This is an archive of past discussions about Table Mountain. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have imported some of my text from Everything2 for this entry. It may be a bit chatty in tone for Wikipedia, but the content is not a copyright violation. - AnthonySteele
This article would benefit by the addition of a contour map. Writers have referred to compass directions (north, west, etc.) that are difficult to visualize without a map. Other references have been made to relative directions (left, right, right-side up, etc.) without stating the orientation of the writer. Could we improve this? AnonUser16:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the article refers to the "front" and "rear" of Table Mountain. This is unclear to non-residents of Cape Town. Perhaps a resident could revise this. 70.109.61.14212:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Major edit
I've done some major edits to this article, including:
correcting/adding wikilinks
removing some redlinks
wikified distances using for spaces and the standard 1,000's format for the numbers
removing majority of the hiking/climbing section. Wikipedia is not a place to dispense advice
added {{sect-stub}} to hiking/climbing section (needs more info on hiking trails)
extensive grammatical rewrites to make sentences/paragraphs read better
removed section on "the mountain in Cape Town" as it was virtually empty, and incorrect. "Native Capetonians" use road-signs to navigate their way around the city ;)
Beefart has good reason to believe that the "Legend" of Qamata is a fake. Please provide a citation or he will remove the whole section. Captainbeefart13:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Beefart says: Good faith on the part of a contributor does not protect the pages of Wikipedia against twaddle. Garbage in, garbage out. I didn't say the contributor was disingenuous. I merely suggested the "Legend" was a fake. Honest but ignorant people repeat nonsense every day, because they don't know any better. (I've been guilty of it myself. As I recall, it happened on a Wednesday...). The "deep historical" origins of this tale are undocumented. Even Father Xmas has a better track record. I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the history of South Africa will know that no Bantu people either saw the Cape Peninsula or knew of its existence before the 19th Century (References: Theale's History of South Africa and the Diary of Jan van Riebeeck, for a start). How could the Bantu have had a legend about something they had never known? One may as well write an article on the role of the Tooth Fairy in the Great Trek. 'Qamata', as expostulated, has all the hallmarks, prima facie, of one of those ancient folk tales that date from last Wednesday. It is, I suggest, more akin to Urban Legend than real legend. Ray Charles could have seen the elements of politikal korrektniz lurking in it. This is Peter Pan history out of control. What will we have next?: the Thabo Mbeke Memorial Edition of Van Riebeeck's Diary, in which Jan has lunch with Gaika and in the afternoon they both go out and hug treees and save whales together? Get out of here... Besides, when exactly did Wikipedia stoop to citing "contemporary sages" instead of scholarly texts? This 'legend' is, in my opinion (jaundiced of course as usual), a load of old dingo's kidneys.
Now if somebody can find a documented legend of the San....Captainbeefart14:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I share some of your "concerns" about this legend :) In its favour, the name Qamata could well have San origins and there was crossover fram San to Xhosa culture. Seems the legend is sufficiently established to be included in Wikipedia, but if its origins seem a bit shaky (bordering on dingo's kidneys), you can put it in context when referring to it: "According to a legend (earliest reference by contemporary Zulu sage Credo Mutwa last Wednesday), when Qamata created the world, ..." If you want to cast further doubt on it you'll need to refer to external sources debunking it, because discussions on talk pages don't qualify as Wikipedia references :) Zaian15:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Qamata is well documented (one of the references on the Qamata page is to an 1886 text), but I don't know if this particular Qamata legend was known before Credo Mutwa told it. It may be a genuine ancient Xhosa legend, but applying it to Table Mountain may be a modern interpretation. Zaian16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Oom Jan v. Riebeck's diary?ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!? So you think it's entirely impossible for anyone other than the KhoiSan to have seen the mountain before JVR discovered the country (much to the joy of the natives, since being lost for tens of thousands of years is such a shame). African's have been living in Africa for quite some time (a bit more than 500 years) and history books might not have certain info. As for the legend, I would also love to see sources other than Mutwa. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't get to the link. Does it specifically mention the creation of Table Mountain? If it does, then I'm satisfied withthat legend, but as I explained on Talk:Qamata, I don't consider an 1800s text a credible source for info on African societies. There are millions of amaXhosa alive today - they are the current authority on their beliefs, not Theal. I doubt if there are any true facts in the Qamata article, and I would prefer it deleted until a modern source pops up. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 07:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I corrected the link in Bookgrrl's comment. It doesn't mention the Table Mountain myth, though. The myth is widely quoted though, so I think this article should include it, together with some careful wording to say that the earliest reference is Credo Mutwa. Zaian19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Beefart will attempt a summary of his position in the hope that light will prevail over heat: (1) Political correctness is a brain disease. It is the art of abandoning logic and having instead the strength of other people's convictions. It is the triumph of the mantra over analysis. (2) Whatever the shortcomings are of van Riebeeck's diary and Theal's History of South Africa, these works make it clear beyond dispute that there were no Bantu people within hundreds of kilometres of Table Mountain before the 19th century. The colonial authors recorded the first meetings between whites and the Bantu at the time that the meetings occurred. They had absolutely no motive for falsifying these facts. The meetings between the two cultures were clearly very significant for the colony. Had the colonialists met the Bantu earlier, they would have recorded this fact earlier. They didn't. (3) Unless we are going to get into Peter Pan arguments about astral travel and all, it is safe to contend that it is not possible for people to have legends about things they had never known (4) Whatever the virtues are of Xhosa culture, these people did not read or write before they learned these arts from westerners. There are no written accounts of history from the Bantu point of view before the 19th century. The fact that some people regret that and that some people don't like the idea changes nothing. Written records are sometimes in error but fables handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation are notoriously unreliable. This is equally true for every race of people on the planet and any number of sociological and anthropological studies affirm the fact. (5) Nobody is disputing that the Xhosa repeat ancient tales about Qamata. That there were legends about this entity in the 19th Century is not disputed. However, it is simply ridiculous to assert that "There was a Qamata, therefore everything attributed to him/her/it must be true". This is about as sensible as saying "There was van Riebeeck. The records prove it. Therefore my assertion that he discovered Kilimanjaro must be true". Wikipedia ought not in my opinion to be pandering to the reconstruction of history where this is clearly not warranted. This is transparent twaddle. And just to assure you that Beefart is not totally reformed, (6) "Incredo" Mutwa is a ZULU. How the hell would he know?..... If he is a sage, then I'm a Thyme Lord. Excretum tauri cerebrum vincit. I have some wonderful Polish versions of Xhosa legends, some of them nearly 100 minutes old. I made them look ancient by taking them out onto the lawn and pissing on them. Email me...
1. No one's being PC 2. JvR and Theal don't know what happened before they arrived here 3. If they had seen the place no one was around to write about it 4. (see 2 and 3) no one claimed the legend was a fact, just that it exists 5. No one claimed this 6. The same way that Theal was not umXhosa, but he wrote about their legends: through clairvoyance and ESP. You might consider writing about yourself in the 1st person and not being so wordy - people might take you more seriously (or not). Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 17:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Beefart says: Let us cut to the chase, because life is short. On point (2): You are correct. You have forced the debate quite unnecessarily into the realm of archaeology but it does not help your argument. Many archaeological remains record the migration of the Bantu people from near the Sahara Desert into southern Africa over hundreds of years. But there is not one shred of evidence to support the proposition that the Bantu were in the far Western Cape in the 17th Century or before that. On point (6): There is no shred of evidence to support the contention that clairvoyance and ESP are real. They fall into the same category as belief in the Tooth Fairy. On the subject of too many words, belay your diatribes. I care nought for the opinions of fools. Ah... Hold on a moment! Beefart is receiving an ESP message from... ah, it's Jan Smuts: "Did you know Qamata was the first person to drive up Platteklip Gorge in an ox wagon? It was in 1938. Ek het dit gesien". Now that you have read that in print, please find a place for it somewhere in Wikipedia, along with all the other pathetic crap that some people believe. Captainbeefart15:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Features
I've reworked the Features section to describe the most prominent features of the mountain. That included removing references to Arrow Buttress, Ledges and Carrel's Ledge, which aren't well known outside mountaineering circles. I made quite a few other changes to the article which I hope are an improvement. Comments welcome. Zaian16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the extinct quagga or as it is known in Afrikaans kwagga? I'll give about a week for discussion and then i'll add it to the fauna section if there are no objections. Wynand.singels10:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Paranormal
Why the hell is Table Mountain in the Paranormal section?? the mountain is there, what is there to doubt? If it is about the many myths surrounding the mountain then i think those stories themselves should be in the paranormal section, the mountain itself, certainly not. Wynand.singels10:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Table Mountain/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.
took the above, can be used in the article if anyone is interested. just dont link to it :)
I also support this. I think the postcard-esque image of the mountain flanked by Devil's Peak and Lion's Head is far more encyclopedic than, say, the photo from Signal Hill. The photo above is from the right vantage point, but could someone upload a higher resolution image? There should be hundreds to choose from, but I've never taken that photo from Tableview. (I have photos from Table Bay, but they only have Devil's Peak and Table Mountain, rather than Lion's Head too.) Warrickball (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Image from the sea
I took this image (on the right) from the Robben Island ferry. Does anyone think it should be included in the article which doesn't show the tradition image of the mountain from the sea? Perhaps we should add an image gallery of the different views of Table Mountain. --Elinor.Dashwood (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely. The traditional postcard-esque view of the mountain should be here somewhere. Your picture looks a bit grainy, is slightly skeef and is low-res at the moment, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. (Heck, it's nearly perfect.) I've prowled through by own collection (I'm no longer staying in Cape Town), but I've only found one photo and it's no better than yours. (No grain, but there is cloud over the mountain.) I also found the photo to the right on Wikicommons Image on Wikicommons, but it's a bit dark, and Lion's Head is masked a bit by Signal Hill.
I suppose I am being a bit picky, but I expect that someone has a high-quality photo taken from Tableview or Bloubergstrand area. Warrickball (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: I took the liberty of reducing your image to a thumbnail. I hope you don't mind.
The reason it's a bit grainy and 'skeef' is because it was taken from a boat with an old-fashioned camera so I scanned it in. That's cool, I was trying to reduce it to thumbnail but wikipedia kept timing out. I'm going to Robben Island again in the next couple of months (visiting tourists) so will try and take a better picture then. I still think that an image gallery would be interesting and really add to the value of the article. --Elinor.Dashwood (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
"Postcard photo" of Table Mountain.
I don't oppose an image gallery at all. It is an internationally recognized tourist attraction. (After all, Table Mountain directs here, rather than the disambig!) I've been scratching around on Wikicommons and found the third photo now on the right. That's the view I'm thinking of. There are a handful of such shots already on the commons, but this is the only one I found which shows any detail of the mountain. (Compare, for example, this.) I'm going to pop this one on the page, as near to the top as possible. It's not perfect, so I invite others to upgrade it, but it's the right view. Warrickball (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Panorama (and Images in General)
Panorama from the top of Table Mountain
I stumbled onto this panorama on the Commons. It shows a great deal of detail about the geography of the Cape. One can see Lion's Head with Signal Hill, the City Bowl, Robben Island, Table Bay, and Devil's Peak. (Pity it isn't higher resolution.) Should it appear on the page somewhere? Or is it more appropriate on Cape Town or Table Bay?
I have half a mind to re-organize what photos appear here, and where, but I consider this a high-profile page for me to just be changing everything myself... Warrickball (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:) I guess I'm not sufficiently bold. I've tried to keep the images that I think (in my very humble opinion) are encyclopedic with the text, and moved the rest to the new gallery. We don't for example, need two photos of the cablecar, however beautiful the photos are.Warrickball (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
formation? weather?
I find odd that this article does not have a clear description of how Table Mountain was formed, why it's got a flat top, what impact it has on the weather in CT, etc. It reads more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.170.35 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Lets just say that not only will your heart be left in Africa, but your muscles will be throbbing for days after Table Mountain. The beauty at the top is incredible and boy does it feel good to be alive while climbing up. Just be sure that you bring plenty of water for the palette and a celly in the event you need to call a rescue squad.
table mountain
Table mountain is not just a mountain but a very complicated one at that, many storys are linked to table mountain and many involving places like devils peak and lions head, but one i hope everybody would know is,the devil and the pirates smoking contest and the cloud called "the table cloth" that sybolises the contest,look it up if you would like to know more. but of course if looking it up is something you may find hard, go the table mountain page here on wikipedia and scroll down to, i think it is features and u can find out all about the contest and may be able to be taken to a page all about the contest. thanks. oh and just to add, if you are an wiki fan and would love to reasearch let me know!
Move to Table Mountain, South Africa
There are numerous mountains in the world called Table Mountain. Each of the pages on wikipedia lists the country or state in the title. To be consistent the name of this page has been moved from just Table Mountain to Table Mountain, South Africa. Palaeozoic99 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Politikal Korektniz
There is a campaign on foot in the New South Africa to rewrite (non-existant) history and to seek to create "Bushman" and "Xhosa" names for the mountain that are entirely imaginary. I am going to demand formal references before I accept these fakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeefart (talk • contribs) 2012-10-20
Here's an article referring to Hottentot (Khoekhoen) Place Names by G.S. Nienaber and P.E. Raper, and Dictionary of South African Place Names by P.J. Nienaber, which it says provide 1831 and 1881 source for //Hui !Gaeb or //Hui !Gais as an indigenous name for Cape Town. The same article also mentions Huri ╪oaxa (Hoerikwagga) as an indigenous for Table Mountain.
According to Google Books, Hottentot (Khoekhoen) Place Names says the following: In approximately 1779 Col. R.J. Gordon wrote as follows on the indigenous name for Table Mountain: "The old Hottentots call the Cape hoeri 'kwaggo or the sea mountain".
Rename article "Table Mountain, South Africa" please
I wish to echo the very first message left on this page, that the name of the article be changed to "Table Mountain, South Africa", because if you click on a link to "Table Mountain" or enter "Table Mountain" on the Wiki search engine you get taken to "Table Mountain (disambiguous)" and there seems to be no way that you can avoid that.
This article is named just "Table Mountain" because the Table Mountain in Cape Town is much more well-known than any of the other Table Mountains, and therefore it is more likely that someone searching for Table Mountain is looking for this one than for any of the others. This follows the policy set out at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I don't really understand what your issue is with the "disambiguation" page, but renaming this article won't fix it; it will just mean that links and searches for "Table Mountain" will go directly to the disambiguation page. - htonl (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Htonl,
I entirely agree with you that typing in "Table Mountain" should take you straight to this page. And I do not understand why it does not, because no other article is called just "Table Mountain". There is "The Table", "Table Mountains" (plural), and a long list of "Table Mountain (Butte County, California)" and similar qualifiers. It is true that once you are in Wikipedia, and you type in "Table Mountain", and don't immediately press "enter" you are given various alternative options, of which this article tops the list. But that does not happen if you use the Wiki search engine from the Google or Firefox page. I'll check again if links within Wiki, take you to this page. It is my impression that half the time you get taken to the disambiguous page.
But I entirely see your point that renaming the article will not fix the problem. It will only aggravate it, as all attempts at getting to "Table Mountain" will now be routed through the disambiguopus page, because no one would dream of typing in "Table Mountain, South Africa". Thanks for pointing that out. Oggmus (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I was just about to reply to the original comment, arguing that the Table Mountain in South Africa is the primary topic as Htonl mentions above. Checking on Google Books and Google Scholar leave me in no doubt that this is unambiguously the case. As to searching on "Table Mountain" - that offers me Table Mountain as the first choice [2] - other slight variations, such as "Table mountain" do indeed go to the disambiguation page. By the way Table Mountain, South Africa already exists as a redirect, just in case anyone tries that. Mikenorton (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to both of you (Htonl and Mikenorton), especially for distinguishing between where "Table Mountain" and "Table mountain" take you. That might well have explained the capricious nature of where I got taken after typing in "t/Table m/Mountain"! Oggmus (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mike and Htonl. I'm sorry to be going on about this; but should not all variations on "Table Mountain" (in the search engine) such as "table mountain", "Table mountain", "table Mountain", "table mouNtain", "TABLE MOUNTAIN", etc. go by default to this page rather than the "disambiguation" page? This would be in line with the policy set out at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Anyone who lands here by mistake can quickly go to the "Disambiguation page" to find what the mountain they actually want to read about. As things stand you have to know beforehand (and that is not obvious) that the "T" in Table, and the "M" in Mountain both need to be upper case to end up here. Oggmus (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. I have redirected Table mountain to Table Mountain; that was the only one that redirected to the disambiguation page so I would hope now that all searches will go to the same place regardless of capitalisation. - htonl (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
That is great. I have tried "table mountain" (the most probable variation - have not tried the others yet, but I'm sure they'll work) and got to the right page straight away! I'm very grateful. Great work. Oggmus (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
