Talk:Mount Everest/Archive 2

message: The summit of Mt Chimborazo in Ecuador is 2150m further away from the centre of the earth than the summit of Mt Everest.   Does that mean it's higher or bigger or what?Ping
: I think it just means it's further from the centre of the earth.  Altitudes are measured with reference to Sea Level or by means of air pressure.  While Mt Chimborazo may be further away from the centre of the earth, the sea level is also further away because of the equatoral bulge.  One of the Hawaiian Islands is the biggest mountain on earth as it rises even higher above the surrounding sea floor than Mt Everest does from the surrounding land, but much of the island is under water.  That leaves Mt. Everest as the highest. - kiwiinapanic
::See the article sea level for more information.  If sea level is something like an inferred equipotential surface, then distance from the center of the earth would be a different value.  Most of the references I've seen put the height of Everest at 8850 m (29035 feet).  Cos111 22:31, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Also realize that Everest 'cheats' quite a bit from being set upon a 2-mile high plateau (Tibet). CFLeon 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tallest vs Highest

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

message: Does any one know why this article is titled Everest instead of Chomolangma?  What are the geographic classification standards being followed?  Does Wikipedia follow U.S. or international standards?  Can we put this to a vote?
Thanks harburg 2005-09-25 20:25:51 UTC
*There's probably a Western bias at work here and Everest is the more internationally accepted name (at least among the Western based countries), especially in the climbing community. If we were to move it, I'd prefer Sagarmatha and not Chomolangma but a move is unlikely in any case (although I would not rule it out). This is the English wiki so the accepted practice is to use the name mainly referred to in the English speaking world unless the local name(s) has/have gained sufficient popularity (which it has not). Other language wikis might use the local names though for the article's name. RedWolf 21:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomolangma 

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

message: Obviously, when we delve into this topic, controversey is bound to occur thanks to the widespread publicity.  The latest revision says that most of the climbing community supported Boukreev.  With his decision to guide without oxygen, I was under the impression that this was widely criticized.  This came from the Saloon debates, in which Jon Krakauer said that Reinhold Messner sharply criticized Boukreev for not using oxygen .  So, should it be reverted, changed to balance out both sides, or call Krakauer a liar? Hbdragon88 05:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, someone just deleted the  tag without an explanation in the edit summary.  I have accordingly deleted the part that states that most of hte climbing community supports Boukreev and Krakauer's status as a personna non grata.  If someone can find a link that verifies that, add it in and I'll be satisfied. Hbdragon88 00:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with 1996 disaster 

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

message: This appears in the section on measurement:
: In the 1950s a Mexican Indian survey made closer to the mountain...
Was the survey really conducted by a Mexican team?  This seems unlikely to me. Molinari 00:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mexican survey?

message: * The protection notice had been added in order to discourage usual vandalism, or is there some other reason?
* If the page is protected, why some unregistered users are still vandalizing it? (I mean, how is it possible?) gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 03:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two questions 

message: Some time ago I restored the elevation to its most often quoted figure of 8,848 m, having explained my reasons on Talk:List of countries by highest point. This seemed to have been accepted, but today there were two attempts to replace it with 8850 m so I have reproduced these reasons here.
The US GPS 8,850 m and Chinese 8,844 m elevations are mentioned in the main article.
There have been several recent surveys of Everest and K2 claiming precision to less than a meter, some giving higher figures than the traditional 8,848 m and 8,611 m, others giving lower figures, and the spread of these exceeds their claimed accuracy. They should therefore be regarded as publicity seeking and should be ignored. In reality, the Himalayan geoid has not been determined with sufficient accuracy to allow such precision. A further point with regard to the recent Chinese survey: according to the Mount Everest page, the geologic height was measured, not the height including perennial snow and ice cover. The logical extenstion of this would demand that the elevation of Mont Blanc (which varies seasonally) be lowered by 10-20 m, Khan Tangiri Shyngy to 6,995m and the South Pole to around or below sea level. Until several independent measurements show a consistent error margin, the elevations of Mount Everest and K2 should stand at 8,848 m and 8,611 m, in line with official topographic mapping, and confusing alternatives should be rejected.
A further point: the depth of snow and ice cover, on which the elevation depends, is not constant. So small changes to the long accepted 8,848 m are superfluous. In effect, the US GPS survey merely confirmed the accuracy of the earlier survey that gave 8,848 m. If there had been a difference exceeding, say, 10 meters or more, the issue would have arisen and if this had been confirmed by the Chinese survey, then the case for changing the 8,848 m elevation would have been good. Indeed, I have altered many long standing elevations elsewhere, where I have been able to cite reliable evidence.
Any editor who thinks the elevation of 8,848 m should not be used on the Everest page should add his reasons here before editing the main article. If a significant number of readers agree on an alternative figure, or anyone supplies a compelling reason why it should be changed, then I will accept it. Otherwise I will continue to revert changes to it. Viewfinder 22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds to me like the Chinese measure is probably very accurate, likely to within 1 metre but because the height they measured is different from the way the height of other mountains is commonly measured, you argue it shouldn't be used when quoting the height. I agree with that for now. However I don't see any reason why the 8850m figure shouldn't be used. AFAIK, quality GPS devices can give greater then a metre precision (and as far as we know, accuracy) and I would have to assume the device used by the US GPS survey used a device capable of at least a metre precision. I don't know much about the other technic but it sounds to me like it's precision is probably less then 1m and it's accuracy as well. Also, it was done quite a while ago and although I know the mountain itself isn't rising at a level high enough to make a difference (as far as we know), I don't know whether this is true for the snow and ice cover. But even if the height of the snow and ice cover isn't changing enough that it could make a significant difference, it sounds rather bizzare to me to use a figure which was done with a less precise and less accurate measurement technic when we have a newer figure with a more precise and (we believe) more accurate measurement technic. Or put it another way, if we put both figures side by side, 8848m +/-2m (for example, I don't know the actual precision of the measurement technic) vs 8850m +/-1m it sounds silly to me to choose the first figure. Perhaps my thinking is different from your since I'm a scientist but I have to say that most sources I have seen, newspapers, National Geographic etc frequently quote the 8850m figure nowadays. If you have evidence the precision, or better still, the accuracy of the old figure is better then or the same as the new figure and that the ice and snow cover isn't changing enough that it could make a significant difference to the height then it wouldn't make sense to change it perhaps but until then, I'm going to change it to 8850m. Nil Einne 16:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurement 

message: I find the following section rather confusing:
:The aftermath of the 1996 Mount Everest disaster further intensified the debate. Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air (1997) expressed the author's personal criticisms of the use of bottled oxgen. Krakauer wrote that the usage of bottled oxygen allowed otherwise unqualified climbers to attempt to summit, leading to dangerous situations and more deaths. The May 10 disaster was partially caused by the sheer number of climbers (33 on that day) attempting to ascend, causing bottlenecks at Hillary Step and delaying many climbers, most of whom summited after the usual 2pm turnaround time. He proposed banning bottled oxygen except for emergency cases, which would both decrease the growing trash on Everest and keep marginally qualified climbers off the mountain.
:The 1996 disaster also thrust the issue of the guide's role in using bottled oxygen. Guide Anatoli Boukreev's decision not to use bottled oxygen was sharply criticized by Jon Krakauer. Boukreev's supporters (who include G. Weston DeWalt, who co-wrote The Climb) state that using bottled oxygen gives a false sense of security. Krakauer and his supporters point out that, without bottled oxygen, Boukreev was unable to directly help his clients descend. They cite that Boukreev said that he was going down with client Martin Adams, but when Adams slowed down, Boukreev went up ahead and left him behind. The debate between G. Weston DeWalt and Jon Krakauer on bottled oxygen and Boukreev's actions can be found in the Salon debates.
:It should be noted that most climbers in the mountaineering community support Krakauer's point of view but the most highly experienced climbers will agree that there are a small set of unique climbers such as Anatoli Boukreev and Ed Viesturs who can climb without oxygen and still function well. Most climbers agree that a guide cannot directly help clients if he or she cannot concentrate or think clearly (which happens with the very thin atmosphere above).
At first, it sounds like Krakauer is against bottled oxygen. Then later, it sounds like Krakauer thinks Anatoli should have used bottled oxygen and that Boukreev's supporters such as DeWalt are opposed to the use of bottle oxygen (which Krakauer also was supposedly against). Then it goes on to say climbers support Krakauers views (on what? that bottled oxygen should be banned?).
Nil Einne 15:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In his book Into Thin Air, Krakauer is strongly in favour of the use of bottled oxygen by high altitude mountain guides. His attitude to the greater mountaineering public is a little less clear: on one hand he clearly admires those who have summited without the use of oxygen, on the other, he questions whether an indvidual should choose to be weaker and less mentally able by refusing to carry oxygen. This was especially pertinant to the 1996 expeditions.  I agree that the passage quoted above is confusing and will take a look at it at some time in the future.--Fergie 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to try and clean this up a bit - the article should mention that DeWalt co-wrote a book about the disaster with Boukreev; this means he is not an independent critic to be cited here, just the most vocal.  Other critics would be more credible to cite.  
Boukreev died in a later climbing accident, and I think that should be included.  
It seems Krakauer's main issue is inexperienced climbers on the mountain, not oxygen - he thinks it helps unqualified  get up the mountain and contributes to the dumping of spent bottles on the summit.  However, if they are going to attempt to reach the summit, the climbers and their guides should be using oxygen.  Guides especially have a duty to assist their clibers no matter what; so Krakauer wants they to be able to assist for the longest window of time possible, and oxygen helps to achieve that.  
I'll make these updates to the article (in a cleaner format) if no one has any objections.  Jeeper275 21:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: From the Tenzing page:
:Hillary and Tenzing answered that question in characteristically different ways. In his book, Hillary described himself as the strong leader of the team, who not only was working hard making steps in the snow for both of them, but also had to pull Tenzing up those steps, and that Tenzing kept falling to the ground, extremely exhausted. Tenzing's account a few years later sounded very different: he stressed the unity of such teams and of their achievements, shrugged off the allegation of being ever pulled by anyone, but disclosed that Hillary was the first to put his foot on the summit. He concluded: "If it is a shame to be the second man on Mount Everest, then I will have to live with this shame
It sounds to me like the details of Hillary's account need to be updated. At the moment, it makes it sound like Hillary completely supports the idea that it was a team effort without either being more worthy of recognition (which was what I always thought). However according to my quote above from the Tenzing page, this is not really true, (although as far as I know and not disputed by the Tenzing page, Hillary has never confirmed who reached the summit first). Nil Einne 16:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillary & Tenzing 

message: Wasn't the axe of Mallory or Irving found recently in ice, which is proof they reached the top of the world? I can't see this mentioned in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 09:09, May 29, 2006  (UTC)
:Well not recently..  EverestNews.com picks up the story.. Wyn Harris, during the 1933 Everest Expedition, found an ice ax at about 27,700 feet. The location is fairly certain: Harris took the ax he found, and left his own ax in its place. The spot is about 20 meters below the ridge, on a fairly flat, wide, open area nearly 300 meters above Mallory's body. No one besides M&I was up that high before 1933. So it is fairly certain the ax was either Mallory's or Irvine's. link 
:Three notches found on the ax suggest the ax was Irvine's. Irvine used to mark his equipment.  Wyn Harris apparently had the axe that picked up 'further marked' so that it wouldn't get mixed up with his team's axes.  My understanding is that this latter mark was a cross, and distinct from the three horizontal strokes that (I understand) Irvine used.  Everestnews.com goes on to speculate that the ice axe would have been dropped by Irvine 'on the way down', as otherwise he would have retrieved it.  This is not inconsistent with a summit by Irving or Mallory, but it should be noted that the axe was found 2000 feet below the summit and a very considerable horizontal distance away.  EverestNews.com theorises that Irvine climbed no higher than the base of the 'Second Step' (28,100 feet), a thousand feet below the summit.
:The issue would be clearer if I could point you to a diagram of the summit approaches, which is the project I am currently working on (see below)Tban 20:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was them with the little hatchet 

message: It seems to me that to describe the events of 1924 and 1996 (and 2006) without having a detailed guide to the 'geography' of the route between the North Col and the Summit is to leave the reader somewhat 'in the dark'. The main everest article doesn't quite go into enough detail. Perhaps there is a case for creating an 'child' article 'Everest North Col to Summit Route Detail' (or suchlike). So that's what I'm working on at the moment. It's actually quite complex - and made interesting by the fact that some climbers seem to interchange terms when describing the features along the way. 
The format I'm aiming towards is an initial diagram (cross section) with several different 'layers' of information - (1) features - each relating to a text section lower down in the articl (2) vertical and horizontal distances between features (3) climbing time between features (4) location of events such as rescues/deaths/irving's ice axe etc (5) climbing route(s) around features.  My timeframe to complete the first draft of this is about a week..  I am concentrating on the SE Ridge initially because that is where most of the historical incidents/controversies have happened.
What I'm aiming to do after that is tackle the 1996 events from a NPOV stance in order to 'round up' the separate references to them in the articles on the climbers involved in those events (a tall order I agree..). And then slot that information into a series of articles/references that refer to notable rescues, attempted rescues, deaths and bivouacs near the summit.  A sort of catalogue of exception human activities around the summit that don't necessarilly get into the record of 'successful summits', thus going a bit further towards 'filling out the story' of human endeavour on the mountain.  An example is the case of Fran Arsentiev.  If you know the details of that event, or look it up link, you'll apppreciate that I am  talking about both tragic and heroic human endeavours. Tban 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gday RW, I should note that the 'Routes' section is excellent (already), and it is only the increasing number of reports of (and debates about) incidents that refer to 'places' along the route above the North Col that really warrant going into more detail now.  Hence my 'not quite' comment. I should have been more (obviously) generous about prior contributions in my initial comments - hope this amends..  Looking to scribble some sketches of the various sections - easier than trying to get non-copyright photographs.  I am updating my progress on my own Talk page (as at 15 June 2006) Tban 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Detailed Route Information on Summit Approaches 

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

message: Stemonitis has removed the category "Mountains of China" with the note "Rv. Mountains of Tibet is a child of Mountains of China". If you click on the category "Mountains of Tibet", there is no sign that this is a "child" of "Mountains of China". To remove that information doesn't make sense, so I've reinserted the category "Mountains of China". —Babelfisch 01:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the bottom of :Category:Mountains of Tibet is the listing of the categories of which it is a child: Mountains of China, Geography of Tibet, Mountains of Asia, and Himalaya. It's fairly pointless to have articles in two categories, one of which is a sub-category of the other, or all mountains will end up in a vast and cumbersome :Category:Mountains. --Stemonitis 06:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Stemonitis correctly removed the Mountains of China since the Tibet category is one of it's children. There is no need to have the mountain in two categories having a parent-child relationship. RedWolf 20:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although China invaded and tried to destroy Tibetan people and culture, that does not make Everest a Chinese mountain.201.19.196.220 12:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever the rights and wrongs of the inclusion of Tibet within China, it is shown on maps and atlases and is internationally recognised. Incidentally, the category :Category:Mountains of China does not show Mount Everest, but does show many other Tibetan mountains. This is an inconsistency, which, one way or another, needs to be resolved. Either we include Tibetan mountains in this category, or we do not.  Viewfinder 13:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Since Mountains of China is a parent of Mountains of Tibet, the former should be removed from articles currently containing both. This is the convention used for other parent-child categories, at least for mountain related categories (e.g. :Category:Mountains of Canada, :Category:Mountains of the United States). While, currently, the category :Category:Mountains of Germany is not divided as such, :de:Kategorie:Berg in Deutschland has been subdivided on the German Wiki based on its subdivisions. Granted, there is not the political issues of China and  Tibet that these other countries do not have with regards to their respective subdivisions. RedWolf 19:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

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

message: Did someone hear about a well guarded secret that China have undeniable proof that Mallory and Irvine summited, and that they, the chinese, are holding the information until Sir Hillary dies, afraid that the news will upset the old man too much?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:201.19.171.206
:Please sign your posts. Also, comments go at the bottom of the page, not the top. Also, how does anyone know what is contained in a well guarded secret? Also, do you think we should put Conspiracy theory cats on all of the pages you have posted this same comment too? Moriori 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mallory made it! http://www.everestnews2004.com/malloryandirvine2004/stories2004/ourtheory.htm 201.19.196.137 21:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you notice the word "theory" at that site? Moriori 22:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mallory and Irvine 

message: Does the article Kangshung Face, Mount Everest need to be separate or should it be merged into the main Mount Everest article? If that article does stay separate, or if it becomes a section of this one, the NASA space photo above may be good for it. Comments? -- Spireguy 16:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kangshung Face, Mount Everest]] 

message: i think that maybe there could be a map of the mountain that shows where it is 70.190.180.166 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Goodness gracious me. How can a Wikipedia administrator consider thatPanorama from the top of Mt.Everest violates WP:EL? Also, summitpost and panorama links, which were also deleted, appear on many other mountain sites and have long been accepted by the Wikipedia community. The summitpost links provide much more information than the Wikipedia articles, and the panoramas provide unique information not available elsewhere. Admittedly the panoramas are mine and are on my site, but I did not add them originally and I really cannot see how they can be considered spam or contrary to WP:EL. Viewfinder 04:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of external links 

message: Are miles and kilometers reserved for distance?
::It is usual to quote mountain heights in metres or feet, not miles or kilometres. Feet are seldom used outside North America; it is a long time since any European mapping agency has published a non-metric map. Viewfinder 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meters, feet

message: Despite referencing and footnoting, in the last 48 hours I reverted an unexplained change to 8844m and another to 8850m. I have explained on this page why the snow cap should be used (consistency with Mont Blanc) and why the snow cap elevation implied by the most recent survey (2005) should be used (which is 8848m). But whatever we do, we should not be changing the elevation frequently. If other editors disagree with the elevation currently supported then please could they debate the issue here first. Viewfinder 02:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Measurement again

message: The photo from the space station (image:himalaya_annotated.jpg) has some inaccurate captions, as noted on its discussion pages on  and on the Commons. Not sure if the picture should be removed, as it is mostly OK. -- Spireguy 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies in Space Station photo 

message: Not for the first time, an administrator has been removing external links which do not contravene WP:EL. While some of the links removed may have been rightly removed, the links removed again included Panorama from the top of Mt.Everest, and the summitpost link. These and other links removed contain information not in the article, and should not have been removed without more explanation. In particular, some of the links were removed under a "rvv" edit. Yes the edit removed vandalism, but it removed much more, and should have stated so. Viewfinder 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a directory of external links.  Please explain how panoramas.dk and the other dozen and a half links you've restored  do not violate WP:EL guidelines.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:49, 22 November 2006(UTC)
I repeat, that some of these links may have been correctly removed. I am not defending all of them, but I do not think that there are necessarily too many. You will find just as many at George W. Bush, where you will also find a list of 129 references. Summitpost contains loads of information not in mountain articles. The panoramas.dk link is to an amazing 360 degree photograph of the view from the summit. This is relevant and, imo, of considerable interest and I vigorously oppose its removal. It is certainly not spam. Can you tell me which guideline clause its inclusion violates? I also oppose the removal of the computer generated annotated panoramas. Here I must declare an interest, in that I am the author of these panoramas, although I did not post the link to them myself. Similar computer generated panoramas appear on many mountain sites and have been generally accepted by the Wikipedia community for some time. Go to User_talk:Gillean666#Spam_reverting. (I have addressed the reasonable concern about commercial linkage).
The article was becoming too long, which is why, a few months ago, I set up a separate timeline climbing page.
I must also repeat my objection to the sneaky removal of external links in an edit entitled "rvv further more". Do you have any particular knowledge of mountains? I have not seen any contributions by you to mountain pages, other than occasional vandalism removal. If not, I suggest that you should have left a note on this discussion page about excess external links, but left it to those who do have knowledge of mountains to decide which ones, if any, should be removed. Viewfinder 11:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please refrain from making personal attacks, there was nothing sneaky at all about my removal of these links, my next edit summary was "removed spam per WP:EL", which this section is in gross violation of.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you all for your assistance in getting the external links section down to something manageable.  My personal feeling is that although the panoramic websites do feature some beautiful photography, they aren't really necessary for our encyclopedia article and can just as easily be found using a search engine.  In an ideal world, the only "external links" within articles about non-commercial subjects would be on-line references, with everything else left to Google.  In any case, now that we have pared this down, how should we be taking future links into consideration?  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I also don't agree with the statement that there should ideally be no external links (besides on-line references). Certainly external links should be carefully vetted for quality and relevance, but why should the ideal number be zero? If one were reading a long encyclopedia article, or a book, one would not be surprised or displeased to find (in addition to references) a short selection entitled "Further reading", provided that the texts mentioned were relevant and of high quality, and not in such great number as to be confusing. That, to me, is the analogue of a (good) external links section---it should be "Further reading" which happens to be on the web. This is very different from a page degenerating into an unculled web directory, which seems to be the most serious concern of WP:EL. -- Spireguy 20:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is fine if you disagree, but does not really answer my question: how do we prevent this from generating into what it had became just one week ago?  Where do you draw the line, since obviously there are a multitude of commercial panoramic and other relevant websites available.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links removed

message: I reverted the last two edits to remove the mention of Denali/McKinley as the "highest above base" in the world. This is an inherently ill-defined concept, but by any reasonable definition, McKinley doesn't win, as there are peaks in the Himalaya which achieve more vertical gain over any given horizonal distance than does McKinley. (This is not to say that McKinley isn't a very, very large peak, or that it doesn't beat Everest in some aspects of vertical relief.) Because it is a slippery notion, it's best not to talk about the comparison at all. (In fact, even the reference to Mauna Kea should probably be clarified a bit, by saying where the undersea "base" of that peak is, but I'm not going to do that now.) -- Spireguy 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest above "base", Denali/McKinley, Everest 

message: Hi, i just noticed vandalism on the page. I Dont know how to correct it, but can someone remove the offensive content near the top?
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.252.118.102 (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: So was it an 80% reduction or a 14% reduction? The new cite is inconsistent with the number in the text. Someone want to sort this out? -- Spireguy 22:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1996 Disaster Oxygen level 

message: Picture taken by me at Buddha Air Everest tour. 
KeRR 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Aerial Photo