Jump to content

Talk:Mount Everest/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mount Everest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Error correction

There is an error under the 1996 Disaster heading: "One of the survivors was Beck Weathers, a client of Adventure Consultants from New Zealand"

Beck Weathers is from Dallas, Texas. Adventure Consultants was an organization run by Rob Hall who was from New Zealand. If "from New Zealand" is referring to Adventure Consultants rather than Beck Weathers, then the sentence ought to be restructured to make that more clear. Otherwise, the error should be corrected to reflect Beck Weathers' correct nationality/hometown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libbykino (talk • contribs) 03:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)  Done Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Request edit on 12 August 2016

Add this website if possible: [3]

— 2601:183:4000:D57A:E532:F558:2BA1:2602 (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of that information is already covered in article. Any specific reason for why this webpage should be added? Altamel (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: 2013 Mountaineering Season

This section needs copyediting. An example is (errors marked by me): "The brawl had various things said about it [not very encyclopedic] and one highlight was that Melissa Arnot helped diffusse [spelling error] the fight between three climbers and a mob of Sherpa's [punctuation error]." Also: "Mountaineers are well aware of the confusion and delirium high altitude can trigger, and the nuttiness [not very encyclopedic] of client request [should be plural] can wear on Sherpa's [punctuation error] who also may not have had the most clear emotions and insight high on the Lhotse face." And "One positive thing to come out of the fight was increased conversations [communication?] between all the people on the mountain, which help overcome come [extraneous word] some of the cultural and language barriers that complicate an already difficult environment."

There are a number or errors in more than one area of this section, and I feel that this section should be either combed through by an experienced editor or marked as requiring copyediting through tagging so that it will be revised and improved. 64.72.65.120 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done for now. Apuldram (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! 64.72.65.120 (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Prominence

I believe the quoted value of the Prominence is incorrect. As per the Wiki site on 'Topographic Isolation', which happens to quote the Prominence for Everest, it is equal to its Elevation - 8848m or 29,029 ft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.175.61 (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Isolation

The (topographic) isolation of a summit is the minimum great-circle distance to a point of equal elevation (see Wiki on 'Topographic Isolation'). As Everest is the highest point on Earth, there is no point of equal elevation on Earth, so the value quoted in the article (at right) should be 'n/a'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.175.61 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to be a 'nerd' about this, but the topographic isolation, being a measure of the *minimum* great circle distance between a height and the closest point of equal height on Earth, cannot exceed the Earth's half-circumference, which is about 12,500 miles. The distance traveling in the opposite direction to get from the first point to the second would be the *maximum* great circle distance. The number quoted for the "Isolation" at right is the *maximum* great circle distance between Everest and the next point of equal elevation (itself). The minimum great circle distance between Everest and itself, though, is zero.

That said, to assign 'zero' to the isolation would defeat the spirit of the definition of "isolation", which is to assign higher numbers to higher points.

The only consistent thing to do, therefore, is say the isolation of Everest is "not defined". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.175.61 (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The first contributor to this section proposed that the isolation should be marked as n/a, and this is how it is shown in the article on Topographic isolation. This is effectively the same as "not defined". I would change the entry in the article to n/a, but I don't know how to do that.
@RedWolf: You added the data on 10 April 2006. Can you please remove it? or tell me how to remove it? Apuldram (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Please cancel that request. I've succeeded now. Apuldram (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

2014: Helicopter assisted ascent

In this section of the article, a woman by the name of "Wang" is referred to however no previous details about who she is had been provided in this section or earlier. There seems to be content missing in this section making it difficult to read and understand.SquashEngineer (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Jing Wang is mentioned several times earlier in the article, including once in section '2014 avalanche and season'. A cross reference may help. The source cited in both sections (reference 173) gives a detailed account of the event. Apuldram (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Apuldram: True Jing Wang is referred to in the earlier section as you quote in '2014 avalanche and season.' However Wang Fuzhou is also referenced several times throughout the article, including the opening section, and includes referential links. The '2014: Helicopter assisted ascent' section is not clear as to which 'Wang' is being referred, provides no consistant link to additional information, and does not define to which 'team' she may be associated. SquashEngineer (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The Wang mentioned and linked in the section is Jing Wang. If you follow the link, it takes you to the earlier section, which makes that clear. Also, as I mentioned above, the reference provided (174 now) gives a detailed account of the event and the team. Apuldram (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Elevation

Why is the height listed as 29,108 feet when the measurements from 1999 and 2005 have been called into question numerous times and the official height is still accepted by most organizations as either 29,028 or 29,029 feet? Gabe1972 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, China made a precise measurement in 2005, it has been determined that the elevation of Mt. Everest is 8844.43 ± 0.21 metres above sea level, the ice thickness of the summit is 3.5 metres, so the figure quoted around the world (8848 metres) is really the elevation with ice, not the true elevation. 120.16.56.233 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
That point is stated clearly in the 'Surveys' section of the article. Apuldram (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2016

Under the section "Debris Management", change "aims to make a bioreactor for converting compost material especially poop into a gas maker." to "aims to make a bioreactor for converting compost material, especially feces, into a gas maker." to impart a more formal tone and to correct the punctuation issues.

Npvezeau (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Apuldram (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's actually spelt faeces.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2016‎ (UTC)
Both spellings are ok. Wikipedia uses feces. Apuldram (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016

The Mount Everest page incorrectly says that the Mandarin/Chinese name of this mountain is Chomolungma. This is not romanized using standard Chinese Pinyin, and should be changed immediately to Zhūmùlǎngmǎ, to say only the name of the mountain, or Zhūmùlǎngmǎ Fēng if it is referring to both the "Mount" and "Everest" part of Mount Everest. Revilococo (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

✗ Not done The Name section of the article already states that the official Chinese name for the mountain is Zhūmùlǎngmǎ Fēng. I couldn't find the sentence you refer to in your first line above, but I have removed the bracketed implication that the translation of Zhūmùlǎngmǎ is Chomolungma. The article states that Chomolungma or Qomolangma is the Tibetan name. Apuldram (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong info!

Isn't it located fully within Nepelese territory Birajpaudel (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The international border between Nepal and China runs through the precise summit point. Apuldram (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

"Comparatively, most expeditions are between $30 to $100,000USD" should be changed to "Comparatively, most expeditions are between $35,000 to $100,000USD" according to the cited source. Tstew0 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Thankyou for pointing that out. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Helicopter rescue?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Askari Aviation In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

Last paragraph of "Death zone" section: "not successful getting" to "not successful in getting". "is a recognised as" to "is recognised as" "was pioneer by" to "was pioneered by" "had major problem" to "had a major problem" "bottle oxygen" to "bottled oxygen" 94.173.44.201 (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Apuldram (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Tibet map title

I've added a second map for Tibet (since the peak is divided between Nepal and Tibet). However, the map title is displaying as China Tibet topography right now, which is overbearing. Ideally, it should just read Tibet. I believe this is stemming from the location map code. If anyone has any ideas how to fix this, I've posted the question here: Module talk:Location map#Changing map title. If others wish to remove the map until the title is fixed, I understand. --NoGhost (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This issue appears to have (magically) resolved! --NoGhost (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Political neutrality

This article is quite heavy on the politics, doing stuff like instead of calling it the "Chinese" side calling it the "communist" side. It's ridiculous, and needs to be changed to maintain political neutrality. It simply doesn't belong in an article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotOfImportanceToYou (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I have cleaned up two examples. Please feel free to make more improvements when you have been autoconfirmed. Apuldram (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2017

Everest is mentioned to exist in Nepal-China border whereas it actually exists in Nepal-Tibet border. Hrishg (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

✗ Not done The lead and infobox both already make it clear that the border is between Nepal and the Tibet Autonomous Region of China. Apuldram (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mount Everest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

The result of this discussion is withdrawn. I placed the merge template on the Mount Everest in 2017 article (diff) after reverting a redirect to the Mount Everest article that occurred (diff). After this, the split occurred that moved content from the Mount Everest article to the 2017 article. Nobody is supporting a merge, and at this point, it's pretty much moot per the spinout that occurred. North America1000 10:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a currently a tag on the article: "It has been suggested that Mount Everest in 2017 be merged into this article." I oppose this proposal as the reverse would make more sense - the large and growing section on the 2017 season (and other recent seasons) is out of place in a general Everest article which is already overlong IMHO - I suggest that the content of the 2017 section should be moved to the separate 2017 article (except for the Hillary Step news which seems notable and could be worked into the Climbing Routes part of the article). Samatarou (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Samatarou that the yearly information about expeditions is overwhelming this article with trivia. I would like to point out the existence of Timeline of Mount Everest expeditions. I would move much of the material from Mount Everest#History of expeditions into that other article, and also merge Mount Everest in 2017 into Timeline of Mount Everest expeditions. —hike395 (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Hike395 that the article is being overwhelmed with trivia and that nearly all the material in section Mount Everest#History of expeditions should be moved to Timeline of Mount Everest expeditions. One or two sentences from Early attempts, First successful attempts and perhaps 1970 disaster should be summarised and still be included here. Is the next step to make a formal part move proposal? Apuldram (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we need a more formal discussion than what is happening here on the talk page. —hike395 (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment When making the proposal yesterday, Northamerica1000 dated it April 2017. The article Mount Everest in 2017 was created by Fotaun on 20 May 2017. Apuldram (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I started to Mount Everest in 2017 to move the content over from the main page which is getting really large. Fotaun (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fotaun: That's good news. I think it means that you would be content if Mount Everest#History of expeditions is moved to Timeline of Mount Everest expeditions. That would help to unclutter Mount Everest. Cheers. Apuldram (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
With something like Everest, we are working against having mega pages since there is so much content. Timeline is a great article with summaries, but it is also huge. Having a solo page for big years like 2014, 2015, or in this case as it is turning out, 2017 is a way to archive this material without over-stressing the big E or timeline. Fotaun (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging anything here at this point. Support moving material from this article to Timeline/History/2017 articles; possibly even creating new articles for seasons with large amounts of notable, verifiable information. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be in favor of offloading some material, when relevant to timeline, history, or even new articles. I took another step in this direction by offloading 2013, which at the time was center-stage but is now dated. Someone also suggested timeline, and that could work for the smaller entries that don't have their legs for a solo page. Fotaun (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2017

For citation 182, "Cory Richards" is spelled ""Cor Richards". Should be corrected to "Cory Richards" 139.173.54.12 (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Apuldram (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Everest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mount Everest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: [1]

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=is+everest+the+tallest+mountain&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS752US753&oq=is+everest+&aqs=chrome.1.69i59l2j69i57j69i60l3.5984j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2017

PaulThe51 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic tone of most of the article

I added the "tone" tag to this article (which is far too long for me to copyedit in one sitting) because of the significant portion of content that reads like an enthusiastic climbing-magazine article rather than an encyclopedia article. The first paragraph under "Climbing" is emblematic of the problem: "big activity"; "big disasters"; "that classic climbing danger- falling"; "a multitude of mountaineering firms world over" are examples of phrases that might pass muster on a trekking blog, but shouldn't be here. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2017

Please edit the Environment section: in "The peak of Mount Everest extends into the upper troposphere and penetrates the stratosphere" the last 4 words "and penetrates the stratosphere" should be removed as erroneous statement. The stratosphere height at the Everest latitude is, depending on a large-scale weather pattern, at 10-12 km. (See, for example https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/stratosphere-overview)

Thanks! Oleksandr almaty (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done
The source you provided says that the stratosphere can be as low as 23,000 feet at the poles. Although Everest is not at the poles, it is far higher than 23,000 feet. Even more importantly, your source fails to say that no mountain peaks on Earth penetrate the stratosphere. You need a better and more unambiguous source, and you also need to evaluate and take into account other sources that say the Everest's summit extends into the stratosphere. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is a very high quality source from Nature that states that the summit of Everest extends into the stratosphere, at least some of the time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nihlus 15:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2017

everest is not the tallest mountain it is the second tallest. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicspy (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Vicspy. All reliable sources agree that Everest is tallest. A 1986 survey of K2 made a mistake and reported that it is taller. That has been discredited. K2 is the second tallest mountain on Earth. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This information is already in the article. SeeMount_Everest#Comparisons. Please don't post google search results as evidence, look for reliable sources instead. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 18:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=is+everest+the+tallest+mountain&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS752US753&oq=is+everest+&aqs=chrome.1.69i59l2j69i57j69i60l3.5984j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on

Tenzing Norgay From Khumbu, Nepal

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mount_Everest#First_successful_ascent_by_Tenzing_and_Hillary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.212.228 (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Tenzing Norgay was born and grew up in Khumbu, Nepal. he was from Khumbu, Nepal, not from the Darjeeling, India. After Everest he went to Darjeeling for searching job. Tenzing Norgay was a ethnically Sherpas who was migrated from eastern Tibet to Nepal within the last 300–400 years". As a sherpa who was born in Nepal, Tenzing Norgay clearly was Nepali and his native place is Khumbu. He later did move and settle to India mainly because of his job issues. He lives some of his life in India but he was from khumbu, Nepal.

Sources : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/dec/24/books.booksnews Please Change in this page "Tenzing Noragay, a Nepali Sherpa climnber from Khumbu, Nepal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.212.228 (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

O1lI0

@O1lI0: Specify what do you mean by original research, and what source do you want. If you can't, stop reverting others' edits.Esiymbro (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

See 1960 Chinese Mount Everest expedition. (The 1960 Chinese Mount Everest expedition was the first to successfully climb Mount Everest by the North Ridge. Three members of the Chinese Everest Expedition Team, Wang Fuzhou, Gonpo Dorje, and Qu Yinhua reached the summit at 4:25 a.m., 25 May. The expedition left no photographic evidence at the summit, and was originally met with skepticism in the West.[1] However, the international mountaineering community has generally acknowledged the result as more evidence has been revealed.) Use too much of China's point of view to illustrate original research. And you just put your original research on it--O1lI0 (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Linking to an article that supports a claim is not considered original research. If you have a problem with the source - ie the linked article, or the veracity of it - then take that up on the linked article 1960 Chinese Mount Everest expedition, rather than edit warring on this one here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
You don’t need to tell him about that—“edit warring” like this has already happened several times, and he knows that. It’s me that he is targeting, not the article itself. Esiymbro (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
If you continue a personal attack, it makes me feel that you are unscrupulous to protect your original research and that I refuse to communicate with you guys--O1lI0 (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
You didn't even create a talk page when you added four tags to 1960 Chinese Mount Everest expedition. I make a final response here, one by one:
  • The only real point of dispute I can think of, is the sentence "the international mountaineering community has generally acknowledged the result as more evidence has been revealed". I have listed my sources. If you have sources in the recent 20 years (Not 1960s or 80s articles, I already know them!) that suggest "mountaineers still mostly believe the report is faked", I'll change that. Now back to your tags:
  • "Factual accuracy is disputed": Disputed by whom, other than you? As for "factual accuracy", if I understand correctly, the expedition's process counts as facts in that article. Which part is inaccurate? If you have a different version, provide it, please.
  • "Original research": Which single detail in my description is not supported by sources?
  • "Extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions": Yes, I acknowledge that. I had a "extensive bias" towards the Mount Everest region.
  • "Additional citations for verification": Of course, you are free to add if you find any. But it has been one day since you added those tags, and did you even bother to search?
The fact that my edits in the past four months have been reverted repeatedly by you, and only by you, already tells where the problem lies.
Esiymbro (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
O1lI0, you might want to consider the irony of accusing an editor of personal attacks, then in the same sentence accusing me by association of being unscrupulous and stating that you refuse to communicate with me. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)cmnt

New findings

I'm gonna just drop this here http://www.desnivel.com/cultura/el-revelado-de-las-fotos-de-irvine-lo-confirma-la-cima-del-everest-se-alcanzo-en-1924 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.76.242 (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

And here, one hopes, it will stay. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018

In the section Climbing please change "Some factors that affect total mountain lethality include the level of popularity of the mountain, the skill of those climbing, and of course the difficulty of the climb." to "Some factors that affect total mountain lethality include the level of popularity of the mountain, the skill of those climbing, and the difficulty of the climb." per Manual of Style#Instructional and presumptuous language. 5.151.0.111 (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

2016 Climbing season Suggestion

I think this season needs its own page, as been done for previous seasons. It is waaay too long. Could use some serious editing, but a separate article would be a good first step. I have no clue about how to do the new page, hope someone else does. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2018

In the "Surveys" section of the article, the second paragraph ends with the sentence:

"Geoid uncertainty casts doubt upon the accuracy claimed by both the 1999 and 2005 surveys."

However, the preceding paragraphs don't mention a 2005 survey, only the 1999, 1975, and early 20th and 19th century surveys. A brief mention of the 2005 survey, described in the paragraph below, should be placed after the sentence about the 1999 survey but before the final sentence quoted above.

Later, in the section about the first winter ascent, "February 11st" needs to be fixed.

24.148.96.146 (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Coordinates

Peakbagger has the coordinates of the summit as 27°59’18’’N, 86°55’31"E. This article has 27°59’ 17"N, 86°55’31"E, drawn from adventurestats. Given the prominence of the location, one assumes that a reliable source exists that these websites are drawing from. Anyone know what that source is? Abductive (reasoning) 01:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Images removed

  • Aerial photo from the south, with Mount Everest rising above the ridge connecting Nuptse and Lhotse
    Aerial photo from the south, with Mount Everest rising above the ridge connecting Nuptse and Lhotse
  • Morning view, Mount Everest from its southern side
    Morning view, Mount Everest from its southern side
  • From Kala Patthar
    From Kala Patthar
  • Dhaulagiri, shown here, was thought to be highest before Kanchenjunga and Everest were measured
    Dhaulagiri, shown here, was thought to be highest before Kanchenjunga and Everest were measured
  • Kanchenjunga, now determined to be third highest, took over from Dhaulagiri, and in turn surpassed by Everest
    Kanchenjunga, now determined to be third highest, took over from Dhaulagiri, and in turn surpassed by Everest
  • Everest with Lhotse, Makalu, and Chamlang penetrate above the clouds from left to right
    Everest with Lhotse, Makalu, and Chamlang penetrate above the clouds from left to right
  • 1890 graphic with the Himalayas, including Gaurisankar (Mount Everest) in the distance
    1890 graphic with the Himalayas, including Gaurisankar (Mount Everest) in the distance
  • 2004 photo mosaic of the Himalayas with Makalu and Mount Everest from the International Space Station, Expedition 8
    2004 photo mosaic of the Himalayas with Makalu and Mount Everest from the International Space Station, Expedition 8
  • Everest and Lhotse from the south. In the foreground are Thamserku, Kantega, and Ama Dablam
    Everest and Lhotse from the south. In the foreground are Thamserku, Kantega, and Ama Dablam
  • Climbers below the Geneva Spur
    Climbers below the Geneva Spur
  • The Western Cwm ("Coom"), with Everest on the left and Lhotse to the right
    The Western Cwm ("Coom"), with Everest on the left and Lhotse to the right
  • Looking up along the southern ridgeline, the face of the Hillary Step is visible.
    Looking up along the southern ridgeline, the face of the Hillary Step is visible.

These images have been removed because the article had too many images. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Too many large pics

I recently reverted the article to remove the excess addition of large images as commons is over there -> The article was flooded with "big" pictures. However user:Fotaun seems to disagree and simply reverted with no explanation or edit summary. Seems this should be discussed. Vsmith (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A few days ago an editor deleted a large portion of this page and they were banned a sock-pocket. I have no problem if you want to work on the page, especially the images but I thought this was the vandalism rearing its head again. I hope that explains things. Thanks. Fotaun (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you should be more cautious in "assuming" vandalism - or actually check what you are reverting so blindly. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I've reduced a bunch of images to default size, the default allows individuals to chose image size from their preferences. Vsmith (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits and scope

People watching this page may notice that I have dramatically reduced the size of the article, from 232,492 bytes down to 76,302 which is at the top end of the recommended size for an article. To achieve this I have moved content into three new articles.

  • Climbing on Mount Everest anything to do with climbing on Mount Everest, or the commercial and sport activities on the mountain, go in this article. There simply isn't room to include any of it in the main article so now it has it's own.
  • Ascents of Mount Everest since 2000 all new seasons, permits information, summit attempts, deaths and statistics go in this article. Again, there isn't room in this article, and attempts to condense the information are not so necessary in a dedicated split-off article. If needed another article can be made for newer seasons once this one is developed.

New information about climbing, sherpas, expeditions, ascents, deaths and permits should be added to the relevant sub-article, rather than this article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prince of Thieves: Thanks for doing the split: the article was getting unwieldy. It does seem like Timeline of climbing Mount Everest overlaps both Ascents of Mount Everest 1970 - 2000 and Ascents of Mount Everest since 2000. How do you think we should reconcile the overlap? —hike395 (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The split articles have been deleted, but the content has not been reverted back to this article. Which shall it be? Revert content to this arcile or recreate the split?Work permit (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The climbing info should go into the Timeline article. Vsmith (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I liked Climbing on Mount Everest as a standalone article, as opposed to combining with the Timeline. I think that all of the ascents should be moved to Timeline of climbing Mount Everest. That will keep all chronological information about climbing in one article, while Climbing on Mount Everest can be more general about routes and such. What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wording at end of 2016 season section

@Waitalie Nat: Regarding the summary for this edit, which restored a change I had reverted: yeah, I get your point about "afflicted" but I still think it's really bad prose. How would you feel about "affected" instead? I rather get the sense that this section is overly detailed, as it is, but if we're going to keep that detail, we should use dynamic prose. (By the way, it's usually best to open a discussion after you've had an edit reverted, instead of just adding it again. There's no particular reason you should have known that, but just for future reference...) RivertorchFIREWATER 17:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Whoops! Sorry about that, I'm still new on a lot of the etiquette, I haven't been editing long. Thanks for letting me know.
"Which had affected his father," works (I think it's pretty inarguable that it would affect him). Agreed that the section in general is kind of clunky. Waitalie Nat (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Three Steps in both described routes?

The Three Steps are being mentioned in both described routes, which I think is wrong. They seem to be part of the Northeast Ridge Route only, and not the South Col route. --Bollweevil (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Misspelled word

Under the 2018 section, "altered" is misspelled as "alterted."

"A gormet pop-up restaurant at Everest Base camp was planned this year, making international news.[233] A group of chefs planned a seven course meal featuring local ingredients, and one of the challenges of serving gourmet food at high altitude is that people's sense of taste is alterted.[233][234] The Chef noted he planned to use the style of cooking Sous-vide on the expedition.[234]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nontest (talk • contribs) 07:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

About Mountain re-opens in August 2015

Nobukazu Kuriki has famousness an adventure in Japan. but any Japanese mountaineer acknowledge him. His 2015 try also has no proof other than him-selves discourse. --Patronaggio M (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Source http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/tokuho/list/CK2018052902000166.html http://bunshun.jp/articles/-/7474 https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASL5X7250L5XUTQP025.html — Preceding unsigned --Patronaggio M (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

How many people?

How many people have reached Mount Everest? This is essential information, yet I can't find it in the article. The media says about 5.000, but good quality sources are needed. This is so important information that it should be in the lede. 86.120.249.191 (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2018

The statement, "Returning to Kathmandu a few days later, Hunt (a Briton) and Hillary (a New Zealander) discovered that they had been promptly knighted in the Order of the British Empire for the ascent." is incorrect. The source merely reports that they are to be appointed a Knight of the British Empire. Prompt is a POV. There is no mention in the source that they had returned to "K". The Gazette is merely the instrument of publication for "Court Action". The learning of such news is only an inference and that is speculation. All that can be said according to the source is that, "They had been appointed a Knight of the order of the British Empire." 2605:E000:9149:A600:A08F:FA9:D815:B97 (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I made the change. To be precise, the source states that the Queen gave orders for them to be knighted. I am not sure if that means they are knights on that same day, or are they knighted in a subsequent ceremony.Work permit (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2019

Under Permits, fix "In 2015 there was 357 permits" to "In 2015, there were 357 permits" PCSL (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. Thank you. Begoon 19:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


There is missing....

... a precise description of the successful 1963 US expedition, and the dangerous attempt of a four men team led by Woodrow Wilson Sayre via Gyachung Kang, their illlegal intrusion into Tibet/China, West Rongbuk Glacier, Rongbuk Glacier, East Rongbuk Glacier, to the North Col and up the North Ridge to ca. 7800m height in 1964. - AxelKing (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2019

Under Climbing/Permits fix "2015 – 356 (extended for in any year up to 2017)" by including the missing word "use" like in the 2014 entry. Thank you! Campac (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The Lho La Tragedy

Before an edit war ensues, regarding this restoration of disputed material, should The Lho La Tragedy be included here or mentioned only at the dedicated Lho La article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe it should only be at the Lho La article, but I'm willing to discuss and compromise. Perhaps Lho La should have the bulk of the information, with a reference here linking to it? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

300 dead?

It says “since 2017, over 300 people have died,” when it should say “as of 2017.” Right?? AmberG28 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The source actually says more then 200, not 300. And its from 2015. I've seen sources that quote 300, but they may just be taking from wikipedia. Here is one article that actually lists deaths quotes 300+ as of 2019[4] ---- Work permit (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Everest Elevation is 5.5 Miles

In THIS EDIT, I had added this note:

Note: 8848 meters is 5.4979 miles. So Mount Everest is 5 and a half miles tall. 5.5 miles is accurate within 11 feet, 2 inches. This round off is within twice the height of a 6 foot person standing at the summit.

Edit summary:

Mount Everest is 5 and a half miles tall. Adding a note which explains this simple fact. And this easy to remember figure is accurate within twice the height of a tall man standing at the summit.

This promptly got reverted, with the suggestion that this change be discussed here. I'm not sure what needs to be discussed. It is a very straightforward, simple fact that makes the height of the world's tallest mountain extremely easy to remember. This had been added in a completely unobtrusive way. I see no reason not to have this note.

If anything, I would suggest that the discussion here were to be about having this number displayed overtly in the lede, and even the infobox. The mountain is five and a half miles tall. Simple. -- Concord19 (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I reverted you. First, the article is bang full of numbers about height, and you want to add in a few more. In the wrong units. See WP:UNIT for guidance. --Pete (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I had added this info hidden within a note. My edit did not clutter up the article in any way at all.
And the argument being presented now here in this Talk section is that presenting Five and a Half miles will go a long way toward simplifying the info being communicated. You dismiss these units as "wrong", when there is a huge chunk of English Wikipedia readers who use miles as a primary means of measuring a spatial dimension. And I would venture a guess that >99% of Eng Wiki readers know how to use miles.
Here is a quote from the lede in this policy you have cited:
"The goal is to make the whole encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use."
I explained very clearly that my edit was for the purpose of making the elevation of Everest extremely easy to remember.
You say, see this policy on units for guidance. Well guidance is just that. That policy does not dictate how everything here has to be done. So you might want to reconsider this characterization of my use of miles as being "wrong". Nowhere in that policy does it say that what I did was wrong. And perhaps you are familiar with the overarching WP:IAR. I had clearly presented the support for how my approach constituted a significant improvement in how our encyclopedia here is presenting a key fact. You justify your revert by using a guideline as though it is a hard and fast rule, which it is not.
I maintain that this addition had improved the article. And it will help to put it back in. I do not expect that I myself will have much more to say here. I've presented this case clearly. And it is also clear to me that the totality of your objections are deficient, and have taken a myopic view toward Wikipedia Policy. My intention at this point is to step back and leave it to others here to help establish a consensus on this.
And if the end result is a decision to add this simple number overtly into the lede, and also in the info box, I will see that to be an even greater improvement to this article. And to people's understanding of just how tall this mountain is. A mile is a perfectly reasonable unit of measurement. It is used all the time within the USA, and also not infrequently used outside of the USA. And you might also be aware that nautical miles are used all over the world by people of all countries and all languages. There is absolutely nothing wrong with such usage. It happens to be the standard within certain professions (again, regardless of country or language). And you might be interested to know which professions do that. Those involved with navigation and measurement across our Earth.
For measuring the vertical dimension, you may know that the most dominant space-faring nation has defined the threshold of space as being 50 miles up (Outer_space#Boundary). This happens to be the most populous English-speaking nation in the world. And it is clear to me that it is perfectly reasonable to use miles as a very clean way of communicating the height of Everest. So editors who are open to thinking outside of the box could go so far as to suggest that one way of explaining that...
The elevation of Everest is 0.11 of the way up to this 50 mile definition of where space begins. 11 percent.
Clean and convenient. And very easy to remember. Even just with the way the edit was done originally. Ok, this is all I have to say on the matter for the time being. -- Concord19 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"Five and a half miles" (some references)

Actually, this cursory set of references might be helpful to any editor who might be on the fence here:

"Climbing Mount Everest, a rock that soars five and a half miles off the ground, takes a considerable amount of money and time, along with guts of steel."
https://www.businessinsider.sg/everest-summit-described-by-womens-record-holder-2018-7/
"Height: 29,028 feet, or 5 and a half miles above sea level."
http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/hillary/archive/evefacts.htm
"... Mount Everest will always be famous for its extreme height that reaches nearly five and a half miles (8.85 km) into the sky."
https://www.thoughtco.com/mount-everest-overview-1435553
"Mount Everest is the highest mountain in the world. Its summit is 29,029 feet — or 5.5 miles — above sea level."
https://www.businessinsider.com/mount-everest-death-zone-what-happens-to-body-2019-5
"Mt. Everest. The tallest mountain in the world soars almost five and a half miles into the sky and pierces the jet stream with its iconic summit."
https://www.rmiguides.com/himalaya/everest

Those were found after about one minute's worth of searching. And it may also help to note that the first reference with the '.sg' url is an article hosted out of Singapore. I would also add that it is misleading to say "almost five and a half miles", because 5.5 is a dead on number within a high degree of precision. After going five and a half miles, the height of two tall human beings is well down toward the noise level of measurement. -- Concord19 (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the edit go up, and noticed the revert, and have indeed been on the fence. WP:UNIT does very clearly state that "...the primary units chosen will be SI units..." and the mile is not one of these. We've got metres and their foot equivalent (both of which are acceptable per standard style), and my opinion is that further conversion is unnecessary. Also, mountain heights are not typically measured in miles, and I see no reason why we should make this article the exception to the rule. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree completely with NekoKatsun's arguments and conclusion. I could have not explained it better myself. Paul H. (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Three points from NekoKatsun's post (to which Paul H. immediately expressed agreement with):
- "...the primary units chosen will be SI units...",
- "further conversion is unnecessary",
- "...no reason why we should make...exception to the rule."
You both have apparently misunderstood what is meant by "primary units". All this means is which units are presented first. No one has suggested that the primary units here be anything but meters. 5.5 miles is being suggested as what we could refer to as "supplementary units". That's neither primary (meters) nor even secondary (feet).
As for what is necessary, no one has suggested that including miles is necessary. The argument being discussed is whether it will be helpful to certain readers.
As for the third point, there is no rule about measuring (or not measuring) the elevation of a mountain in miles. The argument being scrutinized is that when an elevation works out to a convenient measure in miles (in this case, five and a half), then this can become very useful, and especially helpful when a person is trying to remember how high this is. Here is a separate case in point...
There is no rule about measuring the elevation of a city in miles. But if anyone in the Rocky Mountain region of the USA is asked what the elevation of Denver, Colorado is, most all of them can tell you that it is One Mile High. There is a survey marker located on the steps of the Colorado State Capitol Building which shows exactly where One Mile in elevation has been measured. It is also the name given to the pro football NFL stadium where the local team plays: Mile High Stadium.
Because of this very convenient naming, just about every football fan in the USA knows the elevation of the city of Denver. And many people outside of the USA know this simple fact as well. So even if you don't use miles as your own primary units of measurement, you can take the info of this nickname that Denver is commonly referred to as, the Mile High City, and then convert 5,280 ft to meters and you can readily arrive at its elevation as being 1,609 meters.
Same for Everest. Just remember 5.5 miles, and you know exactly its peak elevation.
Ok, I've waited patiently for a couple of weeks since seeing these points of rebuttal posted. No one else highlighted the problems, so I have taken this break from me being in a read-only mode in hopes that a valid consensus is reached on this. I really see absolutely no problem in re-adding the 5.5 mile info as a note. -- Concord19 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
At this point we're getting into the dual issues of Wiki standardization and whether more information is necessarily a good thing. Regarding the former, there are no other mountains on Wikipedia with heights given in miles, even as supplemental units. Stylistically, it's just not present anywhere, and keeping articles standardized helps to "make the whole encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use", as the WP:UNIT policy puts it.
Denver's elevation is given in feet, and converted to meters. The source information is given in feet. Elevation is not measured in miles in anyplace I can find it; it seems to be mostly given as a nickname or as a way to sensationalize.
I agree completely that the 5.5 miles figure is a nifty fact, and that it's a very pretty number (it's cool that such a huge mountain hits that number so neatly). That said, I disagree that the 5.5 miles figure belongs on Wikipedia. By your same logic, couldn't you just remember 8848 meters (instead of 5.5 miles) and have the peak elevation? I fail to see how 5.5 is necessary, or even how it improves the encyclopedia - after all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
We are fully agreed that 5.5 miles is not necessary.
We are also agreed that a central issue here is which approach will make this article "easier and more intuitive to use".
Denver is an excellent case study. "Elevation is not measured in miles in anyplace I can find it". Now let's look at how and why the City of Denver has become an exception to that standard. In the very first paragraph from the lede for Denver:
"It is nicknamed the Mile High City because its official elevation is exactly one mile (5280 feet or 1609.3 meters) above sea level."
Now go to the lede in the article on the State Capitol Building in Denver, and you find this:
"the official elevation of Denver is measured outside the west entrance to the building, where the fifteenth step is engraved with the words "One Mile Above Sea Level". ...In 2003, a more accurate measurement was made with modern means, and the 13th step was identified as being one mile (1.6 km) high..."
You then give your personal assessment as being that:
"it seems to be mostly given as a nickname or as a way to sensationalize."
Here you have clearly misused the word sensationalize, because the City of Denver is exactly one mile in elevation, as so clearly shown by the marker. Something is sensationalized when an accurate fact gets used in a distorted way. There is no distortion whatsoever when saying "Mile High". It is not sensationalized in any way at all. Mile High is a perfectly accurate term. The level of precision we are talking about is whether it is the 13th step or the 15th step. It got the nickname Mile High City for a reason that fits perfectly in line with the Wikipedia Policy on Units: in order to make this elevation info much more easy to understand, easy to remember, and absolutely intuitive.
You state that I have presented logic which points to it being easy and intuitive to remember the number 8848m instead of the number 5.5.
Here yet again, I cannot follow your reasoning. You have misused/misunderstood the word "primary" (as in primary units). You have misused/misunderstood the word sensationalize (when Mile High is an exact description). And you have taken a position on Wikipedia Policy which strike me as odd. I had initiated this subsection with a batch of quotes from references which state Everest's elevation as five and a half miles in a primary way, and you've come back with your citing of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".
Here you now are indicating that you do not understand what the word "indiscriminate" means. And that one of the driving forces which is used to guide our editorial decisions when improving articles here is what Reliable Sources say. I have already shown what these several Reliable Sources say when communicating the info of how tall Everest is. This is NOT indiscriminate. It happens to be well referenced. This is the same justification for putting Mile High in the lede for Denver. It is what other people call it. It is the intuitive way in how these other people remember it.
I cannot state the justification for my argument here any more clearly than that. And so I will once again step back to see how consensus unfolds here. If arguments get posted regarding what "primary units" are used, then it is clearly not a valid argument. It is an argument based upon misunderstanding of Wikipedia Policy. And if the basis for removing 5.5 miles is because 8848m is seen to be more easy and intuitive to remember, then your understanding of Policy guidance we have been given is completely opposite of my understanding.
Our duty as editors here is to present an accurate reflection of what reliable sources say. And I have already clearly shown what all of these reliable sources say: That Everest is a mountain that is five and a half miles high. -- Concord19 (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
You said it youself in the first sentence of this reply - "We are fully agreed that 5.5 miles is not necessary." If we agree it's not necessary, why bloat the article further?
I'll follow your example and step back to see if anyone else wants to chime in, but please note that current consensus is to leave the article as is (as you've already added the figure and been reverted once). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Leave it out. It's just happenstance that it is nearly a round (sort of) number of miles high. And trying to fill in the difference with the heights of tall men is just bizarre. Meters (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. It doesn't really add anything of value. NekoKatsun sums up the reasons well, so there's no need for me to add anything to this wall of text other than my agreement, lest the height of this section approach rivalry with the mountain... -- Begoon 19:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Bloat, please leave out. Everest is 8.848 km in elevation. RedWolf (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It is apparent that a solid consensus has been reached here. But with people calling the proposed edit "bloat", this leaves me wondering if we are actually on the same page about what was being proposed. I will repost the edit which was done, because it was just a NOTE. Here:

5.5 Miles added as a NOTE

If Johnny Cochran were to jump in to this discussion to give a defense for this edit, we might imagine him saying...

"If it's only a NOTE, then it ain't BLOAT."

Ok, I am not posting this in any effort to continue this argument. My sole purpose was just to make sure that you all are clear on what you are disagreeing with. There has been logic posted in the rebuttals which I have not been able to follow. And referring to this note as bloating the article is yet another one. That makes absolutely no sense to me. But just because I cannot make sense out of this consensus does not necessarily mean that it is not a legitimate consensus. So this will be my final post here for 2019. Goodbye, yall.

If the next time I come back to check this I see a discussion which goes something like this... "Hmm, I thought the argument was for sticking that into the text of the article. Adding it as a note seems perfectly reasonable" ...then I will be tickled pink. -- Concord19 (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Consensus re-examined

I was mistaken in thinking that the above was going to be my last post here for a while. I had said that because it seemed to me, given the totality of inputs by plenty of editors, that a clear consensus had been established. This gnawed at me at the time, as I had expressed in my last post ("...just because I cannot make sense out of this..."), and it took me a week and a half for me to get a handle on the reason why.

I had to remind myself as to what consensus is, and what it is not:

- "Wikipedia is not a democracy",
- "Consensus is not a majority vote",
- "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue...",
- "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view",
- "The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." (see link above)
- "Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy." (link above)

What we have in the subsection above is one position which is well supported by five quality references and advocated by one editor. And the opposite position which has been advocated by all other editors, but fails to be supported by any external references, and the appeals to Wikipedia Policy were shown to be defective (failure to understand what "primary units" means, etc).

So this amounts to the totality of opposition falling into the category of "I just don't like it", and Wikipedia Policy is clear in telling us that such arguments are to be weighted accordingly. This is to say that even if 99 editors were to pipe in to voice support for one position on an issue, but fail to provide any valid substantiation for that position more than "I just don't like it", and only 1 editor voiced support for the other position, while thoroughly supporting this position with a plethora of quality references...

Then consensus belongs to the view expressed by this 1 editor. The view of the 99 does not outweigh it, because quality is determined by what can be backed up and verified. Misunderstanding of policy does nothing to change this. And the totality of the above would lead to the valid consensus being inclusion of Five and a Half Miles into the lede/body of the article.

Ok, NOW I am going to step back from this discussion for the remainder of the year. This will give plenty of time for those who voiced opposition to find support for your position. And it will give plenty of time for editors here to gain a much more clear understanding of what Consensus is, and what it isn't. --Concord19 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that consensus is a discussion among a group of editors with a disagreement regarding content, with the goal of reaching a mutually acceptable compromise. That said:
  • You would like to add a note that Everest's height is 5.5 miles, and this figure is backed up by sources.
  • I (and others, but I speak only for myself) believe that note to be unnecessary and unhelpful, as it runs contrary to WP:UNIT, all extant Wikipedia stylistic choices, and every other mountain article.
  • Our current points of agreement are "5.5 miles is not necessary" and "a central issue here is which approach will make this article "easier and more intuitive to use"."
Consensus being a mutually acceptable compromise, beginning with our current points of agreement makes sense, yes? We agree that 5.5 miles is not necessary. That should be the end of it. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, this discussion has reached a point that we all need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and stop obsessively flogging a dead horse. Paul H. (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thirded. In my opinion, the next editor to see this and agree should also stick a {{hat}} on it so that no more time is wasted here. Consensus is clear; that one editor persists in adding to the WP:WALLOFTEXT despite no agreement with their position doesn't change that, and could even be seen as disruptive if it continues - but this is a new user who may not realise that, so closing the discussion now would probably be for the best, so that doesn't happen. -- Begoon 03:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Grammar

The article reads: "did not allow foreigners into the country" How about: "did not allow foreigners to enter the country"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.247.94 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done, with this edit. Thank you. -- Begoon 05:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks :-) 85.193.247.94 (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2019

Height of mt everest is 8,850 m ( plus or minus 2m) as surved by the US ( National geographic society) in 1999 AD which was accepted all over the world. 113.199.254.71 (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. (And whatever they are, I suspect you're going to need to discuss this and achieve consensus for the change first, before making an edit request). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Tone of article

I think it's worth examining the tone of this article. It's quite conversational in places and not encyclopedic. I've already corrected one awkward section but the issue seems pervasive.

Example I already corrected: "One issue is: Hundreds of people pass by tents. Another is: Wind can damage or blow away bottles"

Another example "Some still wanted to climb but there was really too much controversy to continue that year."

--Dabluecaboose (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2019

When you search Highest mountain in the world, it direct people here instead of Mount Chimborazo. Even though this page correctly says Everest is the highest mountain "ABOVE SEA LEVEL" it is not the highest mountain in the world Mount Chimborazo is. Also the same applies to the second highest and so on. Point of personal privilege, thanks "gregjameswalsh" (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Geographical features are generally measured from sea-level. Melmann 18:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020

Where citation is required directly after the header "Expeditions" (6 on the table of contents), I can find this information in two places easily. I propose that the text can be replaced as follows, from this: 

A set of climbing routes has been established over several decades of climbing expeditions to the mountain.[citation needed]

To this: 

A set of climbing routes has been established over several decades of climbing expeditions to the mountain.[1][2]

Or something to this effect using one or both of these links. Thank you. Zxzord (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1], mounteverest.net, the route
  2. ^ [2], alpenglowexpeditions.com, the routes
They both appear to be self-published sources, should be possible to find this in a published source. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@Þjarkur and Thjarkur: Self-published sources can be used if it complies with WP:ABOUTSELF. There's always the {{better souce}} template. Please reply to me with {{SUBST:Replyto|Can I Log In}} in the beginning of your reply, and use one more colon (" : ") than me under my message. Can I Log In 19:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@Zxzord: Done along with some unrelated edits. Please reply to me with {{SUBST:Replyto|Can I Log In}} in the beginning of your reply, and use one more colon (" : ") than me under my message. Can I Log In 19:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

Its lies in Nepal not in boarder between Nepal and china so that route to climb its is through Nepal 172.197.55.169 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources and indicate clearly what - and where - you want to change content. --regentspark (comment) 18:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2020

MT. EVEREST BELONGS TO NEPAL 2001:268:C0CC:A090:7DD4:2FFB:9E7C:F9E9 (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

location

Is its location correct? Nepuet (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Thincat (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The location given in the wikipedia is wrong. The mountain Everest belongs to Nepal. Sajal Rokka (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Credits to the mathematician

I think it’s time, we should give proper credits to the person who brought light to the fact that it’s the highest.

Radhanath Sikdar name should be shoulder to shoulder with Andrew Waugh.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhanath_Sikdar Wiking36776 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki is suppose to be a neutral factual ground. Ignoring this is same as condoning racism. Admin, please make the changes to give due credit to Radhanath Sikdar. Be the defender and not the oppressor of the voiceless. Wiking36776 (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Person who is good (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC) To add Max Christensen as a person who reached the summit in the late 50s

 Not done Please provide a reliable source (see WP:RS) and a reason for inclusion.--regentspark (comment) 23:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Summit Point is in Nepal.

The summit point of Mt. Everest is completely in Nepal. However lower northern slope of Everest fall in China. Nishesh99 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Holy place for Nepali people

Nepalese people don't believe it only as a mountain, it is also a holy place for Nepali. They worship it along with other mountains. Nishesh99 (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss the subject of the article. If you want changes in the article, you need to provide sources meeting WP:RS and WP:VERIFY and specific changes you want, which you haven't done here or above. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC) @Nishesh99: Doug Weller talk 18:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2020

It seems there is a typo as Summit Camp is told to be 8750m, but in the small table states 8850 (that is more then Mount Everest height) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudj (talk • contribs) 12:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I've changed it to 8848m. Thanks. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 Already done Melmann 17:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The location doesn't seem right.

Isn't Mount Everest completely situated in NEPAL and not CHINA??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.104.11 (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the peak is the border. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The peak is in Nepal. However lower part of Northern Slope lies in China. Bhattarai1237 (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sagarmatha as international name

Nepal is going to use local name 'Sagarmatha' as international name instead of 'Everest' : PM KP Sharma Oli Bhattarai1237 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

So what? --Khajidha (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove claims that crime on Everest is driven by "local culture", including examples relating to other parts of Nepal

Section 10.1 Law and order: Please remove the final three sentences in the section, including footnotes, ie the following text:

"Westerners have sometimes struggled to understand the ancient culture and desperate poverty that drives some locals, some of whom have a different concept of the value of a human life.[352][353] For example, for just 1,000 rupees (£6.30) per person, several foreigners were forced to leave the lodge where they were staying and tricked into believing they were being led to safety. Instead they were abandoned and died in the snowstorm.[352]"

The examples and sources relate to a disaster in the Annapurna region, not to Everest. None of them provide any evidence for the claim that "ancient culture" drives crime or that "some locals ... have a different concept of the value of a human life" which would make negligent homicide or murder culturally acceptable in Nepal or Tibet. Chaiwallah (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed the references and I agree. Edit done.---- Work permit (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Closing as  Done. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification about 2015 avalanche/earthquake

On the section related to the 2014 season, for the sake of clarity as there is one Base Camp for each side of the mountain, ¡t should be noted that the avalanche triggered from the earthquake hit Everest Base Camp on the Nepal side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabopollo (talk • contribs) 14:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

I need to change the spelling of a word. 73.53.32.68 (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

 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. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

CC0 3D render

3D rendering of Mount Everest and surrounding terrain

I found this and similar 3D renders shared under public domain at http://shadedrelief.com/Everest-3D-Map and think it makes a superb addition to the article.

As I'm unsure where best to put it, I've tentatively put it under the maps section, though that interferes with the centering of the ISS photo. Can anyone please move it somewhere relevant?

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020

New height will be available soon. 2409:4053:219A:BA7A:BDA4:25D3:26B0:BEBE (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the information.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Change in height of Mount Everest || Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

New height of world heighest mountain "Mount Everest" is announced today. The new height is 8848.86 meters previously it was 8848 meters. Please update the new height. Source: Survey Department Nepal Gribesh (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Already done --TheImaCow (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nepali name - 1960s?!

Did Nepal really not have a name for the mountain until the 1960s?! WisDom-UK (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Any Indian/Nepalese sources that point out the existence of a Nepalese name before the 1960s would be welcomed. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The Survey describes who this person actually is along with a hyperlink. Please move this information to the Name section so the article makes more sense reading from top to bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.7.85 (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 18:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Section on Comparisons

The section of the article on 'comparisons' problematic and I think should be removed. The first reference is not a reference, just reiterates the text in the article. The other reference relate to heights of various mountains. There are no sources regarding the concept of 'base' of mountain or justify the claims made in this section. The idea of 'base of mountain' is not one with agreed scientific definition and not verifiable and should not be used. Can stick to height or prominence or other established measures when comparing different mountains. 2A02:8084:C84:7180:D16C:AA49:DE9C:9719 (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Under heading 2018 -- Hari Budha Magar was 40 not 70

Under 2018:

quote: "... summit by a 70-year-old double-amputee Hari Budha Magar ..."

He was born in 1979. Would be more accurate to say:

"40-year-old Nepalese mountaineer and double above-knee amputee" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.212.80 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you! Not knowing his exact age at the time of the climb, I've gone ahead and just changed it to "double-amputee". NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Name of Everest

UNESCO has recognized the name Sagarmatha for Mount Everest. As we have seen with Mt. Denali, the name change was accepted by Wikipedia. However, this has not been done for Mt. Sagarmatha. What requirements are there for recognizing the name where the mountain sits? Can only US and other Western powers only restore these names or can a small nation like Nepal also restore its original name? --Datta (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the statements within the article you are citing. The work specifically states, in its lede,

Sagarmatha is an exceptional area with dramatic mountains, glaciers and deep valleys, dominated by Mount Everest, the highest peak in the world (8,848 m).

As stated in the article, "Sagarmatha" is the name of the park/preserve containing the mountain. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be understood, so the article on a common analgesic is called Aspirin, and not acetylsalicylic acid (although the latter is mentioned in the article). — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 05:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
At that point, shouldn't Denali be called Mt. McKinley because that is the common name? This is a confusion that needs to be cleared out. Yes, I notice both names are mentioned but why is Denali's heading changed completely whereas Sagarmatha is not? --Datta (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
McKinley isn't the common name, though; the common name is Denali. Right now the common name for Everest is Everest, and Sagarmatha is the preserve that contains it. If Nepal and Tibet/China agree to refer to it ONLY as Sagarmatha, and that becomes adopted worldwide, then it'll have a new common name and we can revisit the topic. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As gross as it is to have a colonial name for the peak, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:GREATWRONGS, we're not at a point where we can change it. There are less dramatic changes we could make, though, such as bolding the alternative names. I'd suggest considering those first. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Early expeditions in lead

The lead section seems to focus way too much right now on all the early summitting attempts. I'd suggest trimming that down and replacing the added space with other details from the body. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Topographic isolation

I set Topographic isolation here to n/a, as it can not be a correct value, as it is set on WikiData (see discussion). Showing the equatorial distance here as isolation is deceptive. JSoos (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Mount Everest

Mount Everest is located in Himalayan Mountain range. What is meant by Himalaya? Why the Himalayas are also called as Sagar Matha? STalewad (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Himalayas has its own page. (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of the Name Sagarmatha is wrong.

"The Nepali name for Everest is Sagarmāthā (सगरमाथा) which means "the Head in the Great Blue Sky" derived from सगर (sagar) meaning "sky" and माथा (māthā) meaning "head" in the Nepali Language."

Sagar means "Oceans" Matha means "Head"

Sagarmatha is "Head of the oceans" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeekPrasad (talk • contribs) 03:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is this article semi-protected?

I do not see any disruptive editing, why is it semi-protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I will remember this username (talk • contribs)

The semi-protection is what heads off the disruptive editing. Looking at the page protection log, looks like it's been necessary since 2012, with intermittent protection going all the way back to 2006 (for "perpetual vandalism"). If I had a guess, it'd be either that it's a high-profile page and thus a desirable target for drive-by vandalism (like trying to change the name to Mount Poop or something), or that since it's on a national border it was attracting nationalistic editors pushing their respective POVs about what country specifically Everest is in (K2 gets a lot of this one).NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

location

Mt Everest lies in Nepal not in China. 103.167.232.38 (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"The China–Nepal border runs across its summit point." So surely both? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2022

Mount everst located in nepal, why you located China and India 27.34.104.153 (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 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. Terasail[✉️] 02:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Everest/Archive_6&oldid=1164854977"