|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Annapurna article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
鱼尾峰 At some point it would probably be good to move Anna II etc. to their own pages. --Spireguy 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)-- crazyhbx
The new image from Google Earth is somewhat dubious. First, it may not qualify as "fair use"; I'm not sure. Second, this is not an actual photo, rather it is a digitally generated view, and that may be misleading. It is an OK rendition of the South Face, but it is far from perfect. It should at the least be marked as not being an actual photo, and perhaps it should be removed. Comments? -- Spireguy 19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's fair use at all. --Makaristos 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Technically this image posting breaches Google's copyright and should perhaps be eeplaced with a kml link. But I can't imagine Google objecting. GE images can be esily obtained from the article via the coordinate links. Re the quality if the image, Google have high resolution imagery in the Annapurna area, but unfortunately it has not been accurately placed, there is a c.400m displacement with respect to the underlying DEM data. Also, the image claims to be from the base camp, but according to the text the image was taken from 5.7km, whereas the base camp has an altitude of about 4.0km. Viewfinder 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This page should really show Annapurna on a map of either the region or country or whatever is appliciable; for a reference point of where it is.
"The 7000m Mark"
I'm apt to remove this sentence from the article:
Machapuchare (6993m) is another important peak of the Annapurna Himal, though it just misses the 7000m mark.
From what sincere source do we apply the 7000m mark as a point of greater signifigance for a mountain? Machapuchare is a sacred peak, much more so than Annapurna, and therefore, by its cultural integrity alone, is a more "important" peak. The author obviously has an affiliation with mountains according to their elevation; this, in my opinion, is a characteristic not becoming of a mountaineer. I suggest a rewrite:
Machapuchare (6993m) is a sacred peak in the region, so sacred in fact that it is forbidden to climb it. --Bentonia School 14:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. "(6993m)" already implies that is misses the 7000m mark. The proposed version is more informative. Viewfinder 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Perhaps better would be:
- Machapuchare, 6,993 metres (22,943 ft), is a visually striking, sacred peak of the Annapurna Himal, so sacred in fact that climbing it is forbidden.
However, I would suggest that a comment like "The author obviously has an affiliation with mountains according to their elevation; this, in my opinion, is a characteristic not becoming of a mountaineer" is (while pretty gentle) ad hominem and somewhat presumptuous. It might be better to stick to the substance of the edit and not speculate on motivations. One could just as easily assume that the intent was "Machapuchare is more important than one would expect, given its lower elevation than the surrounding peaks." Disclosure: I might have been the author in question; I really don't remember and I haven't checked. -- Spireguy 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the above paragraph. Viewfinder 19:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
suitic briefing on Annapurna 1 expedition
I wanted to know the actual mounteneering history about the mt Annapurna 1 then I went for yahoo search meanwhile got annapurna encyclopedia Wikipedia. I got here good historical breifing on the annapurna 1 expediton thanking you Jaya N Bhandari tre leader Adventure thirdpole treks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
New picture from basecamp
Which face of Annapurna I is pictured in the recently added image? From which basecamp (or is it an Advanced Base Camp (ABC), as the image name suggests)? I can't easily match it to the pics in my sources, so clarification would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Spireguy (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know exactly, but the French route to the top is from the (north-)east side of the mountain. If the given information "sunrise" is true, it'll make sense. To get there you must find a valley (or maybe a col, because the valley is too steep and to narrow) that takes you from Kali Ghandaki right to the Grande Barrière. So you start at the north-west side of Annapurna 1 and walk basically along it's north face until you're east of the mountain. Then you might get to see it from that perspective.--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like the picture is actually from Annapurna South taken from Annapurna Base Camp (ABC). I think this picture might clear things up. Notice that from that perspective South looks a lot taller than Annapurna I, which might cause somebody to confuse the two. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks guys, I think it actually is Annapurna South not Annapurna I. It was taken from Annarpurna Base Camp (ABC) from the Annapurna Sanctuary. I ammended the caption since it is not Annapurna South Base Camp. For further clarification here is a link to a panorama I also took. Cheers, Arite (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I found an inconsistency between the prominence value given on this page and that on List of highest mountains. The best reference I found was on peakbagger.com. I updated the value to 2984m as given there. If the value of 2894m can also be referenced (I haven't yet found a good source), please give the source and we can resolve or note the uncertainty. --David Edgar (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Annapurna IV's Status
I have boldly changed the parent peak in this article from Everest to Cyo Oyu to match the info on List of highest mountains. I think the latter is correct, but not 100% sure and I couldn't find a confirmation. If Im wrong on this please make the needed corrections on both pages. Thanks. Racerx11 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Annapurna 1 highest fatality rate
The claim that Kangchenjunga has surpased Annapurna 1 as the highest death toll seems untrue.
Even the source cited by Eberhard Jurgalski has it listed as 4th with Annapurna much higher than the others. Am I missing something, please double check cite and lets give these moutains the proper respect they have earned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the Jurgalski list has it fourth. However, the claim in the article says The Annapurna peaks are the world's most dangerous mountains to climb although, from figures since 1990, Kangchenjunga surpasses Annapurna's death rate. Keywords here "since 1990". In fact, according to the article eight-thousander, Kanchenjunga has the highest fatality rate from 1990 to ?, though I do not know the source of this fact or data.--Racerx11 (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- The wording in the article suggested an interpretation precisely as you apparently understood it. I have changed the wording to avoid this kind of confusion.--Racerx11 (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
"Mount Annapurna South Face" Picture Gallery
I'm troubled by two things about this gallery.
1) As per local custom, it is customary to NOT refer to a Himalayan peak as "Mount" Anything - so "Mount Annapurna" is not the correct name for the peak. The exception to this is "Mount" Everest, which has become the accepted appellation due to its western origin.
2) In addition, none of the photos in the gallery are of Annapurna I itself - they are all of the South Face of Annapurna South: a subsidiary peak south of Annapurna I (although Annapurna I can be seen in the left distance of the 2nd photo from the left in the gallery). This is misleading.
I propose removing "Mount" from the names, and labeling the gallery as views of Annapurna South.
While we're at it - could we get a picture of Annapurna I in the summary block at the beginning of the article? Also, a view of Annapurna's North Face (by which the peak was first climbed) would be a welcome and informative addition to the article.
I will do some research and see if I can locate the appropriate photos and secure permission to use them.
- I've located an excellent source for some illustrative and informative photos - comments on my proposed changes welcome. I'll give this a couple of days, then if there are no objections I will go ahead and make the changes I've proposed above.
- After carefully reading the article, I believe the brief description of the first successful (French - 1950) expedition could be cleaned up, too. I'd like to clean up the grammar to make it clearer, and add brief references to the difficulty that expedition had even finding the mountain and also mention the fact that the first ascent was from the north side.
- Existing Text (15 July, 2014)
- Annapurna I was the first 8,000-metre (26,200 ft) peak to be climbed. Maurice Herzog and Louis Lachenal, of a French expedition led by Maurice Herzog (including Lionel Terray, Gaston Rébuffat, Marcel Ichac, Jean Couzy, Marcel Schatz, Jacques Oudot, Francis de Noyelle), reached the summit on 3 June 1950.
- Proposed Changes to Existing Text (15 July, 2014)
- Annapurna I was the first 8,000-metre (26,200 ft) peak to be climbed. A French expedition led by Maurice Herzog (with members Louis Lachenal, Lionel Terray, Gaston Rébuffat, Marcel Ichac, Jean Couzy, Marcel Schatz, Jacques Oudot, and Francis de Noyelle) reconnoitered the area for 6 weeks, exploring various approaches to, and deciding against attempting, both Annapurna via its huge South Face and also the neighboring 8,000 meter peak of Dhaulagiri. The lengthy exploration was needed due to the inaccurate maps available to the expedition.
- On 3 June 1950, Herzog and Louis Lachenal completed an epic ascent via the North Face of Annapurna. As well as being the first 8,000 meter peak to be successfully climbed, it is the only 8,000er to be successfully summited on the first attempt - a unique accomplishment in the history of Himalayan mountaineering.
October 2014 trekking disaster
I've started a section on the current disaster, using this BBC source. More will need to be added, and I'm sure there is a need for a spin-off article specifically about it. Haven't seen it created yet, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)