Talk:Mount Whitney

message: the class of this article is not yet B since it lacks sufficient breadth, eg ecology and history.
Several issues:
# The elevation of Mount Whitney differs between sources. A possibly out-of- date USGS map is not necessarily the best, although I'm sticking with this elevation for now, until we have more data. The canonical data source for elevations of benchmarks is the National Geodetic Survey http://www.ngs.noaa.gov .. The benchmark on top of Mount Whitney has ID GT1811. I tried to look it up in the database, but it was down. The Sierra Club peak baggers captured the 1999 data for that benchmark, and it said 14,505' (!!) http://www.peakbagging.com/SPS%20BM/GT1811.txt .. I think we should use whatever the NGS says is the latest value.
# Owens Valley, being a non-point geographic feature, does not have one elevation. Therefore, giving a precise (down to the foot) elevation difference is extremely misleading.
# I'm not sure of the licensing of topozone .. I removed the link, but we can put it back if someone checks to see if they don't mind deep linking.
# Let's keep discussion on this page, rather than mucking up the article.
--hike395 07:38, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion at Talk:California. -- hike395 06:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for addig the summary, hike395. -Willmcw 20:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A better paragraph I have never read.  Thank you, hike395. --GraemeMcRae 02:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: "Common advice is to be off of the peak by noon during the summer monsoon season."  does california really have a monsoon season?
Dandube 13:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, though folks who aren't climbing tall peaks may not notice it. -Will Beback 16:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monsoon season?

message: Does this really need to be in the summary?  As it's really not important to the article, I think it should be moved lower, maybe into the Popular Culture heading as an anecdote. toki 06:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Badwater Ultramarathon

message: I removed the following links from the External links section, per WP:EL. I invite opinions about whether to put any of them back in. My main reasons: there were a lot of links for what is still a short article, and most of these are personal trip reports or commercial pages. The TierraWiki link is a link to a new, unstable wiki, which is deprecated by WP:EL, although I could see going against that guideline. Comments? -- Spireguy 05:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that the Portal Store is virtually an "official" link and should be retained. Tierrawiki may be a useful site as well. The rest seem to be trip reports and photos, about which I'm indifferent. -Will Beback · † · 21:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: I just noticed that Tierrawiki put the marker for the summit in the wrong location. Maybe it's not as relialbe as it should be. -Will Beback · † · 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, they do miss the summit a bit.  Yes, leave 'em out, one official website for Whitney Portal should be fine, leaving in or out Will Beback's desired links, doesn't matter.  Thanks for the clean-up. KP Botany 21:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed links 

message: The hiking section is getting long, with some stuff that seems less than encyclopedic. I changed the way it was written, but maybe we should actually remove some of the Wikitravel-type details. Any comments?
:I moved most of it to its own article: Mount Whitney trail, because it really has more to do with the trail than the mountain itself. We can edit it over there, if you like. I also tried to add more about geology, based on the complaint of the anon editor. hike395 06:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiking section getting long 

message: Maps show nearer to 84.5 miles, going by the lat/long given in these articles. ??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.255.247 (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Distance to [[Badwater Basin]]

message: There was a question asked about the parent peak for Mount Whitney and the status of peakbagger.com. The editor removed the text before I could reply. The question was:
Why is Pico de Orizaba listed as the parent peak? Aren't there higher peaks in Canada & Alaska that would qualify? The reference for this is peakbagger.com (which came up as a dead link). While dedicated to getting to the top of peaks, are the proponents of peakbagger a WP:RS?
My reply was:
I don't think the peakbagger.com page is cited as the source for the parent peak. It is true that the peakbagger.com server is currently down. See this archived page. I have used the site as a reference hundreds of times and have frequently checked it's data against other sources and I have always found it to be very reliable. I'm hoping that the current condition is temporary. I'm not a big fan of parent peak. The term can be ambiguous. The ListsofJohn.com site says the line parent is Nevado de Toluca-Mexico. The idea of parentage is related to prominence which follows the highest ridge leading away from a given peak. This is more widely studied on the British Isles.
 –droll [chat] 00:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A glance at a globe shows that Mount Whitney is closer to the high volcanoes of central Mexico than it is to the only two North American peaks taller than Pico de Orizaba, namely Denali in Alaska and Mount Logan in the Yukon.  Accordingly, a Mexican peak must be Whitney's parent peak.  There are five peaks in Mexico taller than Mount Whitney, and I think that Nevado de Toluca is probably the best candidate among them, since it is significantly west of Pico de Orizaba, and therefore closer to Mount Whitney.  Calculating the exact distances would be original research, but I think the source Droll provided above appears solid. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I thought it was good question. Peakbagger is back up. The Peakbagger page does not mention a parent peak.  Indeed, the subject is abstruse. Parentage can have a number of meanings. Try reading this, and especially this, at Peaklist.org. The site claims that Mount Whitney's  parent is Pico de Orizaba, in Mexico. Pico de Orizaba's prominence parent is Mount Logan, in Canada. Prominence parentage is not the same a line parentage and distance in irrelevant. See this. Other terms used are encirclement  parentage, topographic parentage; and source parentage, some of which are synonymous. Also, most of this is totally irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of readers. This is, according to the webmaster of Peaklist.org the science of Orometry, which is such an obscure science that it is not defined on Wiktionary. –droll [chat] 05:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parent peak? 

message: I removed the following markup:
Water that falls to the west of the crest flows into the Pacific Ocean, while that to the east flows into the Great Basin.
   
}}
The western slopes drain in to the Kern River and "since the late 19th century the Kern has been almost entirely diverted for irrigation", according to the Kern River article. The eastern slopes historically drained into the Owens River which emptied into the endorheic Owens Lake. Indeed, the Owens Valley is on the western edge of the Great Basin. Currently, most of this water is captured by the Los Angeles Aqueduct and might end up in the Pacific Ocean. –droll [chat]
:You are correct. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drainage  

message: With elavation measurement of Whitney being changed from 14,494 to 14,505 (+11 ft), have any of the other nearby mountains been recaluculated?  I'm thinking, in particular, of Mt Barnard which used to be listed as a 14,000'er but was later revised to 13,990+ making it the highest 13,000'er in California.  I have seen an elevation for Mt. Barnard given as 13,996 so a gain of a few feet would relist Barnard as 14,000+.
Yes, I was a peakbagger many years ago, but I never was on top of Mt. Baranrd so I have no personal gain in this. Seki1949 (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no NGS data sheet for Barnard. Given a NGVD29 height of , the VERTCON calculator produces a height of , so poor Barnard is still a thirteener. —hike395 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation measurement 

message: On August 18, an IP editor added the information that the Native American name for Mount Whitney is "Tumanguya", which was later cited to an online women's magazine called Bustle, I do not think that this magazine is a reliable source for Native American names of mountains. I have climbed Mount Whitney and read about it extensively, and have never heard that name. I have checked three books in my own library, and none mentions "Tumanguya".
The Geographic Names Information System is very thorough in listing variant names of mountains. For example, they list 24 variants for Mount Shasta, six variants for Mount Rainier and 48 variants for Denali. Most of these variants are Native American names. However the GNIS listing for Mount Whitney includes only two real variants, one 19th century (Fisherman's Peak) and the second 20th century (Mount Churchill), neither Native American. The lack of Native American variants for Mount Whitney is not surprising. The three other peaks mentioned stand well apart from surrounding peaks, can be seen for hundreds of miles, and are memorable sights. Mount Whitney is just the highest point along an 11 mile high mountain ridge, surrounded by many other peaks nearly as high. From the Owens Valley, it does not seem to be the highest peak at all. I am unaware that Native Americans named individual peaks of the High Sierra, but I could be wrong.
California Place Names: A Geographical Dictionary is an excellent source for such information. For example, the word "Shasta" appears 86 times in that book. The word "Tumanguya" does not appear at all. Another excellent source is Place Names of the High Sierra which also does not mention "Tumanguya". As a matter of fact, the word "Tumanguya" does not appear anywhere in Google Books, Google Scholar or JSTOR searches, and only seems to appear on the internet at all in recent weeks.
Accordingly, I am removing "Tumanguya" from the article. I will not object to adding the information back into the article if it can be cited to a better quality source.I will not object to adding the information back into the article if it can be cited to a better quality source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I commend  for finding the information about "Too-man-i-goo-yah". I share that editor's concern about "Tumanguya", and do not consider the Bustle source reliable for this information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Hi! I've received some messages about this in the past. I did not make this word up, but it would be wise to take down the article. 155.247.134.189 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tumanguya 

message: One of the reasons why cullen328 has found it difficult to locate the above particular spelling is because the Paiute term is transliterated in about a dozen ways. The reason why I think it is preferable to list the Tumanguya spelling is because it corresponds to the standard English writing system that typically does not insert commas and spaces in a pronouns or words. However the fact that these variations exist is evidence enough that a variant int he native american language exists. Kleinebeesjes (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I commend  for finding the information about "Too-man-i-goo-yah". I share that editor's concern about "Tumanguya", and do not consider the Bustle source reliable for this information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Hi! I've received some messages about this in the past. I did not make this word up, but it would be wise to take down the article. 155.247.134.189 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Tumanguya variations

message: According to a LENGTHY article available at the website for the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club, actual elevation is 14,500.3', based upon the best available marker under the old NGVD29 datum, as converted to the NAVD88 datum.  See: http://angeles.sierraclub.org/news/blog/2012/10/climb_highest_mountain_how_high_mt_whitney
Doug (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That was written in 2012.  The most recent authoritative measurements give 14505 ft; see https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=GT1811. Looie496 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The lengthy article is a blog, which would fail WP:RS. If those NGS experts were to publish a peer-reviewed paper, then we would update. —hike395 (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation (Again) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mount Whitney. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904001136/http://www.sequoiaparksfoundation.org/2012/historic-people-and-places-william-b-wallace/ to http://www.sequoiaparksfoundation.org/2012/historic-people-and-places-william-b-wallace/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Hi, I'm trying to clear up misinformation and remove citation 29. I keep getting violation warnings from the editor. I wrote the original article and I don't think it should be included as a reference. 155.247.134.189 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name