Talk:George Mallory

Charles Darwin

Regarding my original reference to Charles Darwin in the article, it was actually a grandson with the same name as the famous naturalist with whom Mallory became friends with. RedWolf 03:30, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Date of Death

Jerzy, why did you revert the date of death? All we know for certain is the last date he was seen alive, the 8th. He could have died on that day, or the 9th, or the 10th, or ...... What is your evidence for saying it was the 9th (or the 8th)? JackofOz 06:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

_ _ Well, Jack, i have to confess that i consider this subject such a small quibble that i didn't check this page to see if it had been discussed. Of course, since it hadn't, that carelessness didn't matter, so i don't feel bad about it.

_ _ I am not an expert on mountaineering, but i know that when you get near the top of Everest, you are dying. Being above the base camp involves an elaborate acclimation dance of "climb high, sleep low", and the readiness to cancel your immediate plans without notice and go lower as an emergency measure based on your condition.

_ _ IMO the article makes reasonable the scenario where he took until past midnight to summit and start down, and during his descent finished dying, which is why i indicated 9th. It does not rule out completely the possibility that he got hypothermic and disoriented and thot he was at the summit, and left the photo before starting down and finishing dying before midnight, which is why i hedged with "(or 8th)". You seem to be entertaining a scenario where he survived the night of the 8th and 9th, and either decided to push his luck for another night, or started down, didn't make it to where he could sleep safely at lower altitude, but nevertheless managed to survive another half night on the 9th and be alive for part of the 10th. I consider this implausible for two reasons: the high reaches are not that forgiving, and (though we know a lot more now than then about HAPE and HACE) IMO Mallory knew that by being there at all, he was dying and had to get down soon in order to stop dying: if he had the ability to survive until the 10th, he'd have been trying to get down early enough to get further down than he did.

_ _ Since you have offered no arguement for this scenario that sounds absurd to someone who knows something about high altitude, i take you for someone who knows a little about the subject and sees no reason to trust anyone who knows more; i attributed the same status to the editor who made it read simply "last seen...". If you do know more about mountaineering than i, it's time to bring forward your specific knowledge that supports the plausibility of what i find implausible. (Your intimation that dates beyond the 10th are not ruled out suggests to me that you know nothing about mountaineering, and assume that no one in the world knows more.) I don't know or care if you rv'd my edit, but if you did, i urge someone with more combative spirit than i to rv you to my last edit, since the best evidence brought forward to date is mine.

_ _ The edit i made is the best that i was in a position to make. I didn't make it bcz i was sure it was the optimum version of the parenthesis in the lead sentence, but bcz what was there was lousy: this is a lead sentence, not the exhaustive discussion of a point that makes no real difference and will not have a definitive answer in the foreseeable future. That sentence should have a date range, or an approximate one that does not distract the reader with the question of why and how this set of vital statistics is different from every other. "(Born [whatever], last seen [the 8th])" is not acceptable, and if i notice it again, i will change it in some way. IMO, "([Whatever]-[the 9th] (or 8th))" is just a slight bend from the standard format, similar to what we do for people who've muddied their documentary record to obscure their year of birth, and is not a head-scratcher for the reader. I would respect the arguement that even this is too much of a stretch; in its stead, i think "([Whatever]-[the 9th])" is a little too definite for the facts, but i can't see why anyone should object to "([YMD of birth]-[year and month of death but no day mentioned at all])."

_ _ I would hope that it could go without saying that the body of the article has plenty of "room" for getting in a discussion of reasons for the 8th vs the 9th, the fact that (however unlikely) it is not impossible that he was comatose but still managing one heartbeat per minute on the 10th, and perhaps someone's claim that a yeti has used sign language to hint at what Mallory's dying words were after being nursed along until the 21st. But for me the basic matter at issue here is not whether he could have gotten beyond the 9th, but cluttering the lead unreasonably. I'm sorry you're so focussed on getting the trivial factual issue into the lead.
--Jerzy•t 14:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• BTW, i ask that readers take note that while my edit eliminated a change (that was a month, and 8 edits, old), it had neither of the two attributes that contribute to the emotional impact of an editor charging someone else with reverting their edit: unlike a revert, my edit
  1. affected contributions of more than one editor, and
  2. contributed new text (namely the qualifying "or 8th") that has not appeared there before (well, not in the last 18 months -- nor plausibly before then).

--Jerzy•t 19:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That was a very long answer to a very short question. Thanks for the time you took to write it. All I can say, though, is that I'm not convinced.

It's not a question of debating whether or not he could possibly have survived beyond the 9th. That was not my starting point at all. I'm simply going on the Wiki convention in biographies of saying what is known to be true. A case in point is Beethoven. All we know for sure is that he was baptised on 17 December 1770. It is considered highly probable that he was born on either of the 2 previous days, 16th or 15th. But we don't know that for a fact because there is no known birth certificate or other record that would tell us. So, what we put in his article is the best factual information we have - he was baptised on 17 December. Full stop. Asserting as if it were factual that Mallory died on the 8th (with only a bracketed acknowledgement that it could also have been the 9th) goes against this principle of veracity. It strongly suggests to readers he died on the 8th, and that is probably the date many readers would simply accept as the factual, known date of death. But it is not true to say that the 8th (or even the 9th) is Mallory's factual, known date of death. What was there previously, that "he was last seen alive on 8th" is a factually correct statement. What is there now is not.

Perhaps we could say something like "last seen alive on the 8th; it is considered very likely that he died either on that day or the next day". Cheers JackofOz 03:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, I'm happy with that outcome. I meant to say earlier that these issues are not "small quibbles", but important principles that go to the heart of Wikipedia's credibility. Cheers JackofOz 05:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

More on date

Would it make any sense to create a two-day window, 8-9 June, for Mallory's and Irvine's date of death, due to the physiological impossibility of either of the two men still being alive on 11:59 p.m. of the 9th. I believe the participants in the above 2005 discussion have made some very good points. Bigturtle 16:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy with "8–9 June 1924". As you, and the 2005 discussion, say, it seems inconceivable that either was alive on the 10th. — ras52 01:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mallory and Irvine

Perhaps there should be a separate article on the Mallory and Irvine Mt Everest Expedition. Most of the information about the expedition is on the Mallory page. Some information is on the Irvine page, but a lot of this is a double-up of what is on Mallory's. A single article, about the Everest expedition in particular, would eliminate any double-up, and also remove the problem of comparitively much less being written about the expedition on Irvine's page as opposed to Mallory's. Mallory was the leader, but Irvine did technically spend longer on the mountain, as he died second; and in any case, it is the expedition as a whole which is important, it shouldn't be divided up. The individual pages on Mallory and on Irvine could still of course contain much information on them - their personal biography etc. - Matthew238 02:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The only problem I can forsee is treatment of the 1921 and '22 expeditions. I've been filling info on those in on Mallory's page (though he wasn't the leader, he is the best known of the participants, now and possibly then, too). Irvine wasn't on either of the prior expeditions, but a few men worthy of mention were (Finch and Somervell in particular). -- GWO

I've just concurred with this idea on Talk:Andrew Irvine (mountaineer) and do so again here. I suggest an article on all three expeditions, concentrating on the 1924 one; depending on desired emphasis it could be called 1924 British Everest expedition (with a summary of the previous expeditions at the start as background), or British Everest expeditions, 1921-1924. I may even get round to starting the article myself (but don't hold your breath). --Blisco 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's disgustingly typical that some here, in trying to following Wikipedia "scholarly standards", suggest that there were other "men of worthy mention" on the expedition and mention only Finch, Somervell, and the other European climbers. "You would never have it done without the Sherpas." - Ang Tsering --Bentonia School 14:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Great respect is due to the Sherpas, who provided vital back-up and expert local knowledge (although they did not do it for interest's sake). It was Western climbers in those days whose purpose was to reach the summit. Hopefully we can see their interaction as a positive one, not a negative one - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.119.97 (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Poetry

Is this the same G. Mallory who gave the name to Georgian Poetry? Shandris^{the azylean} 15:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

According to http://www.controverscial.com/Robert%20Graves.htm it would appear so. Mallory the climber was heavily involved with the circle of poets whilst up at Cambridge. -- GWO

It was the same Mallory, but he didn't give his name to Georgian Poetry - that was named after King George V.

Free attempt on second step

Conrad Anker and David Hahn, both members of the '99 expedition made a free attempt on the second step. (see "Ghosts of Everest" for details) I think this should be mentioned in the whole second step discussion. Also that, Jochen Hemmleb - another member of '99 - watched them both ascend the mountain from the very same spot where Noel watched Mallory and Irvine and he reported that there is NO WAY in the world to confuse the steps from down there and that the description amazingly fitted what he saw when Anker/Hahn made it over the second step.

Wanted to add: the section that describes Anker's attempt appears to be incorrect:

"In June 2007, as part of the Altitude Everest Expedition, Conrad Anker and Leo Houlding successfully free-climbed the Second Step, having first removed the Chinese ladder (which was later replaced)."

But according to Anker, he attempted the free-climb, working *around* the ladder that was in place. He doesn't consider his attempt to be a complete free-climb because during one move his foot stood on a rung of the ladder that was blocking the only available foothold. Source: The Lost Explorer: Finding Mallory on Mt. Everest, by Conrad Anker and David Roberts. Also, some climbers suggest Mallory may have attempted to climb the Seocnd Step on ist right side, as the Chinese partially did. This is a less clean climb, requiring one to belly-squirm over loose gravel, but possibly technically easier than Anker's severe route.Tholzel (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Was there a source cited for the ladder being removed? I can find no evidence of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.238.74 (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anker attempted the free climb at the Second Step twice; first while "working around" the Chinese ladder (and stepping on a rung in the course of a crux move) and then on a subsequent filming expedition in 2007, during which the ladder was temporarily removed for the attempts and then replaced and rebolted. [[1]]. There are various remarks I've seen (not well sourced) recounting other free climbs of the Second Step after the 1960 Chinese ascent, but Miss Hawley doesn't count them. Steveozone (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bisexuality?

I have heard rumors that Mallory was bisexual, does anyone have any further info on this? if so please enlighten me. There are some allusion of Mallory having love affairs with men (during his years in Cambridge) and also rumors of one copulation with another male but sexually, George would have been totally heterosexual.

This is mentioned in Gilman's biography which noted the single trist. This was apparently common at the time.

If I recall correctly, the first biography written about Mallory by Mallory's close friend David Pye mentions his bisexuality. I'll have a look and see if it indeed does mention as such. --Bentonia School 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

-The first biography of George Mallory (1924) was written by Mary Anne O'Malley (aka Cottie Sanders, Ann Bridge), at the request of Ruth Mallory (his wife). It was shot down by the old boys in the Alpine Club , who said 'a woman cannot write this' and 'you will make it a romance novel' (the latter by Tom Longstaff). Mary Anne coerced Davis Pye into writing the bio, and he used most of her manuscript, most but not all. Parts of it were also used by Mallory's son in law David Roberston in his bio (with Mary Anne's help and permission.) The full MS has never been published, although it is available with permission of the Bridge Estate to researchers. kelt1111 (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Daughter (Ruth)

I have since met Gilman and members of Mallory's family, but I mailed my copy of the bio to others. I believe it was daughter Ruth who moved to the USA, married a physicist son of Millikan (Caltech), and died during the war on a weekend climbing outing near Oak Ridge where he was working. Ruth was last alive and living in Santa Rosa, CA. Her sons are in Oregon and Berkeley (where Millikan is a name associated with the Harvard Mountaineering Club)

Think you mean Clare Miliken, George and Ruth's eldest daughter. She died not long ago. Kelt1111 03:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikification and re-arrangement of text

This excellent article will read very differently now--but nothing major (or even minor) was deleted. I added some appropriate categories (and sub-categories) and re-arranged some text. There were what can only be called "assessments and commentary" about Mallory all over this article. I simply re-assembled them into one big category. Added a "See also" category. Interesting that he was "missing" for 75 years, and his partner in the climb is still missing. ProfessorPaul 05:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Further reorganization and tidying up

Following on from ProfessorPaul's good work, I have done further reorganization in separating the narrative and "assessment" parts. I have added a few details (such as additional info on the 1924 expedition which was less well covered that those of 1921 and 1922) and a short para on Jochen Hemmleb's suggestion that it was possible they carried three cylinders of oxygen. I have also tidied up (I hope) some of the prose and headings without adding or removing anything else of substance. In a few cases I have changed phrases which may be a little unnecessarily dogmatic ("the only possibility" etc) and tried to let the evidence speak for itself.

In doing this I found myself with one paragraph left which set out a particular theory (M & I climb first step, realise they can't succeed, turn round then fall in the snow squall). I felt this was too specific an hypothesis when there are several others around which may be equally strongly argued, so I expanded this just a little in the para now headed "theories" to summarize a somewhat broader range of possible scenarios (based on Hemmleb, Holzel, EverestNews et al) without espousing any particular one.

By the way, I agree with the earlier posting that the M&I Research Expedition and the 1924 expedition should perhaps be the best place for much of this material, as it does something of a disservice to Sandy Irvine to put it all under Mallory. If anyone else agrees and if I dont get roasted for this last round of edits, I'm willing to have a shot at regrouping the material in that way and expanding where necessary.

btw the user id "62.136.75.143" for some of these changes is me having forgotten to log in - d'oh. Godfreyrust 01:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Disappeared?

He's listed in the "disappeared person" category, but his body has been found. He can hardly be said to have "disappeared."

Well, for 75 years it was true to say that he had disappeared. The fact that his body finally turned up in 1999 doesn't alter that. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that a person had disappeared and was finally discovered after being missing for X years. JackofOz 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we need a "formerly disappeared" category? --Mr. Vernon 15:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we have different ideas about what the word "disappear" means. Scenario: I walk out my front door, having told my partner that I'm just going to buy the newspaper and will be back in 15 minutes. But after 5 hours I still haven't returned. He phones a few friends, drives down to the shop, calls the police .... After a week I still haven't returned, and there have been no sightings of me. I have disappeared. That's what disappear means. Then one day I turn up, with some sort of weird explanation about where I was. It's still true that I had disappeared for over a week. I didn't cease to have disappeared, and I didn't "formerly disappear". I did disappear, that's one event. Then, I turned up; that's a separate event. Mallory did disappear for 75 years, and the finding of his body doesn't retrospectively change that. JackofOz 02:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That would greatly expand the number of people in that category... you'd have to add Agatha Christie, for instance. A brief glance at the others in the category indicates that it includes those who have vanished but the bodies have not been found. --Mr. Vernon 02:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If the category needs expanding, so be it. Although, I think that most people who disappear do so forever, so the number of names of those who turned up again would not be large. (In fact I was going to mention the Agatha Christie case in my post above, but I got distracted while writing it.) Cheers. JackofOz 06:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How about a "and found" subcategory? :) You're right though, the number of people who turn up later would be rare - I would suspect most would be crime victims or explorers of sorts (like Mallory, Earhart, etc.) In any case, let someone else solve this problem, that's what the editors are for. --Mr. Vernon 08:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I rm'd the cat listing, following the apparent intent of the category, "missing, remains not found." Gwen Gale 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Mallory's Education

I see that: "In 1896, Mallory attended boarding school in Eastbourne." Can someone pse tell me the name of the school because I am interested in the history of schools in the town? Mikeo1938 09:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC) No replies to my query so far ... does anyone have a copy of a biography which gives information on his school in Eastbourne? Could the person who included the original note pse help? Mikeo1938 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In David Pye's biography (Pye and Mallory were close friends), chapter one, "Introductory", page 7: the Eastbourne school was called Glengorse Preparatory School. --Bentonia School 13:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'd already been told about: LOST ON EVEREST, The Search for Mallory & Irvine By PETER FIRSTBROOK CONTEMPORARY BOOKS A division of NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group, Inc. This also gives the name of the school and back in the summer I added this detail to the entry about Mallory. I'm hoping to find out more about the school in due course. Mikeo1938 (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Historian

Interesting that a History teacher, may make the biggest alteration to the subject, almost 90 years after he 'made History', don't you think? 81.97.41.246 (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

References

I changed the link to Mallory as a young man, which was broken and returning a 404, to an article about the expedition.

Rascilon 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Film

Does anyone have any more information on the film that is supposed to be forthcoming about Mallory? Last I heard, it was in the works and Christian Bale was set to star. Any info? If so, addition to the article may be worthy. Also, in the little bit in the article that mentions the film it says "George H. Mallory." --Bentonia School (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is currently no listing for this film in IMDB. Perhaps this whole section should be deleted. John Sauter (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Having heard no objection, I have removed the reference to the non-existent film. John Sauter (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The film has been substantially shot and is described at: http://www.ueverest.com/. It is likley suffering the usual post-production woes of insufficient financing. Tholzel (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Because it's there"

I notice the attribution to a September 13, 1923 essay in the NYT by a reporter called Carson was posted by an IP. Does anyone here have a source for that? Crum375 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found several relevant sources, and updated the lead accordingly. Crum375 (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The probable identity of that reporter was discovered by my co-author, Audrey Salkeld, and was first mentioned in our book "The Mystery of Mallory & Irvine, Holzel & Salkeld, 1985. Tholzel (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [Tholzel]

Climbing to the summit and returning safely down

These comments by Mallory's son and Hillary echoes what President Kennedy considered a first Moon landing:

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."

-JFK before the US Congress, May 25, 1961, launching the Apollo program.

Many Apollo veterans have stated repeatedly that the Moon missions were indeed a two-part mission: from the Earth to the Moon and then from the Moon to the Earth. Any different outcome would have been considered by Houston, the nation and the rest of the world a total failure.

Not an exact analogy. It's as hard to get back from moon to earth as to get out from earth to moon, whereas it's much harder climbing up a mountain than down. Also, mountaineering is do-it-yourself whereas astronauts are simply pilots of a rocket that others have built - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.251.164 (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Aldo L (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a contentious subject, highly influenced by claimants and their relationship to Sir Edmund Hillary. Genrally speaking, "first ascents" have not required the climber to descend safely. But, recently the left-wing literati have decreed that only a safe "green" descent validates a "first ascent." Bullshit. First means first. Tholzel (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Injuries

Can someone document in the article the injuries found to his body that would have prevented him continuing, and make plausible inference about which of the two men was responsible for their fall? Is there any chance that Irvine was uninjured and continued down alone to meet a separate death? - AG, Stockport, UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.80.3 (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See "Ghosts of Everest". Jochen Hemmleb, Jake Norton, Dave Hahn and company do a very good job of describing GLM's injuries. With respect to your second question, yes, there is a very good chance that Irvine was uninjured and met his death through hypothermia. That is, he was first on the rope going down - common as the more experienced climber would be belayig above- and one or the other slipped and GLM was pulled off - and fell not far. It is estimated no more than 100 ft. His injuries were slight compared to those of bodies which had fallen subsequently from higher up. The thing that killed him was apparently the blow to the head - with its 'barn door extrusion' of skull fragments, about the size of a goose egg, on the temple above the left eye. (Apologies for the forensics.) The present opinion of Everesters who know the case and have been up there very high is that the putative body (Irvine) found near the 1933 CVI was subsequent to 1960 launched off the North Face into the Rongbuck glacier. kelt1111 (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

There are many theories of what happened to Mallory & Irvine. Readers should note that many are concieved to fit the end result the claimant has in mind. There are the "We should never know" claimants who do not want the body to be found; there are the "Mallory made it" claimants who want only those facts that point to a summit success. And there are the "Beware, this is hallowed ground" claimants. The latter have been known to stomp into a Mallory lecture, sit in the first row, arms folded in front of them, sporting a beligerant glare, and then wave their hands in the speaker's face to be called upon with questions--at which time they assail the entire venture as a ghoulish monstrosity, etc., etc. Thus, beware of any scenarios that leave out critical clues which would otherwise render them untenable. Thus, the ice ax found in 1933 MUST mark the point of a serious accident. It was not left there on purpose, or dropped and not retrieved. M & I cannot have been sighted on the Third Step because they did not have enough oxygen to both get there. And it is wishful thinking to assume that Mallory, a ridge & rock climber, would give up on the Second Step, and DESCEND hundreds of feet, in order to attempt a completely unknown route over a treacherously bare face.Tholzel (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The goose-egg size puncture wound in Mallory's forehead, as witnessed by Thom Pollard, is likely to have been inflicted from Mallory's own ice ax as he attempted an ice-ax self arrest, and he reached the point of the 8200m Snow Terrace which had no underlying snow pack cover, but was only covered by the small amount of snow of the 2PM squall. The ice ax was found by Wang. (It may still have been lodged in Mallory's head.) Wang took it with him! (source: Don martin, EverestNews.)Tholzel (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rope Jerk injuries make it certain that the two were roped when they fell at the 1933 ice ax location. Thus, Irvine cannot possibly have waited durng a firece snow squall for Mallory to summit (3-5 hours) and return (3 hours). Irvine would also have been subject to that forceful fall injury. Mallory's location and the condition of his body (no very severe injuries) strongly suggest he made it out of the Yellow Band, and only died in his subsequent slide to his resting place. See: http://www.velocitypress.com/CopyIrvine.shtml for a complete explication of this theory. It suggests that Mallory was leading--not Irvine--due to the near white-out conditions of the squall, with Mallory doing the route-finding. Like Xu, Mallory now sought "a more direct route" down, and picked the same obvious descent line that Xu did. Mallory slipped and Irvine tossed his ice ax aside in order to hold the rope with both hands. He could not hold him and, being roped, they both fell. The latest theory is that after the fall of some 60 ft., Irvine continued on laterally for about 54 yards, before slipping again, to fall and get wedged into the rock slot described by Xu. This suggests he was also somewhat injured from the first fall, as the second slip location is not obviously difficult. He did not die in the fall because his face was blackend by frostbite, which does not occurr on a dead person. See: http://www.velocitypress.com/IrvineSearch.htm for a description of this investigation. Tholzel (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

His name

We have to be clear about what his surname was, and at the moment it's a little unclear.

• The article is titled "George Mallory" – given name George, surname Mallory. OK so far.

• Lede: "George Herbert Leigh Mallory". OK, so he had 2 middle names, not all that unusual.

• Early life: "... the son of Herbert Leigh Mallory (1856–1943), a clergyman who legally changed his surname to Leigh-Mallory in 1914".

• Now questions start to arise. Did all the members of his family change their surname to Leigh-Mallory? George was 28 in 1914; it doesn't necessarily follow that an adult child would change his name just because his father did. So he's still George Mallory.

• But he had a younger brother Trafford Leigh-Mallory, who apparently did change his name. Trafford was 21 or 22 in 1914, and also legally an adult, so he didn't have to follow his father's example either, but apparently did so. In Trafford's article, we say he was the son of "Herbert Leigh Mallory" (Note: no hyphen), and the brother of "George Leigh Mallory". This last reference could be to a person with an unhyphenated double-barrelled surname "Leigh Mallory", or it could just be giving George's full name. Only one issue there - it's missing his second name Herbert. Why would one refer to a person named ABCD as ACD? Curious.

• Back to George's article: After the first para, it's Mallory, Mallory, George Mallory all the way, no mention of any Leigh. But his funeral service was for a person named "George Leigh Mallory", so we’re back to square 1.

• If his surname never varied from plain "Mallory", what is the purpose of referring to him as "George Leigh Mallory" when his full name was "George Herbert Leigh Mallory"? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• The "purpose" could simply be a desire for greater or lesser formality. A former president of the United States was variously referred to as "George Bush", "George H. W. Bush" and "George Herbert Walker Bush". Until his son became well-known he was also referred to as "George W. Bush". Nowadays, to distinguish him from his son, some call the son "W". Similarly, George Mallory might have been known as "George" to his wife, "Mallory" to his teachers, "George Leigh Mallory" to newspaper editors, but "George Herbert Leigh Mallory" on legal documents. John Sauter (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• That's fair enough. I have to acknowledge that the form "George Leigh Mallory" was not unknown to me. I'd often seen him referred to that way, but I was never quite sure whether the "Leigh" was part of his surname or just his middle name. Until I came to this article and discovered that this wasn't his full name, and neither was the "Leigh" part of his surname. So I remain curious about why newspaper editors, or anyone, would have included the "Leigh" but not the "Herbert". If they were unaware he had 2 middle names, wouldn't they be more likely to have referred to "George Herbert Mallory" than "George Leigh Mallory"? Did Mallory ever refer to himself as "George Leigh Mallory"? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

First "real" ascent, or just to the summit?

This section has been a pebble in my shoe for some time. Perhaps it's just me, and I've been biting my tongue for a while, but it seems to me that in an article that by its nature dances on the fringe of undue speculation, it is unencyclopedic (and condescending) to speculate as to what all of the speculation might mean if the speculation were to be (just speculating) found true. Are there any sources for this or should it just be pruned? (and a source for John Mallory's opinion, it seems to me, would not fix the problem, as he has no particular say in what public opinion might be in the indefinite future). Steveozone (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. But the facts are that Mallory is really only known for his brave possible ascent of Everest. Otherwise there would not be much to write about him. Thus, much of what fascinates people about him is exactly the mystery of what happened to him and Irvine. Once that is finally setttled (as I suspect it will be this year or next) the mystery will be solved, and--barring a successful summit--cause interest in the two to settle down to a footnote in history.Tholzel (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Übermensch++ good yah?

Wernher von Braun style bio-metrical data list (here) would be helpful, to be refined and 'known' to be fairly accurate, then put into the main article.

Being 37, was he at full male peak stamina (isn't this about the age most alphas peak)? 81.97.234.190 (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Camera Obscure

I really think there should be a separated sub-heading to this article, dedicated to the cameras alone, as these could prove that he got there first (and could provide, in a historical sense, the strangest and most valued footage / photograph(s) ever taken).

I read somewhere, a long time ago, maybe in a Britannica publication, that Mallory was handed a camera to carry on the summit climb, but would of handed it to Irvine had they reached the top. Is this true? There are also these questions I would like to have explained fully:

If pictures were taken under perfect summit conditions, would they be likely to have featured reference points within them?

What sort of condition would the film stock be in now, if discovered near to Mallory's fall place, undamaged by impact or visible radiation?

Could film-less cameras have been left at the summit, and is it more likely, if left, they just blew away?

What photographic equipment was likely to have been used (full listing of all items, not just 'summit' items)?

There were as many as three possible cameras among them: two Vest Pocket Kodaks (VPK) and--sensationally--one possible wind-up cine camera loaned to Irvine by the expedition photographer Capt. John Noel. (source "The Irvine Diaries"). That no camera was fgound on Mallory's body, or near-by, does not mean he had no camera. It could have separated from him anywhere along his descent. Tholzel (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

[Links to all 'known' camera models and cine camera types, here, would be nice please.] "Have brought Noel's pocket cinema up (to the North col), but not used it a yet." Irvine Diaries , Herbert Carr, 1979, p 111. Tholzel (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have written confirmation back from Cooke Optics that they supplied one lens for sure to Noel, but they need to do more research to find out if it was for a cine camera, big or small, or not. As for the Kodak cameras, they haven't dug anything up yet, so these may well have Kodak lenses. Interesting, Cooke can confirm, they have hand written documents from Taylor (Cooke's 'CEO'), that he was in personal communication with (George) Eastman, over how Kodak could improve their optics. Now, having done some research on this, it turns out that Kodak's lenses during this period of interest, made a 'massive' technological leap, so, taking Kodak 'special coated' lenses, was probably the right thing to do. 81.97.41.246 (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a known still film type, that was taken on the summit climb: Kodak Autographic (A127) roll film. 86.25.200.180 (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [Proof needed here - could Agfa or Iford have made films in this format? Are Kodak the sole maker?]

This is a know hazard, that 127 film's substrate carrier (or almost any off-the-shelf film made in 1923-4) can suffer, if not handled and stored properly: Nitrocellulose [Steveozone, could you make this link go directly the 'Nitrocellulose film' sub-heading, and label it 'Nitrocellulose film'? Thanks. Should I remove our chat from below, or do you want to, it isn't helpful anymore, and looks horrible, agreed?] 81.97.41.246 (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Kodak 127 film developing instructions http://www.velocitypress.com/mallory_irvine.shtml#A127_Film

[A link to cine reel processing instructions, here, would be nice please.] This is standard 35mm film. Tholzel (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What 16mm / 35mm stock was taken, British, American, or German?

[Any information on Kodak's 'new' (1923-4) technology reversal / print films, here, would be nice please.] 81.97.239.44 (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully they had the http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Kodak_vest_pocket_autographic Special with Cooke (special filter coated) optics.

No they did not. They had the standard VPK, NOT the Model B as reported by Nova/PBS.Tholzel (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So this camera type differed in that it had no stupid write-on-and-damage-my-pictures / look-at-my-frame door / window, and was possibly designed (hopefully by John Browning) for use in the horrors of the trenches? 86.25.200.180 (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific American article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mount-everest-mystery

You know, this is a somewhat interesting topic, but it's not going to make it into the article in its present form. The bottom line is WP:Reliable Sources, and no original research, so all of this would need to be reliably referenced before it could be used (especially the parts that seem speculative), and in any event a multiparagraph dissertation and instruction manual on film development would be well off-topic in this particular article. Steveozone (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Steveozone--Who do you think you are--loftily gainsaying a subject in which you obviously have no competance whatever, against someone who has been following this issue for over 30 years and with some two-dozen published articles on the subject? Tholzel (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I'm not gainsaying the subject, loftily or otherwise. As you may have noticed, this entire section has been edited dozens of times by an anonymous editor at 81.something and 86.something. All of my prior comments in this section (almost all of which have been modified and then removed by the anon) have been (1) in response to all of the ever-changing speculation posted by the anon over dozens of posts the past few days, and (2) intended to direct the conversation toward what can be placed in this article according to Wikipedia's established conventions. I do not doubt your work (indeed, I believe I am more familiar with your work than most who have edited this article and posted here) and I've in fact happily provided several citations to articles that you referred to above. I suspect we agree that the specific speculative comments that have been posted to this section by 86.?? and 81.?? is not appropriate for this article? Steveozone (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(I've stripped things out, no Vandalism meant, and I've edited slightly here and there, so it all reads better, with no damage to content, hopefully.) I'm sorry if you think these technical issues (possibly about film development?) aren't worthy of being in the main article, but I do understand that they aren't historical. However, having them here (or a link from here to another article) is important, as I'm trying to make sure that I can get through to some expert technical people, so that future possible historical material, if it's found, can be preserved to its best. I'm trying to save historical pictures that haven't been found or developed yet, from being handled, stored, transported, and processed incorrectly, if they are found. I would like to have the chance to edit what I have written, streamlined down to a paragraph or so, but I keep getting involved in petty issues and side tracked, which isn't what I'm trying to achieve here. All I want is to be left alone, and leave a small section here (at the bottom), so others can read. Then I will leave, and let it be. Thank you.

Kodak's advice, is fine, if you had to process the film at base camp, and you only had one shot at it, but something this important should be dealt with by a pool of experts, not just from Kodak, but also from Agfa-Gevaert, FujiFilm, and Ilford Photo. 86.25.200.180 (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you've stripped a lot out, including things you didn't write here. You need to sign your edits with four tildes (~) in a row, so we know who's talking, and please don't remove or edit comments posted by others. Tholzel and I (and others reading this) are not going to be able to read or understand this section (or your comments) if this keeps up. Steveozone (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't, it's not me, it's him. He wants to remove all references to my expertise, and he's still being to personal and rude. If he continues to be personal, then I will have to say something back, that will sound political in nature, but hopefully it will prevent him from messing things up. If he still continues, then I will turn it up. We know what his motives are, they should be obvious to you, are they, maybe that's enough said, on this matter? (I wanted to remove the 'signed' stuff, so things look neater.) 81.97.40.222 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for signing. I've also added a few colons prior to the above, to indent your post so that it's clear you're responding to my comment. To be fair, I've seen where you've removed comments that I made. Perhaps you didn't realize. It's clear that happened, if you follow the history link for this talk page (in the tab up at the top, if you've not tried this before). I'm not trying to be condescending here, but really...this section of the talk page is becoming incomprehensible. Perhaps you disagree with "him," but no one can see that if you modify this discussion. Steveozone (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: although it's not required, it is certainly easier to ask for and receive help on how to edit on this site if you have registered and have a username, which will give you your own talk page for messages to you. I'd have put some comments on such a talk page, if there was one; this will have to do (although now we're cluttering this article talk page with stuff that would be more helpful on a personal talk page). Trying to help here, 81/86 - Cheers. Steveozone (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You can delete all this, I'm not that bothered about what's just been said, I thought I only change things relating to the 'please' bit below, maybe the system is confused by my address changing, all of the time, buggy maybe?

Ah, my friend, on a talk page here, the only way you get the "last word" is if you post something at the very bottom and no one is interested enough to reply. Your addresses (names) changing frequently is not an insurmountable problem, but clearly it doesn't help if you delete them. I think this thread (about an interesting potential topic for the article) has become unhelpful at this point. That's the problem. BTW, you forgot to sign (with 4 tildes) again. Steveozone (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, you can go ahead and edit down to what's importantt, 'lock it', and I'll just view this page from now on, that's fine by me?81.97.40.222 (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Me? I'd never take out your comments, and I couldn't "lock" even if I did want to do so. Just go ahead and leave things as they are. Relax, come back in a day or a week and 'add' if you like (just don't remove, and do remember to sign). Steveozone (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do, I'll still post photographic items info at the top, but I'm unlikely to get anywhere down here, am I? A shame, as I thought Wiki was going to get better now, being semi-commercial. Thanks.86.25.203.220 (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Get serious please, claims that Eastman Kodak is not qualified to make a judgement on how to develop its own film--after a corporate effort was undertaken to do exactly that for this particular film?Tholzel (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Very serious. If Mallory was a North American, the USA wouldn't just bring in its own experts on this issue. They would also bring in someone like Richard Feynman, heard of him, have you? He had to deal with the aftermath of the Challenger disaster, due to Corporate incompetence. All I'm trying to do, is avoid a disaster that hasn't happened yet, but probably will, read his last book (it even has pictures), one of the most interesting (and worrying) books I have read.

Besides, how do you know it was all Eastman stock, Ilford are looking like the more likely supplier of the real 'baby'. I imagine they only took Kodak cameras because they were designed by an American genius, WWI test approved, and battle tested. If it wasn't for that, they would of, more likely than not, have taken German cameras (120 6:9 ones), made by the same company that supplied Mr Armstrong and company with their optics. 86.25.200.180 (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)