This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I rated the page as Start quality (lack of clarity, reference, language is not correct... and importance middle as it receives in average 300 view per day). User:baptisteg
I do not want to provoke an edit war, so I have applied the NPOV principle to the main article, but I firmly disagree with the POV that Gangkhar Puensum is wholly in Bhutan.
The local border with Tibet is a sensitive issue, but in the relevant area it can only take one logical course, the watershed divide. This clearly runs over the Gangkhar Puensum mountain. It follows that if the summit is wholly in Bhutan, then it would have to be on a spur, removed from the divide. A photograph taken of the main summit from Liangkang Kangri, a subsidiary top to the north, shows that the main summit is clean, with no such spur. It therefore follows that, in the absence of any formal agreement with China, the main summit is on the border, and NOT the exclusive possession of Bhutan.
It is worth noting that the 1986 Berry book was written at the time when the local topography was much less clear, but it is likely that the POV expressed there has been widely reproduced. Viewfinder 00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The prominence of GP depends on its elevation relative to Kula Kangri. The prominences shown here are based on the assumption that Kula Kangri is lower. I cannot prove this, but in the absence of any modern and accurate measurements other than the Chinese ones, I accept the Chinese claim that Gangkhar Puensum is 7570m and that Kula Kangri is lower at 7538m. The course of the watershed border is shown on a web page that I have created, and I draw specific attention to the map. A border that includes Kula Kangri but passes north of Gangkhar Puensum deviates from the watershed border and makes no topographic sense. The extra Bhutanese territory that such a border creates is completely uninhabited. The only valley that would be included would be cut off from the rest of Bhutan by impenetrable mountains and glaciers. So what legal or other basis for such a border can there be? Viewfinder 13:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The first recorded ascent of any mountain in the American West was Gray Back Peak (southwest of Colorado Springs, Colorado, by Zebulon Pike, Private Theodore Miller, Dr. John Robinson, and Private John Brown, on November 26, 1806. The next day the four climbers ascended Mt.Rosa, 11,499' which was the first recorded ascent of any American mountain into the Alpine zone. They were trying to ascend Pikes Peak, and gave up on the summit of Rosa, still 8 miles from their objective. Google " Zebulon Pike, Murphy, Mt. Rosa" for more details. John Murphy Pike historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.184.188 ( talk) 19:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
From the current Wikipedia article introduction.
"Kangchenjunga was first climbed on 25 May 1955 by Joe Brown and George Band, who were part of a British expedition. They stopped short of the summit as per the promise given to the Chogyal that the top of the mountain would remain inviolate. Every climber or climbing group that has reached the summit has followed this tradition.[7]"
That sounds like not climbed to me, however easily the remaining elevation could have been climbed, it wasn't. AnnaComnemna ( talk) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
"is accepted in the climbing community" Sorry, the climbing community does not have the casting vote on what appears in Wikipedia, and no vote at all on what constitutes reality. But let it stand. Does this tradition, whether observed more in the breach or not, extend to other mountains? And if it does, what changes need to be made to other articles? AnnaComnemna ( talk) 13:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
One of the unclimbed phenomena in the world needs to be added Salmanlla ( talk) 04:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding summitting, I think the early climbers of Kangchenjunga specifically said they did not set foot on the summit but they were nevertheless credited with climbing the mountain successfully. However, later expeditions have, I think, not continued this restraint (see earlier in this talk page). Nanda Devi is a different matter.The article is correctly quoting the given source [2] but I think the information is wrong. In writing Shipton–Tilman Nanda Devi expeditions I never came across any suggestion that Tilman and Odell did not set foot on the very top. They certainly claimed that they did and I don't think it has been disputed. In Tilman, H W (2014). The Ascent of Nanda Devi (Kindle). ISBN 978-1-910240-15-1. there is a detailed description of the summit (a comparative plateau). [3] It's always difficult to know how to deal with a conflict in sources (disfavoured claim in footnote?) so I'll leave this for now. Anyway, a thoroughly worthwhile rewrite of the article. Thincat ( talk) 20:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned before in my edit summaries, the highest point of Kabru appears to have been reached repeatedly. Since we don't want to get people organizing an expedition for no satisfying reason, let's be sure about this;-) We have a very good map of the western half of Kabru, showing the main summit towards the north end of the massif (p. 7412 at 27°38'03"N 88°07'06"E) and a point 7318 in the south west at 27°36'31"N 88°06'41"E. The saddle in between is no lower than c. 7220 m. The relief on google maps corresponds nicely to the map these days. There are some intermediate bumps around 27°37'17"N 88°06'56"E not check pointed by the Nepal survey and some across the border. Google maps suggest that they are a bit higher than the south summit but with a prominence of at best 80 m. The Himalayan Index (search for Kabru*) Has a very confusing set of peaks.
From this I tend to think that there are no unclimbed main summits on Kabru anymore. Kabru IV and Kabru S are probably the same peak. Do you have references to suggest otherwise, and which summit would it be? Afasmit ( talk) 19:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
MONGO, could you clarify what you think the is issue with the list of unclimbed mountains and its sourcing? What is so unreliable about 8000ers.com, and how is Afasmit identifiable as its author? (I'm assuming that's who you mean by "subject" - since the subject of this article is not a person...) At face value, that seems to me to be wholly acceptable sourcing for the information. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The article title is about "unclimbed" mountains, but the body talks about people not having reached the peaks of these mountains. In fact, the article says that many of the mountains listed have been climbed before, just not to the summits. Is this some distinct usage of "climbed" to indicate that someone has successfully reached the peak? Opencooper ( talk) 18:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
https://reddit.com/r/hiking/s/D7C5sqHuPQ 82.56.18.69 ( talk) 15:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I rated the page as Start quality (lack of clarity, reference, language is not correct... and importance middle as it receives in average 300 view per day). User:baptisteg
I do not want to provoke an edit war, so I have applied the NPOV principle to the main article, but I firmly disagree with the POV that Gangkhar Puensum is wholly in Bhutan.
The local border with Tibet is a sensitive issue, but in the relevant area it can only take one logical course, the watershed divide. This clearly runs over the Gangkhar Puensum mountain. It follows that if the summit is wholly in Bhutan, then it would have to be on a spur, removed from the divide. A photograph taken of the main summit from Liangkang Kangri, a subsidiary top to the north, shows that the main summit is clean, with no such spur. It therefore follows that, in the absence of any formal agreement with China, the main summit is on the border, and NOT the exclusive possession of Bhutan.
It is worth noting that the 1986 Berry book was written at the time when the local topography was much less clear, but it is likely that the POV expressed there has been widely reproduced. Viewfinder 00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The prominence of GP depends on its elevation relative to Kula Kangri. The prominences shown here are based on the assumption that Kula Kangri is lower. I cannot prove this, but in the absence of any modern and accurate measurements other than the Chinese ones, I accept the Chinese claim that Gangkhar Puensum is 7570m and that Kula Kangri is lower at 7538m. The course of the watershed border is shown on a web page that I have created, and I draw specific attention to the map. A border that includes Kula Kangri but passes north of Gangkhar Puensum deviates from the watershed border and makes no topographic sense. The extra Bhutanese territory that such a border creates is completely uninhabited. The only valley that would be included would be cut off from the rest of Bhutan by impenetrable mountains and glaciers. So what legal or other basis for such a border can there be? Viewfinder 13:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The first recorded ascent of any mountain in the American West was Gray Back Peak (southwest of Colorado Springs, Colorado, by Zebulon Pike, Private Theodore Miller, Dr. John Robinson, and Private John Brown, on November 26, 1806. The next day the four climbers ascended Mt.Rosa, 11,499' which was the first recorded ascent of any American mountain into the Alpine zone. They were trying to ascend Pikes Peak, and gave up on the summit of Rosa, still 8 miles from their objective. Google " Zebulon Pike, Murphy, Mt. Rosa" for more details. John Murphy Pike historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.184.188 ( talk) 19:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
From the current Wikipedia article introduction.
"Kangchenjunga was first climbed on 25 May 1955 by Joe Brown and George Band, who were part of a British expedition. They stopped short of the summit as per the promise given to the Chogyal that the top of the mountain would remain inviolate. Every climber or climbing group that has reached the summit has followed this tradition.[7]"
That sounds like not climbed to me, however easily the remaining elevation could have been climbed, it wasn't. AnnaComnemna ( talk) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
"is accepted in the climbing community" Sorry, the climbing community does not have the casting vote on what appears in Wikipedia, and no vote at all on what constitutes reality. But let it stand. Does this tradition, whether observed more in the breach or not, extend to other mountains? And if it does, what changes need to be made to other articles? AnnaComnemna ( talk) 13:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
One of the unclimbed phenomena in the world needs to be added Salmanlla ( talk) 04:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding summitting, I think the early climbers of Kangchenjunga specifically said they did not set foot on the summit but they were nevertheless credited with climbing the mountain successfully. However, later expeditions have, I think, not continued this restraint (see earlier in this talk page). Nanda Devi is a different matter.The article is correctly quoting the given source [2] but I think the information is wrong. In writing Shipton–Tilman Nanda Devi expeditions I never came across any suggestion that Tilman and Odell did not set foot on the very top. They certainly claimed that they did and I don't think it has been disputed. In Tilman, H W (2014). The Ascent of Nanda Devi (Kindle). ISBN 978-1-910240-15-1. there is a detailed description of the summit (a comparative plateau). [3] It's always difficult to know how to deal with a conflict in sources (disfavoured claim in footnote?) so I'll leave this for now. Anyway, a thoroughly worthwhile rewrite of the article. Thincat ( talk) 20:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned before in my edit summaries, the highest point of Kabru appears to have been reached repeatedly. Since we don't want to get people organizing an expedition for no satisfying reason, let's be sure about this;-) We have a very good map of the western half of Kabru, showing the main summit towards the north end of the massif (p. 7412 at 27°38'03"N 88°07'06"E) and a point 7318 in the south west at 27°36'31"N 88°06'41"E. The saddle in between is no lower than c. 7220 m. The relief on google maps corresponds nicely to the map these days. There are some intermediate bumps around 27°37'17"N 88°06'56"E not check pointed by the Nepal survey and some across the border. Google maps suggest that they are a bit higher than the south summit but with a prominence of at best 80 m. The Himalayan Index (search for Kabru*) Has a very confusing set of peaks.
From this I tend to think that there are no unclimbed main summits on Kabru anymore. Kabru IV and Kabru S are probably the same peak. Do you have references to suggest otherwise, and which summit would it be? Afasmit ( talk) 19:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
MONGO, could you clarify what you think the is issue with the list of unclimbed mountains and its sourcing? What is so unreliable about 8000ers.com, and how is Afasmit identifiable as its author? (I'm assuming that's who you mean by "subject" - since the subject of this article is not a person...) At face value, that seems to me to be wholly acceptable sourcing for the information. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The article title is about "unclimbed" mountains, but the body talks about people not having reached the peaks of these mountains. In fact, the article says that many of the mountains listed have been climbed before, just not to the summits. Is this some distinct usage of "climbed" to indicate that someone has successfully reached the peak? Opencooper ( talk) 18:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
https://reddit.com/r/hiking/s/D7C5sqHuPQ 82.56.18.69 ( talk) 15:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)