Talk:Mount Kinabalu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mountains (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Malaysia (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Was reading through this article and there seems to be a fair bit of promotion on this page. The language choices aren't encyclopdedic, with examples being "Among this rich collection of wildlife are famous species such as the gigantic Rafflesia plants and the orangutan." and "recent botanical survey of the mountain estimated a staggering 5,000 to 6,000 plant species" etc. Although these aren't majorly biased, It does seem to be worth mentioning as the language reminds me of an old TV commercial campaign for visiting Malaysia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotASir (talkcontribs) 11:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


Any local legends please? E.g. Dusunic beliefs of the mountain as home of anscestal spirits, and Chinese legends of a dragon at the peak guarding a pearl. Also, true stories of climbers getting lost, etc. Like one that made the newspapers a long time ago: a European girl who got separated from her tour -- there was a huge search-and-rescue -- found dead days (weeks?) later. Please contribute if you have enough knowledge of these. --Lionelster 04:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

- I climbed Kinabalu three weeks ago and heard the following tale about the name of the mountain; There used to live a powerful dragon up at the top of the hill and he had a massive treasure of jewelry. Many men tried to slay the beast and acquire the treasure but no-one succeeded until a chinese prince came and was victorious. The prince wed a local malay girl living in the outskirts of mountain. After some time of joyful family-life, the prince got a message from china that his father had died and he went on to journey there to claim the throne. He was of course supposed then come back to get his wife to china, but months passed without no note of return. The malay wife started climbing every day to the top of the mountain to see if his prince would be arriving by boat, but alas, he was not returning. One day she took her life in the top of the mountain and thus the mountain became called mount Kinabalu.

I also heard that some rock formations are thought to be tracks of the dragon, but I failed to see them.--jappjapp75 14:34, 10 December 2005

Ain't Mt Kinabalu 4104 m ??[edit]

According to the high school geography textbooks of the Ministry of Education of Malaysia, Mt Kinabalu is 4104 m. User:Randytsx

That figure is outdated. --Lionelster 03:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My atlas had this mountain listed as 4101m rather than 4095m as in the article. It says here that the mountain is growing. Also alot of google hits for 4101 - [1] -- Astrokey44|talk 10:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
CIA world factbook has 4100 and Peakware has 4102 -- 07:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, the Malaysian ministry of education has been misleading generations of students.[edit]

"Gunung tertinggi di Asia Tenggara" ("highest mountain in South-East Asia")? My sweet ass it is.

Thank you, wikipedia, for finally pointing this out to me. (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Puncak Jaya located in Southeast Asia or Oceania? At Puncak Jaya, the article claims that Puncak Jaya is the highest in Oceania. In Mount Kinabalu, it states that Kinabalu is the third highest behind Puncak Jaya. So, there seems to be a little confusion here. __earth 17:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that there is a difference between the "political" boundaries and the "geographical" boundaries of southeast asia. Because Indonesia is part of ASEAN, the entire country is considered part of "Southeast Asia". This is flawed thinking though, because by that logic, all of Russia could be considered Europe. Geographically, the area known as Australiasia is considered the boundary and that region includes ALL of New Guinea. Of course, this is an issue that can always be argued either way, but in my opinion, considering this is a geographic claim; it should be backed up by geography, not politics. Perhaps we can describe it in such a way that it is not given a rank. How does this seem:
"It is the tallest mountain in Malaysia and on the island of Borneo, as well as one of the tallest in Southeast Asia, trailing Hkakabo Razi of Myanmar (Burma) and, depending on where the boundary of Southeast Asia is drawn, Puncak Jaya of New Guinea."--Daamsie 06:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


The attached Palm tree IS NOT a palm tree, it is a fern. sltan

There are over 6000 plant species in California, so it is incorrect to say this region has more species than Europe and North American combined! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

the highest peak in south east asia is Hkakabo Razi (5,881 m) in Mynmar... not Gunung Puncak.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Replacing photo[edit]

Replacing Willsmith pitcher_plant with pitcher_plant_mt_kinabalu.jpg

Replacing Willsmith Mount_Kinabalu.jpg with MtKinabalu_view_from_kundasan.jpg sltan

Some Images[edit]

I uploaded these images, [2], [3] and [4], (image references obvious by their filename) - which are high altitude photos of clouds from Mount Kinabalu, and I was wondering if it would be appropriate to insert them in either the Mount Kinabalu Article or the Cloud article, because I know both of them are already image saturated. The thing is that I'm not too sure of all the cloud formation classifications (although it fascinates me) to insert them in specific pages either. -- Natalinasmpf 23:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


"Since there are no roads, the supplies for the Laban Rata hut are carried by porters, mostly old women, who bring up to 30 kilograms of supplies on their backs."

Is this some kind of joke? From my experience, all of the porters are at most middle-aged men. 03:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm removing it. Mgiganteus1 08:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Most Important[edit]

The mountain and its surroundings feature a huge variety of flora, and is one of the world’s most important[citation needed] biological sites.

The citation requested is later in the article where it explains about the biodiversity exceeding that of all Europe. 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Born to be wild[edit]

I added this special and rare video feature:*Born To Be Wild: Mt. Kinabalu, 05/15/2008 --Florentino floro (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Highest in South East Asia?[edit]

(Transferred from my talk page)

Hi there. I understand that you remove the Mount Kinabalu ranking as to avoid edit war, but I propose to keep it there for clarification. I don't mind putting it as 6 / 7 position as long as it is being clarified to what reason and why. Mount Kinabalu has long been listed as highest in South East Asia in terms of geologist (which boundries is clearly define), however now there are some people advocating political boundries (also clearly define) and accusing those who listed Mount Kinabalu as highest in SEA as cheating. By puting both side / ranking this article hopefully clarified this issues to those who are looking for clear explanation. For those who persist, there is not really much anyone can do for them. Regards Yosri (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at Talk:Mount Kinabalu.

How are your "geologist" boundaries of South East Asia defined, and can you support them with a reference? Assuming that Myanmar (Burma) is included in SEA, then there are many more than 6 higher mountains and Kinabalu's position is impossibile to determine. Imo, to state that it is the highest in Malaysia and Borneo is enough. Viewfinder (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"Myanmar is a forest-clad mountainous country. In the northern part of the Country there are three parallel chains of mountain ranges beginning at the eastern extremity of the Himalayas and running from north to south: these are the Rakhine Yoma, the Bago Yoma and the Shan Plateau." [Beautiful Myanmar]. The purpose to put the explanation there, is to clarified the different point of view. No one is born with knowledge, they must get it. You must take into account information for new comers to Internet world. Yosri (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that website would qualify as a Wikipedia:Reliable source. In any case, as Viewfinder points out, there is no agreed definition of Southeast Asia, so we should not make conclusive statements on the matter. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit lame excuse, however for valid reference look at Google books as follow:-

Better yet look at this book search Yosri (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You still have not defined the "geologist" borders of South East Asia, and in any case your POV on this matter clashes with the political view, which places Myanmar within South East Asia. Viewfinder (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

??? My POV? Please refer to referance link. Hikakabo Razi is part of Himalayan range. So that depend on where you put Himalaya range? If you put it in SEA, (including Everest), then Everest is highest in SEA. However, if you geografically cut Himalayan range by political boundries, then we are talking political not geografical boundries already. Yosri (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It's far easier to follow the UN convention and consider all parts of Burma as SEA. Geographical convention is problematic; while the exclusion of Irian Jaya can be done without controversy, exclusion of the Burmese cannot. In any case, user daamsie has offered a solution which I think will work. I believe his wordings were incorporated earlier but I can't see it now in the front page. Only a slight modification to his wordings is required. __earth (Talk) 09:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There are many mountains in Burma that are considerably higher than Kinabalu, and anyway it would be best not to use the primarily political term "South East Asia". Please don't let's include a long POV discussion about the scope of Kinabalu's superlative status in its lead section. There is also the problem of West Papua. How you define a mountain? Imo West Papua is not Asian but there are differences of opinion among authorities about this. Viewfinder (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The UN convention is taking the current political boundries (this change with time). In this case, you cannot seperate Indonesia from SEA. I don't have problem putting it (political boundries) in, but I advocate incorporating geografical boundries (as per provided referance) as to educate readesr on differences point of view. By the way, Himalayan mountain ranges are formed by plate tetonic movement, the same one that formed all mountain in Burma, unless new theory on how mountain formed (exclude volcano) appeared. Fish of the same kettle.Yosri (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The article Southeast Asia states unambiguously that the whole of Burma is in Southeast Asia. If you disagree, challenge that article, then if you are successful, we can reopen the debate here. Viewfinder (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, that is political boundaries. Do you have problem understanding English? I'm just stating, geographically, Himalayan mountain ranges is not in SEA, and have provided proof to that effect. Yosri (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite amusing... Geographically speaking, the Himalayan mountain ranges form the border between the Eurasian and Indian plates, and Burma/Myanmar is clearly on the Eurasian plate. From political and cultural standpoints, Burma is an integral part of mainland Southeast Asia. I guess one can say this is the highest peak in maritime Southeast Asia, if that someone's hellbent on making this the highest peak somewhere. Pettiness amazes me. (Btw, I'd recommend not questioning someone's English language skills just because you don't agree with that person. People who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones.) Hybernator (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Southeast Asia#Geographical is clear: Burma/Myanmar is included. Please take your case there, preferably transcribing a passage from one of your above sources which proves your point. Then, if you win, come back here. Viewfinder (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh[edit]

It has been discovered that this book:

  • Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, it should not be used as a source. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive after it goes there.   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, on the question of the nudist hikers.[edit]

This article devotes an inordinate amount of space to the issue of some hikers who conducted themselves poorly in the lead-up to the recent earthquake. Now, did this small group of Western tourists mishandle the situation? Absolutely. Did this cause the earthquake? No, no it didn't. Nor is it (the tourist incident) likely to be all that important in the broader history of the mountain. Now, my first inclination would be to go through the article's discussion of the nudist incident-- which is written in garbled English-- and clean it up, but I'm inclined to think that a lot of it just doesn't belong in the article. Now, I want to assume good faith, but its presence here gives the impression that someone has an axe to grind against these tourists, rather than wanting to improve the encyclopedia. As I'm reluctant to go in and start excising large swathes of content (especially sourced content), I would like to solicit the opinions of other editors on the subject. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To put it more concisely, the section on the earthquake is focused almost exclusively on the hikers and says almost nothing about the actual earthquake, which is alleged to have actually changed the appearance of the mountain. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The authorities have it backwards. Small earth quakes are how the mountian avoids large earth quakes.
The hikers pleased the deitiy so well that a small harmless quake was granted.
The mountian was appeased and the islanders now have more time before the next devistating quake.
The mountian also appears to enshrine the face of the first naked neanderthal man who saw it.
Tim Sheridan (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Photo: Summit of Mt.Kinabalu[edit]

This is the South Summit, not the Summit Luma73 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the peak is called South Peak. Luma73 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)