Talk:Kangchenjunga

After 1975 it became the tallest peak in India.

What happend in 1975 to suddenly make it the tallest peak in India? srs 21:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Kanchenjunga is in Sikkim and Nepal boarder, which was independent until 1975. The highest mountain in India before then was Nanda Devi, in Uttaranchal. (But note that India claims the whole of Kashmir, including the Karakoram; under this interpretation the highest peak in India has always been K2.) Gdr 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sikkim was an Indian protectorate until 1975, when it was annexed by India after a referendum in which the Sikkimese voted to fully join the Indian union. Sikkim was a British Indian protectorate before India became independent. It was not fully independent in 1975 as stated above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.199.122 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

The mountain needs to be spelled properly first, Kanchenjunga (notice there isn't a G ) seems to be universally disliked by those that have been there or live there. Old references seem to suggest that Kangchenjunga is closer and used more widley, even if there is dispute by the indigenous population(s), one recent highly respected reference is http://www.hindu.com/mag/2005/02/20/stories/2005022000500200.htm. "Kanchenjunga" is, from what I'm told by the experienced and so forth, is an American spelling. One of the reasons I know some of this is that I had misspelled it in a video concerning the first ascent, and got into hot water by some of the team members that did its first ascent in 1955 and went on too write definitive books on the mountain. (Gowron 19:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

Encyclopedia Britannica and Hutchinson Encyclopedia use "Kanchenjunga". But Everest News, the Peakware World Mountain Encyclopedia, Viewfinder Panoramas use "Kangchenjunga".

Among Indian newspapers, Times of India and the Hindustan Times use "Kanchenjuna". Even the Hindu Times, which you cite above for using "Kangchenjunga", uses the other spelling too, e.g. [1].

Finally, I see that the Survey of India use "Kanchenjunga" on their physical map [2]. I'm inclined to take this as definitive. Your comments? Gdr 21:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The spelling Kanchenjunga is often used. Whether is is any definitive answer to the question "Is it wrong, or a correct alternative", I do not know. But from the summitpost page, I have extracted this: The name is also spelled Kanchenjunga, but according to the Himalayan Journal article, people who know the Tibetan language strongly insist that the 'g' should be there.

This seems to me to be correct. The translation is "Five (ga) Great (chen) Snow (kang) Treasures (jun, from zod)", which includes the Tibetan word for snow, which is surely "Kang" and not "Kan". There are very many Kangri's (snow mountains), but I have never seen a "Kanri". The official Nepalese map spells it Kañchanjangha (with dots over the second "a" and third "n"); this suggests the first n is not quite n or ng, perhaps something more like ny. But to use this spelling would confuse almost everyone. On balance, I favour the Tibetan derived spelling "Kangchenjunga".

The above spelling is used here in a table by Eberhard Jurgalski, who has been researching these matters for a long time. Also, on the lists on this mountain site, Kangchenjunga is used throughout, with no alternatives supplied. I vote accordingly. Viewfinder 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote wih ViewFinder. My father John Angelo Jackson was on the original first ascent of "Kangchenjunga" in 1955 and wrote two books on the subject. He spoke the language and understood their meaning by the locals. My father also wrote for the "Himalayan Journal" many times and always used "Kangchenjunga", but more importantly recently published a new book on 50 plus years in the Himalayas and the it was confirmed by Indus publishing to be "Kangchenjunga". Unfortunately maps are not consistent, for one reason of another, here is a segment of a large but much earlier map used to mark out the 300 mile trek in 1954 that my father did. Kangchenjunga, and so definitive as well then?.

Unfortunately "The Hindu" spelled it WRONG ONCE in FIFTEEN! spellings (so one of the points above is lost), and sadly the paragraph contained two spellings which concerned my father. I know all of the 1st Kangchenjunga expeditioners of 1955 (and many others), who have also written on the subject with a similar take on the matter. If a definitive proof required I will personally write to Harish Kapadia on behalf of Wikipedia and get a document proving it one way or another, would that suffice? (Gowron 19:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been in touch with Harish Kapadia and it is official and from an expert. Kan(G)chenjunga is the correct spelling KANCHENJUNGA is a misspelling and means nothing to the people that live there. What follows bellow is part of a communication with the renowned Indian author, publisher and mountaineer.

"KANGCHENJUNGA -- is the correct spelling with " G " in there. Kang means snow and it must be there, in the Five Treasures of Snows. Even some recent Survey of India maps too spells it wrongly but many years ago the correct spelling with " G " was established and followed by all scholarly publications. For full details kindly see HIMALAYAN JOURNAL

Vol. 2 p. 131 and vol. 3 p. 152. also see vol. 3, p.152" Harish Kapadia

Please remove KANCHENJUNGA as it is incorrect (Gowron 17:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

It may be a misspelling but but Kanchenjunga has a long history of use in the English language and so should not be removed entirely. After all both spellings are transliterations into the Roman alphabet and possibly neither spelling fully expresses the nuances of the sounds of the original,though one may be more accurate than the other. Dabbler 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not removed from being labelled as incorrectly spelled, but you have to take into account that the people that live in these countries do take exception to our misuse and rather arrogant of us to blithely carry on the slang, please read the above "proof" (for want of a better word) as there are good reason why it must be spelled correctly. Too what writtings other than Ransome are you refering you maybe right of course, however a quick look at Aleister Crowley's work of 1905 (chapters 51 to 53) inclusive spell the mountain correctly (Kangchenjunga) with just one exception (out of 20 occurences) and you could call that a typo. Would you agree that if we started to spell Mount Washington Mount Washingtin is wrong, that would be heresy and you would be right to ask that we spell it correctly. By all means state that different spelling exist in the West, but also state that they are incorrect. (Gowron 07:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

I think you're making a bit more of an issue over this than it deserves. When even the Survey of India use "Kanchenjunga" on their map it would be fairest simply to note that there are multiple spellings in English. In particular I cut this piece of speculation:

[Ransome's spelled it without a "g" in Swallows and Amazons] which has probably lead to the incorrect spelling of the real mountain's name entering into literature, which is unfortunate in retrospect as it has possibly lead to a lot of confusion.

Of course, this could go back in if evidence were presented for it. Gdr 09:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"fair comment" regarding the doubtful sentence, would be a very interesting side story o find out why, I guess thats why Wikipedia is so good. I understand that you feel deffensive regarding this issue, but as stated above from Harish Kapadia (an authority on the subject) the Survey of India have got it wrong and Harish Kapadia tells us why. I've gone to great lengths to get this right. It is a disservice to say that we in the West have other spellings, we get it wrong are we not big enough to correct ourselves? There is another missconception regarding the word HIMALAYA it should never have an S at the end and yet we in the West keep doing it to support our own grammer, it does not make it right. (Gowron 10:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Just as a dictionary reports what language is, not what it should be; an encyclopedia should report knowledge as it is not what it should be. Let us say I had read the word "Kanchenjunga" in any one of any number of sources (not just Ransome). I enter it into Wikipedia to learn more and find "Kangchenjunga". Surely I should be able to find out that there are two or more spellings in English and that Kangchenjunga is the more correct in representing the original word while "Kanchenjunga" has been widely used in English. By the way Arthur Ransome merely used the spelling that was most commonly used in his time, he didn't originate it. It was the spelling he read when he was reading English newspapers about the German expeditions of the time. Dabbler 11:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way Gowron reverted my sentence about Ransome's use saying it was an "incorrect statement" As I have read Ransome extensively and both his Biography and Autobiography, I would like to know the factual basis for his saying that the statement I added was "incorrect, or is it that it doesn't follow his own beliefs. Dabbler 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Many apologies for that I'll revert to your comments, I was a little confused by your paragraph, I could not sort out wheather Ransome used KANCHENJUNGA or KANGCHENJUNGA and thought you were refering the the former spelling. I had thought you mean't the KANCHENJUNGA was the most widely used in the 1930, which would have been incorrect. Again apologies if I was incorrect in my assumption. (Gowron 11:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

I am not sure if you understand. Ransome did use "Kanchenjunga" in his books but he didn't use it because he wanted to invent a new spelling of the name. He used it because that was the way that he saw the name spelled in the news reports of the 1930 German expeditions. In 1930, it was the most commonly used spelling in England where Ransome was living. It doesn't make it the right spelling, it is merely the spelling that was most commonly used. Check any newspapers of the time if you don't believe me. Dabbler 12:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What newspapers have you got? Do you have copies? People would buy them off you if you have originals, historical stuff you know. All there are, are the odd scanned cutting with no information as to what it came out of or when. (MacDarwin 19:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Its not a newspaper but a news magazine, Time, and an article headed Kanchenjunga's Tithe dated June 2 1930 Time article or this New York Times movie review for Throne of the Gods headlined "Scaling Kanchenjunga" and datinmg from December 22 1933.New York Times movie review.Dabbler 20:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, not as good a source as was hoped for (as its an American Publication), but still of solid interest. I take it there are quite a few copies, hate to sound like the guy whoe sells Magazines in the Simpsons, but you could sell those. You never know? (MacDarwin 20:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Thayou for clarifying your position, we will have to differ on some points. The book by Aleister Crowley of 1905 and the Swiss Expedition, spell it Kangchenjunga, that would have been the prevailing book at the time on the subject, and as a result is not possible to state that "Kanchenjunga" "was the most widely used in 1930" the comment has little meaning without proof. You would think that an author would have been more rigorous than to take a spelling from a newspaper and gone to the library. I also think its to big step to go from "in Newspapers" to "in English" for the reasons just given. (Gowron 12:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Ransome wasn't writing a travel book or a historical mountaineering treatise, he was writing a book for children and probably never ever read Crowley's book or studied Kangchenjunga in any serious manner. Newspapers rather than books are usually a good way of determining current educated usage and spelling of words in a community. And while it may not be only English and its definitely not only newspapers and its not 1931, but Google has Kanchenjunga beating Kangchenjunga by 245,000 to 197,000, so I think its fair to say that Kanchenjunga is probably still the most frequent spelling used regardless of its accuracy. Dabbler 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The above Google method should be used with caution. Googling Ulugh Muztagh (in North Tibet) 7723m gives more hits than Ulugh Muztagh 6973m despite the fact that the latter was indisputably established in 1985. Puncak Jaya 5030m also gives more hits than 4884m. Viewfinder 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ransome was writting a fairy story which is just fine. I am sorry to relate that even though you have a point about Ransome and his stories, it is poor thinking to extrapolate from this to suggest that Kanchenjunga is more widely used, do you have data? no. I have attempted to provide real data and review, this is not acceptable compared fiction, why?. Ransome worked for the newspapers, and so probably stopped his thinking right there. Relying on newsapers for accuracy is just nuts. Jospeh Hooker was a founding member of Kew Gardens, somebody who worked with fact, he used the correct usage (see reason above), as mentioned I have postulated, as a throw away comment, that the probable current misspelling is due to Ransome and his book as it is so widely published. It is also imnportant to mention at this time the West retains most of the Internet databases (the USA generally) and as such provide the innacurate result which you are clinging too, just Goolegling is insufficient not accurate. 80.176.235.247 00:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

This contributes nothing, newspapers get read more than dictionaries, the correct usage has been established and why, by the people that know or have been there (not me), move on. (Gowron 00:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

Dear God! I thought we, Ransome nerds were nit pickers and compulsive obsessives but mountain nerds like 80.176.235.247 seem far worse! Ransome wrote correct and contemporary English and he didn't write fairy stories, he wrote children's fiction and he didn't invent Kanchenjunga or its misspelling. Kangchenjunga is a lot more well known than Ulugh Muztagh (wherever the hell that is). So the name is far more widely used by many more people than one now quite obscure children's writer. Of course I know that Google is not a gospel method of telling what is true or false. I used it to point out that the "incorrect" version was more widespread than the "correct". Secondly an older "fact" is more likely to have propagated through Google than a newer one (as demonstrated by the Ulugh Muztagh height example) so its more widespread use indicates that it was more common in the past and may be being supplanted by newer sources. If you Google something that is in the process of changing in English you will receive a lot of hits for the old name as well as the new. I am not arguing that Kanchenjunga is a better name I was just trying to point out that it was an acceptable usage widely used in the past and still not extinct today. Dabbler 11:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dabbler and anyone else interested! I have created an Ulugh Muztagh article with an external link which you can use to read all about it. Enjoy! Viewfinder 07:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Viewfinder, not just because Ulugh Muztagh story is interesting from a mountaineering, geographical, biological whatever point of view, but also for reporting fact. (Gowron 08:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for the information, while I am not really very geographically challenged, Central Asia is not my strong point! It is interesting how mountains rise and fall in height depending on the effectiveness of the measuring techniques rather than merely geological processes. I am old enough to remember Everest being descibed in various sources as either 29002 or 29028 feet.Dabbler 13:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

More info

I think this article needs more info about plantlife, climate, and animal life.

Nepal-India border

Please stop adding these unsourced claims that the Kangchenjunga main peak is wholly in India. It is on the border. It is the 8586m peak shown on official Nepalese mapping. Viewfinder 06:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Following more POV editing I transferred the above link into the main article's Notes section. I know it includes a link to my site but there seems to be no other way. If anyone can replace it with a better link then please do so. Viewfinder 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Viewfinder, apart from everything else thats known, the massif according to the Himalayan Club (founded in Kolkata (1928), India), taken from the 50th renunion of the first ascent of Kangchenjunga, is located at 27' 42'09" North by 88' 09'01" East, "Kangchejunga straddles the border between the Western frontier of Sikkim, India and the North East corner of Nepal". If you want this data put in I'll gladly insert it and create the citation with the ISBN. Just noticed its sort of there. I've got another query below. (Gowron 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Query??

The opening paragraph has this in it "Kangchenjunga is written and pronounced as "Kanchanjunga" in Nepal which means "pure peak (of mountain)" and Kangchenjunga is also one of the best conservation areas in Nepal which is home to the Red Panda and other snow animals, birds and plants. India's side of Kangchenjunga also has a protected park area."

Question: If the "Kangchenjunga Conservation Area" (its written name) resides in Nepal why is it spelled "Kangchenjunga"?, I'm curious as I know one or two of the people who have worked on it. The URL (http://www.wwfnepal.org/images/Annua003.pdf) is the Annual report from Nepal on the concervation area and spells it consistently "Kangchenjunga"?

Another reference to this curio is that of Tenzing Norgay (born Tsa-chu (Nepal) or possibly Moyey (Tibet) and raised in Thami in (Nepal)) of Everest fame, in his book "Man of Everest" he uses the spelling "Kangchenjunga" he also gives the full (but unused) title of "Kang-chen-dzod-nga" which also has been explained already in the text? Tenzing Norgay goes on to translate and it is very similar to that given already "The Great Snow with Five Treasures"?

Maybe some other references from Nepal would be useful as proof, then at least the article should say that both forms are used in Nepal. OR have I not understood the grammar of the sentence properly, which very possible, if so sorry. Please be assured that this query is in no way correcting anybody, but something is not quite right here. (Gowron 09:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)_

Official Nepalese mapping states "Kañchanjangha". The tilde on the first n suggests that neither "Kan" or "Kang" is 100% correct. But I see no reason to suppose that Kang is any less correct than Kan. Viewfinder 04:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Viewfinder, I take your points. I've no problem with the different spellings in this case, your right the tilde does augment the sound and I think I can get a Nepalese sherpa to express it. Two points to add are:

(1) Nepal seems to use all three spellings (Nepal's countrty representative uses the "g" form, in the PDF from WWF from Nepal, just a little odd thats all) and some Nepalese books suggest that as well. The naming of the conservation area causes more confusion. So I don't think it can be accurate to state that "this" country uses only one form. It might be useful to say something like "Nepal also uses these forms, etc". Maybe you could put the form you have found (Kañchanjangha) into the article as that seems a more legitimate Nepalese alternative.

(2) The translation no matter how its spelled, they all seem to be trying to be enunciating the same sorts of sounds and in the same order, can't differ by that much in their meaning. As I mentioned above probably the most famous Nepalese person around gives the translation "The Great Snow of Five Treasures" he was religeous a religeous. There are other versions of the latter but again they are all trying to express something very similar, i.e. "The Five treasusres of the Great Snow" or "The Five trasures of the Snows" etc. Maybe the term "pure peak (of mountain)" stems from differences in religeon, i.e. Hindu's and Buddhist's. Maybe the holly books causes a problem in translation when used by a member of a different faith. Just guessing, but the difference are quite marked. (Gowron 09:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Map

As always, a map would be nice. -- Writtenonsand 23:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but the problem is how to find a map that is not copyrighted. The Google Earth image is excellent; the elevation terrain is also good, although there is a slight misalignment issue. Viewfinder 05:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the maps that accompany Freshfield's 'Round Kangchenjunga', as well as Jacot-Guillarmod's of the 1905 expedition [with Aleister]. These still copyrighted? If not I'd be happy to have someone upload an image of either one. Qwrk (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Under Indian copyright rules; these are too old for copyright, in {{PD-India}}

According to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (Chapter V) in the case of cinematograph films, sound recordings, photographs, posthumous publications, anonymous and pseudonymous publications, works of government and works of international organisations,enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (ie. as of 2010, works published prior to 1 January 1950 are considered public domain)

So, please upload them.

--92.8.202.26 (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

See my User talk:Qwrk for an answer to your request. Before I start creating an image of the Garwood and / or Jacot-Guillarmod maps, please do have a look at the following one; http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/india/txu-oclc-6614190-ng45-3-cop.2.jpg Might that be a usable one for the article [once scaled down]?. Qwrk (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As a first try I've uploaded a 640 wide scan of the Garwood map here; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GARWOOD_MAP_640x617_148a.jpg See whether this suits your needs. Qwrk (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded a 1024 wide scan of my somewhat battered Garwood map here; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KANGCHENJUNGA_MAP_by_GARWOOD,_1903.jpg and a 1024 scan of the Jacot-Guillarmod map here; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KKANGCHENJUNGA_MAP_by_JACOT-GUILLARMOD,_1914.jpg They've also been included into the Kangchenjunga page. Hope you like'm.

Qwrk (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(massive indent): Very nice. How about larger scans in wikicommons. If you're going to bother, can you put a 4000 wide image in there? Is there a downside? Ratagonia (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've upgraded the Kangchenjunga maps by Garwood and Jacot-Guillarmod. Currently they are [2256x2136 pixels] and [3060x2305 pixels] respectively [maximum scans that I was able to provide].

Hope this suits you better. Qwrk (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of past/present tense

The items in the Climbing History section variously used the past and the present tense ('x was/is the first ...'), sometimes even switching within an item. I have standardised on the past tense as that was the majority (and in my opinion is the correct way to describe events that happened in the past). PhilUK (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone seen an explanation from the 1980 Japanese team as to why they did not respect the untrodden sanctity of the actual summit? PhilUK (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

View from Pang Pengma

Nice Pic, 94.195.201.12 Could you possibly identify the direction of view, or more specifically, the face of the mountain show? Thanks. Ratagonia (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

From Pangpema one gets full view of Kangchenjunga's North Face. For further imagery check the Kangchenjunga pages on summitpost [especially those made by Nelson Chenkin and John Zijlstra, both of my friends who've been to Kangchenjunga several times]. Qwrk (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to Aleister Crowley

I'm pretty sure, that this link is incorrect. It does not point to the alpinist Aleister Crowley. Am I right? --18.197.1.121 (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, yes... It is the same Aleister Crowley. Interesting fellow, eh? Ratagonia (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

British Army Ascent

In Mossdale and Other Caving and Climbing Miscellania by Robert D. Leakey, due for publication in 2011, there is an account and photographs of an unofficial expedition to the summit by a group of soldiers during World War 2. --- When the book is published, this can perhaps be included. Ratagonia (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Highest Un-summited Peak?

Since the article says that parties that climb Kanchenjunga stop short of the summit, is it the world's highest un-summited peak and thus a candidate for "highest unclimbed peak" under one interpretation of being unclimbed? And if so, is that notable enough to include in the article? Av9 (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Couple of points:

It appears that this practice of stopping a few feet short of the actual summit out respect for local beliefs is accepted in the climbing community as a valid ascent.

Anouncing the peak as the "world's highest unclimbed mountain" based on this technicality would simply encourage the next summiting climber to step a foot on the highest point, defeating the purpose of the tradition.

The question now appears to be moot in any case. The following is from the cited source of the statement in question:

The first assault pair of Joe Brown and George Band are successful, followed by a second successful ascent by Norman Hardie and Tony Streather. Out of respect for local beliefs, the actual summit itself remained virgin, a tradition that continued until recent years. - EverestNews.com [3]

Key words here "until recent years". This seems to imply that lately, climbers have dropped the tradition and now simply ascend to the highest point of the mountain.--Racerx11 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does the article need two thumbnailed maps?

Having two thumbnailed maps (in addition to the infobox map) seems like overkill. I have an no opinion of which one we keep --- which one can I move to commons? —hike395 (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Garwood map is easier and aesthetically more pleasing to look at, even though it has more numerous and glaringly visible folds than the Jacot-Guillarmod map.

Keep Garwood map and send Jacot-Guillarmod map to commons. My $0.02 worth. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

When you know about the earliest exploration and the history of attempts on 8000m peaks, you will no doubt be aware of the importance that Dr. Jules Jacot-Guillarmod has played in the first serious expeditions to try to reach the summit of Kangchenjunga (1905) as well as K2 (1902). His brother Charles - who produced these early maps - was the foremost cartographer of the day, hence the importance of this addition. The Garwood map stands out for it's beauty and detail, as much as for it's relevance to the section of early reconnaissances because he was part of Freshfield's team that rounded Kangchenjunga in 1899, a team that also included the great Vittorio Sella. As the inclusion of both these maps on this page doesn't take up that much space I'd be all for it to leave them here. Wikipedia servers will not crash due to overload because of it.

Qwrk (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the fame of the mapmakers, nor about servers crashing. We're discussing what is best for the readers of this article. The WP:PERTINENCE guideline says "Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful." I really don't understand why having two maps better informs the readers of the article. Remember that WP is not a repository for images -- that is what Commons is for. Readers can always go to Commons to browse for map images.

What is the extra information imparted by having two maps? I'd leave both of them in if this can be answered well. —hike395 (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with you adhering to the rules, no worries. "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law". Qwrk (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok: I interpret this to mean you're ok with leaving the Jacot-Guillarmod map on Commons. I'll do that now. —hike395 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I just made a map section at the gallery at Commons, which contains both the Garwood and the Jacot-Guillarmod with expanded thumbnails (because it is difficult to see maps at the standard gallery size). —hike395 (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Worship ?

It says the people "worship" this mountain ? Do they really ? The fact that people venerate some place , or consider it to be sacred , because it is the "abode of the gods" or some other reason, does not mean that they actually worship the mountain.Eregli bob (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

8598 height claim

I have deleted this claim, despite an academic document being cited in favour of it. I cannot find any evidence from the document that it does actually source this claim to the Geologic Survey of India. But what the document, which is on the general subject of remote sensing, does do is cite "topographic information from the void-free and hydrologically-sound Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) DEM, provided by CGIAR [58]". That is stuff and nonsense. I am familiar with both SRTM and CGIAR. CGIAR's local hydrologic accuracy is adequate, but here SRTM is not its main local source. In area of very high relief SRTM is neither void free nor hydrologically sound, and Kangchenjunga is no exception. I am especially familiar with CGIAR's additional source here for the simple reason that my site supplied it and CGIAR have acknowledged this! This is an illustration of the pitfalls of regarding academic papers and other "reliable sources", which are often out of date or cite old data, as gospel in preference to more recent studies. Viewfinder (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Move

Sorry, I messed up when I tried to undo this move from "Kangchenjunga" to "Kangchanjanga". I moved it to "Kangchenjanga", having failed to notice that two letters were changed.

The correct, commonname seems to be "Kangchenjunga" (ca. 507,000 Google hits). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Something must have happened with my cache not refreshing. I've moved the page to Kangchenjunga. Mkdw^talk 16:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mkdw: thank you very much! And sorry again fpr messing-up. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

NB: "Kangchanjanga" has only 37 hits at Google. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kangchenjunga. 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/20110726170342/http://books.icimod.org/demo/uploads/ftp/Nepal%20Biodiversity%20Resource%20Book.pdf to http://books.icimod.org/demo/uploads/ftp/Nepal%20Biodiversity%20Resource%20Book.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213225235/http://www.monitor.bg/article?id=431481 to http://www.monitor.bg/article?id=431481

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kangchenjunga. 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/20150923175946/http://mentalfloss.com/article/30757/5-mountains-deadlier-everest to http://mentalfloss.com/article/30757/5-mountains-deadlier-everest

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Should add Messner book references

I'm away from my library but at least Messner is mentioned. His main book and its English translation (All 8 KM Peaks) should at least be cited in the Further Reading section. If not, I'll get to it when I get home. 140.221.190.221 (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Where is Kanchenjunga located?

Fhghhh 103.252.166.54 (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Try reading the article, which clearly states "It lies between India and Nepal, with three of the five peaks, namely Main, Central and South, directly on the border," - Arjayay (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Geographical name order

Potentially complex issues in lists and article text beyond my expertise can be discussed here.ChaseKiwi (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)