Talk:Mount Kinabalu

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

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

message: According to the high school geography textbooks of the Ministry of Education of Malaysia, Mt Kinabalu is 4104 m. User:Randytsx
That figure is outdated. --Lionelster 03:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My atlas had this mountain listed as 4101m rather than 4095m as in the article. It says here that the mountain is growing. Also alot of google hits for 4101 -  -- Astrokey44|talk 10:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: CIA world factbook has 4100 and Peakware has 4102 -- 24.86.195.69 07:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ain't Mt Kinabalu 4104 m ??

message: The attached Palm tree IS NOT a palm tree, it is a fern. sltan
There are over 6000 plant species in California, so it is incorrect to say this region has more species than Europe and North American combined!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.134.245.53 (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction 

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

message: "Since there are no roads, the supplies for the Laban Rata hut are carried by porters, mostly old women, who bring up to 30 kilograms of supplies on their backs."
Is this some kind of joke? From my experience, all of the porters are at most middle-aged men.
202.179.105.18 03:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm removing it. Mgiganteus1 08:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porters 

message: The mountain and its surroundings feature a huge variety of flora, and is one of the world’s most important[citation needed] biological sites.
The citation requested is later in the article where it explains about the biodiversity exceeding that of all Europe.202.82.171.186 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Important

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

message: (Transferred from my talk page)
Hi there. I understand that you remove the Mount Kinabalu ranking as to avoid edit war, but I propose to keep it there for clarification. I don't mind putting it as 6 / 7 position as long as it is being clarified to what reason and why. Mount Kinabalu has long been listed as highest in South East Asia in terms of geologist (which boundries is clearly define), however now there are some people advocating political boundries (also clearly define) and accusing those who listed Mount Kinabalu as highest in SEA as cheating. By puting both side / ranking this article hopefully clarified this issues to those who are looking for clear explanation. For those who persist, there is not really much anyone can do for them. Regards Yosri (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How are your "geologist" boundaries of South East Asia defined, and can you support them with a reference? Assuming that Myanmar (Burma) is included in SEA, then there are many more than 6 higher mountains and Kinabalu's position is impossibile to determine. Imo, to state that it is the highest in Malaysia and Borneo is enough. Viewfinder (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Myanmar is a forest-clad mountainous country. In the northern part of the Country there are three parallel chains of mountain ranges beginning at the eastern extremity of the Himalayas and running from north to south: these are the Rakhine Yoma, the Bago Yoma and the Shan Plateau." [Beautiful Myanmar]. The purpose to put the explanation there, is to clarified the different point of view. No one is born with knowledge, they must get it. You must take into account information for new comers to Internet world. Yosri (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that website would qualify as a Wikipedia:Reliable source. In any case, as Viewfinder points out, there is no agreed definition of Southeast Asia, so we should not make conclusive statements on the matter. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Better yet look at this book search http://books.google.com.my/books?q=Myanmar%20mountain%20range%20himalaya&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp Yosri (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

text:  Southeast Asia#Geographical is clear: Burma/Myanmar is included. Please take your case there, preferably transcribing a passage from one of your above sources which proves your point. Then, if you win, come back here. Viewfinder (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest in South East Asia? 

message: It has been discovered that this book:
*Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. , 9788182053892. 
Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, it should not be used as a source. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive after it goes there.   Will Beback  talk   23:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

message: This is the South Summit, not the Summit Luma73 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo: Summit of Mt.Kinabalu 

message: The article claims the following:
...and is the highest mountain in the Malay Archipelago...
But the Malay Archipelago includes New Guinea which has the following mountains that are taller than Mount Kinabalu (4,095m):
* Puncak Jaya (4,884m)
* Sumantri (4,870m)
* Ngga Pulu (4,862m)
* Puncak Mandala (4,760m)
* Puncak Trikora (4,750m)
* Ngga Pilimsit (4,717m)
Is there some geological reason behind this claim that Mount Kinabalu is the highest mountain in the Malay Archipelago? --Pavithran (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest Mountain in the Malay Archipelago 

message: "John Griffiths was the first and only one in his family group to get to the summit and see the sunrise, in 1978." - what is this about?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.192.144 (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climbing routes