This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mount Everest article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 270 days

	Mount Everest was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 11, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 4, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 29, 2004, May 29, 2005, and May 29, 2006.
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This   level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Mountains Top‑importance This 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.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Nepal Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia ( defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles Geology Mid‑importance Talk:Mount Everest is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Climbing Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climbing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climbing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ClimbingWikipedia:WikiProject ClimbingTemplate:WikiProject ClimbingClimbing articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the location of China. 202.51.88.250 ( talk) 01:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC) reply

 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) reply

The reference for this is now an irrecoverable dead link, but it seems to have been a WP:SPS. I propose to replace it with one from the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping. ^[1] As this is a bit sensitive (China/Nepal border) I thought I'd check here first.

Alternatively, USA Today. ^[2]

-- AntientNestor ( talk) 07:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I can't read the ACSM reference, but the USA Today source only gives the location to the nearest minute, 27°59′N 86°56′E / 27.983°N 86.933°E / 27.983; 86.933, which is not very precise. WikiProject Mountains often uses Peakbagger ^[3] which claims 27°59′18″N 86°55′31″E / 27.98833°N 86.92528°E / 27.98833; 86.92528. It would be good to compare multiple sources and see if there is agreement, or whether we can find the most up-to-date measurement. — hike395 ( talk) 15:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I saw Peakbagger. It seems very comprehensive, but isn't it WP:USERGENERATED? AntientNestor ( talk) 15:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

There was a long discission about this at WP:RSN in 2021 that did not come to consensus. The quantitative data is not WP:USERGENERATED, but is self-published. We could not come to consensus about whether Peakbagger falls under the "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" exception to WP:SPS.

I would suggest that we can use Peakbagger coordinates to see if there is a consensus lat/long amongst many sources, but maybe choose a different source if they agree. What coordinates do ACSM suggest? — hike395 ( talk) 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

ACSM has 27°58′22.590325″N 86°55′45.970699″E / 27.97294175694°N 86.92943630528°E / 27.97294175694; 86.92943630528, which is a far higher precision than is recommended in WP:OPCOORD. I'd be happy with USA today, as it's the most readily available. The odd metre either way won't matter if there's agreement. AntientNestor ( talk) 16:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

USA Today coordinates are 1.214 km away from ACSM: I think that is unacceptably imprecise. I'll look for more. — hike395 ( talk) 01:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

FWIW, clicking on the kink in the China/Nepal boundary at Mount Everest on Google Maps yields 27°59′18″N 86°55′31″E / 27.98833°N 86.92528°E / 27.98833; 86.92528 (rounding to the nearest second), which matches Peakbagger. — hike395 ( talk) 01:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Clicking on the peak icon at acme.com yields 27°59′17″N 86°55′31″E / 27.98806°N 86.92528°E / 27.98806; 86.92528 (to the nearest second), only 30m away. — hike395 ( talk) 01:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

OK, let's avoid USA Today then. I'm glad we're sorting this out here first! AntientNestor ( talk) 07:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Interestingly, the China State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping locates the peak at 27°59′15.8″N 86°55′39.5″E / 27.987722°N 86.927639°E / 27.987722; 86.927639 (to the nearest 0.1 degree). ^[4] This is somewhat to the east in China. When I look at the topographic map at Acme and click on the highest topo point (instead of the peak icon), I get 27°59′19″N 86°55′31″E / 27.98861°N 86.92528°E / 27.98861; 86.92528 (nearest second), also a little bit in China, but much closer to the other coordinates. — hike395 ( talk) 15:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Hike395:Interesting that the result of a joint China/Nepal effort, that places the summit in China, is published only in a Chinese journal. It's definitely a WP:RS, though, and should go in, replacing the both existing note and its reference. You found this—do you want to do it?-- AntientNestor ( talk) 16:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I find it a bit suspect, since it appears to be 242 meters away from the general consensus of the mapping services. It's also unclear whether it is the result of the joint effort from 2017-9. My current preference is to use Peakbagger (because that is consistent with the mapping services, and clearly superior to the WP:OR that is currently in the infobox), but continue to investigate. Or we can cite to Google Maps if you find the WP:SPS to be an issue? — hike395 ( talk) 17:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Peakbagger has been discussed before and seems generally to be accepted, so go with it. I think the Chinese are reporting the 22 May 2019 ascent with GPS kit by Nepalese climber Khimlal Gautam. The headline in National Geographic was "Nepal has remeasured Mount Everest. Now China has to weigh in." ^[5]-- AntientNestor ( talk) 18:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

"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) reply

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) reply

Thank you. Tintin 20:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply