर) means "Sky" and not "Ocean" or "World". "Matha" (माथा) means "Head". So the translation of "Sagarmatha" (सगरमाथा) is "the head of the sky" and not "the head of the ocean" or "World's head".

It is easy to confuse between "Sagar" (सगर), and "Saagar" (सागर), which means "Ocean", since they are often spelled as "Sagar" in English.

Sadishdhakal (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, "Sky Chief". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not the highest?

I heard in one of my classes that there is a mountain in Hawaii taller than Mt. Everest. Is this true? ~Meldshal42 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i just realized it was Mauna Kea. I noticed that this isn't in the article. Someone should add it. ~Meldshal42 19:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mauna kea is the tallest mountain from base to tip (above 5000m under water and 5000m above) but is nowhere near everest in terms of height above see level —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.88.63 (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is, how do you define the "base" if you go underwater? The ocean floor is far from being flat. You could start from the bottom of the Mariana Trench and thus raise Everest's "height" to over 65,000 feet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I'd say that this is nothing more than an issue of using less-than-perfect terminology. Mauna Kea is taller, while Everest is higher. Just to put this in perspective: a child standing on the kitchen counter would be higher up than his taller parent, who is trying to get him down off the counter. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"First ascent" my foot!

We can never know who the first person to climb the mountains are, the desire to do such a thing is nothing new. Perhaps we should change the wording to "First documented ascent"? --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For many mountains---those which could likely have had an undocumented first ascent---the phrase "first documented ascent" (or "first recorded ascent") is appropriate, and is commonly used in mountaineering literature. However for mountains, like Everest, for which an undocumented first ascent is hugely improbable, the standard usage in mountaineering literature is "first ascent." I see no reason to go against that. There could be cases on the borderline where people could disagree about which is the more appropriate phrase, but I don't think Everest is one of them. -- Spireguy (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Height was officially revised almost 9 years ago and Mauna Lea not tallest

According to the National Geographic Press Releases, the revised height, as established in 1999, is exactly 8,850 metres (29,035 ft).

Also, according to the Government of Guam]], Mount Lamlam, with a height of 11,528 metres (37,820 ft), is the tallest mountain measured from base to peak. The Mauna Lea reference should be changed to Mount Lamlam.

Voyager62 (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Depending on how you look at it, Mauna Loa is 56,000 ft. high. I think it is silly and completely unnecessary to include references to "mountains" that extend below sea level in the Mount Everest article. Everest is the world's highest mountain, and that is the end of it. The Mauna Loa reference should be removed and not replaced with anything.--Paul (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The comparisons (to Mauna Kea, Denali, and Challenger Deep, at least) are quite common in mountain literature, and should be addressed. As to Mount Lamlam, that is a less commonly cited candidate for "tallest above base" than is Mauna Kea. If a number of references (more disinterested than the Government of Guam) can be found for Lamlam, then maybe it should be included.

As to the 56,000 foot figure referenced above for Mauna Loa, that is measured above a "base" that is far, far under the sea floor. Many mountains sit on a deep geological stratum that was once at the surface, so one could redefine their heights above "base" in such a way and get far higher values. However, that's not remotely a common way of measuring a mountain; I have never seen that measure used as a "height above base" figure except at the USGS page cited. So that's why such a measurement doesn't need to be included.

As to the issue of the exact height, that has been discussed thoroughly elsewhere on this talk page, although now it might be in the archive. -- Spireguy (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also more about the exact height in the measurement section. Viewfinder (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadishdhakal (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Discovery of the highest mountain" appears Eurocentric

The article states,

"Discovery of the highest mountain [title] In 1808, the British began the Great Trigonometric Survey of India to determine the location and names of the world's highest mountains."

I feel that, with all due resect, in particular the title of this section, feels Eurocentric. Clearly the natives of Nepal had already "discovered" the mountain. People had known of the existence of this mountain for thousands of years before the white European arrived. I wish to show proper respect to the authors here, I do not believe they meant any wrong. Perhaps a more neutral title would be something along the lines of "Determination as the World's Highest Mountain". What we're really trying to express is that, a comparison was made out of the entire geography of the Earth, and somebody looked at the facts and said, this one is the highest. But the mountain was not suddenly "discovered" as if nobody had ever noticed it before.

So I question the choice in the title of the word "discovery" and the implication, however subtle, that only white Europeans were fit to "discover" the mountain, that the natives of the particular country somehow didn't count. I think what the author(s) are trying to establish is that for the first time in history, human beings had acquired information about all mountain heights throughout the planet Earth, and by comparison were for able to make a finding that this was the tallest, and it happened to be the British who did this first. Perhaps the use of the word "discover" is misleading, I think something along the lines of "determination" gives more credence to the concept of knowledge of the entire planet and comparison of the facts in light of that knowledge, in a more appropriate and neutral tone.

Perhaps I am taking issue with the choice of the word "discover" rather than taking issue with subtle racism. "Discover" means the act of finding something previously unknown. The existence and impressive height of the mountain was previously known. The fact that it was the tallest on the planet, which requires knowledge of the height of all mountains on the planet, was unknown. There is an implied, however subtly, an implied slight which I feel may lead to undesirable or unintentional racial or ethnic connotations, that the native peoples' knowledge of their own mountain somehow doesn't count. Clearly the natives did not fail to discover the mountain was there. How could a person, let alone a society, fail to observe the world's tallest mountain?

With all due respect, of course Himalayan natives at that point in history did not know about the Andes for example, but the emphasis should be more on the neutral fact of the first point in history when human beings due to exploration of the planet were able to acquire information about the various significantly tall mountains throughout the planet, then the factual determination that Everest was the tallest point. Having said all this, overall this is an excellent article, and perhaps I am overly disturbed at the moment by a somewhat subtle point.

69.238.20.192 (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Kevin Eanes

The Nepalese didn't know it was the "highest" mountain. The section title is "Discovery of the highest mountain" not discovery of Everest.--Paul (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the suggestion to change "Discovery" to "Determination" is worth considering. It may well be more accurate and not susceptible to misinterpretation. The word "discovery" is rather loaded. The word "determine" is used in the first sentence anyway. Other opinions? -- Spireguy (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "discovery" has historical warrant:

One day in 1852 in British-ruled India, a young man burst into an office in the northern Dehra Dun hill town and announced to his boss: "Sir, I have discovered the highest mountain in the world!" [5]

I think the article makes it reasonably clear that it's not claiming that the surveyors were the first humans to set eyes on the mountain.

—WWoods (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Having been the original author of this section and naming it as I thought appropriate, I certainly was not implying that the British were the first to discover Everest; I there is evidence that Tibetans and Nepalese knew about the existence of this mountain hundreds of years before the British. Had the Tibetans/Nepalese "discovered the existence" of the mountain, yes most likely; however, they had no idea that it was certainly the highest in the world nor was it an idea that they probably entertained. The section is about how the highest mountain in the world was discovered through scientific research and mathematical calculations. I have not done any research as to when Everest was physically discovered but certainly if reliable sources can provide some history about this, it would be worthwhile mentioning this in the opening paragraph. It is named "Discovery of the highest mountain, not "Discovery of the mountain". RedWolf (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• The wording is a little ambiguous. Maybe it would be better worded "Determination of..." or "Confirmation of..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How about "identifying the highest mountain".--Work permit (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty good. In fact, I think I'll just go ahead and change it. :) Only I like "tallest" rather than "highest". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya beat me to it. So be it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yuck, "identifying" sounds absolutely dreadful IMHO. Why not fix the underlying issue rather than using a bandaid? Add a paragraph about the people who probably first saw the mountain and its significance to them. Given what I've have read so far, this is likely either to be the Tibetans or the Nepalese. As Everest can be seen from the high Tibetan plateau as well as from Namche Bazaar, its hard to say who had the best chances of seeing it first and/or attaching significance to it. Once that's done, Discovery should be more than suitable. RedWolf (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Elevation

The elevation given for this mountain is incorrect and out-of-date. It is now been shown to be 29,035 ft (8850 m) high.

See http://www.extremescience.com/HighestElevation.htm

DangerBoyRoj (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the measurement section in the article. This issue has been discussed at length. Viewfinder (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount Everest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am failing this article's GA nomination due to multiple major problems, mainly with referencing. Below is a list of specific major problems that contributed to this failing:

• Extensive under-referencing, including several sections that are almost completely un-referenced and multiple fact tags.
• Picture galleries are discouraged by MOS unless all of the pictures in them contribute significantly to the reader's knowledge. Instead, distribute the pictures throughout the article, especially the last part which has no photos.
• Web references need publishers and access dates.
• The Bibliography should go after the References section and should probably be retitled "Further reading".
• References should go immediately after punctuation, with no spaces between the punctuation and the reference. Also, references should follow punctuation, not precede it.

These are just the things that I have seen on a quick run through of the article. I would also suggest doing a thorough run through for prose and grammar before resubmitting the article for GA review. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Death Zone

On September 1st, Paul.h removed a large section of this article entitled Death Zone. While there is a separate article on the Death zone, I believe the section of the article he removed had sufficient material that was relevant to Mount Everest and that is not in the Death Zone article that it should be replaced.

It is too late to undo his revisions, and I feel that I should gather a general consensus before adding such a large section to the article.

PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 21:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. While the article Death zone is helpful, the removed section provides extra info that was unique to the specific article that can't be provided on the Death zone article. I would definitely support replacing the section. QuidProQuo²³ 22:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is done. I hope that you all approve. PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 00:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to merge the section about oxygen masks into the death zone section? Since it deals with the effects of the death zone on the body, it seems like it would be better as a subsection of Death zone, rather than its own section. QuidProQuo²³ 02:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

One good thing about falling off Everest is that as you descend, the amount of oxygen increases, to the point where you fully regain your faculties - just before you smack into the glacier. Should-a worn your parachute! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. If you want to do that, Quid Pro Quo, go ahead, but I've done my piece. PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 00:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the Death Zone section because it was poorly written and had very little Everest-specific information in it. I haven't changed my mind, but I don't have the time to rewrite it, either. I agree with QuiProQuo23 that this material would much better fit into the Death Zone article.--Paul (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In truth, I agree with you. However, it does have some Everest-specific information that is difficult to place elsewhere. A merger of the two sections, Death Zone and Using bottled oxygen, is a good idea, but difficult to implement. Should we simply take everything in one and plop it into the appropriate place in the other? Perhaps we could make one a subsection of the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhishRCool (talk • contribs) 22:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Change to Geology Section

In the geology section, it reads:

It consists of grayish to dark gray or white, parallel laminated and bedded limestone interlayered with subordinate beds of recrystallized dolomite with argillaceous laminae and siltstone. Gansser reported finding visible fragments of crinoids in these limestones.[68]

I propose that the second sentence quoted above be changed to:

Gansser found fragments of crinoids in petrographic thin sections made from these limestones.[68]"

I finally found a copy of the book by A. Gansser (1964), "Geology of the Himalayas", which is referenced. Reading through it, I found stated on page 164 and illustrated in Figure 48 that the crinoid fossils were not visible in the limestone samples but seen only in petrographic thin section.Paul H. (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Article in the german WP about the 1924 Expedition (M&I theme etc.)

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Britische_Mount-Everest-Expedition_1924 just in review process and candidate for a so called "Lesenswerter Artikel" (featured article). Anybody interested in a rough translation - then to smoothen it afterwards? ;-) --80.145.183.151 (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• That certainly would be a welcome addition to the early climbing history of Everest. I would also be willing to copyedit the translation afterwards. RedWolf (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

..and here we are.. :-) .. I'm sorry for any bad english - it's now up to you. A featured article in the GER WP. A gift from my side. :-) --80.145.210.53 (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for the translation, it was well done. It is a very interesting read. I am currently copy editing it in a temporary location and hope to create the article within the next day or so. RedWolf (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• The article is now live: British Mount Everest Expedition 1924 RedWolf (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Prominence correct?

Seems suspect Jhbdel (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The usual convention is to assign Everest's elevation above sea level to be its prominence; see Topographic prominence. -- Spireguy (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Can this be called out somehow in the table at the top of the Everest page or is that overkill? Jhbdel (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)