Talk:Mount Everest

Mount Everest is on the border of Nepal and Tibet

ugh,,,, shouldnt this be under ' Sagarmatha' and not mount everset. Wikipedia please fix!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.15.164 (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm English and have been to China and Nepal and have seen Mount Everest for my own eyes and i know it is in Nepal.Tibet claims its on the border noooo its in NEPAL!!!

It is located right on the border. Look it up on Google Earth or something. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

previous title (Mount Everest is in Nepal not China!!! ) is incorrect, even its own content suggested it is right on the border. Hyuan71 (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

JULIE !<3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trulsenok95 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is some kind of document signed by Nepalese and Chinese government, in 1960s, verifying that the summit of Everest is actually in Nepal. I could not find the online version of the document, but here is a book which also mentions that the summit of the Everest is in Nepal. (page 214)http://books.google.com/books?id=nRX1wMRnHAoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Ashowmega (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Nepal/Chinese border is located at Everest's peak, dividing the mountain between the two countries. (See Into the Silence by Wade Davis) tonicw (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)tonicw

Edit request on 20 May 2012

Please change "mount Everest is the highest mountain in the world" to "Mauna Kea is the highest mountain in the world" because Mauna Kea is the highest in the world. So this article is incorrect. You can google it if you don't believe me. 71.197.67.73 (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the highest above sea level, which is how the height of mountains is conventionally measured and described. The article already discusses Mauna Kea, and in fact points out that the "heighest" as measured from the center of the earth is neither of those. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Mauna Kea may be the largest mountain on the planet, but it is not the highest. Mt. Everest is the highest mountain in the world. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 05:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation error

The article currently states;

Interestingly, the modern pronunciation of Everest ˈɛvərɨst, ˈɛvrɨst[16] is in fact different from Sir George's pronunciation of his surname, which was /ˈiːvrɨst/.[17]

1. who on earth outside of the field of professional linguists understands the International Phonetic Alphabet?
2. forget about IPAs, the mountain is called "ever-rest" but the namers, who knew Sir George thought of it as "eve-rest" mountain. The emphasis took on a life, something that the Royal Geographical Society would have never envisaged.
3. "interestingly?" now that's opinion. As a fact, what makes it "interesting" is a personal viewpoint. However the highest mountain above sea-level is known incorrectly around the world by an invented name!
4. this disparity should be stated more clearly.

As one of the most famous geographical etymological errors in the history of the world, on a par with the naming of the Americas, why is left to anyone with any smarts to have point this out? Needs a section at least or more on this, maybe even something in the lead to point out such a notable case. Not just some one line. For instance how quickly did this error appear? What did Mallory and Irvine call it? What did Sir George think of everyone mispronouncing his name? As Victorian gentleman, he was most certainly and "Eve-rest" and never an "Ever-rest".

So where did the extra "R" come from in the word? Personally I think this has all the hallmarks of Webster-inspired American English. It fits into the same niche area within Americanism when they use the "name of the letter" at the start of words e.g. Iraq = eye-rack (British/Commonwealth = EE-rack) or Arab = ay rab not ah-rab. American pronunciations is based on the phonetical deconstruction of a word into smaller words not syllables, which is taught in British/Commonwealth English. For instance it happens today, I have heard Americans referring to lay-kester for Leicester or lang-gollen for Llangollen. Words within words based on Websters' simplified English grammatical rules.86.163.104.22 (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am an American, and in my experience, the majority of educated Americans do not pronounce "Iraq" or "Arab" the way you say they do. Those who speak in some regional accents may. As for the pronunciation of "Everest", expanding the discussion of this matter would require reference to what reliable sources say about the matter, rather than your opinion or mine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 10:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the IPA issue, but the IP has a point about "interestingly", which, however innocuous (I do find it interesting), is editorializing. I'm going to remove the word. Also removing "in fact", which doesn't add anything but length to the sentence. Rivertorch (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Amateurish editorializing, yes. As to the pronunciation, it might suffice to say that George Everest's surname was pronounced with a "long E" and the mountain is pronounced with a "short E". Kind of like the British vs. American pronunciations of "lever". Or "eve" vs. "ever". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, something like that would probably be an improvement. Want to take a stab at it? (The relevant internal link would be Vowel length, I suppose.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's actually worse than that. Saying it out loud to myself, it's more like "Ev'rist", with that second "e" almost not there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sir George's surname was originally pronounced as 'eave-er-rest' - it came originally from the Saxon given name 'Eafor' and IIRC it is/was a place name of Kentish origin. It was originally something like 'Eafor's rest'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2012

Please add this to the external links section

• Everest Trek Kindle book

Ianpjohnson (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Ian Johnson

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Is this a correction or an addition? Articles don't typically contain links to items for sale at Amazon. Rivertorch (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Hillary Step

Regarding this line.... "Hillary and Tenzing were the first climbers to ascend this step and they did it with primitive ice climbing equipment and ropes."

I'm rather uncomfortable with the way this is worded. The key is who first lead this pitch, and it was Hillary (hence the reference 'Hillary Step', i.e. it is common for the climber who firsts leads a pitch to be credited with the name, for example 'House's Chimney' on K2, or the 'Hinterstoisser Traverse' on the Eiger, and it was Hillary who lead this section and the text should reflect that.

I'm also uncomfortable calling the equipment 'primitive', for such a pitch the actual equipment thay had was was adequate (rope, crampons and pitons). However, I remember future climbers saying they were surprised at how technically difficult the Hillary Step was (will need to find references) so would suggest re-writing something like...

"Given the circumstances, its technical difficulty and the extreme altitude, Hilary leading this section became one of the notable climbing achievments of the first ascent." Oberon Houston (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

 Note: Your account has autoconfirmed status, and you've made the edit. I undid it for multiple reasons. For one thing, your wording is clumsy. Aside from two spelling errors, the sentence—"Hillary leading . . . became one of the notable . . ."—is grammatically unsound. I also find myself taking issue with the substance of it. While I don't have any of my book refs handy, my understanding is that the first ascent of what became the Hillary Step was very much a collaborative effort and that the name it was given had much to do with the culture of the time. (As a Sherpa, Tenzing was widely seen as subordinate to Hillary, no matter how instrumental he was in getting them both to the top. It would have been unthinkable to name it after both of them.) Getting up the Hillary Step wasn't one of the notable climbing achievements of the first ascent; it was the notable climbing achievement. As for the "primitive" equipment, I see your point, but the next sentence (beginning "Nowadays") makes clear that the statement is relative. And it is. Just as Mallory and Irvine's equipment would have looked primitive to Tenzing and Hillary 60 years ago, the equipment of 1953 looks decidedly primitive to us now. Rivertorch (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I disagree with everything of substance you've said above, and would only be repeating myself as to why. So let's leave this here for the record for now and others to consider, especially any mountaineers who can hopefully give my version some credence. Oberon Houston (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Why Nepali language is in last while referring "Mt. Everest" in other languages?

While referring Mt. Everest in other languages, Nepali language should be written in first followed by other languages as the landmark belongs to Nepal. As internationally it is called Mt. Everest is in the international border of Nepal and China, but the summit is in the Nepali side. Also please add the meaning of the word Sagarmatha in English language. "Sagar" means Sky and "Matha" means head or roof.

So this should be like this: Mount Everest (Nepali: सगरमाथा, Sagarmāthā, "Roof of the sky"; Tibetan: ཇོ་མོ་གླང་མ, Wylie: jo mo glang ma; Chomolungma or Qomolangma /ˈtʃoʊmoʊˌlɑːŋmə/ choh-moh-lahng-mə, "Holy Mother"; Chinese: 珠穆朗玛峰; pinyin: Zhūmùlǎngmǎ Fēng)

Suniltheblue (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this really matter? Anyway, I have add Nepali language at first. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, could someone please explain to me where the notion came from that the summit is on one side or the other; or that there is even a doubt that the border runs precisely over the high-point by definition? The summit is on the border...period. End of that discussion until someone shows me a source that states otherwise.

As explained in the article, the name Qomolangma dates to at least the 1700s where it appears on a map and I suspect it had been used by Tibetan people for centuries before then. It is the official Tibetan name. Lacking a native Napelese name for the mountain, the Napalese gavernment "coined" the name Sagarmāthā in the 1960s, "allegedly to supplant the Tibetan name among the locals, which the Nepali government felt was 'not acceptable'." I am just echoing the article here and giving a possible explanation that Qomolangma is (was) listed first because it is older and a genuine native name. Or perhaps, all things being equal, an editor simply used alphabetical order, but other than that I have no strong opinion on which name should go first and I also wonder why it should matter so much. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 13:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't matter much. However, I believe you're correct that Sagarmatha is a newer name, and you're definitely correct that no sources have been provided to indicate the summit is in Nepal. Since the change now puts the names out of alphabetical order, there doesn't seem to be any justification for it at all and would suggest restoring the previous version. Rivertorch (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I haven't bothered to check any sources, so I really know little more on the subject of the native names than what I have read in the article which says Sagarmatha was coined in the 1960s and Qomolangma dates to at least the 1700s. Also should mention alphabetical order would be dependent on which spelling to use, Chomolungma vs Qomolangma. Anyway, I am fine with current state, but as far as I'm concerned you are more than welcome to revert to the previous version. Thanks. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oooops. I was wrong. Spelling doesnt matter in the order. Q before S...duhh!--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I was very quick with the change. If other editors believe that previous version was better then feel free to revert my edit. Btw, I don't see any mistake to have Nepali language at the start since the peak lies in the border between Nepal and Tibet and in my opinion the native languages (for Mt. Everest of these two countries) should be mentioned first. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer the different previous comments from another perspective, the only native name for the mountain is Chomolungma, as the mountain is known by both Sherpas (living South of the mountain) and Tibetans (living north of it), who speak different variations of Tibetan (check Tibetic languages, Sherpa language and Central Tibetan language). Chomolungma is commonly used in English publications since at least once century, often as an alternative naming to Mt. Everest. Qomolangma is just another spelling variation for Chomolungma, and it is mainly used in the People's Republic of China as a recent romanisation alternative for the Tibetan script (Tibetan pinyin), just as Jo mo glang ma is the Wylie transliteration; Tibetan pinyin is not used as a romanisation for Sherpa language, so Qomolangma cannot qualify to describe the Tibetan name in both Sherpa and Ü-Tsang dialects. The Chinese were quite often referring to it as Shengmu Feng in the past, but in recent times the cinicised version of the native Tibetan name (Zhūmùlǎngmǎ Fēng) has become more popular and is now the official Chinese name in the PRC. As written above by other editors, the Nepalese name (Sagarmāthā) is a rather recent invention, and is certainly not a native name sensu stricto. I therefore suggest to rever to the previous version, by giving first the Tibetan name (the native name used by both Sherpas and Tibetans), then the Chinese and Nepalese names as the official names used in the two countries where Everest is located. According to the naming covention, the alphabetic order should apply to the respective languages (Chinese versus Nepalese language) and not to the names (Sagarmāthā versus Zhūmùlǎngmǎ), so Chinese goes first. The many different spelling variations (jo mo glang ma, Qomolangma) and its meaning (Holy mother) should appear in the ad hoc naming section rather than in the lead. I'll try to modify it in this way.--Pseudois (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 October 2012

The Mt.Everest peak lies in the teratory of nepal. Including the highest point on the Earth’s Surface, Mount Sagarmatha (Everest; 8,848 m) and an elevation range of 6,000 m Sagarmatha National Park (SNP) covers an area of 124,400 hectares in the Solu-Khumbu district of Nepal.The current description is misleading and written as "The international border between China and Nepal runs across the precise summit point.[citation needed]".

Please find attached citation from unesco for verification" http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/120 129.123.3.119 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The resource that you cited describes the Sagarmatha National Park, in Nepal. It includes the following description of the park's boundaries:

"Encompassing the upper catchment of the Dudh Kosi River system the boundaries of the property ensure the integrity of its values. The property’s Northern boundary is defined by the main divide of the Great Himalayan Range, which follows the International boundary between Nepal and the Tibetan Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China."

This reference therefore corroborates the point at issue--the main divide of the Great Himalayan Range (which of course runs through the high point of Everest) follows the international boundary. Steveozone (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. Every reliable source that I've ever seen—and that's scores, if not hundreds—places the summit on the boundary. Rivertorch (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Photo Add to the Image Gallery

Consider adding:

Mt. Everest from Gokyo Ri, Khumbu, Nepal

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Rdevany (talk • contribs) 06:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a nice image, very clear. My concern is that it's rather similar to the image in the infobox. I wonder if someone with a bit more time and motivation than I'm left with at present might like to crop it for use as a potential replacement for the infobox pic. It's sharper, has slightly better color, and shows the plume— a feature that is very typical of Everest. Rivertorch (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Added to infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdevany (talk • contribs) 05:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Good. I still think it would benefit from a crop, though. Anybody agree? Disagree? Rivertorch (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that for you. Because you've never posted in a talk page before, I would like you to know that it is a general guideline to sign your posts by putting four tildes (The Quirky Kitty (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)) at the end. This way, everyone knows who you are. I'm not offended, and I'm sure you're editing in good faith, but I just you to be aware. Thanks.

Oops. Even I forgot to sign my post! The signature ended up being in the wrong place, where I wanted~~~~. Regardless, I finished uploading the cropped image.The Quirky Kitty (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks great! Rivertorch (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps QK's comment was directed to me too. I'm kind of new to this and appreciate the tip. I took the photo last month, and liked the perspective and that it shows the South Summit, Hillary Step, Yellow Band (Cambrian marble) and 2nd Step fairly well. The crop looks good to me. I appreciate the team work here. Rdevany (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't sweat the signature; newbies never sign until they're asked to, and that's because the wiki interface doesn't prompt them, which it should. And sometimes even experienced editors mess up the indentations and confuse people about which editor they're replying to. (Polite cough.) Lots of good advice here. Anyway, thanks for uploading the photo. I'm just a little jealous because I'd like to see Everest in person someday. Rivertorch (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. And to Rdevany, I changed the link I used to attribute you on the image I uploaded. It used to be a redlink to the user page for Rdevay on the Commons, but I fixed it so it links to your page in the English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Quirky Kitty (talk • contribs) 06:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I understand that it is very easy to forget to sign! (facepalm) The Quirky Kitty (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing some extra images

While we're discussing images, I'd like to say that I think there are too many images in this article, and that some of them are unnecessary because they are more decorative than informative. Examples of this inculde:

Placed in the "Early Expeditions" section

File:Everest 3D.gif and File:The Northern Part of Everest 3D version 1.gif These two animated GIFs are placed in the section "First successful ascent by Tenzing and Hillary" and consume a lot of bandwidth, something that people with slower Internet connections would not be fond of.

In the section "2005: Helicopter landing." This one may be debatable.	In the section "Supplemental oxygen"
In the same section.	This I feel is debatable, too, as the article may look plain without it.

As well as some or all of the photos in the image gallery.

I would like to know what others think about this, as I feel it might be too radical to just start removing images without discussing it. I'd rather not push the limits of being bold. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of these I agree with.. not all. The animated 3D GIFs certainly are too heavy at 5mb and 6mb, so removing one or both is probably for the best. The sunset photo doesn't add too much to the page. The Rombok Gompa view should be kept - we need to bear in mind that Everest in a religious entity to the Tibetan monks, and that is a notable point. I think the temple below the mountain represents this quite well in an unassuming manner. The Drukair2 flight image is a Featured Picture - its use on this article is probably the best place it can be, given the quality and recognition it has received from the community - removing it is not very wise - in fact it would make a better photo for the main infobox than the one we have, which is nice but does not convey the epic size of Everest as there are no surrounding mountains to draw comparison to, solo photos of mountains are pointless if we can't gauge the sheer scale of it - the FP shows the massif beautifully. The two panoramas add interest to what would otherwise be half an article of text.. this gets very boring. An article can't have too many images, but if it is very long it needs breaking up with imagery so that there's always something media-wise in view when scrolling down - people hate walls of text more than too many images. The Everestpanoram helps us see Everest in the Himalayas line and how height it stands above everything else from ground level, instead of just stand alone photos that leave no form of comparison. The EverestMosaic does the same but from above instead of level, and lets us see "into" the Tibetan mountains and understand how Everest lies in the midst of the Himalaya.. again photos of the mountain alone don't convey this and neither can text, nor can maps provide as clear a perspective. The main problem with the photos is their placing in the article.. being too scattered they lose impact. The article really needs a good clean up and images placed logically. An article about Everest should be able achieve GA or FA standards with some loving care. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, I reverted the removal of the images (just to give me a working point), and have performed a batch of adjustments and tweaks. The ordering of sections, the clutter, I see this was a former FA, I think it has been bombarded with so many contribs over the years that it has lost coherency. I've tried to clean up readability rather than address the actual text. By reordering the sections to prioritise the mountain and its history above the manmade feat of climbing it, I hope that helps. There is no reason for readers to have to wade through a ton of trivial "firsts" in order to find out about the mountain itself as a geological interest not a tourist spot. As with many Wiki articles "popular culture" seems to have over-written the essential facts pertaining to the science of things. I think sections now relate better to what Everest is, its early discovery, its physical make up and environment.. then we can have the less-notable details about wannabe heroes trashing, shitting or dropping dead on its slopes every year for the sake of personal ego. If that list of trivia keeps growing, I think it needs moving to its own article, to help refocus this article for FA standards again. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the general thrust of your comments and found myself nodding in agreement at many of the specific points you've raised. A couple of the changes you've made with the images I'm less than thrilled with. First, the infobox image. While the one you swapped in is fully deserving of its Featured Pic status and most probably should have a place in the article (and really ought to illustrate Himalayas as well), I don't think it's a good choice for the infobox. With its depiction of so many peaks, plus the added distraction of the clouds in the foreground, the visual clutter is considerable and the subject of the article—Mount Everest—becomes only one of several components (albeit the central one). Context of adjacent mountains is important, but not in the infobox. The previous image, which was added following a discussion on this page late last year, focuses on the mountain itself, which is appropriate. I'd suggest restoring the recent infobox image and moving the new one (see suggestion below).

Second, I think the "last rays of sunlight" pic is a good one. (You seem to have added it only to take it away again, or am I misreading the versions?) It's an awesome photo (and I don't use that adjective lightly) that conveys the beauty and majesty of a mountain that is too often considered only in quantitative terms. True, it doesn't illustrate the Geology section particularly well, but I think it deserves a place elsewhere (maybe in the preceding Comparisons section, maybe somewhere else). I'd support moving the new infobox pic with its clouds and multiple peaks to the Geology section, which is now way too gray without an image to break it up.

I ran a preview with these suggestions and thought it looked good, but I figured it would be worthwhile to discuss it with you and maybe get opinions from others before clicking Save. For the record, the two infobox images discussed above are these:

Rivertorch (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes I readded all the pics removed by Quirky Kitty then began my own mini clean-up, which led to the sunray photo being removed again. Yes, it is a nice image.. but it really is just "nice", the problem is that it doesn't highlight anything notable. I think a number of mountains, e.g. K2 if I'm not mistaken, have a red glowing peak like fire during sunset, so it wasn't unique to this article either. That said, I think the article is in a period of change.. I've shifted a lot of the material around to bring a sense of logical readability to the flow of the text, and adjusted images to better suit sections, as best I could. The fact that the world's most notable mountain fails to meet the highest standards.. GA or FA, puzzles me, especially when we have a number of WikiProjects with members who should be able to dedicate their efforts to improving and maintaining such an article as GA or FA. As a member of WikiProject Military History I know those members take pride in getting articles to GA/FA and keeping it that way. Why not other projects? No disrespect to members of Mountains or any other project, but that is the purpose and general idea of WikiProjects, to maintain articles under the project banner's scope. As for the FP photo swap I did, feel free to change - only the cropped photo that was there is very uninspiring, and lacks character and imagination based on my belief that a photo of a mountain all by itself with no range in the background, or around it for scale comparison, leaves the viewer thinking "so what?" Maybe the Featured Pic could be cropped like this other one was, to focus more on Everest but without as much loss of scale and beauty. The other picture looks like it has been bloomed and had a cool blue filter added in some photo editor, making it look very tacky. Just my 2c though. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. The color looks okay on my monitor, but I'll take your word for it. I found a couple other possibles on Commons: this one, which I like because it's very focused on its subject and has great depth of field, and this one, which offers more perspective by including more of the surrounding terrain. Both depict the North Face, which is arguably the less notable side of the mountain, but I don't really think that's a problem (and I could argue it the other way). Curious to know what you think.

As for the sunset pic—yeah, it's a cliché, I suppose, but it's a beautiful cliché, and I think we're allowed to inflict a little beauty on our coldly rational articles from time to time. There's an even nicer alternative, which is desperately in need of cropping but otherwise might work.

WikiProject Military History is the gold standard. If even a quarter of WikiProjects were as active and populated by such dedicated editors, we'd probably have put Britannica out of business years ago. (Incidentally, something on this talk page is having a bad effect on my browser's performance. I thought it was the two gifs, so I set them as links instead of inline images, but now I'm not so sure. Whatever it is, I've never encountered it before on any talk page.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The first picture File:Everest North Face toward Base Camp Tibet Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg is a real beauty, admittedly I have used it in my custom "mountains" desktop theme, it shows the Three Steps too, which are a bit concealed by the stream of cloud below the summit in the second photo. The glowing yellow band and peak in that other photo is.. wow.. the only weakness is the thick cloud across the middle, cropped it would make the bottom half of the picture just a grey blur, which might make it look worse per rule of thirds (speaking as an avid amateur photographer and Photoshop user)? I'm not sure if the North face is much less notable.. perhaps as a climbing route it is less popular, but it is where Mallory fell and died, bless him, and that was important tragic event in the history of the mountain. I suppose it depends on your POV what view you favour. I think the slow page load may be a result of all the stuff up top - lots of project banners, assessment history, etc. being transcribed, as well as all the images being used and discussed, although I should note that it isn't affecting me. Yup, Milhist is the top project for getting results, and inspiring topical focus, I can't think of many highly active projects apart from Film, U.S., LGBT, and possibly Christianity, but each of those do cover a lot of ground and represent large audiences. Still, got to be proud of any project that is achieving something seeing as many projects are virtually dead in the water. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Further reading comment

Hi everybody,

I've been checking this section and it's been nice to see Jon's Krakauer book about the disaster happened in May '96, anyway, I think it'd be fair that if Krakauer's book is in here, there should also be Anatoli Boukreev's book in the list.

There were some controversial comments in Krakauer's book about Anatoli's attemp to rescue some of the expeditioners as well as some actions taken by Scott Fisher. Anatoli's book is his version of the facts and a response to Krakauer's book.

Information about Boukreev's book:

BOUKREEV, Anatoli; DEWALT, G. Weston. The Climb: Tragic ambitions on Everest. Saint Martin's Press, June 28th, 1997. ISBN: 0312168144

Thanks for your time and dedication! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardstil (talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the suggestion. If you have access to the book and have some specific thoughts about what would make the account of what happened more neutral, I encourage you to be bold and introduce such changes, and cite the source for your changes. Happy editing! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Bizzare statement

Quote from the article: "if one was to measure the tallest mountain on Earth from base to peak above sea level [not from the Earth's core to the peak] including snow and ice, K2 would own this title" - how are we supposed to understand this internaly contradictory claim? What is it then - from base, or above sea level? - beacuse it can't be both simultaneously. Besides that - K2 is 8611, so stating that K2 surpasses Everest in height (including ice cap) is to say that this ice cap is 8848-8611=237 which is obviously flat our preposterous.--145.237.124.27 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that "base to peak" here refers to the height from the foot of the mountain to the peak, i.e. local relief, "base" not being not being sea level. Everest is 8848m elevation, but its base on the Tibertan Plateau is around 4200–5200m above sea level, meaning the "base to peak" height is only around 3650–4650m. K2 has a lower base elevation than Everest, substantially low enough that the vertical relief of K2 is more than that of Everest. In other words, the slopes of K2 are taller than Everest's, from top to bottom bur Everest is taller in terms of prominence which is measured differently. As far as Wiki goes, the various means of identifying mountain heights is fairly technical, and it's not always appropriate to include them all, as it leads to confusion without a glossary to help aid the reader. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The only thing we're disscussing here is the K2's ice-cap thickness. It just cannot possibly be as thick as 240 m. As to the proper interpretation of his claim: let's put the sentence in its proper context: "This height is based on the actual highest point of rock and not on the snow and ice covering it (if one was to measure the tallest mountain on Earth from base to peak above sea level [not from the Earth's core to the peak] including snow and ice, K2 would own this title)". That aside, even if our confused collegue had meant just the sheer height of the boths peaks' walls, he would have been wrong anyway, because e.g. the Kangshung Face (i.e. east face) of Everest is even taller than the walls (e.g. north face, being ~3200 m) of K2 (I suggest you take a good look at both, on - say - google maps / terrain mode), the Rupal Face (i.e. southern) of Nanga Parbat is acctually circa 4600 m and thus often quoted as having the tallest wall in the world, Dhaulagiri's west face is comparable and Rakaposhi rises an astonishing 6000 m (6 km) from the valley flor to the summit uninterrupted and very steeply - among other tremendous peaks. Anyway, the statement has been removed in the meantime from what I can see, so I guess this discussion is no longer necessary. Greetings.