Jump to content

Talk:Ama Dablam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 117.195.102.63 (talk) at 04:11, 30 November 2011 (Irish-American ascent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMountains Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elevation

The Peakware site shows elevation at 6,856 metres as does one of my maps and Google search shows many sites as well using 6,856. Another map of mine shows the elevation at 6,812 metres as well as [1]. I also found a document from the Nepal government [2] that consistently used 6,812 m throughout. I therefore chose 6,812 metres as the official height of Ama Dablam. RedWolf 05:17, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

That's simply not good enough. Wikipedia's method of figuring altitudes for mountains is highly bias, using speculation of one source over another. There's obviously disagreement on the altitudes of most mounains, especially in the Himalaya, and if Wikipedia is to live up to its "quality standards" it should provide non-bias information of however many altitudes are suggested for a mountain. I'm editing this article to support such. --Bentonia School 06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was I being biased when I based the 6812 figure on two sources (map and Nepali govt)? In any case, I agree that the mountains in the Himalaya are especially prone to having incorrect elevations due to discrepencies in various sources. RedWolf 16:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish-American ascent

It is still not clear to me how this recent addition is a particularly notable ascent. Was it a new route? Was it noted as particularly important in a reliable source? -- Spireguy (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


i summitted the mountain this year and got 6830 to 35 meters on the Suunto altimeter. It depends on the face, snowfall and place of summit that you get differing altitudes, i would go with both readings 6812 and 6856. 30 meters isnt even 1% variance in the height of the mountain.