Talk:Mount Everest

---

An event mentioned in this article is a May 29 selected anniversary.

Tallest vs Highest

The summit of Mt Chimborazo in Ecuador is 2150m further away from the centre of the earth than the summit of Mt Everest. Does that mean it's higher or bigger or what?Ping

I think it just means it's further from the centre of the earth. Altitudes are measured with reference to Sea Level or by means of air pressure. While Mt Chimborazo may be further away from the centre of the earth, the sea level is also further away because of the equatoral bulge. One of the Hawaiian Islands is the biggest mountain on earth as it rises even higher above the surrounding sea floor than Mt Everest does from the surrounding land, but much of the island is under water. That leaves Mt. Everest as the highest. - kiwiinapanic

See the article sea level for more information. If sea level is something like an inferred equipotential surface, then distance from the center of the earth would be a different value. Most of the references I've seen put the height of Everest at 8850 m (29035 feet). Cos111 22:31, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Also realize that Everest 'cheats' quite a bit from being set upon a 2-mile high plateau (Tibet). CFLeon 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

An ascent?

What's an 'ascent'? In 2003, did that guy run from the base of Everest to the summit in his ascent? Or did he make the ascent from the last base camp to the summit in 12 hours and change?
~ender 2003-11-08 14:55:MST

I know that Tim Macartney Snape was the first to climb the mountain completely on foot, from sea level to the summit. He also did this without oxygen, only the second person to do so. He has made two ascents

Page revert

I think it's worth noting why Secretlondon just reverted the page. It would be an insult to the people of the Himalayas to suggest that Mount Everest was "discovered" in the middle of the 19th Century AD--we can note that the surveyor was the first to note the mountain's distinction as "tallest", but we can't legimately call him the discoverer of the mountain. Jwrosenzweig 23:58, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have protected this page to stop this silly cycle of reversion. If Mr Anarchist wants to make the case that the Bengali guy should be recognised as the discoverer he can do it here rather than just continue to revert. --Robert Merkel 00:12, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

okay, what about Columbus "discovering" America? This is getting out of hand. You guys are clearly RACIST. I don't have to appeal to White skinned racists to "recognize" any fact. You are clearly ignorant fools if you did not know it. AmeriKKKan stupidity perhaps?

Sorry, I forgot to sign my name. You guys did not even know who Radhanath Sikdar was until I brought it up. Anyway, don't ASSUME things. These white racists are hunting down contributions I made and changing them. -- LibertarianAnarchist

LA, I and most Wikipedians would not describe Columbus as the discoverer of America. At most we would say that he was the first Western European to discover America (and given Viking travels, we wouldn't even say that). To deny the people of Nepal, Tibet, and the other Himalayan regions the fact that they assuredly knew much about Everest long before the outside world did is a blatant kind of racism, whether it is practiced by people of white, brown, black, yellow, or red skin. Furthermore, the inflammatory and racist comments you yourself have been making do not help your case. Jwrosenzweig 00:27, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig, if you have observed, I have actually contributed FACTS but been hounded in a systematic way by a small gang here in Wikipedia who are only interested in propaganda. Use your brains and you will see that the head bureaucrat (Everest) usually does not discover something. It is the person in the field who comes up with the discovery. As for your comment on Columbus, why don't you go to the page on Columbus and remove references to him "often" being credited with its discovery and lock the page? Be fair, do it.

The peak existed much before Sikdar but Sikdar deserves to be mentioned before the bureaucrat Everest is. Be honest and give him the pride of place. Also admit it, these guys didn't even know who Sikdar was. Elsewhere VerilyVerily commented that he finds it hard to believe what I wrote about Sikdar! His knowledge base being clearly inferior, he had heard of Sikdar for the first time. I am sure he did a Google search and posted the information which was as far away from mine but unfortunately for the bigot, even he couldn't completely remove the reference to Sikdar. -- LibertarianAnarchist

Just to be clear, LA, I find your contributions here completely offensive and repugnant -- I am posting one last interchange only because I think it wise policy to attempt to remain civilized even when your opponent is clearly not doing so. I have observed what you have done here: I know very well what you have done and how you have hounded in your own systematic way those who oppose you. Columbus is indeed often (incorrectly) credited with America's discovery: Wikipedia says so because it is factual. Sikdar deserves to be mentioned. Everest does also. Both made their own small contribution to a mass of rock that predates them both by a wide margin. I don't care who knew what: demanding to be recognized for your "special contribution" to this article strikes me as the action of an insecure editor, and not a serious contributor. Calling VerilyVerily a bigot when it is you who have acted with bigotry is, I think, the final straw that will allow you to be banned as a user, under whatever name you pretend to act. This is all I will say to you. Please take your childish and disgusting vitriol elsewhere. Jwrosenzweig 00:44, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Pictures

I just added a picture I took of Sagarmatha (Everest) from the summit of Kala Pattar in October 2002. The previous picture, while still a good one that I originally posted from els (after getting permission), really only shows the West shoulder of Everest. One cannot see the summit block of Mt. Everest from base camp. One of the reasons why Kala Pattar is so popular, perhaps more so than base camp, is for the great views and pictures one can take of Everest, Lhotse, Nuptse and surrounding peaks. It truly is something one can never forget. RedWolf 05:41, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Great pic!! Do you have more Himalayan photos? They would be great to add to the 'pedia. -- hike395 13:09, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I have many more photos and have added one for Ama Dablam. I'll add some more when I get a chance. RedWolf 00:41, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Growth rate

The article mentions that Everest is still growing due to plate-tectonics. I heard some time ago that it grew at a rate of around 1-foot per-year. Can this be verified?

EDIT - According to this the Himalayas grow at a rate of around 2.4 in/6.1cm per year.

Edit Himalayas mentions the growth rate as 2.5-5cm for the Range.

Sikdar

The last edit about Sikdar may have gone a little overboard. It seem uncontroversial that he didn't use any fancy technological instruments, right? And it is uncontroversial (although obvious) that it wasn't named after him. The sentences seemed NPOV to me, although I can see hacking them out due to obviousness. ("Mount Everest was also not named after Queen Victoria, John Quincy Adams, and Attila the Hun" :-) ) -- hike395 04:46, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Date of first measurement

If Sikdar made the first measurement of the mountain in 52, then later down the page,the victorians can't be credited with performing the first measurement in 56. Now the mountain stands at 29,035

Featured Article candidacy comments (not promoted)

(Contested -- July 3) Mount Everest

Recently involved in the naming controversy. Radhanath Sikdar and his contribution to finding this magnificient peak was widely underestimated in the world media. The article and the controversy existed before my revision. I added a bit of impetus to this tall problem! Drbalaji md

• Object. Not bad, but it needs more:
  • There's virtually no geological information. What kind of material is the mountain made of? When did it form exactly? Also strange: the range, the Himalayas, isn't mentioned in the article (only the table).
    • I guess it is impossible to be comprehensive with anything in this universe. You can find deficiencies in every single one of these wikipedia pages. Human endeavour is so imperfect in every domain - Dear Mr.know all --Drbalaji md 22:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Featured articles should at the least be comprehensive, even if they are unlikely to be perfect. — Matt 23:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I do not understand the distinction between the two! Well. If by just adding the geology of the rock the article becomes comprehensive, I would spend some effort adding that information. --Drbalaji md 00:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • A comprehensive article covers all of the relevant information on a topic, whereas a perfect article is one which cannot be improved. A featured article should be comprehensive, but is not going to be perfect. Thanks for agreeing to add the geology information. 01:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • What about the pre 19-century history? The Tibetans/Nepalese give pretty interesting names to the mountain, does it play a role in their history or mythology? Why do the Indians think the mountain has the wrong name?
    • it would be nice if you stop being so superflous while doing a critical review of an article. What you have ignorantly questioned is the core of a long history of 'war of words' on that site! Please try to delve a little deeper before throwing perfunctory comments. --Drbalaji md 22:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I don't what you mean by this, and I don't see why a "history of 'war of words'" has anything to do with me reviewing this article. What I was trying to say is that the history section seems to start at the time where it was first measured by Sikdar. I would like to know something about the history before the 19th century. If that information is not available, or there is no pre-19 century history (likely not), let me know. Jeronimo 07:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The "ascents" section is not that different from the "timeline", each section is a point, not part of a story. Perhaps the less important parts of the ascents could be moved to the timeline, or otherwise the the ascents section should be rewritten.
    • is this your POV? --Drbalaji md 22:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not a problem to have a point of view about how an article should be structured, surely? I agree with Jeronimo; the one-sentence paragraphs don't flow well in a narrative section. — Matt 23:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did not object either. I just wanted to know :) If you think it would be nice, anyone of us can change it to make it look better! --Drbalaji md 00:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • There must be many books written about Mount Everest, but there are none listed as a reference.
    • is referring to a book mandatory for every single article here? --Drbalaji md 22:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • It's a good idea to Wikipedia:Cite your sources. — Matt 23:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • good ideas, agreed. But my question was "are they mandatory?" --Drbalaji md 00:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure what you mean; mandatory for what / according to who, exactly? A decent references section will make for a better article. — Matt 01:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • No, it's not mandatory. But it makes the article more verifiable and gives readers points to find more information on the topic Jeronimo 07:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Jeronimo 07:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article is only half way there since there is hardly any info on the geology of this mountain (which is rather interesting). The history section is also only half way there - where is the pre-20th century history? Also, what about local lore and legend concerning the mountain? And wasn't there border disputes concerning Everest? --mav
• Oppose. While this is a good start, a large number of key topics are missing. There is virtually no mention of the sherpa population who make Everest challenges possible. Nor is there any mention of the increasingly problematic environmental impact of expeditions. Beyond a list of expeditions, there is no description of commonly-used routes, first climbs for said routes (the first North Face ascent, for instance, was almost as historic a climb as the original Hillary/Tenzig ascent), or political issues; ie, the long wait for access from the Chinese side. In short, this baby article is healthy but has some growing to do before it is of feature quality. Denni☯ 22:42, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Hindu names

Isn't Gaurishankar Indian name for mount Everest ? Ramashray 14:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is Gauri Sankar. RedWolf 23:02, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

pronunciation

check discrepancy re IPA pronunciation of personal name with that given on page George Everest -- now fixed

climbing routes

Intro to climbing routes section starts by saying the routes are SE and NW ridges, but then goes on to subsections talking about the SE and NE ridges.

Continuity listing units

Just wondering what the "official" Wikipedia policy was on units? The Measurement paragraph lists the SI unit first and then the Imperial unit in parentheses four times, and vice versa five times. There are also numerous references to SI units in isolation and one reference to miles (although this is a rounded value). Not meaning to start some kind of SI vs. Imperial war on this seemingly previously contentious page, but just thought there should be some kind of continuity? --postglock 04:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• My personal preference is original measurement first, converted numbers (if any) in parentheses. Sometimes it's a good idea to use <!-- inline comments--> for passing information to other editors. – I added the SI unit to the mile thing. Rl 07:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I found this page regarding policy on units, so it's SI when not obviously historically significant. BTW, how do comments help bring awareness to this? (probably not the right place for this question, but just in case any lurkers are also newbie editors) --postglock 15:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Every now and then, some editor will use a converted number as a base to "update" the original number (e.g. 150 miles -> 240 km -> 149 miles). A comment is often appropriate if it's not clear what the base number is. Rl 15:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alleged helicopter landing on the peak

Thanks, Scott, for providing this link regarding the now disputed landing of a helicopter on the peak. I wonder why they would make such false claims. Was it really a hoax done by the pilot alone, and the company fell for it? I note that at the moment, the Eurocopter website still claims "World Premiere: A Eurocopter single-engine serial Ecureuil/AStar AS350 B3 lands on the TOP of the world.". Fascinating story. Rl 10:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Truth: The helicopter did land on the summit, twice. Nepali officials said there was no permit, for this reason the pilot said he landed on the south col (which he also did) and did not stress the two summit landings. The Eurocopter company did not want a dispute with the government before they got out of the country with their copters. The landing altitude record has been confirmed by Fédération Aéronautique Internationale FAI. And it should be noted that that they will not do without 100% proof (double recording altimeters, video, gps logs etc.). I can not undestand why somebody would even think that the worlds biggest helicopter company would lie in a matter like this??? No common sense around here? link: [1]

Pure garbage! Obviously the company, not contented to help kill people all over the world, decided to cheat us all too as a mean to sell more of its products.

Summit wholly in Tibet?

I was interested to read that although the summit ridge defines the border between Tibet (China) and Nepal, the summit is in Tibet. Does anyone have a cite/map for this as I have never heard this before? 143.252.80.124 6 July 2005 13:16 (UTC)

Stunning Photo from Space

I see that this article is well maintained - I created an image from NASA's image library (see http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/policies.html for usage) which is pretty stunning. Maybe one of the editors would like to put it up?

Interesting photo. Personally, I would prefer the one labelling the summit of Everest, Lhotse and the Kangshung Face. Also, NASA images should be uploaded to Commons so they are readily available to the other language wikis. RedWolf 03:25, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The photo is now also on commons. I withheld labelling, due to the language dependancy that creates. Moreover, it isn't so hard to identify Everest, Lhotse or the Kangshung Face from the image :-) I guess a caption may help though. (20040302)

Weird. Looking at this space photo, how many lanes is that superhighway which runs into the mountain at the bottom so that it can be seen from orbit? I think somebody should paint "FORD" on the mountain in two-mile letters!

Sagarmatha

If one clicks the 6th link ( http://thegreatindian.tripod.com/mountEverest.htm ) the descrpition says that Sagarmatha means the forehead of the sea, while the article says of the sky- does anybody know which is correct? - samaraphile

I have mostly heard/read it as meaning "forehead of/in ihe sky". It just seems to make more logical sense for it to refer to sky than ocean but I'm no linguistics expert. RedWolf 22:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I made the comment about the origin of the Nepalese name. It is difficult to dig up facts about this, but I bet there is no Sagarmatha mentioned or printed anywhere before 1960 or something. It was the "national poet" of nepal of that time who came up with the name. We should remember that "Nepal" as a country is made up from more than 60 nationalities speaking more than 40 languages. "Nepalese", those speaking nepali as their language did not know about or care about Mt Everest, thus it had no name. Sherpa/tibetan name could not be used as an official name, as it was the government policy to "nepalize" the country. We can protest about using "Everest" and not the tibetan name, but those who claim "Sagarmatha" to be the real name only fall into the Nepal government PR trap... (Petrus)

US GPS reading

"The 1998 American Everest Expedition installed a GPS unit on the highest bedrock, computing the elevation of the summit as 8,830 meters...Today's generally accepted value of 8,850 m (29,035 feet) was obtained via GPS readings from a device placed on the summit by the USA in 1999."

Is there a typo here somewhere? — Matt Crypto 23:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ridges directions

I think that there is an error in the ridges direction names:

1. they can talk about "south ridge" or "southeast ridge",
2. the western ridge (Hornbein ascent) is clear.
3. But the Northern ascent is no "Northwest", but a Northeast ridge.

I would also like to get a comment why the summit should be in Tibet... IMHO the summit is the meeting point of the three ridges, two of them (west & south ridge) marking the borderline between Nepal and Tibet. So the summit is common for TIbet and Nepal. Or?

Regards from a german IP. :-)

Chomolangma

Does any one know why this article is titled Everest instead of Chomolangma? What are the geographic classification standards being followed? Does Wikipedia follow U.S. or international standards? Can we put this to a vote? Thanks harburg 2005-09-25 20:25:51 UTC

• There's probably a Western bias at work here and Everest is the more internationally accepted name (at least among the Western based countries), especially in the climbing community. If we were to move it, I'd prefer Sagarmatha and not Chomolangma but a move is unlikely in any case (although I would not rule it out). This is the English wiki so the accepted practice is to use the name mainly referred to in the English speaking world unless the local name(s) has/have gained sufficient popularity (which it has not). Other language wikis might use the local names though for the article's name. RedWolf 21:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for the feedback RedWolf - I suppose in the end a thing's name is what people call it - whether it makes sense or not. I'd still love to see a vote to see what the consensus is, but I can't be arsed to set it up. --harburg 2005-09-25 21:15:51 UTC
• When I see Chomolangma/Chomolungma/Sagarmatha being used in English, it's almost always some writer trying to show off his/her amazing multicultural sensitivity, and they inevitably have to add something like "which Westerners know as Everest", thus demonstrating which name is really the one most commonly in use among English speakers... :-) Stan 23:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• See my comment about Sagarmatha above. Sagarmatha is a recent synthetic name, never used by anybody naturally connected with the mountain. The Tibetan/Sherpa name Chomolangma is the only native/real/original name for the peak. (Petrus)
• There is also Sagarmatha National Park. RedWolf 15:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

8844 metres

Before there is a mass change of articles to use the new elevation as reported by PRC, I would like to see a public scientific analysis of PRC's analysis. To go from 8848 to 8850 and then all the way back down to 8844 is quite a step. Does anyone know if the PRC has released their findings publicly to allow this to take place? I guess Nepal never officially recognized the 8850 m and still used the older 8848 m. Has anyone seen an official statement from Nepal regarding the PRC announcement? RedWolf 03:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• According to MountEverest.net the PRC height only goes to the highest point of rock and does NOT include snow/ice cover. I guess that would explain much of the discrepancy. RedWolf 04:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • According to the article, the 8850m measurement was obatianed from the highest point of "bedrock". -- Scott e^iπ 10:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Issues with 1996 disaster

Obviously, when we delve into this topic, controversey is bound to occur thanks to the widespread publicity. The latest revision says that most of the climbing community supported Boukreev. With his decision to guide without oxygen, I was under the impression that this was widely criticized. This came from the Saloon debates, in which Jon Krakauer said that Reinhold Messner sharply criticized Boukreev for not using oxygen [2]. So, should it be reverted, changed to balance out both sides, or call Krakauer a liar? Hbdragon88 05:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, someone just deleted the {{disputed}} tag without an explanation in the edit summary. I have accordingly deleted the part that states that most of hte climbing community supports Boukreev and Krakauer's status as a personna non grata. If someone can find a link that verifies that, add it in and I'll be satisfied. Hbdragon88 00:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

How can the summit be in one country when the summit ridge marks the border?

That has been asked before (see above) but not answered. It just makes no sense!

I Think so also, it makes no (real...) sense. But.. imagine potential thinkings on the plate tectonics drift: when at any time (...) the summit was part of both Tibet and Nepal (written papers stating geographical coordinates or so whatever), and then according to the summit´s drift northeast ref. to plate tectonics, then apparently the summit would have been drifting into Tibet´s area... But the question is: are borders fixed to geo coords, or are they marked by landmarks as a mountain´s ridges? Regards. de:Benutzer:Kassander_der_Minoer

The Box

Please, someone repair the box. I tried to, and failed %( --Compay 23:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

tenzing?

why is it "hillary" for edmund hillary, but "tenzing" for tenzing norgay? 216.8.14.218 16:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Norgay is not a surname, the Sherpas do not have surnames. PatGallacher 18:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

okay. why not call him "norgay" despite this? why "tenzing"? why not "tenzing norgay"? i suspect the article's trying to shove a cutesy deviation out there simply as a pointless demonstration or trivia question inducement. has this been discussed elsewhere (other than saddam hussein) that you'd mind referring me to? thanks. the apparent presumption is that one must have a common family name in order to use the convention of last names for formal discussion. i see no logic in such a presumption. 216.8.14.218 18:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, names of Tibetan (and related languages) speaking people are normally made of a first name and a last name (neither of which is a family name); the first name is most often used, except when there would be some ambiguity - several Tenzings in the room. It certainly would be incorrect to say "Norgay", or Mr Norgay - (though you will find that happening sometimes in the region nowadays, due to cultural influences in beaurocracy - this would most normally be written T. Norgay, but tends to be used in business only). Probably the best way to write his name formally would be Tenzing Norgay, but once introduced, it is correct to say "Tenzing". His first son was called "Nyima Dorje" .. My issue is with the way in which all these names are transcribed. "Tenzing Norgay" is spelled "བསྟན་འཛིན་ནོར་རྒྱས་" - (DZIN rather than ZING, and GYE, rather than GAY) - in more modern times, his name would be "Tenzin Norgye". (20040302)

View from the Summit

How about adding a picture taken from the summit? That has to be one of the greatest rewards for climbing Everest, not to mention a killer view. EatYourGreens 05:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

nationality

We report the nationality (Country) of the climbers in the timeline list. By the way, Hans Kammerlander and Messner are reported as from "South Tyrol" and "(South Tyrol, Italy). I wonder why we do not say just Italy, or at least (Italy, South Tyrol) about them both.

Wikipedia is not a place in which writing about our feelings, or will of independence. I'll change it in a week, in nobody answers this comment. Gala.martin 17:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed to (Italy, South Tyrol) since nobody answered (see above) in two weeks. gala.martin (what?) 23:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Prominence versus height?

Why does the information box at the top of the article say that Everest's prominence is the same as its height? 'Cause it's not. The only other source I could find said its prominence was 10m, but I doubt it's that either. Does anyone have a non-internet source about Everest that gives its prominence? gr_scott_jo

By the definition of prominence itself, the prominence of the highest point on the earth is its height. It is likely the only reasonable definition, check the article about prominence). gala.martin (what?) 23:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at the article on prominence? The prominence of the highest point on the Earth is the difference in height between its peak and the surrounding ground, same as any other peak. In fact, in what I said before, I mentioned that the only other source said its prominence was 10m. That source is the article on prominence. The second setence of the article exactly says what I'm talking about, that there's a difference between Everest's height and its prominence. Later on, though, it does say "It is also the smallest descent which one would have to make from a summit in order to re-ascend to a higher peak," but if you changed the end to "in order to beginning ascending to the nearest other peak" it would make more sense. gr_scott_jo Sunday, April 2, 2006 at 17:33:52 UTC

10 m is the prominence of Everest's South Summit, that is not the Everest peak. In the prominence article, it is just an example. Prominence is a feature that tells you how promiment (ok, I am cheating) is a peak with respect to its sourraundings. So, Everest's South Summit is really high (8749 m), but it is topographically close to Everest (that is higher), and therefore its prominence is just 10 m (this means that if you are on the South Summit, and you want to go to the Everest highest peak, you can do that just going down 10 m, and then going up again). So, if you think about the definition of prominence (that is quite reasonable), you can for instance deduce that for the highest peak on an island, prominence=height. This could convince you that for the highest point on earth, it is reasonable to set prominence=height. gala.martin (what?) 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited Topographic prominence to try and clarify this. Prominence is the height by which you need to descend before you can ascend to a higher peak, not to the "nearest other peak". The sea doesn't count so there is a problem with the highest peak on any landmass (and with the highest peak on earth). In these cases, the prominence is defined as equal to the elevation, the height above sea level. Everest's South Summit is rather a small blip (though one with a very high elevation). It does not reduce Everest's elevation because the summit of Everest is higher. Thincat 10:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited Topographic prominence much more substantially, since the intro section was just plain confusing. One especially confusing phrase was about prominence measuring height above surroundings---this is not true. Thincat and gala.martin have it about right, although there is no need to treat the sea/ocean as special: it is essentially just a very big, flat col. Mount Everest itself (the main summit) _is_ a bit special since there is no higher terrain, but it is universally agreed that its prominence equals its height. I will probably do more editing on the prominence article in a bit, since I think it is still lacking in clarity and style. -- Spireguy 15:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User request from main page

Hey people i need more help about the death zone and the hillary step can you help by postin stuff? - spaz

Mexican survey?

This appears in the section on measurement:

In the 1950s a Mexican Indian survey made closer to the mountain...

Was the survey really conducted by a Mexican team? This seems unlikely to me. Molinari 00:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Two questions

• The protection notice had been added in order to discourage usual vandalism, or is there some other reason?

• If the page is protected, why some unregistered users are still vandalizing it? (I mean, how is it possible?) gala.martin (what?) 03:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradicts itself

Intro says it's growing 2.5 cm a year, later figure given (in measurement section) is 3 to 5mm. Big difference and if someone knows which is right this should be adjusted.

Good point. I have no idea, but I think someone before in this page discussed about 2.5 cm. We should really fix that. gala.martin (what?) 03:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Article length

This already exceeds Wikipedia's recommendation, and I am concerned about the uncontrolled additions to the Timeline and Trivia section. There is not space for first ascents by nationals of every country. If this is of interest then it should be on a separate page. Comments? Viewfinder 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who added lately the Turkish woman mountainer. It is not my intension to extend the size, which for my POV is not so large either. I saw the line:

# 1982 - On October 5, Laurie Skreslet becomes the first Canadian to reach the summit.

and thought, it is worth to mention. Besides, I have no objection if the list is moved out. CeeGee 19:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Viewfinder, please do not forget to sign your comments. Thanks. CeeGee 19:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry - a lapse on my part. Viewfinder 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections within the next 48 hours, I will transfer the timeline and trivia section to a new page. Viewfinder 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Visit for the lazy.

What is the time estimate for building a cable-car or a vertical tunnel with elevator, which would allow the general tourist public to visit the very peak in a pressurized environment? The Genesis clearly says YHWH tasked mankind "to multiply and conquer all lands". It is imperative that god-fearing, money counting capitalists turn the Everest into an amusement park, so it is not deserted land any more. I hope the chinese will do that, they develop rapidly.

A more important reason for a permanent human habitation module on the top of Everest would be space colonization. It could serve as a live trial for Moon and Mars bases, as there is almost vacuum on those celestial bodies. If we can demonstrate that people live and work for long in the best earthly airlessness we got, that would be very encouraging towards space expansion. Antarctic has the cold but not the lack of air. 195.70.32.136 09:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Measurement

Some time ago I restored the elevation to its most often quoted figure of 8,848 m, having explained my reasons on Talk:List of countries by highest point. This seemed to have been accepted, but today there were two attempts to replace it with 8850 m so I have reproduced these reasons here.

The US GPS 8,850 m and Chinese 8,844 m elevations are mentioned in the main article.

There have been several recent surveys of Everest and K2 claiming precision to less than a meter, some giving higher figures than the traditional 8,848 m and 8,611 m, others giving lower figures, and the spread of these exceeds their claimed accuracy. They should therefore be regarded as publicity seeking and should be ignored. In reality, the Himalayan geoid has not been determined with sufficient accuracy to allow such precision. A further point with regard to the recent Chinese survey: according to the Mount Everest page, the geologic height was measured, not the height including perennial snow and ice cover. The logical extenstion of this would demand that the elevation of Mont Blanc (which varies seasonally) be lowered by 10-20 m, Khan Tangiri Shyngy to 6,995m and the South Pole to around or below sea level. Until several independent measurements show a consistent error margin, the elevations of Mount Everest and K2 should stand at 8,848 m and 8,611 m, in line with official topographic mapping, and confusing alternatives should be rejected.

A further point: the depth of snow and ice cover, on which the elevation depends, is not constant. So small changes to the long accepted 8,848 m are superfluous. In effect, the US GPS survey merely confirmed the accuracy of the earlier survey that gave 8,848 m. If there had been a difference exceeding, say, 10 meters or more, the issue would have arisen and if this had been confirmed by the Chinese survey, then the case for changing the 8,848 m elevation would have been good. Indeed, I have altered many long standing elevations elsewhere, where I have been able to cite reliable evidence.

Any editor who thinks the elevation of 8,848 m should not be used on the Everest page should add his reasons here before editing the main article. If a significant number of readers agree on an alternative figure, or anyone supplies a compelling reason why it should be changed, then I will accept it. Otherwise I will continue to revert changes to it. Viewfinder 22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like the Chinese measure is probably very accurate, likely to within 1 metre but because the height they measured is different from the way the height of other mountains is commonly measured, you argue it shouldn't be used when quoting the height. I agree with that for now. However I don't see any reason why the 8850m figure shouldn't be used. AFAIK, quality GPS devices can give greater then a metre precision (and as far as we know, accuracy) and I would have to assume the device used by the US GPS survey used a device capable of at least a metre precision. I don't know much about the other technic but it sounds to me like it's precision is probably less then 1m and it's accuracy as well. Also, it was done quite a while ago and although I know the mountain itself isn't rising at a level high enough to make a difference (as far as we know), I don't know whether this is true for the snow and ice cover. But even if the height of the snow and ice cover isn't changing enough that it could make a significant difference, it sounds rather bizzare to me to use a figure which was done with a less precise and less accurate measurement technic when we have a newer figure with a more precise and (we believe) more accurate measurement technic. Or put it another way, if we put both figures side by side, 8848m +/-2m (for example, I don't know the actual precision of the measurement technic) vs 8850m +/-1m it sounds silly to me to choose the first figure. Perhaps my thinking is different from your since I'm a scientist but I have to say that most sources I have seen, newspapers, National Geographic etc frequently quote the 8850m figure nowadays. If you have evidence the precision, or better still, the accuracy of the old figure is better then or the same as the new figure and that the ice and snow cover isn't changing enough that it could make a significant difference to the height then it wouldn't make sense to change it perhaps but until then, I'm going to change it to 8850m. Nil Einne 16:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the above comments and for explaining your edit, unlike others who have been making the same edit. However, you say that the Chinese measurement (8,844 m) is "likely to be within 1 metre". Please go to [3] and [4], which state that the Chinese survey, the most recent, measured a rock head height of 8844.43m and a snow/ice depth of 3.5m. I make that 8,848 m.

Obviously the elevation depends on the snow depth. I have never been there, but afaik Everest's summit is not likely to bear a six metre depth of snow and ice. See 2.55 m given here, and K2 snow depth of 2.22m [5]. So it seems unlikely that both surveys can justify their claimed accuracy, and it seems that the Chinese survey implies that a net 8,848 m height (as measured for the purposes of this article) is more accurate. While I do not dispute your claims about the accuracy of DGPS relative to its reference points, in reality:

• The snow and ice depth is variable, and probably varies seasonally by more than the claimed accuracy.
• There is no evidence that the local geoid has been determined to the accuracies that are claimed for these elevations.
• An earlier survey by the same author gives 8,846 m.

The 8,848 m height has been accepted for a long time, is still accepted officially by Nepal, and appears on its official 1:50,000 topographic map. Imo that is a very strong argument for retaining it, at least until an alternative has been established by more than one independent source. Otherwise it means that either the elevations have to be changed everywhere - not just several other Wikipedia and other web sites but in print, too. Also, supporters of the 8,848 m elevation take a neutral stance between the Chinese and the USA, supporting neither one nor the other.

Aside: The National Geographic Society, who sponsored the Washburn survey, could more usefully spend more of its resources elsewhere where peak heights are still seriously uncertain. Moreover their august reputation will not deter me from challenging their competence on elevation matters. See Talk:Khardungla_Pass (section 6) for hard evidence of major errors in elevations given by this organisation. Also, Washburn would have had reasons for wanting to change the elevation; if he had reaffirmed 8,848 m, the value of his survey would have been more likely to be questioned.

Summary: if we adopt the practice of changing elevations in our encyclopedias every time a new DGPS survey gives a new figure, even if it varies by 2 m or less from existing elevations, then the result will be widespread disagreement among sources. It is better to be consistent. Albeit that is no longer possible with Everest; you are right that that 8,850 m is now often given.

Postscript: this postdates the Washburn survey. Viewfinder 20:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have discovered a detailed account [6] of the Washburn survey, which states that the 8,850 m elevation is the rockhead and that the snow/ice added an additional 1 m. So there is a clear conflict with the more recent Chinese survey. Perhaps a new survey, completely independent and impartial, is needed. Viewfinder 21:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusing

I find the following section rather confusing:

The aftermath of the 1996 Mount Everest disaster further intensified the debate. Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air (1997) expressed the author's personal criticisms of the use of bottled oxgen. Krakauer wrote that the usage of bottled oxygen allowed otherwise unqualified climbers to attempt to summit, leading to dangerous situations and more deaths. The May 10 disaster was partially caused by the sheer number of climbers (33 on that day) attempting to ascend, causing bottlenecks at Hillary Step and delaying many climbers, most of whom summited after the usual 2pm turnaround time. He proposed banning bottled oxygen except for emergency cases, which would both decrease the growing trash on Everest and keep marginally qualified climbers off the mountain.

The 1996 disaster also thrust the issue of the guide's role in using bottled oxygen. Guide Anatoli Boukreev's decision not to use bottled oxygen was sharply criticized by Jon Krakauer. Boukreev's supporters (who include G. Weston DeWalt, who co-wrote The Climb) state that using bottled oxygen gives a false sense of security. Krakauer and his supporters point out that, without bottled oxygen, Boukreev was unable to directly help his clients descend. They cite that Boukreev said that he was going down with client Martin Adams, but when Adams slowed down, Boukreev went up ahead and left him behind. The debate between G. Weston DeWalt and Jon Krakauer on bottled oxygen and Boukreev's actions can be found in the Salon debates.

It should be noted that most climbers in the mountaineering community support Krakauer's point of view but the most highly experienced climbers will agree that there are a small set of unique climbers such as Anatoli Boukreev and Ed Viesturs who can climb without oxygen and still function well. Most climbers agree that a guide cannot directly help clients if he or she cannot concentrate or think clearly (which happens with the very thin atmosphere above).

At first, it sounds like Krakauer is against bottled oxygen. Then later, it sounds like Krakauer thinks Anatoli should have used bottled oxygen and that Boukreev's supporters such as DeWalt are opposed to the use of bottle oxygen (which Krakauer also was supposedly against). Then it goes on to say climbers support Krakauers views (on what? that bottled oxygen should be banned?).

Nil Einne 15:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In his book Into Thin Air, Krakauer is strongly in favour of the use of bottled oxygen by high altitude mountain guides. His attitude to the greater mountaineering public is a little less clear: on one hand he clearly admires those who have summited without the use of oxygen, on the other, he questions whether an indvidual should choose to be weaker and less mentally able by refusing to carry oxygen. This was especially pertinant to the 1996 expeditions. I agree that the passage quoted above is confusing and will take a look at it at some time in the future.--Fergie 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hillary & Tenzing

From the Tenzing page:

Hillary and Tenzing answered that question in characteristically different ways. In his book, Hillary described himself as the strong leader of the team, who not only was working hard making steps in the snow for both of them, but also had to pull Tenzing up those steps, and that Tenzing kept falling to the ground, extremely exhausted. Tenzing's account a few years later sounded very different: he stressed the unity of such teams and of their achievements, shrugged off the allegation of being ever pulled by anyone, but disclosed that Hillary was the first to put his foot on the summit. He concluded: "If it is a shame to be the second man on Mount Everest, then I will have to live with this shame

It sounds to me like the details of Hillary's account need to be updated. At the moment, it makes it sound like Hillary completely supports the idea that it was a team effort without either being more worthy of recognition (which was what I always thought). However according to my quote above from the Tenzing page, this is not really true, (although as far as I know and not disputed by the Tenzing page, Hillary has never confirmed who reached the summit first). Nil Einne 16:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It was them with the little hatchet

Wasn't the axe of Mallory or Irving found recently in ice, which is proof they reached the top of the world? I can't see this mentioned in the article.

Well not recently.. EverestNews.com picks up the story.. Wyn Harris, during the 1933 Everest Expedition, found an ice ax at about 27,700 feet. The location is fairly certain: Harris took the ax he found, and left his own ax in its place. The spot is about 20 meters below the ridge, on a fairly flat, wide, open area nearly 300 meters above Mallory's body. No one besides M&I was up that high before 1933. So it is fairly certain the ax was either Mallory's or Irvine's. link

Three notches found on the ax suggest the ax was Irvine's. Irvine used to mark his equipment. Wyn Harris apparently had the axe that picked up 'further marked' so that it wouldn't get mixed up with his team's axes. My understanding is that this latter mark was a cross, and distinct from the three horizontal strokes that (I understand) Irvine used. Everestnews.com goes on to speculate that the ice axe would have been dropped by Irvine 'on the way down', as otherwise he would have retrieved it. This is not inconsistent with a summit by Irving or Mallory, but it should be noted that the axe was found 2000 feet below the summit and a very considerable horizontal distance away. EverestNews.com theorises that Irvine climbed no higher than the base of the 'Second Step' (28,100 feet), a thousand feet below the summit.

The issue would be clearer if I could point you to a diagram of the summit approaches, which is the project I am currently working on (see below)Tban 20:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

More Detailed Route Information on Summit Approaches

It seems to me that to describe the events of 1924 and 1996 (and 2006) without having a detailed guide to the 'geography' of the route between the North Col and the Summit is to leave the reader somewhat 'in the dark'. The main everest article doesn't quite go into enough detail. Perhaps there is a case for creating an 'child' article 'Everest North Col to Summit Route Detail' (or suchlike). So that's what I'm working on at the moment. It's actually quite complex - and made interesting by the fact that some climbers seem to interchange terms when describing the features along the way.

The format I'm aiming towards is an initial diagram (cross section) with several different 'layers' of information - (1) features - each relating to a text section lower down in the articl (2) vertical and horizontal distances between features (3) climbing time between features (4) location of events such as rescues/deaths/irving's ice axe etc (5) climbing route(s) around features. My timeframe to complete the first draft of this is about a week.. I am concentrating on the SE Ridge initially because that is where most of the historical incidents/controversies have happened.

What I'm aiming to do after that is tackle the 1996 events from a NPOV stance in order to 'round up' the separate references to them in the articles on the climbers involved in those events (a tall order I agree..). And then slot that information into a series of articles/references that refer to notable rescues, attempted rescues, deaths and bivouacs near the summit. A sort of catalogue of exception human activities around the summit that don't necessarilly get into the record of 'successful summits', thus going a bit further towards 'filling out the story' of human endeavour on the mountain. An example is the case of Fran Arsentiev. If you know the details of that event, or look it up link, you'll apppreciate that I am talking about both tragic and heroic human endeavours. Tban 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I wrote the original text of the two main routes based on what I have read over the years as well as correlating route pictures with corresponding text, mainly from the PBS Nova website on their Everest expedition coverage. Having seen Everest myself while in Nepal a few years back, I could visualize part of the route as I could see it from my viewpoints. However, I suspect that for those who do not have similar background information, trying to follow the route descriptions would not be easy. A few pictures visually marking the routes would be a great aid for readers. I look forward to seeing your results. RedWolf 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Gday RW, I should note that the 'Routes' section is excellent (already), and it is only the increasing number of reports of (and debates about) incidents that refer to 'places' along the route above the North Col that really warrant going into more detail now. Hence my 'not quite' comment. I should have been more (obviously) generous about prior contributions in my initial comments - hope this amends.. Looking to scribble some sketches of the various sections - easier than trying to get non-copyright photographs. I am updating my progress on my own Talk page (as at 15 June 2006) Tban 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Death List

Under ascents->facts it is stated that "179 people (have) died while summitting". Where does this information come from? Is there a death list for climbers who have died whilst mountaineering on everest? Should it be included in wikipedia? --Fergie 12:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gday Fergie. Deaths on Everest, either on the Tibetan side or the Nepalese side are actually recorded by the Governments that have jurisdiction over that territory. There is perhaps an impression - perhaps left over from the days of the great 'National Expeditions' - that some kind of extra-territoriality provision applies, that is to say that foreigners in Nepal or Tibet are not subject to local laws, or that there activities (including unfortunately sometimes their death) are not a matter of concern to local authorities. Since the 1960's as I understand it the Chinese and Nepalese Governments have controlled access to the mountain through a series of permits and issue bulletins about incidents on the mountain. In addition to the Government sources there a private organisation, EverestNews.com which has maintained a running commentary on events on the mountain. Being private they will often release news sooner than the Government sources (particularly the Chinese). There is very little chance that a climber would be able to enter either country and attempt an unlicenced climb on the mountain. But the possilibility exists that some foreigners or locals who have been posted as 'missing' in those countries may have died undetected on the mountain, thus rendering the official count 'incorrect'. I'd have to say it would be very long odds against, however.

As to publishing a list of the dead on Everest, or indeed any mountain, I'd suggest that while the statistic is 'informative' as to the degree of risk, and that there are 'tales involving the death of climbers that deserve to be told' a simple list of climbers who have died would have no broader 'informational' significance than a list of all the 3000 or so climbers who have summitted Everest. That's to say both lists would have personal significance (and I don't argue that that isn't sufficient justification for doing it) for the climbers who had achieved the summit, and for the families and friends of those who died in the attempt, but it is not information that would lead 'anywhere'. Actually having said that I realize that I am wrong, that in fact a list of people who had died on Everest, and other 8000+ meter mountains and details of their cause of death might actually be a useful (probably not pivotal however) research tool for anyone studying the effects (particularly pre-disposing factors) of high altitude sickness causing death - given that the list might then lead them to the medical records of these people (with their families permission). I'd have to say, however, that the task is beyond me, but perhaps someone will pick this up.. Best regards, Tban 01:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Everest Summiteers have both a list of summits, and deaths. I get the impression that it is complete. Try this link.

Thanks for the link, but this is definately not a complete list of those who have perished whilst part of an Everest expedition.--Fergie 09:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Noted that the linked list stops at 2003 in any case. Up to us then, either to build a list in Wiki, or to provide details to www.everestsummiteersassociation.org and ask them to update their list. Regards, Tban 11:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed- I believe that this info is not available in a publically accessible place and that an attempt to create a list of casualties (and possibly expeditions and summiteers) is an endeavour worthy of wikipedia--Fergie 19:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Touch the Top of the World

I just realized that there's no article for this great movie. It was on the A&E channel and is about the first (and only so far I believe) blind man to climb Mount Everest. Has anyone else viewed this? Anyone want to help add to the article? Tyciol 04:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that we are talking about Erik Weihenmayer, who made an ascent of Everest in 2001. Erik who has been blind since the age of 13 (at which stage he already had an interest in rock climbing) is an interesting guy. He acknowledges he can't climb without team support, that's to say he makes his own way when he can using his sense of sound particularly, but he can't lead, and needs very clear directions on chaotic ground. But as he puts it he pulls his weight in camp and carrying. He seems to have a good sense of his abilities, and looking from the outside it seems as if he warrants the appelation 'serious climber'. Incidentally he is on his way to completing the seven summits. A documentary was made about the climb in 2003 called 'Farther than the eye can see' using high definition footage from the expedition. Erik subsequently wrote a book called 'Touch the Top of the World', which was the basis of the A&E teleplay (a sort of documentary).

General Info Movie: Farther than the eye can see National Federation of the Blind Everest 2001 Expedition Movie:Touch the Top of the World

He sounds like he warrants a wiki article in his own right (based on probable public interest). He would (as I understand it) belong in the list of Everest 'firsts' and in the 'Climbers List', and be referenced from those places to his own article. I have too much on my plate at the moment to do more than give you these links though.. It'd be interesting to understand the man behind the portrayal in the teleplay - which someone describes as 'a blind mountain-climbing Mother Teresa'. Cheers, Tban 09:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Category

Stemonitis has removed the category "Mountains of China" with the note "Rv. Mountains of Tibet is a child of Mountains of China". If you click on the category "Mountains of Tibet", there is no sign that this is a "child" of "Mountains of China". To remove that information doesn't make sense, so I've reinserted the category "Mountains of China". —Babelfisch 01:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of Category:Mountains of Tibet is the listing of the categories of which it is a child: Mountains of China, Geography of Tibet, Mountains of Asia, and Himalaya. It's fairly pointless to have articles in two categories, one of which is a sub-category of the other, or all mountains will end up in a vast and cumbersome Category:Mountains. --Stemonitis 06:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Stemonitis correctly removed the Mountains of China since the Tibet category is one of it's children. There is no need to have the mountain in two categories having a parent-child relationship. RedWolf 20:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that Mount Everest should not appear in the category "Mountains of China". I guess this is a political issue, not a formal technical question. —Babelfisch 08:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

First to conquer Everest

Is it fair to say that Hillary and Norgay were the first to climb to the summit of Mt. Everest? Surely the Tibetans and/or Nepalese reached the top at some point in the hundreds of years before the Europeans colonised eastern Asia; or is it simply a case of the first recorded instance from a reliable source that someone scaled the mountain (in which case, the article ought to make it a bit more clear). A.G. Pinkwater 13:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I share your (seemingly) healthy skeptical view of the tendency for the 'west' to reinterpret the world solely in terms of 'European' achievement. However in this case I'd say we are on fairly safe ground in suggesting Hillary & Tenzing, and possibly Mallory, were the first 'on top'. The reason is not the requirement for bottled oxygen (Sherpas could do without supplementary oxygen), but simply the accumulated technical difficulties that were overcome (even in Mallory's day) by a 'suite' of technical solutions (not least crampons) that did not exist in Sherpa culture prior to that time. If some hardy Sherpa (perhaps the fellow who posed nude at the summit) were to climb the mountain using only materials available in traditional Sherpa culture - and in doing so avoid using any of the hundreds of fixed ropes on the mountain or the Chinese aluminium ladder on the Second Step - then I'd have to revisit my opinion. One thing further, however tells against the liklihood of an early Sherpa ascent, and that is the lack of an oral tradition - or any contemporary suggestion in Sherpa society or China (always keen to take credit for 'firsts') that any one else 'got there first'. What is true though, is that with very few exceptions, most climbers who have got to the top wouldn't be there without the assistance of Sherpas, and no doubt things will remain that way until the someone installs an elevator inside the mountain. After all, what are we talking about, possibly 4 or 5 miles of rock boring?Tban 14:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Temperature inconsistency

In the "Death Zone" section, there's the statment "Temperatures can dip as low as -100 degrees Fahrenheit (-55°C)". I don't know which is correct, but they sure ain't both so. - Spike 62.49.28.206 11:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)