Talk:Mount Everest/Archive 2

The summit of Mt Chimborazo in Ecuador is 2150m further away from the centre of the earth than the summit of Mt Everest. Does that mean it's higher or bigger or what?Ping

I think it just means it's further from the centre of the earth. Altitudes are measured with reference to Sea Level or by means of air pressure. While Mt Chimborazo may be further away from the centre of the earth, the sea level is also further away because of the equatoral bulge. One of the Hawaiian Islands is the biggest mountain on earth as it rises even higher above the surrounding sea floor than Mt Everest does from the surrounding land, but much of the island is under water. That leaves Mt. Everest as the highest. - kiwiinapanic

See the article sea level for more information. If sea level is something like an inferred equipotential surface, then distance from the center of the earth would be a different value. Most of the references I've seen put the height of Everest at 8850 m (29035 feet). Cos111 22:31, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Also realize that Everest 'cheats' quite a bit from being set upon a 2-mile high plateau (Tibet). CFLeon 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions that Everest is still growing due to plate-tectonics. I heard some time ago that it grew at a rate of around 1-foot per-year. Can this be verified? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.6.218.248 (talk • contribs) 21:34, June 3, 2004 (UTC)

EDIT - According to this the Himalayas grow at a rate of around 2.4 in/6.1cm per year.

Edit Himalayas mentions the growth rate as 2.5-5cm for the Range. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steenies (talk • contribs) 17:29, July 16, 2004 (UTC)

Intro to climbing routes section starts by saying the routes are SE and NW ridges, but then goes on to subsections talking about the SE and NE ridges. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.246.135.176 (talk • contribs) 04:55, April 12, 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering what the "official" Wikipedia policy was on units? The Measurement paragraph lists the SI unit first and then the Imperial unit in parentheses four times, and vice versa five times. There are also numerous references to SI units in isolation and one reference to miles (although this is a rounded value). Not meaning to start some kind of SI vs. Imperial war on this seemingly previously contentious page, but just thought there should be some kind of continuity? --postglock 04:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• My personal preference is original measurement first, converted numbers (if any) in parentheses. Sometimes it's a good idea to use <!-- inline comments--> for passing information to other editors. – I added the SI unit to the mile thing. Rl 07:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I found this page regarding policy on units, so it's SI when not obviously historically significant. BTW, how do comments help bring awareness to this? (probably not the right place for this question, but just in case any lurkers are also newbie editors) --postglock 15:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Every now and then, some editor will use a converted number as a base to "update" the original number (e.g. 150 miles -> 240 km -> 149 miles). A comment is often appropriate if it's not clear what the base number is. Rl 15:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott, for providing this link regarding the now disputed landing of a helicopter on the peak. I wonder why they would make such false claims. Was it really a hoax done by the pilot alone, and the company fell for it? I note that at the moment, the Eurocopter website still claims "World Premiere: A Eurocopter single-engine serial Ecureuil/AStar AS350 B3 lands on the TOP of the world.". Fascinating story. Rl 10:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Truth: The helicopter did land on the summit, twice. Nepali officials said there was no permit, for this reason the pilot said he landed on the south col (which he also did) and did not stress the two summit landings. The Eurocopter company did not want a dispute with the government before they got out of the country with their copters. The landing altitude record has been confirmed by Fédération Aéronautique Internationale FAI. And it should be noted that that they will not do without 100% proof (double recording altimeters, video, gps logs etc.). I can not undestand why somebody would even think that the worlds biggest helicopter company would lie in a matter like this??? No common sense around here? link: [1]

Pure garbage! Obviously the company, not contented to help kill people all over the world, decided to cheat us all too as a mean to sell more of its products.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.144.139 (talk • contribs) 14:55, August 13, 2006

I see that this article is well maintained - I created an image from NASA's image library (see http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/policies.html for usage) which is pretty stunning. Maybe one of the editors would like to put it up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20040302 (talk • contribs) 09:33, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting photo. Personally, I would prefer the one labelling the summit of Everest, Lhotse and the Kangshung Face. Also, NASA images should be uploaded to Commons so they are readily available to the other language wikis. RedWolf 03:25, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The photo is now also on commons. I withheld labelling, due to the language dependancy that creates. Moreover, it isn't so hard to identify Everest, Lhotse or the Kangshung Face from the image :-) I guess a caption may help though. (20040302)

Weird. Looking at this space photo, how many lanes is that superhighway which runs into the mountain at the bottom so that it can be seen from orbit? I think somebody should paint "FORD" on the mountain in two-mile letters! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 14:55, May 22, 2006 (UTC)

If one clicks the 6th link ( http://thegreatindian.tripod.com/mountEverest.htm ) the descrpition says that Sagarmatha means the forehead of the sea, while the article says of the sky- does anybody know which is correct? - samaraphile

I have mostly heard/read it as meaning "forehead of/in ihe sky". It just seems to make more logical sense for it to refer to sky than ocean but I'm no linguistics expert. RedWolf 22:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I made the comment about the origin of the Nepalese name. It is difficult to dig up facts about this, but I bet there is no Sagarmatha mentioned or printed anywhere before 1960 or something. It was the "national poet" of nepal of that time who came up with the name. We should remember that "Nepal" as a country is made up from more than 60 nationalities speaking more than 40 languages. "Nepalese", those speaking nepali as their language did not know about or care about Mt Everest, thus it had no name. Sherpa/tibetan name could not be used as an official name, as it was the government policy to "nepalize" the country. We can protest about using "Everest" and not the tibetan name, but those who claim "Sagarmatha" to be the real name only fall into the Nepal government PR trap... (Petrus)

Does any one know why this article is titled Everest instead of Chomolangma? What are the geographic classification standards being followed? Does Wikipedia follow U.S. or international standards? Can we put this to a vote? Thanks harburg 2005-09-25 20:25:51 UTC

• There's probably a Western bias at work here and Everest is the more internationally accepted name (at least among the Western based countries), especially in the climbing community. If we were to move it, I'd prefer Sagarmatha and not Chomolangma but a move is unlikely in any case (although I would not rule it out). This is the English wiki so the accepted practice is to use the name mainly referred to in the English speaking world unless the local name(s) has/have gained sufficient popularity (which it has not). Other language wikis might use the local names though for the article's name. RedWolf 21:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for the feedback RedWolf - I suppose in the end a thing's name is what people call it - whether it makes sense or not. I'd still love to see a vote to see what the consensus is, but I can't be arsed to set it up. --harburg 2005-09-25 21:15:51 UTC
• When I see Chomolangma/Chomolungma/Sagarmatha being used in English, it's almost always some writer trying to show off his/her amazing multicultural sensitivity, and they inevitably have to add something like "which Westerners know as Everest", thus demonstrating which name is really the one most commonly in use among English speakers... :-) Stan 23:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• See my comment about Sagarmatha above. Sagarmatha is a recent synthetic name, never used by anybody naturally connected with the mountain. The Tibetan/Sherpa name Chomolangma is the only native/real/original name for the peak. (Petrus)
• There is also Sagarmatha National Park. RedWolf 15:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• i know I'm coming in late to this discussion, but it's worth pointing out that per WP:ENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME, "Everest" is the correct title for the English-language version of this article, as "Everest" is the common name used by speakers of English to refer to the mountain (this does not mean that "Everest" is the absolutely "correct" name of the mountain, however; it's largely a matter of pragmatism for sake of ease of use of Wikipedia, like titling an English-language article "People's Republic of China" instead of "Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó" -- English speakers are far more likely to know, recognize and look for the former rather than the latter). Ubernostrum 10:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Before there is a mass change of articles to use the new elevation as reported by PRC, I would like to see a public scientific analysis of PRC's analysis. To go from 8848 to 8850 and then all the way back down to 8844 is quite a step. Does anyone know if the PRC has released their findings publicly to allow this to take place? I guess Nepal never officially recognized the 8850 m and still used the older 8848 m. Has anyone seen an official statement from Nepal regarding the PRC announcement? RedWolf 03:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• According to MountEverest.net the PRC height only goes to the highest point of rock and does NOT include snow/ice cover. I guess that would explain much of the discrepancy. RedWolf 04:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • According to the article, the 8850m measurement was obatianed from the highest point of "bedrock". -- Scott e^iπ 10:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, when we delve into this topic, controversey is bound to occur thanks to the widespread publicity. The latest revision says that most of the climbing community supported Boukreev. With his decision to guide without oxygen, I was under the impression that this was widely criticized. This came from the Saloon debates, in which Jon Krakauer said that Reinhold Messner sharply criticized Boukreev for not using oxygen [2]. So, should it be reverted, changed to balance out both sides, or call Krakauer a liar? Hbdragon88 05:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, someone just deleted the {{disputed}} tag without an explanation in the edit summary. I have accordingly deleted the part that states that most of hte climbing community supports Boukreev and Krakauer's status as a personna non grata. If someone can find a link that verifies that, add it in and I'll be satisfied. Hbdragon88 00:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That has been asked before (see above) but not answered. It just makes no sense!

I Think so also, it makes no (real...) sense. But.. imagine potential thinkings on the plate tectonics drift: when at any time (...) the summit was part of both Tibet and Nepal (written papers stating geographical coordinates or so whatever), and then according to the summit´s drift northeast ref. to plate tectonics, then apparently the summit would have been drifting into Tibet´s area... But the question is: are borders fixed to geo coords, or are they marked by landmarks as a mountain´s ridges? Regards. de:Benutzer:Kassander_der_Minoer

why is it "hillary" for edmund hillary, but "tenzing" for tenzing norgay? 216.8.14.218 16:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Norgay is not a surname, the Sherpas do not have surnames. PatGallacher 18:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

okay. why not call him "norgay" despite this? why "tenzing"? why not "tenzing norgay"? i suspect the article's trying to shove a cutesy deviation out there simply as a pointless demonstration or trivia question inducement. has this been discussed elsewhere (other than saddam hussein) that you'd mind referring me to? thanks. the apparent presumption is that one must have a common family name in order to use the convention of last names for formal discussion. i see no logic in such a presumption. 216.8.14.218 18:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, names of Tibetan (and related languages) speaking people are normally made of a first name and a last name (neither of which is a family name); the first name is most often used, except when there would be some ambiguity - several Tenzings in the room. It certainly would be incorrect to say "Norgay", or Mr Norgay - (though you will find that happening sometimes in the region nowadays, due to cultural influences in beaurocracy - this would most normally be written T. Norgay, but tends to be used in business only). Probably the best way to write his name formally would be Tenzing Norgay, but once introduced, it is correct to say "Tenzing". His first son was called "Nyima Dorje" .. My issue is with the way in which all these names are transcribed. "Tenzing Norgay" is spelled "བསྟན་འཛིན་ནོར་རྒྱས་" - (DZIN rather than ZING, and GYE, rather than GAY) - in more modern times, his name would be "Tenzin Norgye". (20040302)

How about adding a picture taken from the summit? That has to be one of the greatest rewards for climbing Everest, not to mention a killer view. EatYourGreens 05:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does the information box at the top of the article say that Everest's prominence is the same as its height? 'Cause it's not. The only other source I could find said its prominence was 10m, but I doubt it's that either. Does anyone have a non-internet source about Everest that gives its prominence? gr_scott_jo

By the definition of prominence itself, the prominence of the highest point on the earth is its height. It is likely the only reasonable definition, check the article about prominence). gala.martin (what?) 23:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at the article on prominence? The prominence of the highest point on the Earth is the difference in height between its peak and the surrounding ground, same as any other peak. In fact, in what I said before, I mentioned that the only other source said its prominence was 10m. That source is the article on prominence. The second setence of the article exactly says what I'm talking about, that there's a difference between Everest's height and its prominence. Later on, though, it does say "It is also the smallest descent which one would have to make from a summit in order to re-ascend to a higher peak," but if you changed the end to "in order to beginning ascending to the nearest other peak" it would make more sense. gr_scott_jo Sunday, April 2, 2006 at 17:33:52 UTC

10 m is the prominence of Everest's South Summit, that is not the Everest peak. In the prominence article, it is just an example. Prominence is a feature that tells you how promiment (ok, I am cheating) is a peak with respect to its sourraundings. So, Everest's South Summit is really high (8749 m), but it is topographically close to Everest (that is higher), and therefore its prominence is just 10 m (this means that if you are on the South Summit, and you want to go to the Everest highest peak, you can do that just going down 10 m, and then going up again). So, if you think about the definition of prominence (that is quite reasonable), you can for instance deduce that for the highest peak on an island, prominence=height. This could convince you that for the highest point on earth, it is reasonable to set prominence=height. gala.martin (what?) 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited Topographic prominence to try and clarify this. Prominence is the height by which you need to descend before you can ascend to a higher peak, not to the "nearest other peak". The sea doesn't count so there is a problem with the highest peak on any landmass (and with the highest peak on earth). In these cases, the prominence is defined as equal to the elevation, the height above sea level. Everest's South Summit is rather a small blip (though one with a very high elevation). It does not reduce Everest's elevation because the summit of Everest is higher. Thincat 10:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited Topographic prominence much more substantially, since the intro section was just plain confusing. One especially confusing phrase was about prominence measuring height above surroundings---this is not true. Thincat and gala.martin have it about right, although there is no need to treat the sea/ocean as special: it is essentially just a very big, flat col. Mount Everest itself (the main summit) _is_ a bit special since there is no higher terrain, but it is universally agreed that its prominence equals its height. I will probably do more editing on the prominence article in a bit, since I think it is still lacking in clarity and style. -- Spireguy 15:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This appears in the section on measurement:

In the 1950s a Mexican Indian survey made closer to the mountain...

Was the survey really conducted by a Mexican team? This seems unlikely to me. Molinari 00:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• The protection notice had been added in order to discourage usual vandalism, or is there some other reason?

• If the page is protected, why some unregistered users are still vandalizing it? (I mean, how is it possible?) gala.martin (what?) 03:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This already exceeds Wikipedia's recommendation, and I am concerned about the uncontrolled additions to the Timeline and Trivia section. There is not space for first ascents by nationals of every country. If this is of interest then it should be on a separate page. Comments? Viewfinder 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who added lately the Turkish woman mountainer. It is not my intension to extend the size, which for my POV is not so large either. I saw the line:

# 1982 - On October 5, Laurie Skreslet becomes the first Canadian to reach the summit.

and thought, it is worth to mention. Besides, I have no objection if the list is moved out. CeeGee 19:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Viewfinder, please do not forget to sign your comments. Thanks. CeeGee 19:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry - a lapse on my part. Viewfinder 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections within the next 48 hours, I will transfer the timeline and trivia section to a new page. Viewfinder 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago I restored the elevation to its most often quoted figure of 8,848 m, having explained my reasons on Talk:List of countries by highest point. This seemed to have been accepted, but today there were two attempts to replace it with 8850 m so I have reproduced these reasons here.

The US GPS 8,850 m and Chinese 8,844 m elevations are mentioned in the main article.

There have been several recent surveys of Everest and K2 claiming precision to less than a meter, some giving higher figures than the traditional 8,848 m and 8,611 m, others giving lower figures, and the spread of these exceeds their claimed accuracy. They should therefore be regarded as publicity seeking and should be ignored. In reality, the Himalayan geoid has not been determined with sufficient accuracy to allow such precision. A further point with regard to the recent Chinese survey: according to the Mount Everest page, the geologic height was measured, not the height including perennial snow and ice cover. The logical extenstion of this would demand that the elevation of Mont Blanc (which varies seasonally) be lowered by 10-20 m, Khan Tangiri Shyngy to 6,995m and the South Pole to around or below sea level. Until several independent measurements show a consistent error margin, the elevations of Mount Everest and K2 should stand at 8,848 m and 8,611 m, in line with official topographic mapping, and confusing alternatives should be rejected.

A further point: the depth of snow and ice cover, on which the elevation depends, is not constant. So small changes to the long accepted 8,848 m are superfluous. In effect, the US GPS survey merely confirmed the accuracy of the earlier survey that gave 8,848 m. If there had been a difference exceeding, say, 10 meters or more, the issue would have arisen and if this had been confirmed by the Chinese survey, then the case for changing the 8,848 m elevation would have been good. Indeed, I have altered many long standing elevations elsewhere, where I have been able to cite reliable evidence.

Any editor who thinks the elevation of 8,848 m should not be used on the Everest page should add his reasons here before editing the main article. If a significant number of readers agree on an alternative figure, or anyone supplies a compelling reason why it should be changed, then I will accept it. Otherwise I will continue to revert changes to it. Viewfinder 22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like the Chinese measure is probably very accurate, likely to within 1 metre but because the height they measured is different from the way the height of other mountains is commonly measured, you argue it shouldn't be used when quoting the height. I agree with that for now. However I don't see any reason why the 8850m figure shouldn't be used. AFAIK, quality GPS devices can give greater then a metre precision (and as far as we know, accuracy) and I would have to assume the device used by the US GPS survey used a device capable of at least a metre precision. I don't know much about the other technic but it sounds to me like it's precision is probably less then 1m and it's accuracy as well. Also, it was done quite a while ago and although I know the mountain itself isn't rising at a level high enough to make a difference (as far as we know), I don't know whether this is true for the snow and ice cover. But even if the height of the snow and ice cover isn't changing enough that it could make a significant difference, it sounds rather bizzare to me to use a figure which was done with a less precise and less accurate measurement technic when we have a newer figure with a more precise and (we believe) more accurate measurement technic. Or put it another way, if we put both figures side by side, 8848m +/-2m (for example, I don't know the actual precision of the measurement technic) vs 8850m +/-1m it sounds silly to me to choose the first figure. Perhaps my thinking is different from your since I'm a scientist but I have to say that most sources I have seen, newspapers, National Geographic etc frequently quote the 8850m figure nowadays. If you have evidence the precision, or better still, the accuracy of the old figure is better then or the same as the new figure and that the ice and snow cover isn't changing enough that it could make a significant difference to the height then it wouldn't make sense to change it perhaps but until then, I'm going to change it to 8850m. Nil Einne 16:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the above comments and for explaining your edit, unlike others who have been making the same edit. However, you say that the Chinese measurement (8,844 m) is "likely to be within 1 metre". Please go to [3] and [4], which state that the Chinese survey, the most recent, measured a rock head height of 8844.43m and a snow/ice depth of 3.5m. I make that 8,848 m.

Obviously the elevation depends on the snow depth. I have never been there, but afaik Everest's summit is not likely to bear a six metre depth of snow and ice. See 2.55 m given here, and K2 snow depth of 2.22m [5]. So it seems unlikely that both surveys can justify their claimed accuracy, and it seems that the Chinese survey implies that a net 8,848 m height (as measured for the purposes of this article) is more accurate. While I do not dispute your claims about the accuracy of DGPS relative to its reference points, in reality:

• The snow and ice depth is variable, and probably varies seasonally by more than the claimed accuracy.
• There is no evidence that the local geoid has been determined to the accuracies that are claimed for these elevations.
• An earlier survey by the same author gives 8,846 m.

The 8,848 m height has been accepted for a long time, is still accepted officially by Nepal, and appears on its official 1:50,000 topographic map. Imo that is a very strong argument for retaining it, at least until an alternative has been established by more than one independent source. Otherwise it means that either the elevations have to be changed everywhere - not just several other Wikipedia and other web sites but in print, too. Also, supporters of the 8,848 m elevation take a neutral stance between the Chinese and the USA, supporting neither one nor the other.

Aside: The National Geographic Society, who sponsored the Washburn survey, could more usefully spend more of its resources elsewhere where peak heights are still seriously uncertain. Moreover their august reputation will not deter me from challenging their competence on elevation matters. See Talk:Khardungla_Pass (section 6) for hard evidence of major errors in elevations given by this organisation. Also, Washburn would have had reasons for wanting to change the elevation; if he had reaffirmed 8,848 m, the value of his survey would have been more likely to be questioned.

Summary: if we adopt the practice of changing elevations in our encyclopedias every time a new DGPS survey gives a new figure, even if it varies by 2 m or less from existing elevations, then the result will be widespread disagreement among sources. It is better to be consistent. Albeit that is no longer possible with Everest; you are right that that 8,850 m is now often given.

Postscript: this postdates the Washburn survey. Viewfinder 20:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have discovered a detailed account [6] of the Washburn survey, which states that the 8,850 m elevation is the rockhead and that the snow/ice added an additional 1 m. So there is a clear conflict with the more recent Chinese survey. Perhaps a new survey, completely independent and impartial, is needed. Viewfinder 21:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the following section rather confusing:

The aftermath of the 1996 Mount Everest disaster further intensified the debate. Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air (1997) expressed the author's personal criticisms of the use of bottled oxgen. Krakauer wrote that the usage of bottled oxygen allowed otherwise unqualified climbers to attempt to summit, leading to dangerous situations and more deaths. The May 10 disaster was partially caused by the sheer number of climbers (33 on that day) attempting to ascend, causing bottlenecks at Hillary Step and delaying many climbers, most of whom summited after the usual 2pm turnaround time. He proposed banning bottled oxygen except for emergency cases, which would both decrease the growing trash on Everest and keep marginally qualified climbers off the mountain.

The 1996 disaster also thrust the issue of the guide's role in using bottled oxygen. Guide Anatoli Boukreev's decision not to use bottled oxygen was sharply criticized by Jon Krakauer. Boukreev's supporters (who include G. Weston DeWalt, who co-wrote The Climb) state that using bottled oxygen gives a false sense of security. Krakauer and his supporters point out that, without bottled oxygen, Boukreev was unable to directly help his clients descend. They cite that Boukreev said that he was going down with client Martin Adams, but when Adams slowed down, Boukreev went up ahead and left him behind. The debate between G. Weston DeWalt and Jon Krakauer on bottled oxygen and Boukreev's actions can be found in the Salon debates.

It should be noted that most climbers in the mountaineering community support Krakauer's point of view but the most highly experienced climbers will agree that there are a small set of unique climbers such as Anatoli Boukreev and Ed Viesturs who can climb without oxygen and still function well. Most climbers agree that a guide cannot directly help clients if he or she cannot concentrate or think clearly (which happens with the very thin atmosphere above).

At first, it sounds like Krakauer is against bottled oxygen. Then later, it sounds like Krakauer thinks Anatoli should have used bottled oxygen and that Boukreev's supporters such as DeWalt are opposed to the use of bottle oxygen (which Krakauer also was supposedly against). Then it goes on to say climbers support Krakauers views (on what? that bottled oxygen should be banned?).

Nil Einne 15:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In his book Into Thin Air, Krakauer is strongly in favour of the use of bottled oxygen by high altitude mountain guides. His attitude to the greater mountaineering public is a little less clear: on one hand he clearly admires those who have summited without the use of oxygen, on the other, he questions whether an indvidual should choose to be weaker and less mentally able by refusing to carry oxygen. This was especially pertinant to the 1996 expeditions. I agree that the passage quoted above is confusing and will take a look at it at some time in the future.--Fergie 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try and clean this up a bit - the article should mention that DeWalt co-wrote a book about the disaster with Boukreev; this means he is not an independent critic to be cited here, just the most vocal. Other critics would be more credible to cite.

Boukreev died in a later climbing accident, and I think that should be included.

It seems Krakauer's main issue is inexperienced climbers on the mountain, not oxygen - he thinks it helps unqualified get up the mountain and contributes to the dumping of spent bottles on the summit. However, if they are going to attempt to reach the summit, the climbers and their guides should be using oxygen. Guides especially have a duty to assist their clibers no matter what; so Krakauer wants they to be able to assist for the longest window of time possible, and oxygen helps to achieve that.

I'll make these updates to the article (in a cleaner format) if no one has any objections. Jeeper275 21:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Jeeper275

From the Tenzing page:

Hillary and Tenzing answered that question in characteristically different ways. In his book, Hillary described himself as the strong leader of the team, who not only was working hard making steps in the snow for both of them, but also had to pull Tenzing up those steps, and that Tenzing kept falling to the ground, extremely exhausted. Tenzing's account a few years later sounded very different: he stressed the unity of such teams and of their achievements, shrugged off the allegation of being ever pulled by anyone, but disclosed that Hillary was the first to put his foot on the summit. He concluded: "If it is a shame to be the second man on Mount Everest, then I will have to live with this shame

It sounds to me like the details of Hillary's account need to be updated. At the moment, it makes it sound like Hillary completely supports the idea that it was a team effort without either being more worthy of recognition (which was what I always thought). However according to my quote above from the Tenzing page, this is not really true, (although as far as I know and not disputed by the Tenzing page, Hillary has never confirmed who reached the summit first). Nil Einne 16:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the axe of Mallory or Irving found recently in ice, which is proof they reached the top of the world? I can't see this mentioned in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 09:09, May 29, 2006 (UTC)

Well not recently.. EverestNews.com picks up the story.. Wyn Harris, during the 1933 Everest Expedition, found an ice ax at about 27,700 feet. The location is fairly certain: Harris took the ax he found, and left his own ax in its place. The spot is about 20 meters below the ridge, on a fairly flat, wide, open area nearly 300 meters above Mallory's body. No one besides M&I was up that high before 1933. So it is fairly certain the ax was either Mallory's or Irvine's. link

Three notches found on the ax suggest the ax was Irvine's. Irvine used to mark his equipment. Wyn Harris apparently had the axe that picked up 'further marked' so that it wouldn't get mixed up with his team's axes. My understanding is that this latter mark was a cross, and distinct from the three horizontal strokes that (I understand) Irvine used. Everestnews.com goes on to speculate that the ice axe would have been dropped by Irvine 'on the way down', as otherwise he would have retrieved it. This is not inconsistent with a summit by Irving or Mallory, but it should be noted that the axe was found 2000 feet below the summit and a very considerable horizontal distance away. EverestNews.com theorises that Irvine climbed no higher than the base of the 'Second Step' (28,100 feet), a thousand feet below the summit.

The issue would be clearer if I could point you to a diagram of the summit approaches, which is the project I am currently working on (see below)Tban 20:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that to describe the events of 1924 and 1996 (and 2006) without having a detailed guide to the 'geography' of the route between the North Col and the Summit is to leave the reader somewhat 'in the dark'. The main everest article doesn't quite go into enough detail. Perhaps there is a case for creating an 'child' article 'Everest North Col to Summit Route Detail' (or suchlike). So that's what I'm working on at the moment. It's actually quite complex - and made interesting by the fact that some climbers seem to interchange terms when describing the features along the way.

The format I'm aiming towards is an initial diagram (cross section) with several different 'layers' of information - (1) features - each relating to a text section lower down in the articl (2) vertical and horizontal distances between features (3) climbing time between features (4) location of events such as rescues/deaths/irving's ice axe etc (5) climbing route(s) around features. My timeframe to complete the first draft of this is about a week.. I am concentrating on the SE Ridge initially because that is where most of the historical incidents/controversies have happened.

What I'm aiming to do after that is tackle the 1996 events from a NPOV stance in order to 'round up' the separate references to them in the articles on the climbers involved in those events (a tall order I agree..). And then slot that information into a series of articles/references that refer to notable rescues, attempted rescues, deaths and bivouacs near the summit. A sort of catalogue of exception human activities around the summit that don't necessarilly get into the record of 'successful summits', thus going a bit further towards 'filling out the story' of human endeavour on the mountain. An example is the case of Fran Arsentiev. If you know the details of that event, or look it up link, you'll apppreciate that I am talking about both tragic and heroic human endeavours. Tban 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I wrote the original text of the two main routes based on what I have read over the years as well as correlating route pictures with corresponding text, mainly from the PBS Nova website on their Everest expedition coverage. Having seen Everest myself while in Nepal a few years back, I could visualize part of the route as I could see it from my viewpoints. However, I suspect that for those who do not have similar background information, trying to follow the route descriptions would not be easy. A few pictures visually marking the routes would be a great aid for readers. I look forward to seeing your results. RedWolf 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Gday RW, I should note that the 'Routes' section is excellent (already), and it is only the increasing number of reports of (and debates about) incidents that refer to 'places' along the route above the North Col that really warrant going into more detail now. Hence my 'not quite' comment. I should have been more (obviously) generous about prior contributions in my initial comments - hope this amends.. Looking to scribble some sketches of the various sections - easier than trying to get non-copyright photographs. I am updating my progress on my own Talk page (as at 15 June 2006) Tban 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Under ascents->facts it is stated that "179 people (have) died while summitting". Where does this information come from? Is there a death list for climbers who have died whilst mountaineering on everest? Should it be included in wikipedia? --Fergie 12:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gday Fergie. Deaths on Everest, either on the Tibetan side or the Nepalese side are actually recorded by the Governments that have jurisdiction over that territory. There is perhaps an impression - perhaps left over from the days of the great 'National Expeditions' - that some kind of extra-territoriality provision applies, that is to say that foreigners in Nepal or Tibet are not subject to local laws, or that there activities (including unfortunately sometimes their death) are not a matter of concern to local authorities. Since the 1960's as I understand it the Chinese and Nepalese Governments have controlled access to the mountain through a series of permits and issue bulletins about incidents on the mountain. In addition to the Government sources there a private organisation, EverestNews.com which has maintained a running commentary on events on the mountain. Being private they will often release news sooner than the Government sources (particularly the Chinese). There is very little chance that a climber would be able to enter either country and attempt an unlicenced climb on the mountain. But the possilibility exists that some foreigners or locals who have been posted as 'missing' in those countries may have died undetected on the mountain, thus rendering the official count 'incorrect'. I'd have to say it would be very long odds against, however.

As to publishing a list of the dead on Everest, or indeed any mountain, I'd suggest that while the statistic is 'informative' as to the degree of risk, and that there are 'tales involving the death of climbers that deserve to be told' a simple list of climbers who have died would have no broader 'informational' significance than a list of all the 3000 or so climbers who have summitted Everest. That's to say both lists would have personal significance (and I don't argue that that isn't sufficient justification for doing it) for the climbers who had achieved the summit, and for the families and friends of those who died in the attempt, but it is not information that would lead 'anywhere'. Actually having said that I realize that I am wrong, that in fact a list of people who had died on Everest, and other 8000+ meter mountains and details of their cause of death might actually be a useful (probably not pivotal however) research tool for anyone studying the effects (particularly pre-disposing factors) of high altitude sickness causing death - given that the list might then lead them to the medical records of these people (with their families permission). I'd have to say, however, that the task is beyond me, but perhaps someone will pick this up.. Best regards, Tban 01:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Everest Summiteers have both a list of summits, and deaths. I get the impression that it is complete. Try this link.

Thanks for the link, but this is definately not a complete list of those who have perished whilst part of an Everest expedition.--Fergie 09:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Noted that the linked list stops at 2003 in any case. Up to us then, either to build a list in Wiki, or to provide details to www.everestsummiteersassociation.org and ask them to update their list. Regards, Tban 11:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed- I believe that this info is not available in a publically accessible place and that an attempt to create a list of casualties (and possibly expeditions and summiteers) is an endeavour worthy of wikipedia--Fergie 19:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that there's no article for this great movie. It was on the A&E channel and is about the first (and only so far I believe) blind man to climb Mount Everest. Has anyone else viewed this? Anyone want to help add to the article? Tyciol 04:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that we are talking about Erik Weihenmayer, who made an ascent of Everest in 2001. Erik who has been blind since the age of 13 (at which stage he already had an interest in rock climbing) is an interesting guy. He acknowledges he can't climb without team support, that's to say he makes his own way when he can using his sense of sound particularly, but he can't lead, and needs very clear directions on chaotic ground. But as he puts it he pulls his weight in camp and carrying. He seems to have a good sense of his abilities, and looking from the outside it seems as if he warrants the appelation 'serious climber'. Incidentally he is on his way to completing the seven summits. A documentary was made about the climb in 2003 called 'Farther than the eye can see' using high definition footage from the expedition. Erik subsequently wrote a book called 'Touch the Top of the World', which was the basis of the A&E teleplay (a sort of documentary).

General Info Movie: Farther than the eye can see National Federation of the Blind Everest 2001 Expedition Movie:Touch the Top of the World

He sounds like he warrants a wiki article in his own right (based on probable public interest). He would (as I understand it) belong in the list of Everest 'firsts' and in the 'Climbers List', and be referenced from those places to his own article. I have too much on my plate at the moment to do more than give you these links though.. It'd be interesting to understand the man behind the portrayal in the teleplay - which someone describes as 'a blind mountain-climbing Mother Teresa'. Cheers, Tban 09:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Stemonitis has removed the category "Mountains of China" with the note "Rv. Mountains of Tibet is a child of Mountains of China". If you click on the category "Mountains of Tibet", there is no sign that this is a "child" of "Mountains of China". To remove that information doesn't make sense, so I've reinserted the category "Mountains of China". —Babelfisch 01:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of Category:Mountains of Tibet is the listing of the categories of which it is a child: Mountains of China, Geography of Tibet, Mountains of Asia, and Himalaya. It's fairly pointless to have articles in two categories, one of which is a sub-category of the other, or all mountains will end up in a vast and cumbersome Category:Mountains. --Stemonitis 06:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Stemonitis correctly removed the Mountains of China since the Tibet category is one of it's children. There is no need to have the mountain in two categories having a parent-child relationship. RedWolf 20:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that Mount Everest should not appear in the category "Mountains of China". I guess this is a political issue, not a formal technical question. —Babelfisch 08:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Although China invaded and tried to destroy Tibetan people and culture, that does not make Everest a Chinese mountain.201.19.196.220 12:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the inclusion of Tibet within China, it is shown on maps and atlases and is internationally recognised. Incidentally, the category Category:Mountains of China does not show Mount Everest, but does show many other Tibetan mountains. This is an inconsistency, which, one way or another, needs to be resolved. Either we include Tibetan mountains in this category, or we do not. Viewfinder 13:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Since Mountains of China is a parent of Mountains of Tibet, the former should be removed from articles currently containing both. This is the convention used for other parent-child categories, at least for mountain related categories (e.g. Category:Mountains of Canada, Category:Mountains of the United States). While, currently, the category Category:Mountains of Germany is not divided as such, de:Kategorie:Berg in Deutschland has been subdivided on the German Wiki based on its subdivisions. Granted, there is not the political issues of China and Tibet that these other countries do not have with regards to their respective subdivisions. RedWolf 19:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that Hillary and Norgay were the first to climb to the summit of Mt. Everest? Surely the Tibetans and/or Nepalese reached the top at some point in the hundreds of years before the Europeans colonised eastern Asia; or is it simply a case of the first recorded instance from a reliable source that someone scaled the mountain (in which case, the article ought to make it a bit more clear). A.G. Pinkwater 13:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I share your (seemingly) healthy skeptical view of the tendency for the 'west' to reinterpret the world solely in terms of 'European' achievement. However in this case I'd say we are on fairly safe ground in suggesting Hillary & Tenzing, and possibly Mallory, were the first 'on top'. The reason is not the requirement for bottled oxygen (Sherpas could do without supplementary oxygen), but simply the accumulated technical difficulties that were overcome (even in Mallory's day) by a 'suite' of technical solutions (not least crampons) that did not exist in Sherpa culture prior to that time. If some hardy Sherpa (perhaps the fellow who posed nude at the summit) were to climb the mountain using only materials available in traditional Sherpa culture - and in doing so avoid using any of the hundreds of fixed ropes on the mountain or the Chinese aluminium ladder on the Second Step - then I'd have to revisit my opinion. One thing further, however tells against the liklihood of an early Sherpa ascent, and that is the lack of an oral tradition - or any contemporary suggestion in Sherpa society or China (always keen to take credit for 'firsts') that any one else 'got there first'. What is true though, is that with very few exceptions, most climbers who have got to the top wouldn't be there without the assistance of Sherpas, and no doubt things will remain that way until the someone installs an elevator inside the mountain. After all, what are we talking about, possibly 4 or 5 miles of rock boring?Tban 14:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no tradition of climbing mountains just for fun with Sherpas, or any other similar mountain cultures. Not even he lower ones. Even in Europe the highest peaks were climbed for the first time only in the nineteenth century, many by Brittish outdoor enthusiasts, not locals (who worked as guides for tourists)! Thus the idea of some Sherpa climbing the Mountain a long time ago is not based on facts but romantic idealism. (Petrus) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.65.255.1 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 28 August 2006.

Did someone hear about a well guarded secret that China have undeniable proof that Mallory and Irvine summited, and that they, the chinese, are holding the information until Sir Hillary dies, afraid that the news will upset the old man too much?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:201.19.171.206

The second step before the summit on the Tibetan side is so difficult (about 5.8 American scale) that in the twenties that kind of rock was not climbed even in England or Alps. Thus it is unrealistic to think Irvin and Mallory could have climbed something like that at 8600 meters when they coud not do it even at sea level. The Chinese put up a ladder on that spot in early sixties and everybody has always used that. Exept Conrad Anker, who test climbed that section and became the only person so far to do it. (Petrus) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.65.255.1 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 August 2006.

That Everest is neither the tallest mountain nor the highest elevated mountain right?

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk • contribs) 17:47, September 12, 2006 (UTC)

Does the article Kangshung Face, Mount Everest need to be separate or should it be merged into the main Mount Everest article? If that article does stay separate, or if it becomes a section of this one, the NASA space photo above may be good for it. Comments? -- Spireguy 16:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

i think that maybe there could be a map of the mountain that shows where it is 70.190.180.166 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)#

Goodness gracious me. How can a Wikipedia administrator consider thatPanorama from the top of Mt.Everest violates WP:EL? Also, summitpost and panorama links, which were also deleted, appear on many other mountain sites and have long been accepted by the Wikipedia community. The summitpost links provide much more information than the Wikipedia articles, and the panoramas provide unique information not available elsewhere. Admittedly the panoramas are mine and are on my site, but I did not add them originally and I really cannot see how they can be considered spam or contrary to WP:EL. Viewfinder 04:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Are miles and kilometers reserved for distance?

Despite referencing and footnoting, in the last 48 hours I reverted an unexplained change to 8844m and another to 8850m. I have explained on this page why the snow cap should be used (consistency with Mont Blanc) and why the snow cap elevation implied by the most recent survey (2005) should be used (which is 8848m). But whatever we do, we should not be changing the elevation frequently. If other editors disagree with the elevation currently supported then please could they debate the issue here first. Viewfinder 02:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The photo from the space station (image:himalaya_annotated.jpg) has some inaccurate captions, as noted on its discussion pages on Wikipedia and on the Commons. Not sure if the picture should be removed, as it is mostly OK. -- Spireguy 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not for the first time, an administrator has been removing external links which do not contravene WP:EL. While some of the links removed may have been rightly removed, the links removed again included Panorama from the top of Mt.Everest, and the summitpost link. These and other links removed contain information not in the article, and should not have been removed without more explanation. In particular, some of the links were removed under a "rvv" edit. Yes the edit removed vandalism, but it removed much more, and should have stated so. Viewfinder 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, that some of these links may have been correctly removed. I am not defending all of them, but I do not think that there are necessarily too many. You will find just as many at George W. Bush, where you will also find a list of 129 references. Summitpost contains loads of information not in mountain articles. The panoramas.dk link is to an amazing 360 degree photograph of the view from the summit. This is relevant and, imo, of considerable interest and I vigorously oppose its removal. It is certainly not spam. Can you tell me which guideline clause its inclusion violates? I also oppose the removal of the computer generated annotated panoramas. Here I must declare an interest, in that I am the author of these panoramas, although I did not post the link to them myself. Similar computer generated panoramas appear on many mountain sites and have been generally accepted by the Wikipedia community for some time. Go to User_talk:Gillean666#Spam_reverting. (I have addressed the reasonable concern about commercial linkage).

The article was becoming too long, which is why, a few months ago, I set up a separate timeline climbing page.

I must also repeat my objection to the sneaky removal of external links in an edit entitled "rvv further more". Do you have any particular knowledge of mountains? I have not seen any contributions by you to mountain pages, other than occasional vandalism removal. If not, I suggest that you should have left a note on this discussion page about excess external links, but left it to those who do have knowledge of mountains to decide which ones, if any, should be removed. Viewfinder 11:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest having only the following links:

Most of the links I would like to remove are either to web directories (that are not very helpful), planned expeditions (that do not give much further information), travel guides (do we really need that?) or picture collections (which there are hundreds of). One link does more good at the Bill Tilman article (and it has been added there by me), one link (naked man story) is better used by writing something in the article itself and linking to the news story as a ref, I've actually added one new link, the RGS page on Everest. I do like the panoramas and have nothing against keeping links to them, only bundling the two links together. Done the same with Google-related content. Comments? – Elisson • T • C • 22:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I objected to the action of deleting several external links in an edit entitled "rvv further more". I am sorry that the administrator responsible has taken that personally. I don't think that objecting to the action of an adminstrator violates WP:NPA. We are a democracy! I also think that it is unhelpful to describe the deleted external links as "gross violations of WP:EL", with no further explanation. I further note that my explained restoration edits appear to have been reverted without explanation by two administrators using the administrators' rollback facility. Surely that is intended for fighting abuse, not as a weapon in content disputes against good faith editors.

Anyway, following the helpful suggestions by Johan Elisson, I propose to edit the section in line with his suggestion. But I still think that two more links, which I have defended above, should be restored.

There are links to both the above sites on many Wikipedia mountain pages, where they have long been accepted. I do not think they come under any of the categories listed by Johan above. If any other editors oppose the restoration of these two links, then please could they explain their opposition here. Otherwise I will restore them. Viewfinder 00:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: I agree that there were way too many external links, and that most of the removal was quite justifiable. However I also agree with Viewfinder that some of the removal would better have been done in the context of a discussion on the talk page. Personally, I find the guidelines at WP:EL not crystal-clear, and subject to differing interpretation by reasonable editors. So it does make sense to explain changes under that guideline, if asked to do so.

I think the status of the page right now is pretty good, including the Summitpost link and all of the panoramas. The links are all useful, and the number is not unreasonable at all (imo). -- Spireguy 04:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The summitpost and panoramas issue is important because there are summitpost and panorama links attached to many mountain pages. We are a democracy and if most contributors think that they should go, then they should go. But I think that this is primarily a decision for those with a specific interest in mountains, rather than for sysops or even Jimbo Wales. The above edit implies that there should be no external links, that anyone wanting more info can type "Mount Everest" into Google. But that is not what WP:EL states, and if I do this I get mainly links in the categories listed by Johan Elisson. If something new and unique is created then it will not show up easily on Google, so the case of Wikipedia listing it may be good. The key questions should be: is it relevant, is it useful and is it worth the space it occupies? I think that the extent of the view from the top is worth four words, and contributors to User_talk:Gillean666#Spam_reverting seem to agree. Even better would be to create a panorama section, referencing the panoramas, but that would take up more space. Viewfinder 13:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that your question has been answered by Johan when he suggested four categories which should be excluded, and by my suggestion that new links should be useful, relevant and worth the space. I add a further suggestion - that we should not have links that duplicate each other. If someone provides a better annotated panorama then it should replace mine, not be listed alongside it. You mention a "multitude", but I know of no other panoramic websites, commercial or otherwise, which identify the features of view from the summit, and I know of no other 360 degree photographic summit panorama other that the one acquired by Roddy Mackenzie. Viewfinder 23:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the last two edits to remove the mention of Denali/McKinley as the "highest above base" in the world. This is an inherently ill-defined concept, but by any reasonable definition, McKinley doesn't win, as there are peaks in the Himalaya which achieve more vertical gain over any given horizonal distance than does McKinley. (This is not to say that McKinley isn't a very, very large peak, or that it doesn't beat Everest in some aspects of vertical relief.) Because it is a slippery notion, it's best not to talk about the comparison at all. (In fact, even the reference to Mauna Kea should probably be clarified a bit, by saying where the undersea "base" of that peak is, but I'm not going to do that now.) -- Spireguy 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i just noticed vandalism on the page. I Dont know how to correct it, but can someone remove the offensive content near the top?

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.252.118.102 (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

So was it an 80% reduction or a 14% reduction? The new cite is inconsistent with the number in the text. Someone want to sort this out? -- Spireguy 22:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture taken by me at Buddha Air Everest tour.

KeRR 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)KeRR