Talk:Mauna Kea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Mauna Kea is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 17, 2012.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Hawaii (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mountains (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Volcanoes (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Base to Peak[edit]

What is meant by "base to peak"? Surely Everest is still the highest mountain if we take 'base' to mean the lowest point on the Earth's surface? ~~Everett~~

The base of Mauna Kea is several thousand metres below sea level. Viewfinder 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you define 'base'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettt (talkcontribs) 00:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The base of Mauna Kea is below sea level, as it is part of the island of Hawai'i. Most other mountains, like Everest, just jutt up from the earth's surface. They don't extend below sea level.

"Base to peak" The base of a mountain is the origin of it, the lowest point of the mountain. Mauna Kea's origin (base) is several thousand meters below sea level. The Pacific Ocean is very deep (contains the deepest sea floor point in the world). Hawaii's island chain can effectively be classed as a mountain ridge with the base at the sea floor. It forms through volcanic activity between the plates where magma from the mantle can seep through. Consider it to be a volcano with most of the mountain below sea level. The peak of course, is the tip of the mountain. The highest point. The Himalayas were formed by India crashing slowly into Asia. Because there was a little water between India and Asia while the collision took place, you will find fish fossils at the peak of the Himalayas (just some interesting info). Mount Everest's base-peak is much lower than Maunt Kea but it has the highest point above sea level. (Sorry it's late, hope I'm making sense) (KMckelvin 21:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)KMckelvinKMckelvin 21:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Makes complete sense, and it's a pretty simple concept to grasp. Think of a guy who's 7 feet tall, and a guy who's 6 feet tall and is standing on a 2 foot chair. The 7-footer (Mauna Kea) is bigger from base to top. The 6-footer on the 2-foot chair (Everest) has a higher "peak." CM. 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid the concept is not simple enough for me. You can say the lowest point of a guy standing on a chair is his feet, but how do you define the lowest point of a mountain? From that point of view, you can say that Mount Everest is a little mountain of 4'000 meters which is standing on Tibet (average altitude 4'900). Or you can say that its base is at sea level, which makes it 8'800 meters high. Or since the Himalaya is formed by India crashing into Asia, you can say that its base is inside the Indian Ocean, average depth 3'890 meters, making it 12'600 meters high. And why not define Mauna Kea as a 4'000 meters mountain standing on an island? To make it perfectly clear: What is the exact definition of the "base" of the mountain? (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this. Unless there is a precise definition of where the "base" of the mountain is (any geologists or surveyors care to comment?), the tallest mountain from peak to base is the one with its peak at Mt Everest and base at the Challenger Deep, being 19764 meters tall. (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that an attempt was made to clarify "base to peak" in the article, but to me it has only added to the confusion. The article contains this sentence: "Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain in the world when measured from base to summit, since its base is located on the seafloor... bringing its total height to about 33,000 ft" OK so far, but then it is followed by: "Mt. Lam Lam on Guam is 37,533 feet when measured from its base in the Mariana Trench" Oops! So why isn't Mt. Lam Lam the tallest mountain in the world when measured from base to summit?Enduser (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mount Everest's base sits on the Continental Shelf, while Mauna Kea's base sits on the ocean floor. Everest is higher, Mauna Kea is taller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mauna Kea IS NOT TALLER! you must use the same measurement range for both heights. if mauna is measured from seafloor to peak then so must everest. unfortunately for US citizens this means the usa DOES NOT HAVE the tallest mountain in the world so from sea level mauna is 4,205 m (13,796 ft) and from sea level everest is 8,848 m(29,029 ft) so from the sea floor mauna is 10,200 m (33,500 ft) (5995m of water) and everest would be 12,248m(3,400m of water) {assuming average depth of 3,400m} and the indian ocean is considerably deeper than that average for much of the ocean close to india. sorry but intro must be re-written teknotiss wrote this forgot to sign in — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mauna Kea, looked at from 100 miles away, in a world without an ocean, would look bigger than Everest. That's all. The concept of a mountain's "base" is only an informal concept in geography. What many people consider to be important is prominence.
The following mental exercise may illustrate the meaning of topographic prominence. Imagine you are standing at the top of a mountain peak. Let an imaginary sea level slowly rise to the top of your peak. As the imaginary sea level rises, the mountain will shrink into an ever smaller island until the island disappears at your feet. Now let the imaginary sea level slowly drop. The island will reappear with your peak as its highest point. As the sea level continues to drop, the island will grow and merge with adjacent islands. At some point, unless you are atop Mount Everest, your island will touch another island with a higher summit.[5] This point is called your peak’s key col, and the elevation rise from its key col to your summit is called its topographic prominence.
If Mauna Kea is going to be special, we have to pretend that the ocean doesn't exist, which is also the conceit of "dry prominence." Dry prominence looks at the world as if there was no water.
The dry prominence of Mount Everest is, by convention, equal to its wet prominence (8848 m) plus the depth of the deepest hydrologic feature (the Challenger Deep at 10,911 m), or 19,761 m. That's not the same as "base," but then again, "base" isn't the same as "base," since there's no non-arbitrary definition.
The dry prominence of Mauna Kea is equal to its wet prominence (4205 m) plus the depth of its highest col (about 5125 m), or about 9330 m; this is the world's second greatest dry prominence after Mount Everest. (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Is erronous, by what it claims is Mount Everest's actual height, as follows from the Wikipedia page: "By comparison, reasonable base elevations for Everest range from 4,200 m (13,800 ft) on the south side to 5,200 m (17,100 ft) on the Tibetan Plateau, yielding a height above base in the range of 3,650 to 4,650 m (11,980 to 15,260 ft)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How tall is Mauna Kea?[edit]

Since Mauna Kea's claim to fame is being the biggest mountain in the world from base to peak, I think it's a glaring omission not to include its base-to-peak height alongside its elevation above sea level. I think I am going to tend to this; it's pretty key. Stay tuned. C.M. 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

English spellings (of Hawaiian words) are correct in an English article[edit]

I edited the article to use English spellings consistently. It's not an article about Hawaiian language, so there's no need to use any Hawaiian spellings. The explanation that mauna kea means "white mountain" is relevant, and correctly done with italics for the Hawaiian words. Other than that, there's no relevance for Hawaiian spellings in this particular article. There is nothing bad or wrong about using English spellings in an English article. So any font character representing a Hawaiian glottal stop ("okina") should be simply omitted in English. (That also easily solves the problem of the character which does not display properly in the most widely used browser.) Instead of the vowel with macron accent, used in Hawaiian spelling, simply use the regular unaccented vowel for English spelling of Hawaiian words. If the Hawaiian spelling for wekiu (for the bug) absolutely must be given (for some unknown reason), then it can be done in italics within parentheses with proper notice to the reader that it is the Hawaiian spelling, for example: "... the wekiu bug (in Hawaiian, wēkiu means 'summit')...". The English spelling (wekiu) is used, and the Hawaiian spelling (wēkiu) can be supplied in addition, if really needed. Agent X 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not follow above. Diacritics are precisely for English speakers, to indicate how non-Hawaiian speakers should pronounce the words. So according to the manual of style consensus, preference is to use them, except when a word like "Hawaiian" indicates a usage that has been absorbed into English. Removing diacritics does not translate a word into English. W Nowicki (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody add a standard English English prnunciation guide by any chance to the title? 11:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Tallest? No! e.g. bougainville[edit]

bougainville island is unequivocally "taller" than hawaii- yet another example of CIA "geography" (like"snake river canyon is the deepest"). There are far fewer USA "world" records than you might think. Denali holds no world's records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to provide a source for any of this?Jebarringer (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Haven't found anything explicit, but the sea floor near Bougainville appears to be substantially shallower that that around Hawaii. kwami (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone changed the article to make a similar claim about Guam. However, the ref makes no such claim, and the editor was engaging in OR, measuring the difference from the peak of Guam to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, not to the base of the volcano. kwami (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Ref to Lamlam has now been removed. Since the claim M. Kea is not the tallest mountain is OR, I suggest that we don't bother with such POVs. Mprex did remove a clarifying note, however:
The base of a mountain is the portion of the crust that the mountain emerges from. In the case of oceanic volcanoes, this is the sea floor; in the case of Mt Everest, it is the Indian subcontinent.
That could be returned if need be. kwami (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Base to Peak Measurement[edit]

On the right in the little bar it says 10,000 meters while in the article it says 9,000. Which is correct?

Tallest mountain in the world?[edit]

There was a statement in the text of the article which claimed that Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain in world if measured from its base in the ocean to its summit. There was an end note that seemed to refute the statement citing a USGS article. I removed the entire discussion. If someone wishes to restore the statement they need to provide documentation. --DRoll (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The article supports it being the tallest by that standard. kwami (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to support the claim for Mauna Loa not Mauna Kea. Right? --DRoll (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel that this makes it the tallest mountain, unless Kea peak is farther into the atmosphere than Everest. We might as well measure from the core if the ocean level creates all these weird discrepancies. (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That's like measuring the length of your penis using the 1/3 that is inside your body ! In the case of M.Kea, height ABOVE SEA LEVEL is what counts.

Unit order[edit]

This article suffered from mixed unit order. Sometimes metres then feet. Other times feet then metres. I conformed all units I could find to feet then metres as is the custom for articles about places in the U.S. See WP:UNITS. --DRoll (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

To do list[edit]

Mauna Kea
  • Write rough article. Yes check.svg Done
    • Search and give a para on all parks and reserves. Yes check.svg Done
    • Finish Lower environemnt section. Yes check.svg Done
    • Rewrite Observatories. Yes check.svg Done
    • Write Human history. Yes check.svg Done
    • Rewrite lead, from scratch. Yes check.svg Done
  • Rough copyedit. Go over article with things like nbsp;, mdash;, ndash;, titles, etc. Yes check.svg Done
  • Bother WP:HAWAII people for accuracy, missing stuff, etc. Yes check.svg Done
    • Geology check out? Yes check.svg Done
    • Human history check out? Yes check.svg Done
    • Ecology check out? Yes check.svg Done
    • Ascent check out? Yes check.svg Done
    • Summit observatory check out? Yes check.svg Done
    • Recreation check out? Yes check.svg Done
  • Bother someone for a copyedit. Yes check.svg Done
  • Bother someone else for a copyedit. Yes check.svg Done
  • Review references. Yes check.svg Done
  • Informal peer reviews. The more the better. Yes check.svg Done
  • Bother someone for yet another copyedit. Preferably perfectionist. Yes check.svg Done
  • Fine tune and copyedit once more. Yes check.svg Done
  • Read it one last time to see that it hasn't any problems. Yes check.svg Done
  • Take a deep breath and list it at WP:FAC. Yes check.svg Done
  • Hope. Yes check.svg Done
  •  ??? Doing...
  • Profit! ResMar 02:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Spin offs[edit]

One issue is what other articles to spin off. I see Mauna Kea Trail and Onizuka Center for International Astronomy so far. Should we do a separate one for the State Park (I think officially now a "Recreation Area" though do not understand the distinction). We seem to have a picture of it, but not much separate to say about it. Then there is Mauna Kea Ice Age Reserve which is both redlinked and embolded in the body. It might make sense to unbold and spin that off too. (or not? this seems the only link) Its official name seems Mauna Kea Ice Age Natural Area Reserve, although most of the other reserves do not have their own article, since by definition recreation is discouraged in them. This one, however, is somewhat notable I think. W Nowicki (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

My own follow-up: the Mauna Kea Adz Quarry lies within the Ice Age Reserve, so I would suggest making the reserve a redirect to that or vice versa. It is a NHL, but might not have the nomination form online since they do not want people to trample on it so refuse to locate it. I can do it if there are no objections. W Nowicki (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the adz, beloved of Scrabble players throughout the English-speaking world! Good to know where they come from ^_-
Awien (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there are several other loopholes in coverage. Remember Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources? I'm still suprised that wasn't written yet. Actually, it's adze. Adz is not a word :) I've finally finished the lead. The article is long, but the lead is enourmous to go with it! So much to cover! Four fat paragraphs of summarization. ResMar 19:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll mostly be doing proofreading at least for a while, in fact I'm going to tackle the intro right now. As for adz(e) - in real life, I agree, adze, but respectable dictionaries allow adz as a variant, a great boon for Scrabble. Ciao, Awien (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I'll wait till you've added the refs, and check those as I go. Aloha! Awien (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm tired of Mauna Kea for today, actually. Summit observatory still needs to be written though, and I'm having trouble with reliable links atm. ResMar 22:58, 18 August 20
You want to write it? You can if you want. I can't say why but the observatory section is very draggy for me...ResMar 23:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
No promises, but at least if a little research turns up the mother lode of info, I'll share. Btw, beware of confusing summit (observatories) and mid-level support facilities (Hale Pohaku/Onizuka Center). Awien (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed... :) ResMar 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Another related point is that most "astronomers" now do the actual observations over the Internet from their offices on campus. Hale Pohaku is mostly for technicians who need to maintain all the delicate equipment, e.g. liquid nitrogen, in the hostile environment. There are also facilities in Hilo and Waimea for more staff that do not need to be near the top. W Nowicki (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


Did some of my usual changes, e.g. ancient Hawaiians is the historical period, vs. native Hawaiians which is the current ethnic group. Also "culture" is more current, so changed the link to Hawaiian mythology which is the collection of stories. Hawaiian religion though might also be relevant to link.

More questions:

..decentrilization of its rift zones...

Is this a geological term or mis-spelling? Generally could use frequent use of a spell checker. I fixed the oddly consistent "Management".

Mauna Kea is not as well-defined in structure as other Hawaiian volcanoes. Volcanic lineaments and ridges on the volcano are very poorly defined.

As a non-geologist (avoid jargon too!), I always thought that Mauna Kea looks much more like the sterotypical volcano. It looks nice and conical, compared to Mauna Loa which is a long ridge or Kilauea which looks like a flat spot on the side of Mauna Loa. I think you mean its summit is not as defined? That is, Mauna Loa has a less defined general structure but a clear summit crater, while Mauna Kea has a bunch of cinder cones and flat areas near the summit?

Um...not so much? I can't really see the difference between "defined" and "well defined"...ResMar 03:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
... as Mauna Kea is an island,

Do you just mean is on an island? Or maybe it would be good to say it is a substantial portion (how much) of the mass of the island?

Added "part of." ResMar 03:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Mauna Kea was encompassed in the ahupuaʻa of Kaʻole...

Maybe you mean the summit, since dozens of ahupuaʻa are all along the slopes. Note ahupuaʻa are on the USGS maps easily accessable. A map of them without other noise would be great, of course.

Show me a map. The ahupuaʻa are the largest division, perhaps those are smaller ones? ResMar 03:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You can click on any of the coord tempalte instances (if they have the right region tag) and select "Topo" to the get the USGS maps. You might need to zoom out a bit to see them. To review: islands were divided into Moku, which correspond generally to the current districts of Hāmākua and Hilo (no article yet seperate from the city, alas!). Moku were divided into ahupuaʻa, and although the boundaries were usually clearly demarked with walls at lower elevations, they usually just petered out up the mountainside. this map from the county also shows the Moku. See below for discussion of summit vs. entire mountain. W Nowicki (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Approximatly 27% of the science reserve alone has been surveyed by 2000, including 76 shrines, 4 adze manufacturing workshops, 3 other markers, 1 positively indentified burial site, and 4 possible burial sites. By 2009 this number had climbed to 223, and archeological research on the volcano's upper flanks is still ongoing.

Which number? Obviously 223% has not now been surveyed! I would believe 223 possible burial sites, but we should avoid speculation.

Fixed. ResMar 03:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The Pohakuloa Training Area is another archeological site of interest, with 343 signifigant sites being known.

Well, mostly because the feds need to do some surveys now before blowing something up, and Pohakuloa is so vast. Most of it though is on Mauna Loa, so probably not relevant here. I will add camp Tarawa though I think under human history.

Ref(s) please? ResMar
you can click through to Pohakuloa to get some sources there. My point is that we should mention it once because Mauna Kea provides the remoteness that the Army needs, but it is not really "on" the mountain but in the saddle and up the slopes of Mauna Loa to the south. W Nowicki (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
rental cars are not even supposed to be allowed on the Saddle Road

dated from before it was re-aligned. Now the access road and summit are more likely prohibited.

Removed. ResMar 03:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
...many tourists enjoy the novelty of skiing while on vacation to Hawaiʻi.

Is really a reliable source? Exactly how many really do ski it? With such a horrible drive, my guess is mostly wishful thinking. Now maybe we can get a newspaper article source for the interesting custom of driving to the summit from Hilo with pickup trucks to fill with snow and then take down to the shore and make snowmen.

Now that I look at it carefully, it is not. Damn. ResMar 03:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Whoo, read this and paniced that the other mountaineering reference is bad too, but the author has a PhD in geophysics. Saved! ResMar 03:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, as one who also has a Ph.D. from a well-known Palo Alto University I can say: that and $3.50 gets me a good cup of coffee. :-) W Nowicki (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just found this which confirms that very few actually do it. W Nowicki (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere when talking about "ultras" would be nice to mention it is the highest point in the Pacific, or distance to the next highest peak (Mount Whitney? Denali?) W Nowicki (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: Topographic isolation shows it ranked 8th in the world and 2nd in the US. But does not give a source! W Nowicki (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple of doubtful statements in the intro: Tourists climb . . . to stargaze . . . to visit the summit telescopes
To my knowledge very very few tourists visit the summit, they stop at HP; HP is where stargazing happens too; at the summit, only Keck allows visitors, and that rarely. I think you're confusing HP with the summit. Awien (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and they rarely "climb" but drive I think. Like the statement that Mauna Kea Trail is the "easiest route" is amusing. Easier is helicopter, then driving. A couple years ago a rare hiker died, which I might dig out (although the Advertiser archives seem all confused).

Near the summit is a rift zone structure known as Hilo Ridge.

The source shows it is under the ocean, hardly near the summit. W Nowicki (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged the Recreation section as potentially dangerously misleading (access and use of summit in particular). It basically needs to be rewritten for balance and accuracy, something I don't have time to do properly right now. Amicalement, Awien (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, did that yesterday (see below). One down . . . Awien (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


Aloha, Resident Mario. Your enthusiasm in wanting to improve the Hawai'i articles is impressive, please don't lose it. But in general, you should please be more careful concerning the accuracy of the information you post, and the impression you are giving readers who come to the topic with no previous knowledge.

The latter is why I am about to remove all the statements that suggest that the summit is an accessible recreation area, and not particularly dangerous. It is not accessible, it is dangerous, and leading people to think otherwise has tha potential to cause actual, real-world harm, both to people and to the work of the observatory. Any information about the (almost non-existent) recreational use of the summit needs to be much more accurate than it is now.

So let's stay with this, and really bring the article up to scratch. Best, Awien (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Did re-write of recreation section. Better balanced now, I think. Hope people agree. Awien (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, very good thank you. I will work a bit on the ancillary articles, and hope to dig out a source for the deaths, which should be notable enough and clearly indicate the danger. Some of the docs estimate number of visitors, so we might even give those to illustrate how few make it. W Nowicki (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you guys are working hard on the article, and I seriously appreciate it. I'm trying to recruit people for reviews and for copyedits right now, so as to avoid lengthy and painful FACs. :) ResMar 22:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad, very bad. Awien, I appreciate the rewrite, but sources please. I go with what my sources say, if you have something to go to that point I will be happy to edit it, but writing the section from memory and deleting all referencing is a big no-no. Reverted. Hopefully it won't turn into a tag and seige thing...ResMar 03:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I think I"m going to try and pull it out of the 2009 summary. ResMar 13:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Bingo. 6.1.3 Recreation and Tourism. ResMar 14:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Recreational significance[edit]

Flagged it: after revert is unbalanced, lacks necessary info, contains too much misinformation. Awien (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, tags, excuses for not fixing it. I'm working on it, isn't that enough? Tisk. ResMar 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Nt: I've revised it with information from here. ResMar 20:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Need to reach a compromise. The sources need to be taken into account. For example, peakbagger seems like a useful source for mountaineering info, but very few tourists to Hawaii (and very few Wikipedia readers) are mountaineers. Thousands of tourists visit the island each day (probably tens of thousands to Oahu, but that is another issue), and maybe for the dozen or so mountaineers of them Mauna Kea hikiing is "popular". It probably is true and supported by sources that Manua Loa is even harder to climb (see info in that article). Also the CMP is written mostly from a local perspective. Locals might go skiing on the summit but that is because they are around and wait until the two or three days a year when the conditions are right: just after a snow when the roads are clear. Even the ski club site does not recommend skiing. By far the most popular influence of Mauna Kea on recreation is at the lower elevations. For example, its historic namesake Mauna Kea Beach Hotel and other huge resorts in its rain shadow, and parks with all the waterfalls like Wailuku River State Park, Akaka Falls State Park etc. on the eastern slopes. And the various reserves like Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. W Nowicki (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE THINK, Resident Mario. What you say here has real-world repercussions. A thousand people a day are reading this article, and you are giving them the entirely false impression that the summit is some sort of adventure playground they can safely drive to. That isn’t true, it’s a dangerous drive, at a dangerous altitude, where people have died going off the road, and others have had to be rushed to hospital with life-threatening ALTITUDE sickness, not motion sickness as you have written. In one instance people who drove up unprepared got trapped by a snowstorm and had to break in to a telescope or risk death from exposure. Every vehicle that goes up is kicking up dust that can harm the telescopes that are there to do SCIENCE, and adding to the hazards of the road for the astronomers and support staff who are there to do their work.
In the real world, as opposed to getting a WP article to GA status or whatever, your bad info can do actual harm, hence the tag when I didn't have time for anything else. My insufficiently-referenced info was correct and didn’t risk sending people into danger, and a better move on your part would have been to tag it as lacking citations, or . . . fix it.
That being said, how are we going to fix it now? Awien (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I have taken the first step by restoring the overview from my previous edit. It is an inelegant kludge, but brings better balance to the coverage. I do not have time to add refs now, so feel free to tag any statements you know are wrong or dubious, but please do not delete text wholesale. We or someone can now work at integrating and cleaning up the section as a whole. In the meantime, since you don't seem to have any real idea of what conditions are like at 14,000 feet, I urge you to read this:
I also want to assure you that I bear you no personal ill-will over this (although your sarcasm above is uncalled-for). I'm sure you mean well, as do WNowicki and I, and hope we can fix this amicably. Best, Awien (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've implemented a good part of what was indicated in your para into the text. The rest will come as soon as I find the proper references. ResMar 15:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to work on it given time, but do not want to get in edit conflicts. We might have an issue of Undue weight: sources that focus on the summit are now primarily used, (Peakbagger and the CMP) while the article is supposed to be about the mountain as a whole. Note that on Mauna Loa I attempted to spin off an article about the summit, since it is more clearly defined after all (and has an NRHP listing), but was over-ruled and reverted. There already is a section on "Ascent" so need to avoid duplication. Its fine to have a paragraph on the summit qualified by "Experienced mountaineers..." but first talk about the more common activities. W Nowicki (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am completely happy to to step aside and let you fix it, W Nowicki. The current tinkering is, as you say, not correcting the problem of lack of balance. Cheers, Awien (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand the bias. But hikers go out and write down what they do, but tourists that go on a sunday trip generally don't. Peakbagger has been removed from the article altogethor. ResMar 21:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Since you acknowledge the bias, Resident Mario, are you too going to leave it alone to let W Nowicki take care of it? Awien (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, if he gets to it before I do, he can be my guest. I've got a slate of 5 different things to do right now so I'm a bit booked. ResMar 16:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no ownership, but I would like to take a pass at it this afternoon. Right now some of the claims are still there (like the very first sentence of the section in question) so I would put the source back qualified as above. W Nowicki (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There is still serious confusion between activities at the Visitor Information Station (9000 ft level), and those at the summit. "Stargazing" happens at the VIS, NOT the summit. Awien (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I got called away. To amplify:
  • Summit – public access to science reserve currently unrestricted by day, forbidden at night (re light pollution interfering w. observation i.e. what the observatory is there for), enforced by rangers
tours – licenced, take visitors to view sunset, then have to leave. See CMP
  • Mid-level Visitor Information Station – where the “stargazing” happens. Open all day w. displays, films etc. Facilitates amateur astronomy after dark. The seeing is still amazing up there.
  • Other
Reserve areas are to protect birds not animals – the introduced animals are killing the indigenous birds via habitat destruction . Goal of hunting in reserves is to eliminate sheep, cattle etc. Goal outside don’t know personally, implication is sustainability.
  • Oddity (for somebody’s neat DYK?)
On Big Island, pigs kill birds – research it!
Awien (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not intend to add misleading information. Revert if you think it was better before. I have pretty much run out of steam on this. My reasoning was that this article should not be a dumping ground for every bit of information that is known, and in particular, should mostly be a summary of the linked articles. For example, if someone cares about the details of the Onizuka Center or Observatory they could click through to that article and get the details. But it looks like many of those details are filtering back in. For example, the detail that John Palmer Parker arrived in 1809, even though he was not associated with Mauna Kea until later. If you care about details of his life go to his article. Or that " many stocks had escaped confinement" before roaming freely (sounds redundant to me, how else could one roam freely?). The lead would also need to be more summary in nature for me to vote for GA status. W Nowicki (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, WNowicki, you didn't add misleading info, I'm sorry if it seemed I was suggesting that. The confusion was there already, it just hasn't been clarified yet. I'm putting in my two bits' worth from the sidelines to avoid getting into edit conflicts. Your work on the Recreation section is a big improvement, please don't give up. As for the article as a whole, I've been too busy to pay much attention, but agree in principle that quantity doesn't equal quality, and can detract from it. Aloha! Awien (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
No access to summit after dark:
Awien (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The detail of his arrival date is very important to readers understanding the article. His date of arrival gives context to the sentance. As for the lead, "needs to be more summary" tells me absolutely nothing, please elaborate. ResMar 23:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Tall" vs. "High" again[edit]

I think the article wording now is inconsistent with the discussion above. To me, a non-geologist as the intended audience, "tall" would mean from base to peak of the geological feature, making Mauna Kea "taller" than Everest, but "height" being elevation above sea level. For example, when I climb a ladder I get higher, not taller. If Kareem Abdul Jabar goes to Death Valley, a dwarf at sea level would be higher than he is, but certainly not taller. So I still think the wording needs work to clarify this. W Nowicki (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I was trying to avoid word repition actually :) ResMar 00:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what the comment above is supposed to mean. Right now the words are used inconsistently and generally the opposite of their normal English concepts. It seems my concept of "tallness" is roughly the idea of Topographic prominence? W Nowicki (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


Hold off on Recreational signifigance, please. It's becoming more and more of a train wreck with each edit. Bare urls, choppy prose, opinionated statements, synth, it needs a complete rewrite at this point. ResMar 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sandboxing it right now. ResMar 01:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok I have rewritten the section into a more concise, balanced work. What do ya think? ResMar 01:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Re-writen "Recreational significance"[edit]

(Keeping the discussion here)
Resident Mario, I'm sorry I haven't been able to get back to you earlier concerning your re-write.
So at this point, the actual misinformation has been removed, which is good. The overall lack of balance unfortunately remains. This is because the documents from which you are getting most of your information are focused on recreational access to the summit, since that is a difficult and controversial issue. The fact that in terms of numbers of people involved and revenue generated, activities at the coast and at lower elevations are by far the most significant is still not being given its due weight. One thing I tried to do to slightly mitigate the imbalance was to give activities at lower levels a bit more weight by putting them first, but that keeps getting changed, and it’s not a real solution anyway.
The overall tone is a problem too, in that in parts it reads more like promotional material and how-to than a factual account, but that’s obviously a minor issue.
Anyway, given the virtual impossibility of finding proper references for the actual state of affairs, maybe we need to re-think this. I wonder whether our best course at this point might not be to eliminate this section completely? We could add some mention of the issue of shared use of the summit to the Observatory section, maybe give the Onizuka Center a section of its own, and incorporate information about reserves and hunting into Ecology. This would not be a problem at all for the completeness of the article, it seems to me.
What do you and what does anyone think? Aloha, Awien (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that an imbalance is itself warrents the removal of a section of an article. It's a persistant issue, and there is apparently no easy solution, as what you say is the most important activity on the mountain goes undocumented. Perhaps the best course of action is simply to leave a hidden note and move on? ResMar 23:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through and tried to take out some of the 'howto'-sounding material in favour of reporting on the activities. I've left the part about danger of going to the top; unless there's numbers on the proportion of people who get altitude sick which could be mentioned, not sure how else to change that. Iridia (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, read Awien's above posts. He really nailed me, scared me that some poor guy was climbing the mountain cause he misread my article :) ResMar 02:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no no, it definitely has to stay in some form. I've seen even overnight-acclimatised astronomers keel over and need oxygen at Keck - and tourist rentals don't carry oxygen... I just meant is the prose too 'howto' still. Iridia (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Two things to add regarding the desirability of eliminating this section as such and redistributing its content to more appropriate sections:
One, it was a fundamental mistake to try to generalise to the whole mountain what only needs to be considered in relation to the competing interests regarding the summit area and the Science Reserve.
Two, there is no "Recreational significance" section in the article on any other Hawaiian mountain - Mauna Loa, Hualalai, Kohala, Kilauea, Haleakala, West Maui Mountains, Mount Ka’ala, Mount Wai’ale’ale etc. Aloha, Awien (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, Mauna Kea is special. It's the highest, people know about the summit astronomy, and the ecosystems on its flanks are more accessable overall. They actually have Wikipedia articles. Writing Hulalai, I was agape at how little there was on the volcano's parks and such. ResMar 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I still hold the opinion I stated above, and tried to implement with my edits that were undone. The section should stay, but lead off talking about the most common activities. Just swapping the first two paragraphs of the existing section would be an improvement. Then links to the popular places along the shore, and maybe a mention of how Hilo Bay is formed by Mauna Kea on the west and Mauna Loa on the south, giving its "L" shape which causes tsunamis to be very deadly. And still no mention of the namesake historic hotel, or the many modern ones in the rain shadow that are much more popular than the top. W Nowicki (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear! If it's to stay, organise it logically, on the principle of greatest to least, as I also tried to do but got essentially but dishonestly reverted. And of course include other activities that actually affect large numbers of people. Be my guest - I'm afraid of messing up links if I try to do anything major. Awien (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The first para is introductary historical material to the rest of the section. The want to shift it down is imcomprehendable to me; so what if hiking/hunting are the first paragraph? I was very dissapointed in the organization of the paragraph that was developing independant of me, and it sounded like a bunch of stabs tied loosely togethor. A paragraph on birdwatching was placed with a para on the Rangers program. How are two even vaugly related? I moved birdwatching to the end of the observersation para, and the rangers program to the hiking and hiking dangers para. The whole section was a such disjoined mess. You're too focused on this. Just because hiking has more material then everything else, doesn't mean anything, considering in the interest of balance it's a mere sentance or two, and it's clouding up your judgement of organization. As much as I would love to include all these things mentioned, sources, and above all reliable sources are nonexistant, leading me to question wether or not what is being brought up is even notable. Your idea of bias is based on a paper trail that's nearly nonexistant, and as much as I would love for this to be worked out, when there's no paper trail to work through, and thus there's nothing to add to the article that wouldn't be immediatly removed during the FAC. I welcome you to find the sources and talk to me about it, but if nothing comes of it, no change should be made. ResMar 02:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ResMar, there are a lot of issues here that I’m going to leave aside, because solving one may have the potential to break the deadlock.
“Recreational significance” [of Mauna Kea] has to deal with the whole mountain. The only part of the mountain the road to the summit opened up was the summit, there was access to the Hale Pohaku level (and other mid-level places) before. The history of access to the summit is not the history of access to the mountain, and therefore has no need to come first in coverage of the recreational use of the mountain.
Compromise on that, allow organisation from most significant to least in this section on significance, and we can move forward.
I will just add as an aside that sensational and significant are not the same thing.
Awien (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

On rereading, I would also support removing this section and instead putting the material on each area at the end of each section that describes that area. For example, summit access at the end of the "Ascent" section, parks forest and reserves in the ecology section. Right now it duplicates talking about feral animals damging the ecosystem, for example. Or re-order if that is consensus.

As for sources, they do too exist. Perhaps spending time doing the research yourself and even beefing up the related articles might result in a better quality of Wikipedia than arguing with editors who are trying to help you. I added the state park site, for example. Do you honestly believe that the State of Hawaii is not a reliable source for the location of its own parks? For completeness the sites for Natural Area Reserves, Forest Reserves (those are slightly different, but seem to overlap), and county park sites would be other obvious choices. Or your choice of a good guidebook. And rangers and birdwatching certainly seems to go together to me, since they both happen in the forest preserves. W Nowicki (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regardless of how relevant or not relevant climbing the mountain is, that paragraph constitutes important historical background material as to previous occupations on the mountain. If you move it around you are going to severely mess up the flow of the section, for fairly little benefit. Yeah, it focuses much on the summit and upper flanks of Mauna Kea. In this case, there is no escaping it. There are sources to one, and not to the other; moving everything around has so far only messed up flow and made it hard to read; Nowiki's idea of verifiability based on other Wikipedia articles is a confligation of WP:SOURCE (do not use Wikipedia as a source) and would be immediatly removed come the FAC. All in all, the best course of action is to simply agknowledge the biase and move on from there. The section is hardly the most important one in the article anyway. ResMar 17:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. The rangers program is responsible for climber's safety and is not involved with the parks. If there are rangers in the parks, they'd hardly warrent inclusion in the article; the reason the summit rangers get a sentance is because of all the pressure you've been applying on me to make climbing Mauna Kea look as scarey as possible. I have done my research myself and it's come up fairly blank. As soon as you invent a foolproof method to parse away all the stupid Hawaii tourist links, tell me; then we'd have an easier time :/ ResMar 17:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please show me where I said that the State is not a reliable source for its own parks. ResMar 17:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read your own comments a few paragraphs above: "...all reliable sources are nonexistant..." W Nowicki (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My first choice remains to remove this section and redistribute the content accordingly. Do that and the most intractable problems melt like lemon drops . . . . Reordering is only a poor second. Fixing flow, phraseology etc. is no big deal once the fundamentals are in place. Aloha! Awien (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I dropped it down to the midsection of hiking, and split it into two paragraphs. Next! ResMar 02:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... :L ResMar 03:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Some thoughts in response to your message on my talk page. I’ve just done a couple of tweaks myself, but I have some other suggestions:
- the first paragraph is unclear, it makes it sound as though the land of the Hamakua coast was shaped by wind, whereas in fact it is eroded into spectacular gulches by streams that are fed by the high rainfall due to its being on the windward side, with the shoreline eroded into cliffs by the ocean. I was going to fix that, but but ran into the usual problem of some facts being hard to document from online sources.
Changed to erosion. Without a ref there is nothing more I can do. ResMar 03:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Eureka! Finally unearthed real info from among the tourist dreck:
- maybe hunting to clear forest reserves of destructive animals should be mentioned, e.g. year-round recreational hunting to control introduced ungulates in Mauna Kea Forest Reserve (CMP 3.1), and Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge: elimination of feral ungulates by hunting, trapping, and snaring (
Um, it's there already? Or was it struck off...?
- paragraphs 3 and 4 should be reorganised to clarify the difference between mid-level and summit, presumably covering mid-level first as affecting the larger number of people.
I disagree. You're really trying to push it down there; as it stands, the history > dangers > modern route + mid level facilities organization is excellent in terms of flow, and I'm reluctant to push it any farther down. ResMar 03:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- the rangers’ role is as much to protect the Science Reserve and cultural sites as to ensure safety (CMP).
Added intergrity. ResMar 03:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Awien (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


A small thing: in para. 2 of this section, we read "Of the five volcanoes that make up the island, Mauna Kea is the fourth oldest and fourth most active", then para 3 begins "Like the other older Hawaiian volcanoes, Hualālai and Kohala, Mauna Kea has evolved . . . ". So what's the third oldest? Or is MK actually the third oldest? Awien (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed fourth in age; I'm grouping the 3 "old" volcanoes (in chrono: Kohala, Mauna Kea, Hualalai) togethor. It wasn't specifically meant to convey relative age, should it be changed...? ResMar 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see now. Probably it was just me, but I might tweak the wording anyway if inspiration strikes. Awien (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thinking about it specifically, Kilauea is on its own in front, behind it is Mauna Loa + Hualalai, then Hualalai + Mauna Kea (depending on wether you focus on eruptive rate or volcanic form), then finally the real elder statesman Kohala :) ResMar 03:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

State rec area[edit]

Article currently has this (deliberately nowiki-ed): "A small part of the Māmane-Naio forest is encompassed by the [[Mauna Kea State Recreation Area]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Mauna Kea State Recreation Area|url=|work=Hawaii State Parks|publisher=[[Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources|Hawai{{okina}}i Department of Land and Natural Resources]]|accessdate=15 August 2010}}</ref><!-- see height, map from esa-1984 -->"
Not sure what that last note means, but the source itself does not contain the info that the foreset is within in the rec area. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Geological evolution and the hotspot[edit]

At the FAC discussion, a reviewer requested the addition of some material on the volcanoes evolutionary context. This resulted in the following addition (refs excluded):

The first in-depth geological study of the Hawaiian chain was conducted in 1880–81 by the American geologist James Dwight Dana. He hypothesized that the chain consisted of two volcanic strands, with Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea at the front of their respective trends. The Kea trend included Kea, Kīlauea, Kohala, Haleakalā, and West Maui, while the Loa trend includes Loiʻhi, Mauna Loa, Hualālai, Kahoʻolawe, Lānaʻi, and West Molokaʻi.[10] Dana's work was followed up by C. E. Dutton's 1884 expedition, which clarified that the island of Hawaiʻi consisted of five volcanoes (Dana had regarded Kīlauea as a flank vent of Mauna Loa, and Kohala as part of Mauna Kea). In 1912 geologist Thomas Jaggar founded the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, which remains the primary volcanic observatory in Hawaii to this day.

This appears to largely be a cut-and-paste from Hawaii hotspot, but I've taken a look at a couple of sources, and I'm not entirely happy with the text. I will try and work something up shortly. Issues include that the para needs to state current theory, not merely historical origin of the theory; and needs to deal effectively with the controversy reflected in the work at (a ref that is cited, but not really accurately summarised), without giving undue weight. As I say, i'm on to it. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Replacement text:

In common with all Hawaiian volcanoes, Mauna Kea has been created by the Hawaiian hotspot, as the Pacific tectonic plate has moved over a hotspot in the Earth's underlying mantle.[1] The Hawaiʻi island volcanoes are merely the most recent evidence of this process that, over 70 million years, has created the 6,000 km (3,700 mi)-long Hawaiian Ridge-Emperor Seamount chain.[2] The prevailing, though not completely settled, view is that the hotspot has been largely stationary within the planet's mantle for much, if not all of the Cenozoic Era.[2][3] However, while Hawaiian volcanism is well-understood and extensively studied, there remains no definite explanation of the mechanism that causes the hotspot effect.[4]

Hope everyone's happy with that. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Much improved. I do miss the bit about how it fits into the twin tracks, but that's not vital. --Avenue (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was a somewhat reluctant deletion, but the two tracks weren't mentioned in at least three other sources that I read, and I already wasn't sure how much we should trust (where it was originally cited). I also felt that, without an illustration, it would not be easy for a reader to visualise. All in all, I opted for removal. If someone found a better (and recent) journal article making the case for two tracks, then it could be re-inserted. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Summit observatories[edit]

During the current FAC, Iridia has commented "I'm going to modify some of the text of the last three paragraphs in Summit observatories - IMO it's oddly focussed on UH's viewpoint. Will work in my sandbox and move it across in paragraphs." I re-read it, and am wondering what the issue is. As I understand it, all astronomical observatory facilities lie within the MK Science Reserve which is managed by U Hawaii. Within that context, the regular references to UH appear appropriate. Given that there is a separate article covering the facilities in detail (Mauna Kea Observatory), I am wondering what more needs to be added to the article that is about the mountain, whilst avoiding adding what would be a list of all the telescopes now there. Iridia, can you clarify? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Certain degrees of emphasis, and questions that don't get answers in the current version. Why did it take until 1964 for Mauna Kea to have telescopes, when Haleakalā had an active program? Why was Kuiper doing site exploration, and why did UH then get the telescope funding, when their entire astronomy program at the time was in solar research? It's quite fascinating history. Plus, for example, there's no mention of the recent Keck outrigger telescope permit revocation, and as currently worded, the HST comparison is misleading. Things like that which I was hoping to fix.
I don't think a list of telescopes is necessary either. Iridia (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I was partly looking to see if there was anything i could help with (so it doesn't stall the FAC), but none of that rings bells for me and I know this is actually your field (and certainly not mine!). I'll leave it to you but ping me if you think there's anything i can do. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, it's there now - could you please see how it reads? I feel it skips a bit from 1973 to the present, but it would be discussing 'and then these three telescopes got funding, and then technology improved in the late 1980s and we built ten-metre telescopes': there's not much specifically about the mountain to go into. Iridia (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Hello, all, and thanks for your hard work in making this into a featured article. However, I have a problem with the neutrality of the article, which makes unsupported claims about the sacredness of the mountain and the supposed controversy over same. I particularly object to the unwarranted emphasis on those points in the synopsis on the Wikipedia front page. This article supplies no verification to show that Mauna Kea is "the most sacred" of Hawaii's peaks (personally I thought that honor was reserved for Halemaumau crater on Kilauea, where Pele lives). Link #5, which supposedly verifies that the presence of the observatories on a "sacred peak" is controversial, just leads to a page of non-English characters. I could find no examples of the supposed controversy in the article. The front-page synopsis also talks about "view planes used to measure time", but I did not find that in the article. How did these unsupported claims get into a front page feature? Or is there support here in the article and I just missed it? Thanks --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining neutrality on the controversy is a tricky balancing act. The telescopes are undoubtedly controversial to a part of the Hawaiian population, due to the sacredness of the mountain; the trick is in documenting that accurately with good reliable sources of featured-article quality. And keeping that balance in the article is a constant task as various editors add material. For example, it is verifiable that the Keck outriggers were denied construction permission (mentioned in the Summit observatories section), but it is more difficult to document modern sacredness/practises etc, and I think that text about the view planes might have been unsupported by a sufficiently reliable source, then taken out of the main text, but not the article lead. (Reliable sourcing is not helped by the usual issues of trying to provide written documentation for possibly common knowledge in an oral-history culture. I'd be very happy if someone did a Masters thesis on this controversy...). Thank you also for spotting that Link #5 has succumbed to linkrot; I will go and fix it. I'll see if a citation can be found for the "most sacred" claim.
As for the main page synopsis, the main contributors to the article are normally notified by a robot a few days ahead, to perform exactly these checks for balance and accuracy on the synopsis, but this did not happen, to my and others' distinct lack of delight. Iridia (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had that problem too. Reload the PDF; for some reason it occassionally fails to load. As for the front page synopsis, I had no hand in that. ResMar 22:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, whoah, what happened to that document? It's one of the article's main pillars o_o ResMar 22:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a possible replacement file, but for some reason it's not loading for me. Worst come to worst we can send it to the Google Books result and query the UH about it. ResMar 22:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've loaded an alt link to deal with the linkrot for the Comprehensive Management Plan. I'm not having any trouble with getting the pdfs to load from this new address. Thanks Iridia for looking into the "most sacred" claim. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I cannot find support for "most sacred". I have however found this rather impressive reference: Mauna Kea, the famous summit of the land (Mauna Kea, ka piko kaulana o ka ʻāina). Here it says that Mauna Kea is the first-born of Wakea/Papa, "sacred first-born of Kea" (p. 9, bottom), and sibling to the ancestor of all Hawaiian people, which is more accurate (and perhaps more interesting). Iridia (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Right before the article went live on the front page, I tried to balance some of the religious POV that had crept into the article in the last few months. Unfortuately, no one (including me) carefully checked the front page blurb for NPOV and RS, so it was shown to the world with some unsupported, slanted language. :-( —hike395 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Disappointing that the bot no longer runs, or is is malfunctioning, or whatever the hell it is that it is doing that it shouldn't be doing. In retrospect we should have dialed 1-800-ADMIN, but it's off the main page, now. This is why we should always have a bot. ResMar 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

So who DOES write the front-page summary? All the work you guys put into bringing this article to FA status - and yet you weren't consulted about the mainpage paragraph that everybody saw? That's a bummer. (You can tell I have never worked on a Featured Article - but having worked on Good Articles and seen how the reviewers parse every detail, I was surprised that so much seemed to be a little off in the mainpage blurb.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The TFA director, Raul654, or his delegate, Dabomb87. I have left Raul a note. Iridia (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


There's something odd about the climate data. i visited the source website and could not locate monthly precipitation data that matched the figures in the columns. I note an IP recently adjusted one of the figures. I'm reluctant to revert it as neither the number originally there, nor the one inserted by the IP, match the figure i found on the cited source webpage (which is itself, however, pretty complicated). Anyone got any thoughts? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's odd; where did those numbers come from, then? ResMar 05:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)