Jump to content

Talk:Mount Everest/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Images

I've j,ust removed a few duplicate images, and re-sized others per MOS recommendations.

We need fewer common view trekker pictures and more pictures that actually illustrate something.

Some ideas: oxygen equipment; features of the mountain (first & second steps; Lhotse Face, South Col; tents; climbers; the ice-fall and crevices.--Paul (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Skydiving height?

"Holly Budge and Wendy Smith were flown to 29,500 feet, 2,500 feet above Everest..." can't be right if Everest is 29,029 feet in elevation. Research and edit seems necessary. The blurb about the skydive is messy anyway: "From there, they jumped in their thermal suit, oxygen tank and extra-thick parachutes landing back at Shyangboche airport" makes very little sense. Did they land ON Everest? How is anyone supposed to know? 72.174.106.127 (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. They skydived in the vicinity of Everest.... not from over it, nor on it. It's just a stunt only mildly related to Mount Everest. The newspaper report was incorrect in that they listed the height of Everest at 27,000 feet.--Paul (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A link to Timeline_of_climbing_Mount_Everest should be added at the end, by some 'registered user'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.125 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

On a clear day, how far can one see from the summit? Spinach Monster(talk) 21:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out the virtual panoramas in the external links section. Viewfinder (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming

I think the comment at the end of the measurement section should be removed. The article cited has no scientific evidence of global warming effects in the Everest, only eludes to the fact that it might be or will occur. Furthermore, the fact is that you could say this about any place in the world right now, since the topic is everywhere. Unless a scientific journal article or more credible article can be cited, the global warming reference should be removed. Davidj pearson (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence is at least marginally relevant, since global warming could increase the likelihood of changes in the snow depth at the top. However it's not terribly important to the measurement issue, so I won't reinstate it. It would be interesting to find a better source, with more detailed descriptions/predictions, and put the info in a different place in the article, since melting snow/glaciers would affect many things, most of them more important than a meter plus or minus at the summit. -- Spireguy (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


Height

The Alpine Ascents International group cites the height (without any additional information, ie rock height or snow cap, as 8850m/29,035 ft. Why do the editors feel that this should not be used? http://www.alpineascents.com/everest-why-climb.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebbione (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The height question is discussed in detail in the measurement section and has been debated in depth on the talk page. The 1999 National Geographic figure of 8850m is not recognised by Nepal or China, and is inconsistent with all other surveys, including the most recent in which Bradford Washburn participated in the field. Viewfinder (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
What survey since 1999 has Washburn been involved in? But I agree, there's evidence for everything from 8844 to 8850, so you might as well use the traditional 8848 #. --Paul (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the 1992 survey. It is reported here. Washburn had a part in this, see http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/1aa/1aa366.htm (1992). He also carried out survey work for a 1988 map which reaffirmed 8848m. Viewfinder (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nationality of Tensing Norgay

The nationality of Tensing Norgay is given here as Indian, http://www.8000ers.com/cms/download.html?func=startdown&id=152, it is the site referred to in the article. Please explain and make appropriate changes. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Also check this photograph of Tensing Norgay on the summit, he is carrying the British Union Jack and the Indian Tricolour. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You should check here: Tenzing Norgay, where you will find that he was born in Tibet, raised in Nepal, and eventually lived in India. His son regards himself as Nepali (but that is original research). Most references I've seen say that Tensing Norgay was Tibetan. --Paul (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is very clear even from the article you have provided links to that he was an Indian citizen of Tibetan/Sherpa ethnicity, just as for example Isaac Asimov was a Jew, of Russian ethnicity, born in Russia but an American citizen. Why all this subterfuge? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
To chime in with another opinion, I don't see it as subterfuge; rather, it's a matter of reliable sources. If there are sufficient reliable sources confirming that he had become an Indian citizen as of 1953, then the change probably should be considered. BTW, he flew several flags up there at the summit, all of which can be identified, and speculation as to why he chose to display any of them is not reliable sourcing. Also, as Asimov made clear, he was born in Russia but his parents immigrated to the US when he was an infant, long before the achievements that made him notable. Steveozone (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Tensing Norgay too was living in Darjeeling before he became notable. The flags were representing the expedition and mankind as a whole not Tensing as a person. UK, United Nations, Nepal and India. See Albert Einstein. Tensing was an Indian citizen before the summit, therefore India disallowed him to be knighted, as the Queen can only confer knighthood to her subjects. Is http://www.8000ers.com/cms/download.html?func=startdown&id=152 not a wp:rs. Isaac Asimov is just an example a proverbial tip of an iceberg. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Height in miles?

It would be nice to be told the height in miles also, a unit that many people are more familiar with. 78.146.98.203 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The conversion is 5280 ft to the English mile. 1 m = 1/.3048 ft. Assuming Everest is 8848 m high it is 8848/(.3048*5280) = 5.49789 English miles (rounded to 5 decimals)or about five and a half English miles. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Summit panorama missing

It would be very nice to have a panorama from Mount Everest's top here. Miraceti (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

David Sharp controversy

This line seems like opinion rather than fact:

"[at 8000+ meters in altitude, barely anyone has the strength to help another man who is only semi conscious, and Max Chaya is only an amateur mountaineer]."

Joshpath (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)joshpath

Ya think? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference 44

Reference 44 don't work.

Replaced with a new link that does. Steveozone (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvements to section "See also"

See also:

Gallery threshold (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fastest Everest Ascent: Lahkpa Sherpa, 10 min.

The fastest Mt. Everest ascent record is held by Lahkpa Gelu Sherpa, with a time of 10 hours, 56 minutes (with oxygen). This record shattering climb was made on May 25, 2003. His time cut former records in half. There is ample journalistic evidence of his climb and it should be noted on this page. Grammartician (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition to summits without bottled oxygen

I believe that Larry Nielson should be added due to the fact that he was the first american to summit without oxygen. He did so on May 7, 1983 with sherpa Ang Rita. You can read the article at http://www.everestnews.com/history/climbers/larrynielson.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B0b3rt13 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

PROMINENCE

I'd like to know the prominence of Mount Everest without having to measure it in Google Earth. (I don't believe many of our readers would want to do that, either.) It just doesn't seem right listing its height ASL in the geobox twice. The explanation on the topographic prominence article leaves me confused and still not able to understand how Mount Everest extends all the way to the seacoast. I'd be stressed to believe that Mount Everest is any more than 8,000 m in prominence, or that it sits right next to the Indian Ocean. Shannontalk contribs 02:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Naw, I measured it in Google Earth and the most I could get is 4,686 metres (15,374 ft). And that's pretty generous. Somebody has to work on their measuring skills. Now if only some website or book could be sensible and list the REAL prominence of Everest, which is around 3,700 m... Shannontalk contribs 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to re-examine the definitions of topographic prominence. Assuming that the surface of the sea is regarded as part of the earth's surface, the highest summit of an ocean island or landmass (Eurasia-Africa in the case of Everest) is always equal to the summit's elevation. Viewfinder (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you know that, in reality, the height in feet ends in 000? They didn't think anyone would believe them, so they added some height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.150.72 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Highest" needs defining.

The highest mountain from base to peak is Mauna Kea in Hawaii, being about 9700m. 5500m is underwater. Treating the earth as an oblate spheroid, the highest point lies in Ecuador. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.60.214 (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

India should be highlighted please

I think in the second paragraph the first mention of India isn't highlighted like this India then. I think the second mention is then. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Tibet is listed as part of China

The Tibetans would disagree, perhaps this should be handled more sensitively, by simply listing Tibet. Iamalwaysrightabouteverything (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

whatever the POV, the Tibet AR is an inevitable part of the PRC. . ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 01:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do these subjects always draw out all the political ideologues? The border of Nepal and Tibet/China runs up the West ridge to the summit, and then down the South Ridge to the North Col, up Lhotse, etc.

If you don't believe it, go there and see who issues you climbing permits. The north side is controlled by the Chinese, the south side by the Nepalese.Tholzel (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not been following the altitude question, but National Geographic agrees that the new height of Mt. Everest is 8850m, 29,035-ft. It is on all their newer maps. This measure is based on Brad Washburn's recaculation based on measurements made by reflecting a laser beam off a retro-reflective mirror on the summit.Tholzel (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is Tibet 'an inevitable part of the PRC.' For one thing P.R.C. is an extremely young country - it didn't even exist until 1949 !

Tibet is not a country that is recognized to be independent from China. It is a part of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

China currently has control over Tibet, Wheater or not this is legal or right is niether here nor there, and is unimportant to this article. China is currently the government over tibet, and it's not being seriously fought. 69.115.70.122 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

there is no problem in stating that Tibet is an occupied country and linking to the article about tibet and it's invasion by the PRC. This would clear things up for any reader who cares to learn, and is a statement of fact. (interestingly the last user to be assigned the ip attached to the statement above is a resident of the prc!) to ignore tibets occupation would seem odd since if you want to climb everest et al from tibet you have to ask the chinese for permission (if tibet was truly an autonomous region perhaps you'd be asking a tibetan? just a thought.) i've noticed a trend of suppression, here on wikipedia, of those who mention let alone criticize the illegal and or immoral activities of several governments (USA, China, Israel, and others). this cannot be allowed especially when talking facts here. the above post is subtle but still trying to shut down debate. teknotiss wrote this forgot to sign in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.151.59 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The elevation of the rock-head should be metioned in the first paragraph and the infobox

Since the two system of measurements, rock-head and snow-cap, are consistent with each other, and they are both important informations for the readers, I think they should be both written in the beginning, at least in the infobox.

---Towards Mars 05:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.45.134.199 (talk)

Sure, then one of us can go up there each day and measure the snowpack (say, at noon) so as to constantly maintain an accurate measurement for the infobox. I'll go first. Steveozone (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Age of Mount Everest

I have recently come from an argument with a person of certain theological persuasion who posited that Mount Everest rose up quickly and suddenly, just in the past few thousand years. I'd love it if we could have some more detailed information on how, exactly the mountain is known to have formed over the article's timescale. What about the nature of the rock teaches us of the 60-million year figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.111.132 (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you encountered a biblical literalist who believes in Flood Geology. Unfortunately I am not qualified to provide the information you ask for, but I agree that it would be welcome. Viewfinder (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to call out any faith in particular, but it's kind of hard not to. Yes, welcome it would be. 208.27.111.132 (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to propose the following to your religiously challenged opponent; we all agree Mt. Everest is about 6000 years old, as per his scriptures, and please try and do the utmost to persuade the man to refrain from editing Wikipedia in the future. Qwrk (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

An age of less than 14.4 million years is indicated by published data. Zircon and apatite fission-track ages of about 14.4 million years ago from the Yellow Band within the upper part of the North Col Formation and mylonitic granites of the Rongbuk Formation that forms the base of Mount Everest indicate that these rocks rapidly cooled to about 130 degrees centigrade about 14.4 million years ago. This rapid cooling of the rocks of both the North Col Formationa dn the underlying Rongbuk Formation at this time implies they had been uplifted from deep within the crust to their present position and appeared either at or near the ground surface by about 14 to 15 million years ago.

This is discussed in:

Sakai, H., M. Sawada,Y. Takigami, Y. Orihashi, T. Danhara, H. Iwano, Y. Kuwahara, Q. Dong, H. Cai, and J. Li. 2005. "Geology of the summit limestone of Mount Qomolangma (Everest) and cooling history of the Yellow Band under the Qomolangma detachment." Island Arc. v. 14 no. 4 pp. 297-310.Paul H. (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese names

珠穆朗玛峰/Zhūmùlǎngmǎ is a phonetic transliteration of the Tibetan and has no meaning: the component characters are something like "pearl-respectful-beautiful-agate" and were chosen by pronunciation. While rendering 聖母/Shèngmǔ as "Holy Mother" is not incorrect, the character 聖 is also commonly used for "Saint", so there's not necessarily any distinction to the Tibetan meaning. Jpatokal (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm considering changing the introduction to reflect this fact. The current wording implies that the Tibetan and Mandarin names should be separate when they should not be, given that the latter is a transliteration of the former. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 01:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

First Ski Descent of Mt. Everest

First ski descent of Mt. Everest was by Hans Kammerlander in 1996, at the time he also set the speed record for the fastest ascent of the mountain. more here if needed, http://www.kammerlander.com/dt-lebenslauf.htm . Please correct this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Steep (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.183.35.251, 31 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Various records In May 1999 Babu Chiri Sherpa spent a record 21 hours on the summit without supplementary oxygen, even sleeping there. In May 2000, Babu Chiri Sherpa also set the record for the fastest ascent to the summit of Everest at 16 hours and 56 minutes from the South side (Nepal Side).

76.183.35.251 (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide a reliable source when requesting that a change be made. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's a source, if someone can get to it (otherwise I'll get to it in a day or two): [1] This man probably could have an article as well; he was a very highly-regarded climber, and WP doesn't have many articles on notable climbing Sherpas. Steveozone (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Huh, seek and ye shall find: Babu Chiri Sherpa. Steveozone (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

First and the only blind man who reached the summit (Erik Weihenmayer)

Maybe it is worth including info about him in this article? Neveripe (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really considered a big landmark ascent, so I don't think it shoudl be mentioned in the already quite detailed "ascents" section: note also that the main article for this section, Timeline of climbing Mount Everest, does mention Erik Weihenmayer, though no special emphasis is placed on the fact that he was the first blind man to reach the subbmit, which further suggests it probably shouldn't be included in this article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is India included?

Mount Everest is located in Nepal? And why is India included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashmi pkrl (talk • contribs) 16:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Qomolangma Peak"

Since no one else seems willing to discuss this, I'll start: I haven't taken a particularly thorough look through the references, but this name appears to be referenced in the article. The fact that it contains the word "peak" also suggests it could be used as an alternative English name, and if not, why not add it to the alternative-language names listed in the first sentence of the lead anyway, rather than simply removing it? I'm going to have a look at the references now; is anyone else familiar with this name and its usage? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as alternative names for Everest are concerned, we might even start off a new page listing them all. This particular variety I hadn't seen yet and it appears to me to be a version along the lines of "Chomolungma" or "Jolmo Lungma". Whether it's made up or not is unclear to me, but none of the books on my shelves have it listed. I came across a newer one though, that I hadn't noticed before. Unsworth's bible on Everest counts us lucky for it to be named after Sir George, as we might have been stuck with "Mt. Shufflebottom" till eternity! [pp. 546-550, SC edition] Qwrk (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems Qomolangma was the original name, and several of the references mention it. There were arguments previously over the legitimacy of continuing to use the western name "Everest", and the Chinese argued that the original name should be used. Unsurprisingly, Everest is still the predominant name used in the Western world. However, the fact that so many references include the name, and that an entire section of the article is describing the peak of Everest, referring to the "Qomolangma Formation", suggests that the name is at least worthy of an "also known as" in the lead section. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
There may be a handful who want to call it by that name in English. I actually like that word, because of its underlying exotic meaning. But that name is not in general usage, and is already mentioned in the lead, so putting it in there twice makes no sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of "Qomolangma Peak" has extreme political overtones. It is being pushed aggressively by the Communist regime in Peking as part of their quest to assert P.R.China control over Tibet. However 'Qomolangma Peak' is not in common usage among English-speakers - it is basically only used in English articles written by the P.R.C. propaganda departments. Surely an article on a geographic feature - a mountain - should refrain from pushing political agendas where possible?

"Qomolangma Peak" was never the original English Name for this mountain. This is factually incorrect.

Furthermore 'Qomolangma' is already listed among the other names following "Mount Everest" - "Mount Everest (Mount Sagarmāthā (Nepali: सगरमाथा), Tibetan: ཇོ་མོ་གླང་མ; Chinese Zhumulangma Peak simplified Chinese: 珠穆朗玛峰; pinyin: Zhūmùlǎngmǎ Fēng), Chajamlangma (Limbu), or Mount Chomolangma) "

Wikipeadia should not be used as a tool for pushing political agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.189.192.63 (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


There is a whole subsection referencing the naming of Mt Everest further down the article - under subheading '2. Naming', why push a name that is infrequently used in English in the heading?

An English-language article should reference what is used in English. If the chinese want to use 'Qomolangma' , let them - in chinese. That is their business. Just like what the Indians use in Hindi is their business, or the . . . - you get my point.

This is an English-language article, not chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt Waugh (talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

From a historic point of view one would be inclined to make a listing of all names that were ever given to the peak. Question however is what to include and what not. In my [main] field of interest - K2 - I could come up with at least 15 different ones, but what is reasonable and what is beyond the ludicrous? Whether we like it or not there are political aspects related to the subject at hand, but I'd be the first to exclude POV pushing. Qwrk (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The most commonly used local names are already covered, including the Chinese one, but it's still Everest in English. Greece is locally known as the Hellenic Republic, but how often do you hear that in English? Seldom, yet probably a lot more often than Chomolongma for Everest. The Chinese could call it Mt. George Herman 'Babe' Ruth if they wanted to, for all we care, but that has nothing to do with English common usage. If Chomolongma becomes common usage someday, that will be a different story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Having taken a better look at the references, I agree; I've never heard the term before, and looking at the references which use the name Qomolangma, two of them are news reports about the Chinese arguing to push the name, and the third has it in the title but also specifies Mount Everest in brackets. There's no actual evidence in the references that it is used in English-speaking countries. I think we have sufficient consensus to exclude the term from the lead. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
We both agree wholeheartedly, but we knew that from day one. This is the AU/UK version of wikipedia, so it's Mt. Shufflebottom, formerly known as Pk. XV. What they do with their localised pages in Limbuwan or whatever lingo is up to them. Qwrk (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I was going to suggest unprotecting, but there are other users waiting to pounce, so maybe it's better to leave it as is for awhile? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm all for protecting sensitive subjects where we have a serious risk of some POV-pusher wrecking up the article over and over again. Qwrk (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I've raised this issue with the 3 other user ID's that had tried to push this, and asked them to come here and assure us they won't edit war over it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for assuming bad faith. If the name has a political agenda attached to it, I'm happy to see it gone. --Bhickey (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where there was an assumption of bad faith; notifying users who were involved in the previous edit war about this discussion and requesting that they discuss it and/or acknowledge the growing consensus is hardly an assumption of bad faith. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for going along with consensus. That just leaves one user that I know of that was pushing this, so I think letting protection expire per schedule (as noted below) is fine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What? why did someone message me?--intelati 20:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I Just reverted the "I like Peanut butter" to what ever the last revision was. I never realized there was a separate statement.--intelati 20:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my error. You were indeeded simply doing a vandalism reversion[2] not pushing the "Chomolangma" thing. Carry on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The protection is very short-term, so I don't think it'll do any harm to let it expire on its own; this'll give anyone else who was involved in the slow edit war to see this discussion and contribute while still unable to simply revert. It's unlikely that any constructive editors which emerge in the next 14 hours or so will be discouraged by having to return tomorrow or post the suggestion here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this mountain should be named by the first person to have climbed it. Therefore, it is proposed that the name be changed to "Mount Hillary" or "Mount Norgay" or some permutation of the two.64.251.49.60 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. But it's not up to wikipedia to lead that charge. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Fully protected

I've fully protected this article for 18 hours due to the recent edit-warring. Please resolve all issues on the talk page before editing. If you would like a change to be made, use {{editprotected}} (but be sure to gain consensus for the edit first). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Tibet - link to ~

Why are some people changing the link from 'Tibet' to a political link - don't you think that it is better linking to the geographical article, instead of the political article - which is not of relevance to this mountain geographic feature.

My belief is that it is better to keep politics out of this article about a mountain.

Could the person who keeps changing the link from 'Tibet' to the other link explain why they prefer the political link?

Mt Waugh (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, borders define geographic boundaries of political entities or legal jurisdictions, such as governments, sovereign states, federated states and other subnational entities. If you talk about Nepal, then you must also talk about China. Thedatduuy (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not necessarily so:

"border |ˈbôrdər| noun 1 a line separating two political or geographical areas, esp. countries : Iraq's northern border with Turkey | [as adj. ] border patrols. • a district near such a line : a refugee camp on the border. 2 the edge or boundary of something, or the part near it : the northern border of their distribution area | figurative the unknown regions at the borders of physics and electronics."

118.90.43.232 (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The occasions on which the political situation around major mountains becomes relevant to the mountains themselves are thankfully few, so far as I am able to discern. For what purpose would we ever choose to turn an article about a geological/geographical feature that exudes beauty and challenges adventurers into an opportunity for political rhetoric? It doesn't matter who claims to rule over a mountain; it is obvious that no one can ever rule over a mountain. Steveozone (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've fully protected again, this time for three days since editors did not get the message the first time around. Please, please observe the spirit of WP:BRD and discuss instead of (not in addition to) edit-warring. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Various records

In the "Various records" section, I would imagine that any number of different records have been set "from" Mount Everest, to establish the "world's highest X". For example, in 2009, BetOnline set out to place and accept the first wager from the summit of Mount Everest. While the climbing team was unable to place a bet from the summit, a wager was placed on May 18, 2009 (local time) from “Base Camp 4” at 26,000 feet above sea level, setting a record. Would something like this event be appropriate for this section of the article? -- Multi Wire Branch (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty frivolous to me; I don't think it's really significant enough to warrant a mention in an article about the mountain; remember that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Definitely not significant enough to justify inclusion on the page. If we add that, then it just opens the floodgates to hundreds of petty "records" which would only denigrate the significance of this mountain (or any other for that matter). RedWolf (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

World Record set by a brave Nepali: http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eagle_bios/1998/chhetri_1998.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gghimire01 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a case to be made for not including a "youngest" record. Even with short-roping by sherpas, Everest is by no means a walk in the park, and "youngest" records can run to the ridiculous, as was the case with the eight year old girl killed while trying to pilot a plane across the US. I know it's an encyclopedia, but for example the Darwin Awards article does not name winners. There are limits to being comprehensive 96.54.32.44 (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Google Map error?

For some reason, Google Maps with the Wikipedia labeling turned on displays the Wikipedia article for Mount Hebron at the summit where Everest should be. I have no idea where the Mt Everest label appears, but it is not anywhere near the mountain on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.188.57.167 (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mt. Everest

Several authentic information is available in this site. Please use the following link. This is the site of Government of Nepal, Ministry of Tourism. http://www.tourism.gov.np/expeditionreport/bookfor2010-2067-4-1.pdf. This says all about the successful summitters, their name and country, date, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.133.237 (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 1scruffy1, 26 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The Hunt ascent of Everest was closely followed on site and reported by a journalist of the London Times newspaper, Mr. James Morris-later becoming Ms. Jan Morris, an authoress of travel literature.

1scruffy1 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Please indicate where this information should be added, and provide a source supporting it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.16.29.184, 15 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The height of Everest is now known to be 8850m and not 8848m as stated in the article.

92.16.29.184 (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

First climb from the North

I suggest someone add something about the first expedition (Chinese) to summit from the North side, I believe it was in 1960. It seems a pretty important first on Everest but I couldn’t find it in the article ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.128.59 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese did claim a summit in their large expedition of 1960. After several hours of trying, they finally scaled the Second Step by having a climber take off his boots and stand on the shoulder of another. The ascent was made using oxygen and slowed to a crawl taking place at night so there were no summit photographs except a single one showing distant peaks. Comparison with similar later photos of the same peaks show that the Chinese photo was taken abo0ve the Second Step. But the initial descriptions were so vacuous and laden with Chinese propaganda, and failing to mention any checkable landmarks, that the climb was not believed. Eventually, as China opened up and Westerners came into contact with the Chinese climbers, their tale came to gather more support. A single description of a "Great Rock" just short of the summit holds true. Thus now, the mountaineering community does believe the Chinese made the first successful ascent of Everest from the North. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.40.89 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong height

According to many sources such as National Geographic, Smithsonian, NASA, and many surveys later now have proven Mt. Everest and the other peaks in Tibet are rising all the time. According to all of these sourced the Tibetan Plateau is fairly recent. About 55 million years ago the Indian subcontinent crashed into Eurasia. The battle between these two giant slabs of earth's crust continues to this day pushing the Himalayas by nearly a half inch a year. As the result, Mount Everest is now 8850 m (29,035 feet) above sea level, not 8848 m (29,029 feet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nospin30 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Read the Measurement section. 8848 m is the height officially recognized by Nepal and China where the mountain resides. Yes, the Himalaya are still rising but there is no annual published adjustment that is made taking this into account. RedWolf (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is rising but only at a rate of 4~6 mm per year. At that rate it takes about 170~250 years to add another metre and double that to add 2 m. Thus the difference between 8850 m and 8848 m can not be attributed to rising. Variations in measurements can be attributed to the snow depth when the measurement is made, since the snow is counted. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Gghimire01, 25 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} World Record information by such individual should be mentioned. http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eagle_bios/1998/chhetri_1998.asp

Gghimire01 (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Height above the geoid

Should heights not use the Earth's geoid as a reference? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe nobody cares what the geoid is and why we should use it as a reference but mean sea level is a rather ill-defined thing that has been superseded for accurate measurements by the better-defined geoid. I see discussion about whether the mountain is 29,000 or 29,002 ft high. There is no point in discussing small differences like this unless you have a good reference level to base the height measurement on. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine except that the geoid article linked here appears to be poorly written, or at least confusing from a lay-person perspective. It is not clear what the geoid is exactly or how it relates to or differs from mean sea level. I haven't noticed any other mountain acticles that use the geoid as the reference for elevations. I recommend using sea level or perhaps simply stating the elevation, until the geoid article is improved. Racerx11 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I see nothing drastically wrong with the geoid article, it might be worth your while re-reading it to try to understand what it is all about (I might add that I have not contributed to that article). The quality of the geoid article is, however, irrelevant to whether we should use the geoid here as our height datum. Mean sea level is now an archaic concept ill-suited to precision measurements of the Earth's surface. It is with reference to the geoid that all current measurements are made and to which even more accurate future measurements will be made. The exact height of Everest is one of those things about which many of our readers will be very interested. Without any datum given at all an elevation measurement is completely meaningless and with an imprecise datum the elevation will be correspondingly imprecise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Stand corrected on the quality of the geoid article. I took your advice and re-read it. I think I mistakenly skipped over the lead in my initial attempt to absorb the info. I think I understand it now. I'm not going to make any revision to change geoid back to sea level, but it still doesn't sit well with me. Perhaps it's because it's a new term and is unfamiliar to me and I feel other user may have a similar reaction when they first see it. Also, since I have a desire for consistency across related pages, I would expect all elevations use one or the other. Although I suppose this expectation is both somewhat unrealistic and not entirely necessary. Racerx11 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted to mean sea level. At the very least we should have wide discussion about using a word which few laymen would recognise. Moriori (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Another concern is that you are possibly overstating the need to explicitly define the reference point. An elevation stated without any datum wouldn't be meaningless. Any user will simply see it as the most agreed upon and accurate measurement available at the time; regardless of the base reference used at the time. This information would be irrelevant to most people who simply wish to know the height of Everest.
Take for example an article on the 100 meter sprint. When mentioning the world record in this event, it is understandable and implied that the measurements of time and distance are extremely precise now compared to several decades ago. However, when stating the world record, it is not necessary to explicity reference the way the start and finish lines are laid out, where on the 5 cm lines does the 100 m start and end, and how and where the timer determines the runner starting and finishing. The details of these issues are not necessary for Usain Bolt's world record time of 9.58 s to have meaning. Racerx11 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
@Moriori, I wasn't in favor of reverting to sea level despite my concerns about the term "geoid". But since you boldly made the edit, we will see what happens and if we can reach a consensus. Racerx11 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia should use the established, normal references for info on the heights of mountains and such. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I am still wondering why a reference from which the measurement is taken is needed at all. Do we really need to say "above mean sea level"? Doesn't this go without saying for any elevation? Unless you think user Martin Hogbin is completely isolated with his view, I recommend simply giving the elevation without "geoid" or "mean sea level" stated as a reference base. This way it is less likely to be contentious to any other users who desire the geoid reference. I don't think anyone would miss "mean sea level" not being there. Racerx11 (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Why hide it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I initially suggested we revert to mean sea level, but I had second thoughts, mostly because I tried to respect the points raised by Martin Hogbin. I really didn't think his geoid reference would fly, but I was trying to lead him to a comprimise that he might agree with instead of immediately reverting his edit. Do you think I was mistaken to take that approach? Racerx11 (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I never heard of this geoid thing, but I'm not a geologist. What is the basis for standard sources' elevation information? Is it geoid, or is it above-mean-sea-level? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Im no geologist either and no expert. All I know on the subject is what I read in the article a few hours ago. Racerx11 (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyway I think I will wait until, or if, Martin returns to the discusion. Maybe he can answer some questions. Racerx11 (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The geoid is just an idealised version of mean seal level. The problem is that the mean level of the sea does not actually give us mean sea level. The geoid is the reference used for maps etc, see World Geodetic System which says, 'The World Geodetic System is a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and navigation. It comprises a standard coordinate frame for the Earth, a standard spheroidal reference surface (the datum or reference ellipsoid) for raw altitude data, and a gravitational equipotential surface (the geoid) that defines the nominal sea level.'

You're making a logic-based argument. I want to know what the standard sources use. The World Almanac, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
My guess would be that newer and more accurate sources would refer to the geoid and older ones to mean sea level but I am not going to fight over this, I have drawn the matter to your attention. If I come across a good secondary source that uses the term (primary sources use the term geoid already) that I will change the article to use 'geoid' again and see what the reaction is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This page rates a 'B-'? No way

This page is historically deficit, and I would suspect is written by non-climbing Brits. 1) Page lacks Hornbein and Unsoeld's West Ridge ascent (Sierra Club book) (Brit bias). 2) The page lacks Whillans and Haston's South-West Face ascent in 1975 (these people aren't climbers). 3) Must less other notable ascents. I can go on. It doesn't even rate a 'C'. Take the 'B' Off. 171.66.84.125 (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Would you be willing to contribute to the article by fixing the issues you have raised or anything else you feel a desire to improve? I don't know about the specifics of the examples you mention, but it's not just here. Mountaineering articles in general are of poor quality here on Wikipedia. I recently discovered the issue of first winter ascent of Cho Oyu is a mess with different names and dates across the relevant pages of WP. Point is these articles have a lot of room for improvement and those of us who have been working on it could use the help. Racerx11 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The discrepancies I mentioned above are now fixed in the Jerzy Kukuczka and Eight-thousander pages. They are now consistent with the Cho Oyu article. Racerx11 (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see these. You seem to miss my points on historical deficiencies. I might be flattered by the offer, but I stopped following the history of Everest ascents by the mid 80s to concentrate on scientific polar expeditions. Before googling, take a look at the German wikipedia page on Everest (someone can put the cross language links here or just hit Deustch on the left). A knowledgeable climber doesn't even have to read or translate German to see that page is superior on Everest chronology compared to this English language page. It at least rates a C in my book.
Look Everest as a world topic is certainly B..A-level importance to the world of exploration, but this page is embarrassing to the knowledgeable. Language inconsistencies are going to be challenging. I know that two distinctly different George Lowes (UK and US) spent time on the mountain decades apart. Brits cite the first as "Mountaineer" and Americans cite the latter, part of the Lowe clan of climbers as a "climber". But really no difference except era. If nothing else, locate, translate, and cut and paste the serious early ascents, routes, topography (2nd ascent, 1st ascents of major new routes, etc.). Until then rate it a 'D'. Really. 171.66.89.182 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The Cho Oyu/Kukuczka issue I mentioned did not involve this page. It was just an example I used and then I felt it needed an update here when it was resolved.
If it appears that I have missed your point it is probably because I have no interest in page ratings. I replied because I felt it would be better to work toward fixing the problem areas yourself and bring the article up to its supposed rating, instead of lowering the rating to your estimation of what it should be. I am concerned with improving articles, regardless of their current rating or whether they happen to be over or under-rated. To be honest, I have never even paid attention to the ratings...not once. Sorry if I'm no help to your problem. Maybe I should have never replied to begin with. I'm sure another user would be more helpful than I.
As for the George Lowe(s). I'm not sure, I will check, but I think this is a work-in-progress as we speak. The NZ born, you call UK George Lowe is George Lowe (mountaineer). The "mountaineer" is simply to disambiguate from other George Lowe's. There is no page for American mountaineer George Lowe (climber). I think someone is in the process of creating his page and is planning on using George Lowe (climber) as the name. Again, "climber" would just be a way to disambiguate from the other George Lowe's. When his page is created I suspect it will help clear some of the confusion. I can't tell, but do you have issue with one being called "mountaineer" and the other "climber"? This may be a problem, but until I know for sure I won't comment.Racerx11 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Your issue (CO/K) overly complicates this discussion. You probably didn't glance the German page which can be roughly interpreted or sent through a translation to get its sense. In fact, I would almost venture to guess that you are a New Zealander attempting to polish NZ history, no? A Rating is merely a summary. Some common adjectives could be used. Is this page "Good"? A common word for a 'B' grade? No. It is not. Is it "average"? Possibly for wikipedia. Is it adequate? Given the history Everest: thousands of pages before and after Mallory's ascent; probably not. This article lacks even a basic geomorphological description that Everest is a tetrahedral shaped mountain with 3 primary ridges (NE, S, and 'W') and 3 faces (N, E, and SW) which make the primary lines of ascent and in turn its climbing history. That relates climbing history to geology. I would almost venture that some contributors represent non-neutral perspectives (almost nationalistic). This is not one of wikipedia's better articles, but it is an important historical topic in exploration. 66.122.34.11 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the issue you mention in your first semtence is overly complicating this dicussion. It was something I had just discovered at the time, it was on my mind. Sorry. Looking back on it, it would have been better to not use an example at all. I did look at the German Everest page but I didn't translate it. It does appear to cover the geological nature of Everest quite well. Based on what I saw on that page, I have no reason to disagree that the German page is probably superior to this one. I am not a New Zealander, never been there, never met one. I have no ties to the country.
Again, you are welcome to address whatever deficiencies you see in this article by being bold and fixing it yourself. --Racerx11 (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm still perplexed by the suggestion that I am New Zealander with an agenda concerning its history. Perhaps you went through my contribution history and found the handful of edits I made about New Zealand climber Rob Hall on the 1996 Everest disaster page. Other than that, I can't think of a single edit among the six or seven hundred edits I have made, that had anything to do with New Zealand. Just curious where that came from.--Racerx11 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Too much focus on climbing

This article could use more discussion of the geology of Everest and not just information related to mountain climbing. S trinitrotoluene (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... While the tallest mountain in the world has geologic significance, Everest's historic significance is largely a magnet for climbing. I think even George Mallory pointed that out (with social value for aviation medicine at best, a marginal value in his view). While this article has a number of nice photos and graphics, it lacks even a decent basic geomorphological description. Everest is the subject of a modest number of geologic papers, because its limestone bedding is of limited interest (not too much special/largely otherwise indistinguished except for being part of the "roof of the world").
No, this article needs a coherent make over. 66.122.34.11 (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from HooKooDooKu, 21 April 2011

The article's 1st sentance states the wrong height by 50m. This text says "8,898 metres (29,193 ft)" while most other references (such as the summary box on the right) says "8,848 m (29,029 ft)." Since the numbers 8,898 and 29,193 appear no where else in the article, the openning sentance is apparently wrong. HooKooDooKu (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Done Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 23:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Pollution

I couldn't help notice that the word pollution is mentioned only once in this article (it's in reference to discarded oxygen tanks on the mountain). The word garbage isn't mentioned at all. I've read a few articles about the growing problem of pollution on Everest and it seems to be a serious problem. Everest: a garbage dump. "emphasizes on another fact: an association picked up 56 000 beer bottles at the feet of Mount Everest." The pollution is much more than oxygen tanks, it extends to discarded equipment, human bodies and other junk. "Dangerous levels of arsenic and cadmium have been found in snow samples from Mount Everest" Mt Everest Pollution Signs Anyone want to work on a section for pollution on Everest? This could conceivably become a separate article in my mind because it's a serious issue for the mountain right now. TurtleMelody (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

--Gsälzbär (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

where was Lord Buddha born?

Buddha was born unquestionablly in Nepal'district Kapilbastu of lumbini. the Asoka Pillar there proves it. however indian like to say Buddha was born in india which is not true at all.they have also made an identical place to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamalsudip (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Increased vandalism on this page

There appears to have been about a dozen or more instances of vandalism in the last nine days, a rate way up from the preceding weeks. Is this unusually high for this article? Why the increase? Kids back in school?--Racerx11 (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

More liekly then not. Theres not much else too do as far as their concerened, seeing as schools usually block out games. 69.115.70.122 (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Malicious Editing

Someone has written 'lol' in italics under the 1996 Disaster section, but 'lol' does not appear in the editing box when one tries to remove it. 69.181.1.1 (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It was removed a moment after that. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Aw man, I thought I got it. I checked and the lol was on the current visible page, I went to the edit page, the lol wasn't there. I deleted the return break were it was at, thinking it was a hidden code or something. I put back the break. Hit preview, it was gone. Hit save, it was gone. No edit conflict. I thought I got it. --Racerx11 (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I tell you what, I've seen some crazy stuff, I don't what the heck just happened. I'm looking at the edit histories and I saw the cluebot vandalism reversion before I saw the lol on the current visible page. Like I said, when I tried to edit it out, it wasn't there in the edit window, but I still fixed it, explained above. Thing is, there is no record of my edit, there was no edit conflict, and now its gone and the cluebot edit is still the latest version. Did it diappear by itself? So confused.--Racerx11 (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

New book about the 1996 Mount Everest diaster.

I am the author of a new book about the 1996 Mount Everest disaster, made famous at the time by the Jon Krakauer book Into Thin Air and all the media coverage and other books and films that followed.

A Day To Die For: 1996: Everest’s worst disaster, the untold true story is a non-fiction book written by Graham Ratcliffe and published by Mainstream in 2011. The author was a first-hand witness on Mt Everest during the 1996 Mount Everest disaster during which eight climbers lost their lives. This book uncovers crucial facts vital to an understanding of what led to to tragedy that have not been made public in any of the previous published accounts; it questions why these were not made clear by Jon Krakauer in Into Thin Air , David Breashears High Exposure, Broughton Coburn’s National Geographic book Everest: Mountain Without Mercy or indeed in any of the other published accounts, films or articles that followed in the ensuing years.

Summary In this largely autobiographical book Graham Ratcliffe begins by describing what took him to Everest in 1996; having summited Everest from Tibetan side the year before, 1995, with two Russain climbers, one of whom was Anatoli Boukreev author of The Climb(book) . In 1996 the team he was on was originally due to make a summit bid on 10 May, the same day as Adventure Consultants led by Rob Hall and Mountain Madness led by Scott Fischer. However, after a request by Rob Hall, on behalf of these two teams, the summit bid was delayed until 11 May. Graham and his fellow team-mates arrived on to the South Col early on the evening of 10 May just as the storm struck Everest. They were unaware of the disaster unfolding on the slopes above them. Graham, like others, left Everest that year with a terrible feeling of regret that they could have done more to save their fellow climbers, one that would be buried deep inside for many years to come. A year or two later, in an obsure article he was to read something that was to shock and dismay him concering the events leading up to 10 May 1996. Despite this revelation he blocked out all the books and films and this tragic event, that was until 2004 when he finally read his first book on the 1996 disaster, Jon Krakauer’s Into Thin Air. It ended up raising more questions than it answered when he compared it to his own observations at the time; so began the author's five-year quest to reveal crucial facts, mysteriously missing from previous accounts, prompting an important new understanding of the decisions leading to tragedy.

Ratcliffe, Graham (2011), A Day To Die For: 1996: Everest’s worst disaster, the untold true story, Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing, ISBN 9781845966386

Professional reviews and reader comments can be found on the link below, a review by the New Zealand Alpine Club is to be added later this week http://www.adaytodiefor.com Grahamgordon56 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Graham, thank you for taking your case here. There have been very many books published about Mount Everest, and it is usually the case that authors have friends who are in positions to sing the praises of their work in publications. Mount Everest gets more than 5000 hits per day. If we could all promote our work freely on Wikipedia then its articles would rapidly be transformed into commercial catalogues, something that I am sure most users of Wikipedia would not wish to happen.
That said, if material from your book can be used to significantly improve the article, then I have no problem such material being added and referenced to your book, so long as it is not given undue weight. I have insufficient knowledge about the subject to be the judge of that. I will be interested to see what others think. Viewfinder (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I would have no problem with the book being mentioned in the article, but the wording should not read as if it is promoting the book. If there is material from the book that is useful to this or other articles, then sure, that can be added as well. However, it would probably be better if someone other than the author himself made such edits. --Racerx11 (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Having read a few other books on the 96 disaster, I am interested to find out what "missing" information this new book will reveal. I agree that it would be much better if any references to the book are not added to articles by the author/publisher. RedWolf (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Having read the previously published accounts on the events of 1996 I decided to read this new book. I was not expecting to read what Ratcliffe's obviously meticulous research had uncovered. All previous accounts stated that it was 'an unexpected localised rogue storm' that claimed eight lives. This is completely untrue, shown by this new book. They knew it was coming, or at least certain people did. There needs to be references made to Ratcliffe's book. I agree with the comments above that such additions should be made by others than the author/publisher Bartand (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have read the book then it is OK by me if you begin editing, but if you do, please can you declare the extent of any acquaintance you may have with the author. Viewfinder (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't volunteering to edit anything as I haven't done this before. Reading the comments above this appears a bit of a minefield. Bartand (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Death Zone

There is a part of a sentence that says "well-frozen" and seems to explain that it is very frozen. I find this unprofessional as the use of "well" to describe something as "very" or "quite" is british slang and should not be used as a wikipedia adjective. I say this only because I could not find anything on the term "well-frozen" so I assume it is the former. -Ottoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.36.123 (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Artist Xu Zhen and the summit of Everest

So I saw a few articles online that purport that Chinese artist Xu Zhen actually cut off the top 186 cm of Mount Everest, and it's currently on tour in a refrigerated glass enclosure (for example: http://www.nextnature.net/2007/09/mount-everest-8848-minus-186/). OK, so obviously this isn't true, but I'm having a hard time finding documentation that says so. Anyone got any that clearly states this? Also, because it's being reported as fact in so many places, should a section be dedicated here mentioning (and debunking) it? If nothing else, it's an interesting exhibit that focuses on Everest, which may be noteworthy in and of itself. Esprix (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this claim. Why lend it some credibility by noting it here? RedWolf (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
According to the art gallery where the exhibit is housed, this was intended to be seen as a hoax. Questioning the hoax would then lead viewers to question their faith in measurements of Everest's height. Wikipedia is not the place to debunk every ridiculous claim the moment it pops up, so I don't see any need to mention it in the article. Maybe if the hoax is still famous a few years from now, it can be added to a section on hoaxes or popular culture.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

frequent vandalism

This page is being vandalized more than once per day. Given racerx11's comment on 8Sep11, this has been going on for a while. I'm not too familiar with administrative solutions, but would semi-protection be in order?--Wikimedes (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Confusion that has been alleviated

Climbing routes - correction

I believe it is incorrect to refer to the north-side route as the Northeast ridge route as it confuses the main north ridge route with the much more difficult and rarely visited north-east ridge. I have therefore changed the sub-heading to "North ridge". This is consistent with: (1) Timeline_of_climbing_Mount_Everest#1960:_The_North_Ridge; and (2) already-cited sources in the relevant section - EverestHistory.com & Nova Online. Therefore, I have not used alternative references. Lacewing (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Everest Speed Records

{{Request edit}}

In the article, under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest#Various_records it is stated:
"The fastest ascent without supplementary oxygen via the southeast ridge was accomplished by French Marc Batard, who reached the summit in 22h 30min in 1988."
Batard's record was broken in 1998 by Kagzi Sherpa (also without supplementary oxygen) with a time of 20 hours 24 minutes:
http://classic.mountainzone.com/news/everestspeed.html
Also, 2nd paragraph from the bottom:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/may/04/1
Also, 2nd paragraph from the top:
http://zt.tibet.cn/english/services/peakzone/toprecords.htm
Also, 3rd paragraph from the top, under the heading 'Kagzi Sherpa'
http://www.everestsummiteersassociation.org/newold-records
Both Batard and Kagzi Sherpa's records are unofficial (not officially timed). This should be noted?
Everestrecords (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I cited many sources in this section of the article, and could someone help me with putting the sources in the correct wiki formatt?Everestrecords (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2012

In editing the Wikipedia entry for Highest points of Earth I noticed an error that is repeated in the Comparisons section of this entry. I do not, however, have the required permission to edit this entry. So, I would like to request this change or the required permissions to edit it myself.

You can see the changes I made to Exreme points of Earth here

Bbilheimer (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is an error; in the changes you made on Extreme points of Earth, you introduced a mistake by changing kilometres to metres without multiplying by 1000 their figure (See the correction of your changes I made).
Maybe you misunderstood something: From sea level, Mount Everest is about 8.8 km high and Chimborazo is about 6.3 km, but from the Earth's center both are about 6400 km far, and Chimborazo is 2 km farther than Mount Everest.
Note that in English, 6400 km is written "6,400 km" whereas "2.168 km" means a bit more than 2 km. One can easily get confused between 6.268 km (elevation of Chimborazo from sea level) and 6,384 km (distance between Chimborazo's summit and the Earth's center) which is roughly 1000 times more.
Cos-fr (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Virtual flight around Mount Everest

There is a nice animation available, which shows a virtual flight around the Mount Everest. Can anybody please add this video to an appropriate position in the article? The file is called File:Animation of Mount Everest.ogv, thanks -- Jotpe (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Does it add anything to the article? Or is it just kind of cute? With a lot of people using mobile platforms or slow data, unless the video shows something that really adds a lot to the encyclopedic content of an article, it should be put in the article. I know, there's no clear guideline, but the standard should be "it adds a lot to the information." What might essentially be a tour guide, shouldn't be there.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 May 2012

Please change "mount Everest is the highest mountain in the world" to "Mauna Kea is the highest mountain in the world" because Mauna Kea is the highest in the world. So this article is incorrect. You can google it if you don't believe me. 71.197.67.73 (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the highest above sea level, which is how the height of mountains is conventionally measured and described. The article already discusses Mauna Kea, and in fact points out that the "heighest" as measured from the center of the earth is neither of those. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Mauna Kea may be the largest mountain on the planet, but it is not the highest. Mt. Everest is the highest mountain in the world. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 05:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation error

The article currently states;

Interestingly, the modern pronunciation of Everest ˈɛvərɨst, ˈɛvrɨst[16] is in fact different from Sir George's pronunciation of his surname, which was /ˈiːvrɨst/.[17]
  1. who on earth outside of the field of professional linguists understands the International Phonetic Alphabet?
  2. forget about IPAs, the mountain is called "ever-rest" but the namers, who knew Sir George thought of it as "eve-rest" mountain. The emphasis took on a life, something that the Royal Geographical Society would have never envisaged.
  3. "interestingly?" now that's opinion. As a fact, what makes it "interesting" is a personal viewpoint. However the highest mountain above sea-level is known incorrectly around the world by an invented name!
  4. this disparity should be stated more clearly.

As one of the most famous geographical etymological errors in the history of the world, on a par with the naming of the Americas, why is left to anyone with any smarts to have point this out? Needs a section at least or more on this, maybe even something in the lead to point out such a notable case. Not just some one line. For instance how quickly did this error appear? What did Mallory and Irvine call it? What did Sir George think of everyone mispronouncing his name? As Victorian gentleman, he was most certainly and "Eve-rest" and never an "Ever-rest".

So where did the extra "R" come from in the word? Personally I think this has all the hallmarks of Webster-inspired American English. It fits into the same niche area within Americanism when they use the "name of the letter" at the start of words e.g. Iraq = eye-rack (British/Commonwealth = EE-rack) or Arab = ay rab not ah-rab. American pronunciations is based on the phonetical deconstruction of a word into smaller words not syllables, which is taught in British/Commonwealth English. For instance it happens today, I have heard Americans referring to lay-kester for Leicester or lang-gollen for Llangollen. Words within words based on Websters' simplified English grammatical rules.86.163.104.22 (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am an American, and in my experience, the majority of educated Americans do not pronounce "Iraq" or "Arab" the way you say they do. Those who speak in some regional accents may. As for the pronunciation of "Everest", expanding the discussion of this matter would require reference to what reliable sources say about the matter, rather than your opinion or mine. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 10:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
No comment on the IPA issue, but the IP has a point about "interestingly", which, however innocuous (I do find it interesting), is editorializing. I'm going to remove the word. Also removing "in fact", which doesn't add anything but length to the sentence. Rivertorch (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Amateurish editorializing, yes. As to the pronunciation, it might suffice to say that George Everest's surname was pronounced with a "long E" and the mountain is pronounced with a "short E". Kind of like the British vs. American pronunciations of "lever". Or "eve" vs. "ever". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, something like that would probably be an improvement. Want to take a stab at it? (The relevant internal link would be Vowel length, I suppose.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It's actually worse than that. Saying it out loud to myself, it's more like "Ev'rist", with that second "e" almost not there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Sir George's surname was originally pronounced as 'eave-er-rest' - it came originally from the Saxon given name 'Eafor' and IIRC it is/was a place name of Kentish origin. It was originally something like 'Eafor's rest'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2012

Please add this to the external links section

Ianpjohnson (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Ian Johnson

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Is this a correction or an addition? Articles don't typically contain links to items for sale at Amazon. Rivertorch (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Hillary Step

Regarding this line.... "Hillary and Tenzing were the first climbers to ascend this step and they did it with primitive ice climbing equipment and ropes."

I'm rather uncomfortable with the way this is worded. The key is who first lead this pitch, and it was Hillary (hence the reference 'Hillary Step', i.e. it is common for the climber who firsts leads a pitch to be credited with the name, for example 'House's Chimney' on K2, or the 'Hinterstoisser Traverse' on the Eiger, and it was Hillary who lead this section and the text should reflect that.

I'm also uncomfortable calling the equipment 'primitive', for such a pitch the actual equipment thay had was was adequate (rope, crampons and pitons). However, I remember future climbers saying they were surprised at how technically difficult the Hillary Step was (will need to find references) so would suggest re-writing something like...

"Given the circumstances, its technical difficulty and the extreme altitude, Hilary leading this section became one of the notable climbing achievments of the first ascent." Oberon Houston (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: Your account has autoconfirmed status, and you've made the edit. I undid it for multiple reasons. For one thing, your wording is clumsy. Aside from two spelling errors, the sentence—"Hillary leading . . . became one of the notable . . ."—is grammatically unsound. I also find myself taking issue with the substance of it. While I don't have any of my book refs handy, my understanding is that the first ascent of what became the Hillary Step was very much a collaborative effort and that the name it was given had much to do with the culture of the time. (As a Sherpa, Tenzing was widely seen as subordinate to Hillary, no matter how instrumental he was in getting them both to the top. It would have been unthinkable to name it after both of them.) Getting up the Hillary Step wasn't one of the notable climbing achievements of the first ascent; it was the notable climbing achievement. As for the "primitive" equipment, I see your point, but the next sentence (beginning "Nowadays") makes clear that the statement is relative. And it is. Just as Mallory and Irvine's equipment would have looked primitive to Tenzing and Hillary 60 years ago, the equipment of 1953 looks decidedly primitive to us now. Rivertorch (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Well I disagree with everything of substance you've said above, and would only be repeating myself as to why. So let's leave this here for the record for now and others to consider, especially any mountaineers who can hopefully give my version some credence. Oberon Houston (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Mount Everest is on the border of Nepal and Tibet

ugh,,,, shouldnt this be under ' Sagarmatha' and not mount everset. Wikipedia please fix!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.15.164 (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


I'm English and have been to China and Nepal and have seen Mount Everest for my own eyes and i know it is in Nepal.Tibet claims its on the border noooo its in NEPAL!!!

It is located right on the border. Look it up on Google Earth or something. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

previous title (Mount Everest is in Nepal not China!!! ) is incorrect, even its own content suggested it is right on the border. Hyuan71 (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


JULIE !<3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trulsenok95 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is some kind of document signed by Nepalese and Chinese government, in 1960s, verifying that the summit of Everest is actually in Nepal. I could not find the online version of the document, but here is a book which also mentions that the summit of the Everest is in Nepal. (page 214)http://books.google.com/books?id=nRX1wMRnHAoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Ashowmega (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Nepal/Chinese border is located at Everest's peak, dividing the mountain between the two countries. (See Into the Silence by Wade Davis) tonicw (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)tonicw

Why Nepali language is in last while referring "Mt. Everest" in other languages?

While referring Mt. Everest in other languages, Nepali language should be written in first followed by other languages as the landmark belongs to Nepal. As internationally it is called Mt. Everest is in the international border of Nepal and China, but the summit is in the Nepali side. Also please add the meaning of the word Sagarmatha in English language. "Sagar" means Sky and "Matha" means head or roof.

So this should be like this: Mount Everest (Nepali: सगरमाथा, Sagarmāthā, "Roof of the sky"; Tibetan: ཇོ་མོ་གླང་མ, Wylie: jo mo glang ma; Chomolungma or Qomolangma /ˈtʃoʊmoʊˌlɑːŋmə/ choh-moh-lahng-mə, "Holy Mother"; Chinese: 珠穆朗玛峰; pinyin: Zhūmùlǎngmǎ Fēng)

Suniltheblue (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this really matter? Anyway, I have add Nepali language at first. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
First of all, could someone please explain to me where the notion came from that the summit is on one side or the other; or that there is even a doubt that the border runs precisely over the high-point by definition? The summit is on the border...period. End of that discussion until someone shows me a source that states otherwise.
As explained in the article, the name Qomolangma dates to at least the 1700s where it appears on a map and I suspect it had been used by Tibetan people for centuries before then. It is the official Tibetan name. Lacking a native Napelese name for the mountain, the Napalese gavernment "coined" the name Sagarmāthā in the 1960s, "allegedly to supplant the Tibetan name among the locals, which the Nepali government felt was 'not acceptable'." I am just echoing the article here and giving a possible explanation that Qomolangma is (was) listed first because it is older and a genuine native name. Or perhaps, all things being equal, an editor simply used alphabetical order, but other than that I have no strong opinion on which name should go first and I also wonder why it should matter so much. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 13:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't matter much. However, I believe you're correct that Sagarmatha is a newer name, and you're definitely correct that no sources have been provided to indicate the summit is in Nepal. Since the change now puts the names out of alphabetical order, there doesn't seem to be any justification for it at all and would suggest restoring the previous version. Rivertorch (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Well I haven't bothered to check any sources, so I really know little more on the subject of the native names than what I have read in the article which says Sagarmatha was coined in the 1960s and Qomolangma dates to at least the 1700s. Also should mention alphabetical order would be dependent on which spelling to use, Chomolungma vs Qomolangma. Anyway, I am fine with current state, but as far as I'm concerned you are more than welcome to revert to the previous version. Thanks. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 18:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Oooops. I was wrong. Spelling doesnt matter in the order. Q before S...duhh!--RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 18:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I was very quick with the change. If other editors believe that previous version was better then feel free to revert my edit. Btw, I don't see any mistake to have Nepali language at the start since the peak lies in the border between Nepal and Tibet and in my opinion the native languages (for Mt. Everest of these two countries) should be mentioned first. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer the different previous comments from another perspective, the only native name for the mountain is Chomolungma, as the mountain is known by both Sherpas (living South of the mountain) and Tibetans (living north of it), who speak different variations of Tibetan (check Tibetic languages, Sherpa language and Central Tibetan language). Chomolungma is commonly used in English publications since at least once century, often as an alternative naming to Mt. Everest. Qomolangma is just another spelling variation for Chomolungma, and it is mainly used in the People's Republic of China as a recent romanisation alternative for the Tibetan script (Tibetan pinyin), just as Jo mo glang ma is the Wylie transliteration; Tibetan pinyin is not used as a romanisation for Sherpa language, so Qomolangma cannot qualify to describe the Tibetan name in both Sherpa and Ü-Tsang dialects. The Chinese were quite often referring to it as Shengmu Feng in the past, but in recent times the cinicised version of the native Tibetan name (Zhūmùlǎngmǎ Fēng) has become more popular and is now the official Chinese name in the PRC. As written above by other editors, the Nepalese name (Sagarmāthā) is a rather recent invention, and is certainly not a native name sensu stricto. I therefore suggest to rever to the previous version, by giving first the Tibetan name (the native name used by both Sherpas and Tibetans), then the Chinese and Nepalese names as the official names used in the two countries where Everest is located. According to the naming covention, the alphabetic order should apply to the respective languages (Chinese versus Nepalese language) and not to the names (Sagarmāthā versus Zhūmùlǎngmǎ), so Chinese goes first. The many different spelling variations (jo mo glang ma, Qomolangma) and its meaning (Holy mother) should appear in the ad hoc naming section rather than in the lead. I'll try to modify it in this way.--Pseudois (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 October 2012

The Mt.Everest peak lies in the teratory of nepal. Including the highest point on the Earth’s Surface, Mount Sagarmatha (Everest; 8,848 m) and an elevation range of 6,000 m Sagarmatha National Park (SNP) covers an area of 124,400 hectares in the Solu-Khumbu district of Nepal.The current description is misleading and written as "The international border between China and Nepal runs across the precise summit point.[citation needed]".

Please find attached citation from unesco for verification" http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/120 129.123.3.119 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The resource that you cited describes the Sagarmatha National Park, in Nepal. It includes the following description of the park's boundaries:
"Encompassing the upper catchment of the Dudh Kosi River system the boundaries of the property ensure the integrity of its values. The property’s Northern boundary is defined by the main divide of the Great Himalayan Range, which follows the International boundary between Nepal and the Tibetan Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China."
This reference therefore corroborates the point at issue--the main divide of the Great Himalayan Range (which of course runs through the high point of Everest) follows the international boundary. Steveozone (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Right. Every reliable source that I've ever seen—and that's scores, if not hundreds—places the summit on the boundary. Rivertorch (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Everest/Archive_4&oldid=1144157904"