Talk:Mount Kilimanjaro/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vodacom

Why was the sentence about Vodacom deleted? matt kane's brain 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-Added matt kane's brain 12:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Global warming or lack of moisture

The last paragraph I see has two footnotes, but no links to support the commentary. All research actually indicates that global warming is the cause of the glacial retreat, not a reduction of moisture as argued in the paragraph. It may be a combination of both, but I would like to see the section properly referenced to support the argument. I looked but couldn't find any sources for the reduced moisture claim.--MONGO 18:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Kibo

Uh....what the heck is Kibo? Is it the same as Kilimanjaro? It's first mentioned in the 3rd sentence. Twilight Realm 23:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Kilimanjaro consists of three mountains (extinct volcanos), the smaller Shira ridge in the west, Kibo in the middle and Mawensi in the east, (you can see them on the right (east) border of the landsat overlay picture). So Kilimanjaro is not a mountain but a mountain range. Or a mountain with three peaks, but the peak of Kibo has it's own name, Uhuru, and naming a peak of a peak doesn't make sense (to me). Confusing... - Alureiter 12:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This isn't too unusual. The summits of Mount Rainier are Columbia Crest, Point Success and Liberty Cap. The summits of Mount Baker are Grant Peak and Sherman Peak, along with Colman Peak and Lincoln Peak although these latter summits are usually considered separately as two of the Black Buttes. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming?

What do you mean all research points to global warming? I had no trouble finding research to the contrary. Here's an article that shows how the peak has cooled over the past several years. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/03/07/snow-fooling/ Real scientists never say everyone agrees with them, and they never say there's no room for doubt. Arguing 'consensus' just means you want to hide from the debate by inplying there is no debate. A real scientist would welcome informed criticism and alternate theories. Why delete the alternate theory from this article? I didn't remove the part talking about global warming, I just added another possible explaination. I thought it was well sourced, but I will try to do better next time.

Also, here's a link to a PDF of a more thorough source. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/Kiliman-MAC-4-8-04.pdf

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Professor Chaos (talk • contribs) .

Good, then add it to the article. I'm not a real scientist.--MONGO 04:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Professor Chaos is a real scientist either, more like a propagandist. The above ff.org link goes to a report by the "Center for Science and Public Policy" one of those shady industry funded "thinktanks" that offer "alternative views" on the "consensus". And check out ff.org, red flags and eagles with Ronald Reagan galas. I also note that "Professor Chaos" edits this article, and this article only on Wikipedia, and only on this one issue, across a long period of time, strange. Anyway I have a source from Lonnie Thompson, the guy who got the ice cores and caused so much uproar by announcing the snows of kilimanjaro would be gone by 2015 and put a hook in the craw of certain professional skeptics, which pretty debunks this "Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming" stuff. -- Stbalbach 07:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am no more a real scientist than Al Gore. You can call me a propagandist if you want, it means you can't back up your arguments and must resort to ad hominem attacks. In my opinion, the whole idea of global warming is propaganda. I looked up information on Kilimanjaro for a school report on global warming, and decided not to source Wikipedia because it is unreliable. I was disappointed in the one-sidedness and closed-mindedness I found in this article, and so I decided to contribute some of my other research, just to balance the view a little. It bothers me that information would be arbitrarily censored because it doesn't conform to someone's narrow view of the world. When I have time, I may expand to other projects on Wikipedia, but for now I am busy and occaisionally check this article to see if it is still balanced. I never deleted anyones opinion that one THEORY for the melting ice is global warming, I just added another possibility. Nothing is so simple as many environmentalists would like to believe, and I would stress again that anthropogenic global warming is just a popular THEORY, just as global cooling was 30 years ago. Consensus science isn't science. If you're not afraid to hear your views challenged, read some recent speeches by Michael Crichton [1], who used to believe in global warming until he actually investigated it for himself. --Professor Chaos 03:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

the whole idea of global warming is propaganda-- Professor Chaos

Look, if you want to really read about global warming than read the IPCC report, it is the single largest most expensive peer reviewed science study and report in the history of mankind, theres never been anything like it in terms of money and numbers of countries and scientists involved in any field of science. There is a new IPCC report coming out in 2006 that I hear is going to put any remaining doubts to rest, although the last report should have also, for any rational person. Your propaganda here - calling it "theory", calling it "environmentalists", linking to petroleum-industry supported skeptic sites, linking to a Science Fiction author who makes money selling books as authoritative science, linking to CATO which has direct ties to petroleum special interests - are classic techniques of the professional skeptics and has nothing to do with science. "School report"? Yeah right. Your a little more sophisticated than that, your talking points are those of a professional skeptic, and the edit history of your account is highly suspect focusing on this one issue (global warming skeptic), on this one article (Kilimanjaro). -- Stbalbach 04:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that reduced moisture and changing weather patterns are the same thing as the warming trend that is found worldwide...and that is the same thing as global warming.--MONGO 08:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring an important fact: Satellite data is showing that the region of Africa surrounding and including Kilimanjaro is COOLING. The precipitation is linked to El Ninos, which most global warming theories say should increase. So, if the Earth as a whole is warming, there should be more El Ninos, which means more precipitation on Kilimanjaro, which is cooling, so the snow should be increasing. There wasn't much snow there to begin with! As far as the IPCC report, that was a study driven by a political agenda. After the 1995 study was done, there was a meeting in Madrid where they wrote the Summary to Policy Makers, after which they altered the body of the report to conform with their summary, rather than writing the summary to agree with the research. In particular, three key phrases were deleted: "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases." "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes." "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." All these were deleted from the final draft of chapter 8 of the report so that it would conform to the summary, which included this ambiguous and confusing phrase: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." What does that even mean? It could literally mean almost anything, which is what it is intended to do. The result is that anyone reading this sentence will hear what they want to hear, which in most cases is "Humans are causing global warming with their evil cars." Why should I trust the IPCC, or indeed anything spouted by the UN? All I am doing is providing a little healthy skepticism on the theory that global warming is melting Kilimanjaro's ice, why are you afraid of that? -Professor Chaos 19:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

El Nino causes less rain on Kilimanjaro (sources on request). There was a lot of snow and ice until it started melting about 100 years ago and sped up dramatically in the 1970s (I have the figures for that as well). The satellite data contradicts other direct observations (sources on request) - the reason of this contradiction has not been resolved, but it sure would be odd that every single tropical glacier studied in the world is warming except this one special case. The 1995 IPCC report is old so I won't comment on it; the 2001 report is the most recent and very clear. The IPCC results have been accepted by governments around the world. The IPCC is not created by the UN, the UN just provides framework, the science is done by governmental agencies such as NASA and NOAA as well as universities from countries around the world, all peer-reviewed. -- Stbalbach 20:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

According to NOAA, El Nino causes less rain on the east coast of Southern Africa, but generally more rain in the region of Kilimanjaro. Yes, the ice began disappearing just before the visit to the summit in 1889. That was before widespread use of fossil fuels and the spike in CO2, so not from anthropogenic global warming. NASA's data shows that while most of Africa has warmed slightly, the region including Kilimanjaro has cooled slightly since 1979. According to everyone's favorite report on Kilimanjaro (Lonnie Thompson), from about 11000 to 4000 years ago, for 7000 years, Kilimanjaro was significantly warmer than it is today. His reconstruction of the temperature record shows warm, wet periods, and cold, dry periods. This suggests that to a certain extent, global warming would correlate with more moisture, and more snow. As for IPCC being accepted by governments around the world, that's no test. The whole world used to think the world was flat, then we learned better. Most of the world also signed Kyoto, so I don't have much faith in anything just because other people say it's cool. The jury is still out on global warming, there is no consensus, and consensus itself is just a way to avoid debate by implying it is a settled matter, so don't go by that. -Professor Chaos 06:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you read the book about Lonnie Thompson called Thin Ice (2005) which goes into the details of Kilimanjaro. He has been studying it for 30+ years and is the recognized world expert on tropical mountain ice caps. He also happens to be a Republican from a small country town in West VA and loves Ronald Reagan, in case that helps. He's also a brilliant scientist. Stbalbach 06:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Collapse/major eruption

I noticed that the recent unexplained deletion of "there are fears the volcano may collapse, causing a major eruption similar to Mount St. Helens" by an anon was reverted. I have not been able to locate a source for this assertion and wonder if someone can cite one? Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I revert because it looked like vandalism, the sentence grammar was damaged, looked like a fly-by. If there's a legit reason to remove, please do so. -- Stbalbach 01:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right. I wouldn't have noticed it except I was already wondering, and it isn't the most common sort of vandalism. I'll look for a source next weekend. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Glacier retreat issue

It doesn't belong in this article. If you want to create a separate article that discusses it in detail please do so. However since it is evident you are a "global climate skeptic", let me point somthing out (see bold below). The below is written by Kaser, the same person involved with the reports you are linking to:

Kaser, G., D.R. Hardy, T. Mölg, R.S. Bradley, and T.M. Hyera (2004): Modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro as evidence of climate change: Observations and facts. - In: International Journal of Climatology, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 329-229.

In this study we review a variety of papers, ranging from the first observations of Kilimanjaro glaciers by Hans Meyer in the 1880s, to 20th century satellite data of tropospheric temperature. This happens with the intent to develop a working hypothesis for our research. Based on all these studies, a late 19th century moisture drop is by far the most likely event that has initiated the retreat of glaciers on Kilimanjaro. A subsequent drier climate was the main driver for maintaining this retreat. As correctly mentioned in comment no. 8, it cannot be ruled out that this local climate change driving glacier retreat (drying) is connected to the large-scale change of our atmosphere, as we suggest on pages 336 and 337 of the paper. We intend to explore during the next three years (official duration of current project) if such a connection does exist. - - Hence, we certainly don't deny general global warming at all. Unfortunately, climate skeptic groups have misused mainly this study (but also the others below) to argue against the global warming issue. All we aim at is to explore glacier recession on Kilimanjaro in its full complexity.see last comment.

-- Stbalbach 21:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You make a semi-valid point, you think you've gotten me. They don't rule out global warming, but look at the wording: "We intend to explore.... if such a connection does exist." This report says the most likely event was a moisture drop in the 19th century, long before the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2, so not from man-made global warming. You've missed my point entirely. I've never said there's no such thing as global warming: The Earth has warmed and cooled dramatically in its history, even before there were evil humans. My point is that there's nothing we can do about it, or are doing to cause it! Besides, the satellite data shows that Kilimanjaro has cooled. Global warming means more moisture in the air, which means more precipitation in general, so a bit of warming would theoretically cause more snow. The snow is going because it's gotten dry up there, and it gets direct sunlight. Like Kaser says, it's a complex issue, not so simple as CO2=warming=no ice. As far as this issue not being in this article, I didn't put it here. I just saw the baseless claim of global warming, and thought I'd balance it a bit with another possible theory. If you want that gone, take the rest, too. I'll say it again, though: Anthropogenic global warming is a political issue, not a scientific one. There is no consensus, and consensus is a bad argument anyway. -Professor Chaos 19:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Anthropogenic global warming is a political issue, not a scientific one. There is no consensus..

The scientific cause of global warming is covered on Wikipedia: Scientific opinion on climate change and Attribution of recent climate change - you have a lot to work to do, these articles disagree with your statement.

global warming is a political issue

This is partly true, the political aspect is also covered on Wikipedia, see Global warming controversy. -- Stbalbach 05:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Article name

May I ask why this article has the name "Mount Kilimanjaro" and not "Kilimanjaro"? Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 17:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"Kilimanjaro" could refer to the Region of Tanzania, the national park, the international airport etc. In fact, if you said Kilimanjaro to a Tanzanian they'd probably think of beer before the mountain...! Woodwardmw 19:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Last word in the global warming issue

First off, the actual article is horribly chaotic, and difficult to follow. Information is seemingly randomly dispersed. I'll see if I can't work on it, but that's the minor point. Mainly, I would like to ask that the general discussion of global warming be moved to a more appropriate medium. Whether or not global warming is happening does not have any bearing on this article. It's the results of climate change as they affect the glacier that is revelant. Here are two sources, supplied by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear which I will be integretting into this article:

• Betsy Mason, "African Ice Under Wraps," Nature, 24, November 2003. "Altought it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit." [2]
• Kaser, et al., "Modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro as evidence of climate change: Observations and facts," International Journal of Climatology 24: (2004): 329-39. "In recent years, Kilimanjaro and its vanishing glaciers have become an 'icon' of global warming...[but] processes other than air temperature control the ice recession....A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at teh end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climate condition are likely forcing glacier retreat."

-b 22:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Those nature articles are old. Your cherry picking normal scientific debate for elements that support your position while missing the big picture on what the mainstream majority says. If you wish I would be more than happy to continue a lengthy and protracted discussion here and in editing the article, I happen to know a lot more about it than the bibliography of an old science fiction novel by a self=proclaimed global warming skeptic like Michael Critchon. I also see from your user page that you have set out to disprove global warming as the mainstream presents it. Perhaps Wikipedia is not the right place to change mainstream opinion? We simp

ly report what the world does, not tell the world what they should do according to minority opinion. -- Stbalbach 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, I'm not here to prove anything. I just believe that Wikipedia is the place for balanced information. And I am also well prepared for a lengthy debate, but as I said, I don't beleive this is the correct medium. If you would like, I can be e-mailed at wikipedianb@gmail.com, and I would enjoy such a debate. However, those articles absolutely have a place in a Wikipedia, in order to keep a NPOV. -b 01:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The nature article is a paid subscription only, the single line quote is meaningless without context. Have you read the entire article, or take it on Michael Critchen's word? There is no link provided for the International Journal of Climatology article. Both articles are somewhat dated. --Stbalbach 03:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, on both accounts. I'm not the...blind idiot I may seem. I hope you do e-mail me because it would make for an interesting conversation. As for taking Crichton's word on it, yes, I do--even though I shouldn't. It's simply not his style to outright lie. I will move to include them both after I evaluate and make the information avaible to Wikipedia as require by policy. HEY, I'm a good guy. -b 03:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Extended quote:

Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.

The actual article talks about an idea by Euan Nisbet to slow the glacial loss. [3] -b 06:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro as evidence of climate change: Observations and facts (pdf) -b 08:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above about this paper (and others) and the authors comments about climate change skeptics who have latched onto it. --Stbalbach 12:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about related articles

I would like to contribute an article about the Machame ascent route (there doesn't seem to be an article on it in Wikipedia). My question is - would such an article be too granular for Wikipedia? I envision a basic starting article such as a short description of the route, plus the campsites, their elevations, and a few related pictures. I'm just unsure of the appropriateness, especially since I'm not intending to write descriptions of all the routes. Can someone comment?

Perhaps start an article by clicking on Climbing routes on Mount Kilimanjaro and add what you can there...click save to save your information. Make sure you follow Wikipedia guidelines/policies on verifiablity, reliable sources and neutral point of view.--MONGO 08:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just add it to this article, under a section titled (as MONGO suggested) ==Climbing routes on Mount Kilimanjaro== .. if that section gets long enough to justify a split into a new article it can be split off later when its long enough and developed. -- Stbalbach 15:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. One more question: if I'm going to add information about camp elevations, is it more appropriate simply to put the correct elevations in the text, or to add a reference, even if the source isn't as reliable? I couldn't find an official site although there are lots of tour operator webpages with the data. This site seems to be a bit more independent and probably more accurate: http://7summits.com/kilimanjaro/waypoints.php Skeptic cdn 04:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though Summitpost.org uses information from those that post there, sort of like Wikipedia, they have some information that may be useful and I sometimes cite them myself. Here's a list of articles...[4]--MONGO 07:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

They also have excellent photo galleries, but none of them can used here without the explicit permission to do so by the person who took the image.--MONGO 07:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the section on Climbing Routes. I added two of my own pictures of the route (Shira and Garden of the Senecias). I used the 7summits.com GPS waypoints for the campsite elevations - if someone can find a more reliable source, please feel free to cite and change the data accordingly.

A few questions/comments:

• is it proper to give elevations in both feet and metres, or just one of them?
• should I include more references for the route information?
• Feel free to move this new section of the article to the related article 'Climbing routes on Kilimanjaro'. The content might be rather long for the main article - maybe we should just keep the campsite elevations and move the route description/pictures to the separate page.
• Obviously, feel free to reword my contributions to make the style more 'Wikipedian' if such a thing exists.
• I used 0.304 as the feet/metre conversion, since the data was sourced in feet. Skeptic cdn 06:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Also, I could put up a route map for Machame, but I'm not well enough versed in copyrighted pictures from other websites. Many of the tour operators have good route maps though. Skeptic cdn 06:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Elevations in non-U.S. articles (as well as all measurements) are best done in meters...this is also true of most scientific articles as well. Then add feet after the metric notation if you want. I simply use google to do my conversions...simply type in the measurement you have to the one you want to convert to and hit search.--MONGO 12:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Issue of Global Warming

This debate is swining to far wide of Kilimanjaro, so this is the last I will put here. Consensus is not a good argument, epecially considering the dangerous things it has been used to defend in the past (such as defending racism with eugenics). Even if consensus were a good argument, there is no consensus on the cause of global warming, or even if global warming is happening. Also, among those who believe global warming, so many different predictions abound that it's impossible to come up with a rational solution. It wouldn't be a big deal, except government officials think they must act on this unproven theory to keep their constituents happy and stay in office, even if their actions are expensive and wasteful, and do nothing at all to solve the 'problem.' There is even debate over whether global warming isn't a good thing; after all, the Earth has been much warmer than now in the last 3000 years, and we're still around, and there were no SUVs back then. Unless, of course, it was all those flatulent cows in New Zealand causing it then. I'm looking at those sources cited in this debate and others (I read anything I can get my hands on on this issue, no matter which side it's on), and I suggest you reading this keep an open mind to the possibility that you are wrong (as I do) and read an opposing view. In a very short time, I was able to come up with this (and dozens more) links that are worth reading:

A good article illustrating the lack of consensus: [5]

An article in Newsweek April 28, 1975 about how the consensus was global COOLING: [6]

Research shows that the sun, by itself, actually affects our climate: [7]

Also, trees produce methane, a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2: [8]

Trees again, causing global warming with their dark leaves. Maybe we should cut down all forests and replace them with farmland to reflect the sun away, and stop global warming. [9]

Apparently, there's no consensus and global warming might not be such a threat after all: [10]

Several speeches by Michael Crichton, a new skeptic (he used to believe in anthropogenic global warming, until he actually did research on it) talking about why it's such a popular theory, and how it is impossible to predict something so complex as the environment. All of these are very much worth reading, as is the Author's Message at the end of State of Fear. [11]

Kyoto has cost the world a lot of money, and has not solved anything: [12]

William Gray, the hurricane expert, in an interview after Hurricane Katrina. Apparently, no one cares about the opinion of experts that are skeptics also: [13]

Also worth checking out are globalwarming.org [14] and junkscience.com [15].

A good book to look at is The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg (don't just look up the Wikipedia on it, look at the book). It's not perfect, but the point is valid and the research is good and it makes the reader think. Bjørn is another former believer in global warming who is now a skeptic due to actually doing real research.

-Professor Chaos 23:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I could post about 10 times as many links, but since this thread is way off topic, will post just one: RealClimate (RealClimate). This blog is "Climate science commentary by actual climate scientists". It is written by about a dozen real scientists who clear through the confusions like the ones posted above, and tell you what it means from the perspective of the actual scientists doing the research. -- Stbalbach 23:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that this discussion be moved to Talk:Global warming, please? Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

History of Kilimanjaro

Is this true? See the statement below... --fredericknoronha 19:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

http://wahooe.tigblog.org/post/38976

Take for instance the Kilimanjaro Mountain (the highest mountain in Africa) and about one million people who live around it. It used to be part of colonial Kenya until a British Monarch who was stuck about what gift to give to a German Kaiser for a birthday celebration decided on a 'cute little mountain in Africa'. And with that the fate of the people was determined.

No, that is not true. It never was on the Kenyan side. The story goes that Queen Victoria gave it to her grandson Kaiser Wilhelm II. But the border was drawn in 1886. Then the Kaiser was Wilhelm I (the grandfather of Wilhelm II). Wilhelm II became emperor in the end of 1888 after the death of his father Friedrich III. So Victoria had no muntain to give away when her grandson became Kaiser. --Kipala 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaiser-Wilhelm-Spitze ?

The article states wrongly that Mount Kilimanjaro was called Kaiser-Wilhelm-Spitze (=peak) during the German colonial time. This is not correct. The mountain was called as it is now (in German orthography: Kilimandscharo). "Kaiser-Wilhelm-Spitze" was the name for the highest summit on Kibo which today is called Uhuru-Peak. --Kipala 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Halo

Why was my edit about "Kilimanjaro" in Halo removed? What makes this less notable than its brief mention in a forgettable song by Toto? It's not like there's an overabundance of references to the mountain "In the arts"- I don't see why the rather comedic use of the name Kilimanjaro in a videogame can't be included. -albrozdude 16:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Aeriel Photo

I took this photo from a plane when going over Kilimanjaro. If anyone would like to use it here, I'd be happy to let it be used under the GFDL. http://www.fitzg.com/displayimage.php?album=25&pos=40

I can touch it up if needed. Let me know on david@fitzg.com if you want me to do anything with it.

You mean file #41 I suppose...It's a great image, maybe crop out the airplane wing. I wonder how much we can zoom in on it and see the glacial retreat...what is the date of the image?--MONGO 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, #41... I thought I had lined to that directly! I've updated the above link to go right to it. If you go to the page, and click on the picture you get the full hi-res image, so there's good detail. The picture was taken at 8.15am (GMT) on the 29th of July 2005 (EXIF). I'm off away for a week or so, but I'll crop it and see if I can get the best out of it and re-post. David. --195.217.52.130 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded an aerial photo a few days ago, but some goon removed it Charlesjsharp 23:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Charles

Charles, I am not a "goon" (but will add it to my collection). As I mentioned briefly in the edit comments the page has too many pictures, they are crowding out the text and making it look like a supermarket coupon flyer. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images on suggestions and how to lay out a page. One is to create a gallery, or even better move the image to commons.wikipedia.org and create a gallery there. If you need any help let me know. -- Stbalbach 01:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the goon comment. The reason I was upset was that you have left a stack of irrelevant pictures in the article. Mine was relevant. If you're going to sort articles out to conform to style, good on you, but do it thoughtfully please. I wait in anticipation. :). Charlesjsharp 23:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Charles

The pictures in the article are relevant, they seem to be appropriate for the sections they are in. Perhaps the picture of the guys on the summit isn't relevant to that section and could be moved down and replace one of the duplicate hiking trail pictures. But the article has a problem that is not going away - there are more pictures than space available. The solution is to start a gallery. -- Stbalbach 13:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Yes, there are too many of these. There was a recent discussion about these on Talk:Mount Everest#External_Links_Removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viewfinder (talk • contribs) 15:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC). Sorry, that was an accident! Viewfinder 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Johannes Kinyala Lauwo (1871-1996)

December 21, 2006 the article changed to state that the German Government awarded Johannes Lauwo a house in 1889, rather than the previous claim of 1989. It makes more sense that the house was awarded in 1989. Can someone provide a verification for the correct year? --Jtnygard 08:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

First Ascent 1898 or 1889?

PBS in early February 2007 aired a program called "Kilimanjaro, a Naked Planet Special". The narrator in the documentary states, "It took until 1898 until the famed alpine mountaineer Hans Meyer reached the summit of Kibo, with the help, of course, of his Chagga guide". This date conflicts with the date stated in this Wikipedia article, and the article on Hans Meyer. It also invalidates the claim the German Government awarded Lauwo in 1889 (why would they, 9 years before he aided Meyer?). Are there any citations of the correct date for the first ascent? Jtnygard 06:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Kilimanjaro is not a swahili name

For the ones thinking that kilimanjaro means anything in swahili, look at http://www.ntz.info/gen/b00769.html or even this swahili-englshi dictionary: http://www.yale.edu/swahili/ --Viktor 11:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Earth Observatory page states:

Mount Kilimanjaro derives its name from the Swahili term Kilima Njaro, which means “shining mountain.” RedWolf 04:38, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The writers at "The Earth Observatory" are they linguists? Do they speak Kiswahili? Have they ever consulted a Kiswahili dictionary? Or maybe are they just spreading a meme?

I suppose you are citing this page, where the give no source at all for there affirmation.

I really tell you Kimila Njaro means nothing in swahili. Well, kilima is the diminutive of mlima, mountain, so it means hill. Njaro is NOTHING. You can find it in no Kiswahili dictionary. The closer to njaro meaning shining I can find is kuangaa. Glittering could be kung'aa (ng' pronounced as ng in English sing). Also, if njaro were an adjective qualifiying kilima it would have to follow the concordance, beginning also by "ki-".

But really, read this http://www.ntz.info/gen/b00769.html . Already 40 years ago someone tried to fight the memem.

--Viktor 16:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

That Swahili online dictionary may be incomplete, in fact almost every online dictionary is. Even with books, 99% of English dictionaries one buys are always incomplete. Many list words the others that others do not, and vice versa, as only OED is complete with all English words.

My source is Adrian Room, a noted toponymist and linguist who specializes in this field. He has written many books just on toponymy alone. I suggest the possible meanings of Kiliminjaro be included in this article, but make a statement that it is not certain. Encyclopedia Britannica does this, as it will say something like "may mean", so it leaves open the fact that it may mean this, but it may not. Since you cannot say definitively say the literal meaning Kiliminjaro is not what I and others contributors have said, our information should not be kept in this article. Personally, I believe my sources justify the inclusion of what I had added, and I think your taking a lot of liberty deleting this information, especially when your own research on this is hardly comprehensive. --LibraryLion 22:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

-- The Name comes from the Chagga Language. Omoo 07:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If the name Kilimanjaro doesen't come from Africa, does that mean Mt. Kilimanjaro has no cultural effect on Africa? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 11raujord (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC).

Was this debate ever resolved? The article currently includes the statement:

"Kilima Njaro, which means "shining mountain" in Swahili"

I see that this is a quote from another source, but as it stands it just isn't correct. "Kilima Njaro" does not mean "shining mountain" in Swahili. The name may be a derivation from Swahili words (possibly kilima (hill) and [ku]ngaa ([to] shine)), but Kilima Njaro does not mean shining mountain in standard Swahili.

Viktor is right that if Njaro were an adjective relating to Kilima, then it must also take the prefix "ki-" to be correct in standard Swahili. Woodwardmw 10:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now edited the name section, so that it makes clear that the origin of the name Kilimanjaro is not known, but that there are just a number of competing theories. I have used this site as a source for the mentioned theories. Other theories from other sources can be added, but the most important thing is that we don't pretend (as we did before) that we know where the name comes from. Marcoscramer 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sentence out of place and not neutral

I just happened to be reading this article today and found this sentence:

"Al Gore once used Mt. Kilimanjaro to further his manmade global warming agenda, however it has recently been discovered that Kilimanjaro has not been affected by global warming."

It seems oddly out of place, especially since there is no citation for the research claim that it makes. Perhaps it should be removed?

Goodguyseatpie 19:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

dated photos gallery

Does anyone else think it might be interesting to start a gallery of aerial photos of Kili with dates taken that could illustrate changes in the snow cap through time?

Profberger 12:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The box is back again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.140.253.8 (talk) 13:34, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

"Kilimanjaro, formerly Kaiser-Wilhelm-Spitze, formerly Kilimanjaro . . ."

The opening sentence is completely misleading, the name 'Kaiser-Wilhelm-Spitze' is not worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Kilimanjaro when the names Kibo, Shira and Mawensi are not even in the lead section. The reasons:

1. User:Kipala (above, Sept 2006) was right to question last Septemeber whether the name 'Kaiser-Wilhelm-Spitze' applied to the whole massif or just Kibo or Uhuru Peak. The name of the mountain as a whole in German is 'Kilimandscharo'. According to this source Hans Meyer gave just Uhuru Peak the K-W-S name in 1889. German Wikipedia says that 'K-W-S' was an alternative name for just 16 years, 1902 to 1918.
2. Before this name was invented the mountain was known as Kilimanjaro. So if it's to be mentioned in the lead section at all, devil's advocacy says it sould be "Kilimanjaro, formerly Kaiser-Wilhelm-Spitze, formerly Kilimanjaro".
3. Why should English Wikipedia in 2007 give such prominence to an obscure colonial name, used by only a few thousand German colonialists for a few years a century ago, when the majority inhabitants of the region and the international community didn't use and recognise it, they always used the name Kilimanjaro, as the 1907 Nuttall encyclopedia in the article refs shows. The name K-W-S should be relegated further down the article (if not packed off to a footnote) and the names for the peaks Kibo, Shira and Mawensi should be promoted in its place, as the French Wikipedia article has it. Rexparry sydney 13:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (Next stop: Lake Victoria)

supposed "Huts with cooking facilities, bathrooms"

I just got back from climbing the machame route, and there were definately no huts with cooking facilities or electricity at any part of the journey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.189.56 (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Isn't this section a 'Trivia' section by any other name?  ;) Gormenghastly 11:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Volcano Type

Is Kilimanjaro an extinct volcano? Can some one plz answer quickly!!!!!! It's very important! Da G007, 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Map

Perhaps a map in relation to the rest of Africa or the world could be added AQ 17:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have added one in relation to Tanzania. RedWolf (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of Emotion in Article

The section about glaciers retreating uses the word "sadly" twice. Since when does an encyclopedia decide whether or not something is sad? Just state what is being observed and leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.40.210 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this turning into a how-to-climb Kili page?

I see there have been a lot of edits made recently that describe how to choose a climbing route. I'm sure this is useful information, but I find it out of place in the article. Encyclopedias should be descriptive, not prescriptive - in other words, howto sections belong elsewhere, especially when they contain blatant links to pricing on a particular tour operator.

Does anyone else feel similarly? I thought I would ask before making wholesale edits. I see that the previous edits have not been around that long (and might not have consensus anyways)

(Disclaimer: I think information on the climbing routes IS very important, in fact, I wrote the original section on the Machame route. It shouldn't be offering advice, though).

SkepticVK (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the climbing route section is far too long and not encyclopedic. The information might belong on Wikitravel, but not here. I'd say feel free to drastically edit, but you might want to wait for a clearer consensus. Other opinions? -- Spireguy (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I made my wholesale edits. I removed quite a lot of material about 'how to climb', since as Spireguy pointed out, it's not encyclopedic, and this information is definitely available elsewhere. If someone wants to add it to wikitravel and add a link to that article, that would probably be best.

I'm still not comfortable with the 'Outline Programme' sections, since they are also how-to sections, but I didn't want to gut the entire section of some of the climbing routes. I will do this later unless someone reorganizes them into more of a general route description instead of a 'here's what you can expect on this route' thing.

Also, can someone reorganize the images on the page? I did some work on them but they could probably use a better layout (and the pictures should ideally complement the section). If we have a bunch of pictures unrelated to any section, we should consider putting them into a separate gallery - see Blue-footed booby for an example.

I also reorganized the sections in a separate edit. SkepticVK (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article is not very encyclopedic, as it stands. No information about history, flora/fauna, etc. The German version of this article is MUCH more informative for the general non-climbing audience... I don't have time to translate it into English, but would certainly suggest the German version as a good starting point. 28 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.193.212 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a climbing page and moved all of it over there. Other mountains discuss climbing, history of ascents, but don't list such commercial stuff. Mount Kilimanjaro climbing routes. --Blechnic (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Kilimanjaro is one of the tallest walkable mountains in africa. People climb Kilimanjaro. It is belived that you can't see the top of Kilimanjaro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.112.237 (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Red nose stuff

I've removed the following recent addition:

Charity Challenge: BT Red Nose Climb 2009

Nine celebrities from the UK are attempting to climb 19,000ft to scale Africa's highest mountain to raise money for Comic Relief. (ref http://www.rednoseday.com/climb )

On 27 February 2009, Gary Barlow, Ronan Keating, Chris Moyles, Ben Shephard, Cheryl Cole, Kimberley Walsh, Denise Van Outen, Fearne Cotton, and Alesha Dixon will be setting off to Tanzania to tackle Mount Kilimanjaro.

Charity Challenge: BT Speaking Clock

Between 03 Feb - 23 March 2009, Kimberley Walsh, Cheryl Cole, Gary Barlow, Chris Moyles, and Fearne Cotton also hope to raise money by lending their dulcet tones to the BT Speaking Clock. Dialling 123 is one of the ways BT hopes to raise more than £300,000, as the company will donate 10p for each call received from a BT landline. (ref some tabloid newspaper )

The section Charity Challenge: BT Speaking Clock, in particular, seems to have absolutely nothing to do with Mount Kilimanjaro or Tanzania. --TS 12:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Climbing

I have to question the statement about the "climbing ease" of Kilimanjaro. 5900m/19,000' is an altitude to take seriously, People have died from AMS at lower heights. Granted, from what I have read on the Internet, mountaineering experience is not essential for a good chance at reaching the top via the standard Marangu and even Machame routes. However, I don't think Wikipedia should be de-emphasizing the peril of climbing such a mountain. RedWolf 08:38, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

Your phrasing is good, and should be in the article rather than here. :-) Stan 14:16, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

I've tweaked the paragraph. RedWolf 03:39, 22 April 2004 (UTC)

Rock Age

What is Age of Rock on Mount Kilimanjaro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.232.205 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Two times exaggerated

The caption on the relief illustration "Mount Kilimanjaro - with Landsat Overlay. Heights two times exaggerated" is problematic. Does that mean the vertical dimensions are twice or three times the horizontal dimensions? If you cannot see a problem ask yourself: What would "one times exaggerated" mean? Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit comment

I just removed a paragraph and called it unencyclopedic... and realized a few minutes later that it was written by Hemingway :). [16] I feel a Wikibarbarian... --CyHawk (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

conversion

388,500 ha (960,004 acres) and 960,004 acres (388,500 ha). The original "conversion", that I changed, was a "lulu". Peter Horn User talk 19:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As well as 157,200 acres (63,617 ha) and 63,617 ha (157,201 acres). What gives?? Peter Horn User talk 03:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Most Failed Climb

On a recent expedition to Tibet and Nepal, a friend mentioned that he had heard the Kilimanjaro is the most failed mountain on the planet (ie. percentage of attempted climbs to succesful summits) because almost anyone CAN climb it IF they do it properly, but most people don't take the time to do it right. Can anyone please find something verifiable about this and add it to the article if true because it's quite an interesting nugget (if true).

In the recent 2009 Comic Relief climb, it was commented on the video that 1 in 3 people who attempt the climb don't make it. Check on the BBC website for information about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbyhamster61 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply: yes, it probably is true that Kili is the most failed climb simply because a lot of people start off up it every day (it looks like a hundred or so) and you talk to them on the way up and on the way down. One in three succeeding would be about right, I guess, perhaps even generous. But this is hardly verifiable for Kili and much less so for all other mountains. Uncheckable, so it is a non-fact. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.147.34 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

/"... providing a dramatic view of the surrounding plains"/ FALSE

This should be deleted, because Kilimanjaro does *not* provide a dramatic view of the surrounding plains. It is 98% of the time hidden behind clouds which form around it, so you can only see it from the plains for a relatively short time at sunrise and sunset when the dewpoint falls. The view from it onto the plains is almost non-existant partly because of the cloud and partly because of heat haze, I guess. I was up there three times and I got only very temporary glimpses. One could say "which rises majestically above the surrounding plains", if we need a travel guide sort of phrase here, because this is true. In fact you can see it (or rather, you can see the snow on it) from a very long way away indeed. It looks like a cloud. But this isn't a travel guide, so perhaps we should just say "which rise abruptly from wide surrounding plains" this is true and relevant, I guesss. 134.2.147.34 (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Johannes Kinyala Lauwo (1871-1996)

The article states that Johannes Kinyala Lauwo (1871-1996) was the first person to summit the highest point...can someone find out his real birth and death dates as I don't think he lived to be 125 years old.--MONGO 18:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

See e.g. [17], or [18], both of which repeat this exact claim. It may not be true, but if it's a hoax, it certainly wasn't invented for Wikipedia. — Haeleth Talk 07:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Lauwo is claimed to have reached the age of 125 years, does not make that history very trustworthy. In the recently published book 'Kilimandscharo - der weiße Berg Afrikas', that traces the history of expedtions to that mountain in some detail, his name is not mentioned- though there is a special section "who stood beside Hans Meyer on the top of Kilimandscharo" - and here we find the answer: Ludwig Purtscheller. Nov. 1, 2006; u.knittel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.186.68.58 (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Would be really strange if someone climbing mountains would beat the (disputed) record for oldest person ever by 3 years.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.121.17.41 (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism in the infobox

Can someone with the right permissions fix the info box please. It's elevation is not 3m. It should be 5,895 metres (19,341 ft) Me55enger (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing out the error. Maedin\^talk 13:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Conditions

I disagree with the statement in the article titled "Climatic Conditions" that says, "Kilimanjaro...began forming a million years ago." I believe it started forming during Noah's Flood (Genesis 6 - 8). Renddslow (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Melting now

According to this news article the snow has melted from the summit. Something about this should be added by someone who knows more about it. The Singing Badger 16:08, 14 March 2005 (UTC)

Uhm...it's such a small article tho.

However, I don't doubt the fact that it will melt away sooner or later, since temp is rising and the volcano is still active...somewhat...

I do doubt that there would be anyone with more info than that, unless they are on the mountain right now and have internet access.

It's a little sad that I probably won't be able to feel the "snow at the equator" >.< LG-犬夜叉 00:38, 15 March 2005 (UTC)

In 2006 there has been more snow on the Tanzanian side than in years before (see [File:Kilimanjaro 2006-08-13.JPG recent image of Kili]). The main problem, however are the receding glaciers. --Kipala 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen multiple scientific reports that the snow is predicted to melt within a few decades, including another where Bill Clinton referenced it that made me come to the article right now. This melting should be in the article. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

tagged "fact" about molten lava

This link was the best I could find, in spite of the fact that these "facts" are all over the web. http://www.physicsdaily.com/physics/Mount_Kilimanjaro Steve Pastor (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

height of Kibo summit

I checked the reference listed - "a final value of 5890.75m was determined for the othometric height of the highest point in Africa considering the Tanzanian vertical datum" page 9. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Records

Is the records section necessary?

• It's the target of frequent IP editor vandalism, but I don't think the page should be semiprotected.
• Records are ephemeral.
• Other mountains (see K2 and Mount Everest) don't have a laundry list of records, instead they discuss notable ascents in detail.

I am mildly in favor of removing the records section. Bhickey (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice the records have been deleted, however I think they are within the scope of the encyclopaedia, even if not necessary on the article. I suggests placing them on the article "Climbing routes on Kilimanjaro", or whatever it's called, PiTalk - Contribs 02:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Highest "freestanding" Mountain

What is this supposed to mean?

Where is the source?Ryoung122 20:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That means it is not connected to any mountain range, and goes straight up from sea level. Not sure about a source, but the sign on the top says "World's highest free-standing mountain", it's one of the pictures in the article. Does it need to be sourced? 128.138.65.229 (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead section states Mount Kilimanjaro is the highest freestanding mountain as well as the 4th most prominent mountain in the world, rising 5,882 metres or 19,298 ft from the base..

The first claim, despite being supported by a summit sign, is highly subjective. Summit sign claims should not be regarded as reliable, see Khardungla Pass, for example. Denali rises higher above its surrounding plain. Re the second claim, Kili is certainly not 5882m above its base, 5882m is its topographic prominence, which is very different from height above base. Also "4th most prominent" is a highly ambiguous claim, topographic prominence can be very different from prominent in a more general sense. The high point of a large plateau may be highly ranked by topographic prominence despite being not at all locally prominent. Topographic prominence is also unlikely to be understood by the majority of readers and should be confined to its place in the infobox. Viewfinder (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

old talk

The commercial site that includes

• Information about climbing Kilimanjaro, the different routes, FAQ etc.

is a valuable one, and i think it ads should be tolerated in the context of Seven Summits. For Mount Kilimanjaro, however, i feel confident that some effort is worthwhile to turn up a site that doesn't quite so inevitably lead to a single outfitter. --Jerzy(t) 15:42, 4 March 2004 (UTC)

yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.121.140 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

kilimanjaro is not extinkt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.113.214 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Peaks and subpeaks

Global volcanism program has this page listing peaks and subfeatures of the volcano.

Someone also asked about rock age this page says pleistocene, pliocene and holocene depending on which cone.

Also probably worth noting that Alkaline rocks and carbonatites of the world, Part 3 By Alan Robert Woolley looks to have some proper in depth geology of Kilimanjaro (I think it's reasonable to assume it goes to a similar depth that it does for the other volcanoes covered in the book) but unfortunately the page for Kilimanjaro is not accessible in the preview in the link. Might need to get an actual copy. EdwardLane (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mount Kilimanjaro Dec 2009 edit1.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mount Kilimanjaro Dec 2009 edit1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 6, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-09-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An aerial view of Mount Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa at 5,895 metres (19,341 ft) above sea level. Kilimanjaro is a giant stratovolcano that began forming a million years ago, when lava spilled from the Rift Valley zone. Two of its three peaks are extinct while Kibo (the highest peak) is dormant and could erupt again.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Is this turning into a how-to-climb Kili page? (Revisited)

In my view, this article is hopelessly out of balance, particularly because of the climbing and trekking sections (which considerably outweight physical and geographical information) and the way this has biased everything else. Whatever happened to other disciplines (eg sociology and anthropology)? There are peoples living on the volcano and in its surrounding areas. Why are they not mentioned? (ok, I accept that they are mentioned in passing in the "Name and first ascent" section; which prompts me to ask what the name has to do with climbing? Why was that the "first ascent"? Are you trying to say that local people couldn't walk up a mountain until European explorers showed them how? And why such a non-African and non-expert argument about the name?) The volcano features in local legends, myths and religions (as is the case for all landscape features anywhere). To be an effective encyclopeadia article, these aspects deserve mention because they are important and relevant. The Lesser Merlin (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Have uploaded an image of the Mawenzi summit and the top

Mawenzi summit as seen from the Machame route

The plateau at the top of Mount Kili

The main glacier

Not sure if it would be of use. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No citation for time frame for origination of Mt. Kilimanjaro

There is no citation for the time frame discussed in the "Geology" section. "Kilimanjaro is a giant stratovolcano that began forming a million years ago, when lava spilled from the Rift Valley zone." This needs to be cited. If that is under a theory, this should be mentioned. Wikipedia should not be biased like this - not providing full details. Withholding information should not be part of Wikipedia decorum. This should be cited, or changed appropriately. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.94.35 (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested text: "Kilimanjaro is a giant stratovolcano, formed when lava spilled from the Rift Valley zone." I will change to this updated phrase, unless there are objections, or also if there is something cited for the way it is currently written. Though, there is not even anything cited for detail that "lava spilled from the Rift Valley zone". I think I will need to chanage it to just ""Kilimanjaro is a giant stratovolcano." Any disagreement? Or anyone with proper citation? 198.36.95.12 (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mount Kilimanjaro/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

While rated B class, it is on shaky ground here. The trivia and pop culture section is questionable along with its missing sources. I would not even consider nominating for GA at this point. RedWolf (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)