Jump to content

Talk:Seven Summits/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Australia

Continental plates has nothing to do with the Australian continent, which is defined by the extent of the Australian continental shelf. The separation of New Guinea from the mainland occurred only several thousand years ago, for most of the 40+ thousand years of human occupation New Guinea and the southern mainland of today were one landmass. The misnomer probably has more to do with the Rockefeller & Bechtel desire since 1936 to create the illusion that New Guinea is part of Asia to justify the Indonesian mining license they use to mine West Papua's gold and copper.58.107.10.36 16:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As User:Viewfinder did not discuss his views here, I have written some feedback to his User Talk page. He has made a unfounded claim that "access to Carstenz is not always possible", and that, "Mount Kosciuszko has been recognised as an alternative" as a result of inaccessibility. Further he has not given any reason to accept the Indonesian measurement of 4,884m over the Australian and US measurements of 5030m.58.107.10.36 13:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Height - what is the source of your claim that it has been "repeatedly accuracy measured at 5030m"? I have accurate IFSAR data which shows that it is at least 100m under 5000m
I don't care what you have in your closet or elsewhere, I only care what the Wikipedia readers can access; and the fact is that there are two widely accepted heights, and it is Wikipedia policy to publish both when in dispute; irrespective of what you personally decide to believe.
and that therefore the height given by the Seven Summits movement is correct. Why would Indonesia and corporations want to falsify this? By location I assumed that you meant coordinates.
Yes, IF you had bothered to read the editor's comments you would have known better BEFORE you deleted the information. WHY have you deleted it again?
Perhaps its continent is disputed by some but it is recognised by the Seven Summits movement as being outside Asia. Viewfinder 21:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Six and a half million Papuans also believe the mountain is outside Asia; but the UN, US, UK, and about six billion other people have been told it is in Asia, specifically inside Indonesia which they are told is inside South East Asia. Which is the reason that silly climbers like Rex Pemberton claim to have claimed the hightest Australian continental mountain by hiking to the top of Mt Kosciuszko; this is highly relevent to this article.
Please read [1] carefully. Viewfinder 21:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The 5000m+ claim is old and outdated. As far as I am aware it has not been claimed by any modern and accurate survey, although, like 7723 m for Ulugh Muztagh, it does still appear on some maps and sites. Please cite your claim that "it has been repeatedly accurately measured at 5030 m". There is no evidence that anyone in the mountaineering community accepts anything other that 4884 m. See [[2]] as well as the above link. By the way, the local 5m IFSAR data is not in the closet, I am willing to pass it on to anyone who can read and interpret it. Viewfinder 06:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Highest mountain of the Commonwealth of Australia

"The highest mountain of the Commonwealth of Australia is Mount Kosciuszko (2,228 m)". Is Mawson Peak (2,745 m) not part of the Commonwealth of Australia? Nurg 04:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was assumed that stating that Mawson Peak is the CA HP was like stating that Mount Paget is the United Kingdom HP. But according to Commonwealth of Australia Mawson Peak is on an integral part (as opposed to an overseas territory) of the Commonwealth of Australia, in which case Australia's HP should be changed on the List of countries by highest point. Any further comments? Viewfinder 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No further comment. You're on to it. thanks. Nurg 07:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a comment on Talk:List of countries by highest point. If there are no objections I will change the article. Ta for pointing this matter out. Viewfinder 08:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

List of people

I think it would be helpful to create a list of people who climbed the Seven Summits. VartanM 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There already is such a list, maintained by Harry Kikstra and Eberhard Jurgalski. It is linked to the article, see notes section. Viewfinder 22:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Any reason to keep Kosciuszko

As has already been pointed out here, there's no reason to keep Kosciuszko in this article. No matter how you define Oceania, it's highest peak isn't in Australia. Unless some very strong argument is made for keeping it, I'll remove it. JdeJ (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rational Definitions

- One must not confuse geological and cultural/historical - criteria for "what is a continent". By extension, a valid Seven Summits list - should contain only peaks based on geological criteria (e.g. Carstensz - Pyramid) or based on cultural/historical criteria (e.g. Mount Elbrus) - - yet not both as occurs with the Messner Seven Summits variant. - - Here, it is incongruous for a Seven Summit list to include both Mount Elbrus - and Carstensz Pyramid because these mountains require mutually exclusive - inclusion criteria for list membership - geopolitical considerations for Mount Elbrus and geological considerations for Carstensz Pyramid. - - A third criterion for generating a Seven Summit list is - Topographic prominence. Using this concept Mont Blanc is found - to be the European highpoint - not Mount Elbrus. - - A complete discussion is available - with multiple Seven Summits lists that are logically valid. - [1]

The above material was added to the talk page by 66.75.51.144. I have transferred it here, where it belongs. Viewfinder (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:EL#ADV about editors adding links to their own site. Viewfinder (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with the political consistency of the Messner list: the local inhabitants of the Caucasus regions (Elbrus) consider themselves to be European, and the local inhabitants of West Papua (Mount Carstensz) consider themselves to be Australasian. Viewfinder (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the one-sentence remnant of this addition; it was still inconsistent with NPOV, NOR, and was a COI. Even though I know and respect the person in question, the opinion expressed does not come from a reliable source. -- Spireguy (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up: if someone can find a reliable source that shows a broadly held (not necessarily majority) opinion that the list is illogical (besides the controversy between the Bass and Messner lists, which is already addressed), that would be a completely appropriate addition. -- Spireguy (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Another follow-up: the original contributor has argued, in off-line discussions, that the link should remain. I still disagree, but I welcome any comments in support of the link. -- Spireguy (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't agree with its conclusions, considerable time and effort has been put into the inconsistency study, and I think that the site is quite widely used by peak baggers. I think there is a case for adding it to the External Links section. Viewfinder (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I get the impression that more time is being devoted to arguing about Wikipedia's verifiability, original research and conflict of interest policies than was put into the study. If Adam has concerns about this page, then this is the right place to raise his concerns; however, it's clear he isn't going to. (This link is publicly accessible.). Although I don't totally oppose its addition, I really don't feel the link added much to this article. And when someone starts sounding off about how Wikipedia's "policies are completely at-odds with democracy, progress, and free thinking", I really don't feel inclined to start bending our policies on external links and reliable sources to accommodate them. — ras52 (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have since relented my scathing opinion about this forum, Ras52.

The essay to which I desire linking is original research, well thought out and highly provocative. It definitely took longer to compose than the amount of time given-over to ranting about Wikipedia policies!

I am sorry that the original research cannot be linked-to, and perhaps some day I'll come to appreciate that policy more than currently. Please correct me if I write from naivite, but I am left to assume that the only means by which Wikipedia can stay abreast of newly-won information is if it comes from a published, peer-reviewed article. Could not the same be done with my research, the reviewers being the readers of this note?

Sincerely, Countyhighpointer (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I too have a degree in quantum science, specifically theoretical chemistry. And I've written many scientific applications in C++. So we have more in common besides our DNA. 8-) I'd like to be a friend, rather than some adversary, so you can better understand my persona and hence my motives for creating the essay. If so, I can be reached at helman@san.rr.com . Thank you for reading, Ras52.

I'm pleased that you've decided to join us and discuss things here. And I'm sorry that my earlier comments were rather more intemperate than, in retrospect, I would like them to have been. I've no desire to become your adversary either.
Let me try to clarify Wikipedia's policy on this, at least as I understand it. In an ideal world, everything in an article should be written in a neutral manner, with everything reliably sourced. This doesn't mean we can't express different points of view, and commonly-held opinions (even when they're not majority points of view). But we should aim to do this by repeating the opinions of recognised subject-experts printed in reputable publications. For example, we shouldn't say "it is incongruous for a Seven Summit list to include both Mount Elbrus and the Carstensz Pyramid" as this is presenting an opinion as a fact (albeit an opinion I happen to agree with). It would be better, perhaps, to say "[Name] has argued that it is incongruous for a Seven Summit list to include both Mount Elbrus and the Carstensz Pyramid" where name is some recognised authority on Seven Summits lists. (Rather unfortunately, in my opinion, the style "Some people have argued…" is also discouraged, but for different reasons.)
Of course, in practice, it's difficult to attain this ideal. For a start, what do we mean by a "recognised authority on Seven Summits lists"? Obviously Bass qualifies, as would a climber of Messner's calibre, but if we limited this article to facts taken from articles written by authorities of their calibre in recognised climbing journals or publications, we would have very little here indeed. So we bend the rules a bit: for example, we take a somewhat loser view of who constitutes a recognised authority. When it comes to the ultras, I'm happy to accept that Viewfinder and Spireguy are experts; similarly, if we had article on US county high points, I would be happy to consider you an expert.
The point at issue here is, can we treat you as a recognised authority on the Seven Summits, even in a lose sense? The Seven Summits are rather more notable than, say, the Ultras or US CoHPs, and as a result, more people have written about them. Right at this moment — and I intend no disrespect to you when I say this — I think the jury is still out. Let's wait a bit and see. If people link to (or copy, if that's allowed) your essay, we can take that as endorsement of your status as an 'expert' on the subject.
The other doubt I have on the relevance of your essay to this article — note this is not a criticism of the essay, merely a question of its relevance here — is whether your meaning of "the seven summits" is the same as the one here. My understanding is that most notable climbers have interpreted the seven summits as the highest points of the seven (traditional) continents. The differences come from the different opinions on where the Europe–Asia and the Asia–Oceania borders are. Of the five lists in your essay, I would say that only two are relevant here. Specifically, IA is not relevant because it does not coincide with a recognised definition of "continent" (that is, I think most people, probably including you and I, would accept that Mauna Kea is either in the same continent as Carstensz Pyramid or as Mount McKinley); IB is not relevant as it only has six entries; and IIIA is not relevant as it talks about the most prominent, rather than the highest, mountain on the continent. So I think it's really on section II of your essay that's relevant to this article.
I'm sure that we both agree that there are many opinions on where the south-eastern border of Europe lies, and similarly with the south-eastern border of Asia. We can certainly argue — as you have, and as I am inclined to do too — that by choosing one of the choices for the Europe–Asia border, we necessarily, logically prescribe the choice of the Asia–Oceania border. But it's Wikipedia's policy not to give undue prominence to minority opinions, and that we "will generally not include tiny-minority views at all" [quoted from the policy on neutral points of view]. If we can find a mainstream, authoritative source that takes this view (not necessarily in the context of mountains), then your essay, as the logical application of a mainstream opinion to notable subject (the idea of the Seven Summits), implicitly becomes more of a "mainstream" opinion.
Of course, most of the time, the arguments I've just detailed are considered very briefly — sub-consciously, even — by Wikipedia editors as we write articles. But in this case, for various reasons, we're discussing it in more detail. And once a query is raised about something, we have to make at least a token effort to justify it under Wikipedia's policies; "I like it" isn't good enough. I'd be one of the first to agree that Wikipedia's policies aren't perfect, but it's a highly-collaborate effort, and its policies are necessarily a compromise.
The last thing to point out, and which I'm expect has already been pointed out to you, is that it is Wikipedia policy never to add links to ones own site or to add details of your own research to an article. That's not to say the link or the details of the research cannot be included; just that it should be done by someone else. The usual procedure for doing this is to note on the article's talk page what you think you should be added, and leave it to others to decide whether, and how, it should be added.
I apologise for such a long comment, but I wanted to make it clear that nothing was intended as any form of person attack (if you have my sincere apologies if you took it that way). I also wanted to explain the process that we go through when deciding what to include in an article. In fact, your opinions are not all that dissimilar to my own; and as you remark, we have a lot in common (as I expect do many prominence enthusiasts and researchers).
So, no hard feelings? — ras52 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no hard feelings, and as described at-length in my personal note to you outside this forum.

I greatly appreciate the time you spent composing an explanation of Wikipedia's policies as they are relevant to the current essay and its (currently nonexistent) link from their site to mine.

However....

I wish to qualify your analysis of the essay (although I am pleased that you have obviously read it). The various lists provided are not intended to mirror what the climbing community views as appropriate continental highpoints. No sir - the lists are an attempt to define continental summits de novo without any preconceived notions of existing lists or, for that matter, that a mountaineering community exists at all!

Take the tectonic plates, indeed the seven largest by area. Hmm.... that apprears to include the Pacific Plate, by far the largest, and with it comes Mauna Kea (a drive-up, incidentally - although I made it a 3-day climb from sea level 8-). Yes, I agree from a climber's perspective that list I-A, using this tectonic plate concept, is irrelevant.

But not if you were tasked with the question, "define seven summits" completely in vacuo - a most provocative idea.

<<<<<<<The five lists result.>>>>>>>>

So here's a thought. Perhaps the essay should not be construed as an attempt to mirror the climber's version of the Seven Summits. Such an attempt is best done with an Everest climber at the pen, a rare circumstance indeed - and one which I attempted to pursue until John C. was recently arrested.

Rather, let the essay be a completely theoretical analysis of how one could **possibly** define a "Seven Summit - like" list. In THAT (oh, sorry - no capital letters?) light no controversy would exist with existing opinion. The article could be referenced as follows - "An intriguing article describes how one would define a seven summit list were no obstacles to be placed on the definition."<reference here> Would the essay, cast in such a light, merit a reference? Would it be relevant? I'll leave that up to the other members of this forum. Suffice to say I am willing to modify the essay so as to match the above "new light" in which it could be viewed.

Such a purely theoretical tone to the essay has some relevance. As follows. Dick Bass had a choice to make in deciding how to define continents. He selected the geographer's definition, Kosciuszko and all. In principle Mr. Bass could have used a different metric such as geology - whence there would have only been a Six Summit list. (As this maintains the nice-sounding aliteration of paired "S"s, such a result would have been acceptable to his followers. 8-)

I claim that the existing Seven Summits lists, be they Bass or Messner variants thereof, are just two possible outcomes from among the larger set of options that I elaborate in the essay. They are the realizations of what **might** have been - and the remaining lists of the essay describe the failed, unrealized outcomes.

Does not such a novel concept merit note?

Sincerely, Countyhighpointer (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) (Adam Helman)

The fact that it is a novel concept, and the fact that the above discussion was about the substance of the ideas, rather than whether they came from established reliable sources, underline the fact that, whatever the merit of the ideas, they are original research. I think well-thought-out novel concepts do merit note somewhere...just not on Wikipedia.
Also, I would disagree slightly with something that Ras52 said above, or rather, an emphasis I think that was placed in that comment. Ras52 compared various experts, e.g. Bass and Messner, to Dr. Helman. While that has some relevance, the most important criterion in Wikipedia sources is the nature of the source itself---an established publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If a completely unknown researcher gets the lead article in Nature, for example, that article would be a perfectly appropriate source for WP. If Reinhold Messner himself put something in the article and just said "because I said so", that would not be appropriate. So a discussion of Dr. Helman's bona fides as an authority on the Seven Summits is moot. -- Spireguy (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, then, David M, the "climbworthiness" of a mountaineer is "not entirely relevant" to whether his views are published at Wikipedia. More importantly, you claim, is the source of where s/he published the work that Wikipedia cites.

However what about if s/he wishes to be an arbiter **directly** at Wikipedia itself just as you and Jonathan F. and Richard S? Is his or her climbing experience level relevant in that case?

For instance, I have climbed 79 ultra summits (no easy task!!) Hence I have some knowledge of the transportation infrastructure, approach hike, climbing route, and possibly (depending on which peak) even the geology / flora of the region. Does that make me a more authoritative an arbiter of "matters dealing with ultra summits" than somebody who has climbed ten ultra summits? None at all?

I am asking this out of sheer curiosity, not knowing if there is some pecking order at Wikipedia for which editor has greater clout in their opinion(s) than another. Perhaps it is simply a matter of seniority, with the newbie users (such as myself) having the least weight. I suspect the latter to be the case.

In any event, I expect my "lifetime" at Wikipedia will be quite brief now that you've clearly expressed no interest in linking to the article due to its originality. Although I now understand this policy I still utterly disagree with it - right down to the marrow.

However the main reason I'll be leaving you folks at this forum is simply because my time is best spent managing cohp.org . Indeed it is for the same reason that I am not more active at summitpost.org - it detracts from my duties as cohp webmaster.

A secondary reason is because it is inconvenient to check E-mail at multiple locations when I sign-on to my computer. That's why I originally wanted a dialogue through our normal E-mail addresses.

Jonathan F: Speaking of "authority" and how it is acquired, I intend to obtain accurate GPS-based summit elevations for all of the ultra prominences we attempt in Ecuador come December. We will be calibrating our instruments at very flat saddles where the elevations are accurately provided by SRTM data - a critical feature of the subsequent analysis. Cerro Imbabura and Chimborazo will be of particular value.

Sincerely, Countyhighpointer (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (Adam Helman)

I still think that it is OK for the list at Seven_Summits#External_links to include a link to the COHP essay. I also think that if a trip report at COHP that establishes a more accurate height for Imbabura and an up to date height for Chimborazo should be regarded as a reliable source of fact, and should be linked at any list of South American ultras and Chimborazo respectively. It will be interesting to see of there has been measurable ice cap melting on Chimborazo since the GPS survey in 1993. Viewfinder (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the show of support, Jonathan. I admit that the essay presents original research. Hence its approval for linking is really a statement as to whether the rules can be bent in certain cases where it is quite evident the work is neither junk science nor controversial (see following paragraph).

If and when I receive approval to cite the essay as an external reference it can then be modified as to present a completely theoretical account rather than suggesting the tectonic- and prominence-based lists as somehow "competing" with the widely recognized Bass and Messner lists. As a purely theoretical work there is no controversy with existing opinion as to what constitutes a Seven Summit list. It is a compendium of all possible means by which the Seven Summits are definable.

If I do not receive approval then the Seven Summits essay might find room in a future version of The Finest Peaks. As that is a valid reference (being cited from the Topographic Prominence page) the work would suddenly and magically no longer be considered "original research". Does it not seem odd, such a state-of-affairs: take a piece of work and, without transformation of any kind, find legitimacy at Wikipedia simply because it has been published on paper instead of electronically on the web.

Jonathan's comments about the publishability of newly-won, GPS-derived data is in-truth more important than the foregoing essay considerations. Why? Because the GPS data, albeit "original research", can verify or negate existing summit elevations - hardly a theoretical construct at all. Let us suppose that the GPS data negates an existing elevation of doubtful accuracy (personally I would enjoy seeing this). Then, if the new elevations are NOT published one is elevating "verifiability" above the truth. I know Wikipedia does this, and, again, I am quite unhappy with that observation.

Sincerely, Countyhighpointer (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (Adam Helman)

Adam (Countyhighpointer), you speak of "receiving approval" and of a "pecking order" among Wikipedia editors. This shows a misconception of how Wikipedia works. It works by consensus, guided by the policies (which are somewhat, but not religiously, strict) and the guidelines. (Many of the relevant ones were mentioned above, by Viewfinder and by Ras52.) Ideally, in this kind of situation, a number of editors (experienced and newbies alike) weigh in with reasoned arguments, supported by reference to the policies and guidelines, and a consensus emerges as to the appropriate action. There would be (ideally) no prejudice against newcomers; editors are expected to judge other editors' comments rationally and impartially. Of course the ideal is too often not followed, but that's the goal.
So far, that's roughly what has happened, except that there haven't been many different editors contributing to the discussion (which is common on a not very highly visible page) and that so far (I would say) no consensus has yet been reached---which is OK; there's no rush. You and Viewfinder see the link in question as OK; Ras52 and I see it as original research, and as such, not appropriate. (Anyone named, feel free to disagree if I have misrepresented your views.)
Back to the idea of "receiving approval" and such, I want to make clear that my comments are not intended to shut Adam down or imply that some higher authority has denied a request. But I did want, and still do want, to steer the discussion back to how the principles of Wikipedia apply here; hence my comments about Adam's bona fides being irrelevant. I am not trying to set myself up as a greater personal Seven Summits (or Ultra) expert than anyone, including Adam; I am just giving my opinion about how Wikipedia works, an opinion that is backed up by policy pages such as WP:NOR, but which is not presented as infallible. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
After looking over WP:EL again, I think that an external link (in the links section, as just a link) might be appropriate. While anything included in the article proper falls under WP:NOR and WP:RS, the guidelines on external links are looser. I'm still not sure if it's appropriate, but I would not object if it were included there. Comments? -- Spireguy (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not very strongly of the opinion that it shouldn't be included, though that is still my opinion. However, with everyone other than myself expression an opinion in favour of the link, I'm happy to concede that I'm in a minority. — ras52 (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
And I've now added the link back again. Please feel free to improve the wording of the link and/or change it to a reference to something. I do still feel, however, that a whole paragraph on the subject is overkill. Though, as with the current matter, I'm willing to be overruled. — 00:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to the more senior members of this discussion. For my sake the link's wording is quite satisfactory as-is. It is now my task to re-word the essay so as to cast it into the promised light of "every Reasonable means by which a Seven Summits list may be defined". To that end, I plan to split-out a political Oceania from a cultural/ethnic Oceania. That distinction is important since the Messner variant completely obeys a cultural/ethnic definition for the Seven Summits, with New Guinea entirely in Oceania. "Reasonable", by the way, does not include defining continents by language, religion, mineral wealth, or economic status. I will submit the essay for your comments and revisions when completed.

Sincerely, Countyhighpointer (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC) (Adam Helman)

The revised essay has been posted. Countyhighpointer (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC) (Adam Helman)

Its probably a good idea to go with the 'all sensible seven summits options' but that principle needs to be clearly outlined, otherwise the rationality disappears into continental definitions - what is Europe/Asia, what is Oceania /Asia, and we end up with such rationalising nonsense as 'Indonesia is generally considered to span Asia and Oceania.' Indonesia is NOT generally or even occasionally included in Oceania, by either Indonesians or Australians. It is New Guinea which is the issue. The reference cited is merely a statistical list of geographical features worldwide so cant be used as any sort of backup to the claim that Indonesia is included as part of Asia. Where exactly is the border? Sensible options would be either to go by the political boundary through New Guinea, which would exclude Puncak Jaya, or include all of New Guinea in Oceania, which would include it. Edits made to reflect this. Mdw0 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The prominence of Mount Elbrus is greater than that of Mt Blanc, contrary to the comment above - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peaks_by_prominence - bred2k8, 19:49, 5 February 2012 (GMT). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.241.78 (talk)

References

  1. ^ http://www.cohp.org/personal/Seven_Summits_essay/seven_summits_essay.html

Oceania

Since Carstensz and Wilhelm are on the same island in Australasia, shouldn't Mount Cook be the highest mountain in Oceania? (atleast it's taller than the woeful Australia's sub 10000ft/3000m peaks)

76.66.195.196 (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bass and Messner lists

Can some offer a clean split into the Bass and Messner (and the elusive other) lists? The article is pretty vague on what summit belongs on which list. A table would help. ~ trialsanderrors 07:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I see Mont Blanc being considered as one of the seven summits. From a mountaineering point of view I think it's never been so, as proved by the Messner-Bass list of summits, the only real discrepancy has always been regarding the highest summit in Oceania. The inclusion of Mont Blanc in the figure is misleading and a bit confusing, this figure should perhaps be redrawn showing only the popularily accepted seven summits. Dycotiles 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


News About AC Sherpa seven Summits within 42 climbing days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.189.147 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The quote

Morrow opined with humility '[t]he only reason Reinhold [Messner] wasn’t the first person to complete the seven was that he was too busy gambolling up the 14 tallest mountains in the world.'

ends with an incorrect link. The text says '14 tallest' but the link is targetted at a page which shows the 8 highest peaks. Either the link should be removed, or it should be pointed at an appropriate target if one exists.

Wikipongdia (talk) 09:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The link directs to the article eight-thousander, which lists the 14 mountains over 8,000 meters (the 14 highest peaks).--Racerx11 (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Naomi Uemura

Before Bass, the closest any person came to a list of continental high points was Naomi Uemura. He should be mentioned (and not based on poor wikipedia sources). This makes this another English language (media) biased page. This is not to diminish what Bass did (not that he is a Messner class climber, and bringing Frank Wells along didn't paint a very good picture of Wells in Bass' book). 143.232.210.38 (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

History -- youngest climbers

In view of the 2006 Rhys Jones record (at age 20), did Geordie Stewart really become "the youngest Briton to complete the 7 summits at the age of 22 years". This seems unsourced and possibly inaccurate. DES (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My error it is sourced. In fact we have two apparently conflicting claims, both sourced to the BBC. Perhaps the BBC doesn't read its own back files. DES (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Some of the confusion or misunderstanding could be in part due to the fact that the two climbers completed different versions of the list. Rhys Jones completed the Bass list which includes the summit of Mount Kosciuszko in Australia. Geordie Stewart completed the Messner list which includes Puncak Jaya (Carstensz Pyramid) in Indonesia. Puncak Jaya, and thus the Messner list, is considered a more difficult challenge. So Stewart's achievement was notable at the time; the youngest to complete the Messner list. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 23:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense. Perhaps the various articlews should make this clear. DES (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent change to Everest's location

Regarding this edit. According to the International Boundary Study of 1965: "The boundary, in the next sector, passes through the peaks of Mount Everest and Makalu making it the highest international boundary in the world." This document is a detailed description of the boundary agreement and clearly explains how the border in this area follows the watershed divide (common for many political boundaries) and Everest's summit is certainly on this divide. So, by the very definition of the border agreed to by both countries, Mount Everest's summit lies precisely on the China–Nepal border.

There may be sources that only mention Nepal as Everest's location, just as there may be sources that mention only China or Tibet as Everest's location, but that doesn't mean anything unless the source explicitly states that the summit lies wholly within the borders of one country or another and not on the border. Additionally the source would have to provide some sort of rationale for such a claim if there were to be any chance of a consensus to make this change based on a single source, supporting a particular point of view, and cherrypicked from the vast majority of reliable sources that clearly state the summit is on the border between China and Nepal.

I am reverting the latest action based on the above. Thank you. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 23:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Everest is on the internationally recognized border between China and Nepal. Whether or not we think it ought to be is immaterial. Viewfinder (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but that simple argument apparently wasn't good enough for the IP who repeated that his assertion was supported by an "UNESCO document", which he didn't provide and I really had no interest in digging around for myself, and yet I felt the need counter the claim with the above. Honestly I can't believe how sometimes we must defend well sourced, common knowledge. I may try later to find the document the IP was talking about, just so I can find out how and where they might be getting some of this nonsense. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 04:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Seven Summits. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Seven Summits. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Seven Summits. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Kosciuszko is not a continental high point

Carstenz is not in Asia. I think we are agreed about this. Whether or not we think it should be, and even if - which is likely - it is a case of commercial interests overriding the wishes of the Papuans, it is under Indonesian control and within internationally recognised Indonesian borders. But that does not imply that anyone claims that it is in Asia, even if Bass did chose to select it. Continental boundaries do not have to follow international boundaries. Most of Europe's boundary does not. Wikipedia is quite clear that Carstenz is outside Asia, see Asia and Australia (continent). None of the island of New Guinea is in Asia, full stop. There is no dispute. Seven Summits used and recognised Kosciuszko because of access problems to Carstenz.

Also, even if Carstensz were considered by some to be in Asia, there is definitely no claim that the eastern part of New Guinea, which has never been under Indonesian adminstration, is in Asia. This part has many mountains higher than Kosciuszko. It has never been claimed that the Commonwealth of So Kosciuszko has never been the highest point of any continent, despite the implication by Bass that it is. Viewfinder 06:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not revert your original edit, and I have tried further to compromise. If you can, by all means provide citation in support of your claim that 5,030 metres is supported by repeated accurate measurement, but please do not revert again. Viewfinder 07:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection, I thank 58.107.10.36 for raising this matter. The Bass list makes no sense to me whatsoever. The claim that Mount Kosciuszko is one of Seven Summits does not stand up to analysis by any definition of continent. If the Commonwealth of Australia extends over a whole continent, to what continent do New Zealand and its HP Mount Cook belong? A separate continent, Oceania? OK, but then there are eight continents (North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Oceania and Antarctica), in which case there should be eight summits with the high point of Oceania included. I suppose you could exclude islands, and include only continental landmasses, but then if Great Britain (or perhaps Iceland would be a better example) had a 6,000 metre summit, would Bass have excluded it from his list? Viewfinder 09:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To which continent does New Zealand belong ? That's simple. No continent. Along with Iceland, Mauritius, Tonga, Samoa and several other countries. There are at least five methods of defining a "continent", and they don't all insist that every single country has to be somehow shoe-horned into one.``Lathamibird (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Zealandia?

What About Aoraki/Mount Cook Now that Zealandia is a continent? (And Has been.) 2601:540:4100:5D0:69B6:21F6:CC4:9DFF (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Colton Farren

If you can find reliable sources stating that Aoraki / Mount Cook is a Seven Summit (Eight Summit?), then you're welcome to include that information. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Speed Record for climb of Seven Summits (Both Lists)

Steven Plain climbed the summits from both lists in 117 days, 6 hours and 50 minutes in early 2018. It was a personal goal he set after breaking his neck in a beach accident and being told he would never walk again. This isn't mentioned anywhere on the page and it very well should be as it is listed on the Guinness World Records site. See his site plainadventures.com.au for more information. 120.149.150.160 (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Seven Summits of the Seven Continents

Which Seven Continents? Geography has changed? I think this should be explained as Bass wanted a peak of his country in this list and for that created "Seven Continents". In fact he couldnt accept that Mount Aconcágua - the highest peak in America - is not in USA or couldnt accept a global challenge without USA in it. 2804:14D:5CE1:9862:3CB5:C91A:C1CE:1708 (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seven_Summits/Archive_1&oldid=1213191453"