Talk:Mount Everest

message: Dear Editor
This mountain doesn't belong to British empire and also didn't have been colonized. So nat any British institute or Wikipedia have name it's title as the secondary names. The basic name should be in native names. So with due respect I request you to change the title to Mt. Sagarmatha Chomolungma. Not any other name can be allowed. In description some empire named it as Mt. Everest. Because, not any british people had explored it, but only saw from far away and by calculation they estimated its height. So no one can claim it. So please change it. Thanks 103.174.168.65 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's policy for article titles is to use the common name used in secondary sources (specifically its common name in the English language... as this is an English language encyclopedia). See WP:COMMONNAME for details. Leventio (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just colonialism dressed up and being covered for. Parenthesize the coloquial name if you must so that people can search for and find the article, but it's Qomolangma first, not Everest. Our goal is to provide people with accurate information, and part of that is correcting a false narrative perpetuated by how we present that information to the public. It's accurate to say it's called Everest by many people; I have a nickname too, but that's not how the government knows me, and my name wouldn't change if suddenly everyone started calling me Stephen. It would be a spit in the face if they kept calling me that when I don't like it. This is an ethical misstep. Wikipedia is a resource for an informed public, and part of education is updating outdated information and leaving behind old biases--that starts with the title. 68.69.203.33 (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, review WP:COMMONNAME for details on how we determine article titles with multiple names. Also, Sagarmatha already serves as a redirect for this article, so people who search that will find this article... Leventio (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: When writing an encyclopaedia with the aim to educate people, policies that cause misinformation to be spread, ought to be disregarded. Mount Everest is only a recent name and it is one pushing colonialism in the article, and it does not provide neutrality in the international edition of Wikipedia. Please mind that this encyclopaedia also serves the Indian subcontinent which has as many English speakers and readers as the USA, and which is the location of the mountain at issue. 109.193.92.252 (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change The title name to Sagarmatha Chomolungma 

message: I was updating the references to Wanless (1975) and, upon reading the paper, found that it does not appear to confirm that the specimens found at 22,000 ft. were indeed Euophrys omnisuperstes. I've highlighted the relevant clauses below.
In the Introduction section:
The first report by Major R. W. G. Kingston (1925) of small, black, immature salticid spiders living amongst rocky debris at 22,000 ft on the slopes of Mount Everest, caused some controversy as to whether these spiders were vagrants or permanent residents.
In the Euophrys omnisuperstes n. sp. section:
The immature specimens collected by Major Kingston from 22,000 ft are mutilated and badly rubbed. They appear to be conspecific with E. omnisuperstes n. sp. but the clypeus is low and the apices of the anterior eyes form a straight line, a condition possibly brought about by a dented carapace. The identity of immature spiders is often uncertain and for this reason these specimens have not been listed as paratypes.
For now, I'm going to edit the section to reflect that the paper appears only to confirm that the specimens found at that particular altitude were of the genus Euophrys. – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Euophrys spp. section in [[Mount Everest#Flora_and_fauna|Flora and fauna]] 

message: Please remove the location of China. 202.51.88.250 (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Since the border with China runs through the summit, we can't just omit China from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2023 

message: "In the early 1960s, the Nepali government coined the Nepali name Sagarmāthā (IAST transcription) or Sagar-Matha (सगर-माथा, [sʌɡʌrmatʰa], lit. "goddess of the sky"), ... "
It certainly was not coined in the 1960s. There are several newspaper articles from the time of the first successful climb that mentions the name. For eg, Guardian, July 13, 1953 (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-guardian-everest1/143686293/ ) says "Everest is known in Nepal as Sagarmatha".
What I understand from newspapers in the 1960s is that the Chinese claimed that this word was newly coined by Nepal while Nepal argued that it is an ancient name. Can someone who knows the subject comment on this. In any case, "early 1960s" is incorrect. Tintin 17:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewritten per the source provided. The cited source said nothing about the Nepali government coining it in 1960 anyway. RegentsPark (comment) 20:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Tintin 20:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sagarmatha 

message: In Mount Everest#Routes, the last sentence of the 1st paragraph says:
This was, however, a route decision dictated more by politics than by design, as the Chinese border was closed to the western world in the 1950s, after the People's Republic of China invaded Tibet.
Meanwhile, it doesn't fit in the context which basically talking about technical details, and the word invaded seems to be unneutral, because the article linked to the word is Battle of Chamdo and this article is much more neutral.
Furthermore, this content can be found in Three_Steps, which is the main article of the north route. MspreilsCN (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No comment on the rest of your post but, in the context of the Chinese invasion of Tibet, "invaded" is the correct word to use. RegentsPark (comment) 14:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Unneutral Text