Talk:List of climbers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hard to find information on a lot of these climbers it seems, or at least for some that I have tried for anyways. I'm wondering if maybe we should do something similar to the climbing glossary where we can have a biography page for climbers for adding facts as we find them via Google or such. When an entry has enough information to warrant it's own article, that can be done then at that point in time. We could call it climber biographies or something along those lines. Another option would be just to add it to this page but that would clutter up the brevity of the "list" format on Wikipedia. Comments? RedWolf 01:14, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

The punctuation, grammar, and use of letter capitalization in this list is a mess. Anyone want to join me in cleaning it up? Avalyn 06:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As I am working through the Climbers List (adding details and adding climbers) I am finding in many cases too few references (on google) to allow me to create a worthwhile 'separate articles'. On the other hand the list is too 'cramped' to allow me to put in all the detail from the few sources that I can find. Therefore I've started putting external links (limiting myself to one 'significant' link per person) against those climbers who haven't got a Wiki article in their own right. This at least allows readers to 'get to' some information about the climber. Someone with more time (and enthusiasm) and perhaps more sources could use these external links to start building a proper Wiki article for each of those climbers. On a further note, inclusion in the list (to my mind) should be on the basis of some 'significant' climbing achievement or contribution - but I acknowledge that there'll be a broad range of views of 'what is significant' amongst vs folk, and that's ok. Tban 01:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Working through the list I note a lot of cases where 'first ascents' are attributed (correctly) to folk, but without mentioning their 'co-first ascenters'. While it takes space to mention the whole gang each time it seems (to me) absolutely necessary to do so in order to maintain 'truthfullness'. It's also a chance to cross-link members of teams which isn't a bad thing in the lists - where readers might want to 'jump around' a bit before digging deeper into the articles on each climber. Tban 23:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] How much info for each entry?

Kind of a mess. In some, only a few words, in others a lengthy paragraph. I find the latter a bit annoying. I would personally like to see a restriction - after the name - of, say, 100 or 150 characters (including spacing and punctuation) for each entry in the list. If there's more to say, a linked article should be in order. As for exactly what is being said, I don't think a strict formula is the answer - there's too much variety in the list. Silentrunner 00:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gday Silent, I've been working over the list for the last month or so. I agree that anything more than one line per entry is undesirable, and more than two lines is 'plain wrong' - given that this is meant to be a list. So for instance the 'Perrins' entries need trimming (and I'll do it in the next few hours). I note your point about not wanting a 'strict' formula, and agree.
Most of what I have been doing with the list is pushing the entries in the direction of 'consistency', so that as you scan down you don't have to keep searching for 'like' pieces of information (eg nationality, achievements) in different places in the entry. If someone else thought these elements should be in a different 'order' I wouldn't have a problem with them changing them, as long as they changed ALL of them in order to preserve a consistent approach. It does get down to using the same words to describe the same things - climbed/ascended/summitted etc, but again it's not a case of any one word being 'right', just a matter of making the process of reading the list as easy as possible.
My major issue is with 'eligibility criteria' - keeping the list 'useful'. I've seen the same issue come up with other lists, and took the view that it was better at least to put a 'point of view' and try and build a concensus from that about what should be 'in' or 'out'. I have a personal objection to having every person who climbed Everest here (there's other places for them), and would prefer to see more about accomplished rock climbers for instance. But I also like to see co-ascenders acknowledged, partly out of 'fairness' but also because it's a jumping off point for finding out about 'new people'. Of course anyone can add anything, but there is a process for removing entries (noting reasons for deletion on the discussion page).Tban 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Taking up Silent's point, I'm now trimming co-ascenders names down to surname only - on the basis that that'll be sufficient for people to be (a) aware that there were co-ascenders and (b) link to them if they wish. I'm leaving names that appear in the text in full, eg 'Died with Joe Tasker on Everest' as that seems more respectful. It'll take a while to work through the full list.Tban 02:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entry Formatting

Do we have a proto-concensus that entries should pretty much be one-line, that's to say not 'wrap'? I know that depends on the size of your screen and resolution, but it is a 'rough' guide. One thing that has me thinking is where folk have a list of 12 14,000 summits. Is it 'useful' to list them all? Doesn't 'Twelve 14,000 peaks' convey the same impression of effort and accomplishment? Seems that after two or three there's no point naming them all (in the list). Anyone who has climbed 3 or 4 plus 14,000'ers deserves an entry 'in their own right' in Wiki that the list can point to (to my mind). Thoughts anyone?

[edit] Related Lists

I have started a parallel list of female climbers. The rationale is a bit complex, but it doesn't have anything to do with the notion of female climbers deserving special recognition because they have overcome what we used to call 'the weakness of their sex' - because their is no such thing in mountaineering. It's clear that female climbers are the equal in talent and achievement with men in climbing and the preponderence of males in the record is simply due to their being (previously) more males than females involved. Which perhaps comes close to explaining the reason for the female list, and that is to increase the visibility of the contribution and achievement of female climbers - particularly for young women looking for inspiration. Technically I'd intend that every entry in the female climbers list would be echoed back to the main list. By way of penance for introducing an element of redundancy I will contribute some time to updating the main list.Tban 23:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A few of the entries for climbers originally had references to books they had written. These references weren't consistent, and in cleaning up the list I have largely culled them out (they are still inn the individual climbers 'articles'). Since there's something about climbing that brings out the writer in folk, there would have been as much text again devoted to the titles of books they had written - unless we were to be 'selective' about which were 'good' books and which were 'not' (a futile exercise). Therefore, I'm wondering if there is justification for a separate list of climbing books, with author details and a geographic reference, such that someone could see all books by a particular climber, or which relate to a particular area or areas, and perhaps some very short note about the significance of the book (award winning etc).Tban 22:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Also there should be a list of people who died while mountaineering.

[edit] Possible renaming of this article

Just a few comments.

The "List of notable climbers" in the History of rock climbing article should be a subset of this list. Perhaps the history list should be entitled "List of distinguished rock climbers", and this list be called "List of well-known climbers". Something on that order. With inclusion criteria here: (1) Is a climber, or has been a climber, and (2) Has made a contribution to climbing that has been recognized as such in at least one widely-distributed and legitimate climbing book, or at least one article in a national or regional climbing journal or national or international climbing magazine or high-quality climbing website.

I.e., let the culture of the climbing community establish the criteria for inclusion in this list. (1) and/or (2) above would probably need to be refined a bit. Just an idea of how to better regulate admission to the list. Silentrunner 04:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Silent. I take your points. In relation to the 'naming of the list', I had a bit of a look around in Wiki for guidance, and particularly on the discussion pages of other 'lists'. Inclusion/exclusion rationales seem to be a common discussion thread to all of them (sooner or later). I'm sort of averse to any proposal to be more specific in the title in that it flags a retreat from what has been a bold attempt to showcase (if that's the word) the best and the most significant climbers across all fields of climbing, in the world. Not for the sake of their glory of course, but for the sake of readers who can thereby get a good 'overview' of the climbers in the climbing world, and see how they are connected and at a glance what sort of people they are. I'm more inclined to suggest we leave the title as 'it is', and have the debate (all of us) about what should be in or out. The concensus in other lists, and this reflects Wiki's rule about how things should have 'more than personal significance', is that a list should be of 'significant' things, and that 'significant' means significant to 'people' and not just one person.
In relation to the second point, in a sense the readers of the climbers list are (mostly) the 'climbing community'. I understand what you are saying about defining eligibility on the basis of a the viewpoint from 'within the climbing community as defined by their journals, books etc'. But in a sense nobody is going to get on the list (and remain there) unless there is a consensus among list readers (eg potential editors) that they should be or stay on the list. One of the already accepted ways of 'testing' a persons eligibility when we see them pop up on the list is to look for 'references' in the literature (usually google I admit), and if they haven't made an impact in the literature (paper or electronic) they're shunted out. Again this reflects the fundamental Wiki premis that we should only include info when it's already appeared 'somewhere else' first. And it recognizes the worth of the climbing community journals and websites in providing that source and verification tool.
Basically I'd suggest that we're doing pretty well now, and as long as we keep 'thinking about what we're doing' (as we're doing now), we'll continue to provide a good service. I guess ultimately what I understand is already happening (and hope will continue) is that the Wiki list will become 'part of' the climbing communitie's resources, and the more climbers who visit it, the more likely that they'll ensure that it retains its significance.
Ah, one last thing, talking about using the climbing community resources, I had a very helpful response from the American Alpine Club the other day, I'd been chasing 'citations' and speeches that might have been associated with the various David A Sowles Award events in order to 'get the message out' about climbing ethics, by including them in Wiki. They say they'll try and get a collection together. Seems to me that all of the Award winners deserve a place in the list (on the basis of the criteria already proposed). Cheers, Tban 05:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Inclusion Rationale

Some thoughts about some criteria.

  • Be a climber. Being a surveyor (G. Everest) doesn't qualify. Likewise geologists and explorers (who don't climb). Fundamentally it's a list of climbers, not 'significant people in mountaineering'.

AND...

  • Have done something significant as a climber regardless of nationality, age, disability or gender. On that basis the First Ascent by a particular nationality (to my mind) is not particularly significant in 'climbing history' (which reflects my prejudice that climbing is a personal challenge/achievement rather than one of nations). On the other hand Everest is a bit of an exception. Personally (again) I'd see significance in the first female Sherpa, due to the added significance of that climb in 'overthrowing perceptions'. So breaking 'significant' down into categories leads to (and this reflects my Himalayan focus)...
  • Summit of MORE than one 8000m+ peak, OR..
  • First ascent, or first route, or first method (eg solo) of a significant or difficult peak, OR..
  • Climbed, named or explored multiple peaks or climbs, OR..
  • Achieved a notable technical grade, or won competitions or awards, OR..
  • Involvement in some event such as a rescue while climbing, OR..
  • Be a climber who has made some contribution to climbing by leading expeditions, writing and film making or contributing to Societies and Associations, OR..
  • Be in the public focus (as a climber) to such a degree that people will come to Wiki looking for the person in a list of climbers (which might result in the inclusion of someone who is paraplegic or blind - although someone with disabilities who climbs mountains is usually highly dedicated and qualifies under one of the other criteria anyway).

For individual summiteers of Everest there is the Everest Summiteers Association which maintains a complete list. For first ascent by nationality (and other 'firsts') there is the Wiki Everest Summit List. People who use unusual methods to descend (such as skiing or paragliding) should find a home in lists which detail that 'method' (ie: lists of skiiers or paragliders). Just my thoughts.. note that I'm not suggesting that there is any concensus on this at the moment. Tban 01:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal Notices and Rationales

I've removed Dick Schockley and Jay Rodvan from the list; both entries were red links with no information attached. Google searches on both names (and variations of names) turned up nothing. If you find verifiable information about these guys (as noteworthy climbers) please reinstate them. Comments? Lhclayton Dec 15, 2005

Removed Marguerite Brevoort; red link with no info attached. Google and Yahoo searched name and variations. If you have info, please reinstate, preferably with a link to an article or a brief -1 or 2 line- discription. Lhclayton 17:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Meta Brevoort (and dog Tschingel) made numerous ascents in the Alps in the mid 1800s. Silentrunner 23:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Lolli - (Swedish) first ascent of Valhalla (1925)"- Please elaborate. First, last name; dates, link to "Valhalla" or clarify what exactly he/she climbed. Thanks. Lhclayton 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Google search for "Lolli+climber" turns up nothing except an username at a climbing website. I am going to remove the entry. Lhclayton 22:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed Behnaz Changizi ;red link with no info (except date of birth). Repeated internet searches and attempts to contact via email turned up nothing climbing related. If you have info, please reinstate. Lhclayton 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed Francis Younghusband on the basis that he was not a climber. Note that George Everest doesn't get a place either. Neither were significant climbers. Tban 05:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed Cristopher Michael Cox. Comments weren't related to climbing experience, and only refereces are to him as an adventure writer. If there is any significant climbing achievement record please repost (see section above relating to inclusion rationale). Tban 03:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Propose to remove: Kirilly Wagstaff and Jessica Gooden, on the basis that while promising young climbers they have not yet accomplished any significant climbing achievment. I suspect they're here because someone felt they were significant to them at a personal level, and because I'm a grumpy archivist with a soft heart I think it'd be a bit rough to negate that sentiment (however inappropriate it is to express personal admiration via Wiki entries) without giving them or the person who put them on the list the chance to see them there - for a very short time longer. Unless someone puts up a counter-argument (in line with the protocol that applies to this deletion section) they're off the books in the morning. Cheers! Tban 12:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing Dan Filip as his qualification for inclusion isn't given and googling only produces mirrors of this page.--JBellis 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposing to remove Gregory Frank - US. Soloed Mt. McKinley North Face without ropes. Soloed for three months in the Andes. Summited Everest in 2005, Scottish Expedition, without auxiliary oxygen or radios. Died on Annapurna March 5, 2006. No reference to Gregory Frank in Google (except Wiki), no record on Everest Summit records, unable to trace any Scottish expedition in 2005 to Everest. If anyone has any information please advise.Tban 22:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Further information: Gregory Frank was added by User talk:207.63.63.204 on 29 March 2006, at the same time as a bogus entry in the Assassins List. This IP has apparently been responsible for several dubious entries (see his Degas for instance). Removing immediately, please advise if anyone has any information that would warrant re-entry. Tban 23:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Am proposing removal of Robert Alexander. Can find no references in climbing literature, nor any reference on the internet to this gentleman. I've removed his name before, but someone reinserted it. If that individual would describe any bonafide references to Alexander, please do so here.Aztecgirl 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Alexander was reinserted because LhClayton received a complete biography of his climbing career, including a detailed list of the dozens of first ascents to his credit as well as internet links to the Outdoor Program he founded at Cal State U., Monterey Bay. Pick up a copy of either Randy Vogel's Climbing Guide to Joshua Tree where you'll see Robert Alexander credited in the acknowledgements or pick up a copy of Allan Bartlett's Joshua Tree Climbing guide for 1st ascent information on this prolific 1st ascensionist. Oct. 2nd, 2006 If you could go back to Climbing Magazine's 20th anniversary "Legends of Climbing" you'll find him in this as well as other back issues. Perhaps Robert's largest contribution to the world of climbing is not a spectacular first ascent, but rather the 100's of students he introduced to the sport during his 15 years as a professional guide and instructor.

[edit] Elaine Hamilton removal discussion

Removing Elaine Hamilton (Elaine Hamilton-O'Neal) - American abstract expressionist painter and Fulbright scholar who in the 1950s made expeditions to Himalayan peaks including K-2. On the basis that there is no suggestion that she is a climber of significance, or in fact a climber at all.Tban 00:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You say there is no evidence that she was a climber "at all". Obviously you didn't bother to read the article about her or you would have seen that there are two sources for this: MarylandArtSource.com (a site maintained by, among others, Johns Hopkins University and the Baltimore Museum of Art and largely funded by the Institute of Museum and Library services) and the 2006 Benezit international dictionary of artists (Gründ, Paris). Perhaps she doesn't fit your preconceptions as to who could possibly have ever been a climber "at all"? -- MarylandArtLover
PS -- Aside from the question of whether the person was a climber "at all" -- the list doesn't say "list of significant climbers". In case you're too busy deleting things to follow this up, here's a big quote with source right here: " In Pakistan in 1959, she was asked to produce work for an exhibition that was administered by the foreign minister of Pakistan. The ministries of Pakistan also gave her permission to make her own K-2 expedition. This expedition resulted in the welcome realization of her individual artistic vision and the creation of her first completely abstract work, Burst Beyond the Image. During this time, she began to confirm that she was on a Buddhist path. Of her expeditions over the years to K-2 and Everest, she writes [etc.]" - from Marylandartsouce.com. -- MarylandArtLover
PPS -- By the way, here is a list of the institutions that provide and maintain the MarylandArtSource.com site (or go here to see it for yourself):

Baltimore Museum of Art; Enoch Pratt Free Library; Johns Hopkins University; Maryland Institute College of Art; Maryland Historical Society; Maryland State Department of Education; University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Walters Art Museum

I would like to put her back on the list. Please look at these sources and let me know whether you will allow me to put her back on the list. If you won't, I would like to know why.

-- MarylandArtLover

Hello MarylandArtLover, I hope this reply finds you. Firstly let me say that I appreciate your response, and indeed the effort you made in adding Elaine to the list of climbers (although we might disagree about its inclusion). The Wikipedia only exists by virtue of people 'making the effort' to contribute. I'd add that while editing - and even deleting - is important in creating a 'useful' Wiki, contributing is the most important thing any of us can do to 'make it work'.
Could I also respond to your last point first. I have no role in managing or enforcing any policy in relation to additions or deletions from the List of Climbers, because there is no such policy, nor any provision in Wiki (that's applicable to this sort of entry) to 'appoint' someone to monitor it. In short, Wiki only exists as a consensus which includes (relatively comfortably) completely opposed views. Which means that you can re-enter the details regarding Elaine if you feel strongly that they should be there, and I could delete them again if I felt strongly that they shouldn't be there. Usually one person finds out that they feel 'less strongly' than the other and let the entry stand. Or, through dialog (such as we have here) one party might become aware of facts or views that change their opinion or the strength of their views, or find some alternate method for expressing them in some other place or form in the Wiki. Ultimately the Wiki editors might step in to resolve what they call an 'edit war', but matters usually don't go to that extreme. The discussion page is usually the forum for this dialog, and the inclusion of a section in the List of Climbers for 'Rationale for Deletion' was a deliberate starting point for these sort of discussions (and certainly not intended to 'close' discussion on the matter). The 'rationale' for deletion is usually put pretty sucinctly (as in this case) on the basis that further discussion will elucidate matters if required. So we find ourselves here.
I did actully follow through with the links to Elaine (that I understand you have largely built), but did not find anything that suggested that she had climbed K2 or Everest. I was looking for a specific mention of having reached the summit, and a year in which that occured. You can appreciate that I am making a distinction between a person who has climbed up to, or even on, a mountain and a person who has 'summited'. You correctly observe that this reflects a 'prejudice' on my part about what constitutes 'significance' in climbing, and a view that the list should reflect 'significant' climbers. Essentially two prejudices added together. You are perfectly entitled to challenge both 'prejudices' although the notion of 'significance' has been canvassed to some degree by Wiki in relation to lists and inclusion on lists. If we look at the specific definition of 'significance in climbing' however, Wiki gives no particular guidance. Essentially it is up to us to determine (by concensus) some agreed local policy which will stand until someone else (persuasively or persistently) knocks it down. Good practice in Wiki, however, does suggest that any local policy should be elucidated on the discussion page, so that contributors can 'see at a glance' where the concensus sits at any particular point in time. You might have seen the section in the discussion page on List of Climbers about 'inclusion rationale'. I take it that you are essentially challenging the rationale as being too limited in that it tends to exclude people (from the List of Climbers) who have climbing skills who have 'no particular' record of summits achieved. It should be noted that exclusion from the List of Climbers should not be taken as any reflection on a persons climbing ability, it is simply a subjective judgement regarding the significance of that person's climbing achievements - largely compared to the people who are already on the list. I mention this last point particularly because while we might expound 'rationales' on the discussion page, the other 'true guide' is to look at 'what's already there and seemingly accepted'.
Taking that last point you might observe that Aleister Crowley is 'in' the List. Now I haven't got around to Aleister yet, but I'd hazard the possibility that he is 'marginal' in terms of meeting the criteria. My understanding is that Elaine is no more marginal, but my inclination would be to keep both off the list, rather than have both on. For the same reason one of these days (soon) I will cull the list of some of the Turkish summiteers of Everest (on the basis that they are not 'significant' to the broad Wiki audience). I will more mindful than I have been in this case (and I apologise) when making an entry in the 'deletion rationale' section of the discussion page to 'invite comment or arguments for re-inclusion'. You'll see this has been done on previous occasions and it represents good manners to do so. I regret that I acted somewhat 'in haste' - as you might be getting a sense of now, it is not my normal nature to tackle matters overly hastily (or with undue brevity). So I'll leave the ball in you court for now. Best regards, Tban 04:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
PS, you might be interested to know that there were some very peculiar US funded activities on Nanda Devi in the 1960's I believe involving plutonium powered surveillance devices that were intended to 'eavesdrop' on China from a position near the summit. The Himalayas are certainly not just of interest to 'pure climbers' but also to artists - and spies! I'd also note that there are very few 'pure climbers', even those that devote their life to it usually spend the greater part of their time organising and guiding expeditions and/or undertaking charitable work (in Nepal particularly). I agree that this list can accomodate (just as life does) diversity and the only disagreement between us is a question of degree, and where in Wiki a person 'best fits'. Tban 04:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

--Hello again; In reply to your explanation, "Could I also respond to your last point first. I have no role in managing or enforcing any policy in relation to additions or deletions from the List of Climbers, because there is no such policy, nor any provision in Wiki (that's applicable to this sort of entry) to 'appoint' someone to monitor it. In short, Wiki only exists as a consensus [etc.]" -- I do understand that, but I don't want to get into some back and forth thing where I keep reinstating the name and you keep deleting it.

What I have to say in reply breaks down into two main points:

(1) OK, so can you help me here? I understand you are a professional archivist. Do you have access to some general records or literature of who has scaled Himalayan peaks and when? Can you perhaps try to put your info together with mine and track her down? Please help me research this. I don't think it will be boring: she seems to have been quite a character. One caveat: she was very, shall we say ,"loose" with the matter of her name, so looking her up in connection with anything can be tricky. As I said in the article:As so often happens with women artists, one sees this artist's name in many forms. The greater Baltimore telephone directory shows her name in the hyphenated form used at the top of this article, but other sources (such as Askart.com) call her simply Elaine Hamilton, as though she'd never married, while yet others list her as "Elaine Hamilton O'Neal", omitting the hyphen. Moreover, she signed her work inconsistently — sometimes signing herself (even after marrying) "Elaine Hamilton", sometimes "Elaine H. O'Neal", and sometimes simply "Hamilton". The 2006 Benezit dictionary lists her as "Elaine Hamilton", with no mention of the married name (which, to further complicate matters, is sometimes spelled without the apostrophe as "O Neal," "ONeal," or "Oneal"); yet the fully up-to-date MarylandArtSource.com article gives her name as "Elaine Hamilton O'Neal." She is listed among 2003 donors to Baltimore's Walters Art Museum as "Ms. Elaine H. Oneal" (no apostrophe).

(2) Interesting you should mention the possible spying angle! Please read, if you haven't already, the section of my article headed, "Postscript: Possible political intrigue — the painter who came in from the cold?"

I must say, this initially unpleasant experience is morphing into something rather enjoyable.... -- MarylandArtLover

Gday Maryland, I had picked up on your point that the solution here is not to engage in a war of attrition, but to work towards (if possible) a better (and common) appreciation of the 'facts'. As usual I buried the thought in an acre of text. I'd done an initial scout of the territory. Climbers tend to be great writers - somehow it goes together - and I was looking for someone who might have mentioned Elaine's 'history' in the area. I haven't given up yet, although early indications are that it'll be a bit of a 'dig' to unearth more than we have already. But the 'chase' is the most entertaining part of being an 'archivist' (if you don't include the very perverse satisfaction of simply sitting and surveying endless rows of identical dusty boxes on long shelves in underground rooms under bright flurescent lights..) Which is to say that I'll keep digging.
I had also picked up on the CIA references in your article - which prompted me to mention Nanda Devi, one of the most mysterious and tragic 'big mountains' to my mind. The names of the climbers involved in that 'event' aren't recorded anywhere (to my knowledge) which just goes to show that there are still things 'yet to be discovered' even in recent history, which gets back to your point about Elaine. I'll still leave it to you whether she goes back in the list at this time. Basically the details are preserved here for the moment (on the talk page), and in a sense (possibly an unfortunate one) she might be more famous here (for generating text) than she'd ever be in the climbers list itself. On a final note I'd add that I've no prejudice against artists, particularly abstract ones, although my personal taste tends more towards Bridget Riley and Mondrian (neat/fussy abstraction?) rather than the cubists or expressionists (abstract or otherwise). But I must admit that standing in front of Pollock's Blue Poles (a very long time ago) was a fairly stunning experience. Give me a couple of weeks if you can and I'll see what I can come up with. Regards, Tban 08:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi again - (Quick reply - more time later) Now this is geting exciting. And really, I'd say we do at least have a "suggestion" that climbing is actually what she did (or claims to have done). In addition to the source quoted above, we have the Benezit bio calling her "A globetrotter who has scaled the heights of the Himalayas" (also in the my article). So I'd say if she really didn't do any climbing, she's been making fraudulent claims.

This Elaine Hamilton (Elaine Hamilton-O'Neal), or whatever she calls herself, is way too much talk for a very small entry in the List of climbers. I have looked at the references and don't see anything that really warrants her inclusion. If we are to include anyone who made an expedition to K2 or the Himalayas in general the list would go on forever and even include me. Thousands of people have been there but what is her claim to fame. Just going - I don't think so. For a person to be included on the list needs to have some claim to fame. Those listed above seem like reasonable ones but I don't think Elaine really qualifies. ww2censor 13:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wb2censor: You say: "If we are to include anyone who made an expedition to K2 or the Himalayas in general the list would go on forever". Keep in mind that the first criterion for inclusion listed above, considered ALONE sufficient, was that the person climbed a peak of 8000+. So if she did that - and the Benezit bio says "scaled", which exactly means "climbed" - then she qualifies. OK, so she wasn't a professional climber. Neither were the various writers who went up there either, and they're included no problem. As for expending a lot of typing on this -- hey, it's not my idea. I have my sources and they're reputable and so I put her on the list. It's others who are forcing me to go into detail to defend this. At least let Tban and me do some more research and see if there's more evidence - that's more constructive than your irritable dismissal.
Well, if we are talking about irritability, I am irritated by someone who has never signed a post on this page as you don't User:MarylandArtLover against the Wikipedia suggestion and you cannot even spell my name correctly. I assume good faith in your opinions but believe you are not being civil to me - that would be constructive IMHO. Anyway, beside that irritation let's get down to the matter in hand. I only see one reference given by you above that has anything about her mountaineering exploits at Marylandartsouce.com even though you say you have more. Links to other Wikipedia pages that make no reference to the subject in hand are not sources. We have yet to see more sources mentioned here. Indeed you are correct that Tban suggests an 8,000+ peak ascent is sufficient for a listing but I would disagree with him. In that case I now see his "Inclusion Rationale" as flawed and would suggest a slightly more rigourous rationale be employed otherwise this list well be totally out of hand. That is the main point for refusing to add this person until some better source is given. I hope you can provide that. Anyway, it makes little difference to me who gets included at this stage as I hope someone will then prune the non-significant ones out. That was where Tban started on this in the first place I think and I am sure the two of you will come to some consensus. ww2censor 20:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Gday Ww2censor, just quickly - I think we have concensus that we'll 'look into the claims' which seems a fair response. Just in relation to the 'effort expended' on this discussion already, I see some merit in the 'debate' even if the trigger was a relatively small thing, this is the first time I've managed to engage anyone in a discussion on the 'inclusion rationale'. Finally, I appreciate your comment regarding the flaws (my stuff only gets to a decent level after other people come around and 'bash it into shape') in the criteria. I think I originally proposed 'summitted MORE than one 8,000m peak' My intention was to allow for the suppression or elimination of one-time Everest summiteers (the 2,000 or so) entries if they did not also meet any of the other criteria. In a sense it was a 'negative' or 'filtering' criteria. Frankly the 'other' criteria are a 'truer' reflection of real climbing significance and I tend to use them more myself. Cheers, Tban 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[MarylandArtLover here again:] Dear Ww2: (1) You say I don't sign my name. So is "Ww2" your real name then? I don't think so. Revealing your "real name" as "Ww2" is therefore no great act of candidness on your part. Now, on the other hand, when I sign with 4 tildas, what gets printed is my actual full name - first, middle, and last. Because that is my real name, I don't just go signing it around willy-nilly.
(2) You say: "I only see one reference given by you above that has anything about her mountaineering exploits". Now you will see why I have to type such long explanations: people don't take in what's plain to read in front of them. There are 2 sources for this, both plainly cited above and in the article. One is a book, the other is a website. I would ask you simply to read the above, or go to the article, but obviously that hasn't worked, has it? So I have to lengthen this matter out even further. I make no apologies.
SOURCE #1: MarylandArtSource.com. The relevant quote: "In Pakistan in 1959, she was asked to produce work for an exhibition that was administered by the foreign minister of Pakistan. The ministries of Pakistan also gave her permission to make her own K-2 expedition. This expedition resulted in the welcome realization of her individual artistic vision and the creation of her first completely abstract work, Burst Beyond the Image. During this time, she began to confirm that she was on a Buddhist path. Of her expeditions over the years to K-2 and Everest, she writes [etc.]" - from Marylandartsource.com
Please note: this website is maintained by and therefore carries the authority of the following institutions: the Baltimore Museum of Art; Enoch Pratt Free Library; Johns Hopkins University; Maryland Institute College of Art; Maryland Historical Society; Maryland State Department of Education; University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Walters Art Museum.


SOURCE #2: E Bénézit, Dictionary of artists (Paris : Gründ, 2006). The relevant quote: "A globetrotter who has scaled the heights of the Himalayas, Hamilton makes profoundly serious work....[etc.]" Now, here is a Worldcat link so that you can find this absolutely standard 14-volume international biographical and critical dictionary of artists in virtually any library on earth. ----MarylandArtLover
Gday MarylandArtLover, could we call an all-round truce on this (for the sake of the electrons if not the trees) while we do some back-research. Your references are now available and we'll drill in from those. Cheers, Tban 01:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC) PS, we might come back and trim down the text on this page after all is 'said and done' in order to distill the 'gist' of it all. But only by mutual agreement of course.
Sure, that sounds like the best course. --- MarylandArtLover
So, Tban: any luck so far? --- MdArtLover 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Gday M.A.L., luck's got nothing to do with it (as they say). Only hard slog. I was up checking things out at the University library a couple of days ago, weaving that task in between some court appearances and discussions with lawyers that go on for days on end (no, I'm not the defendant, just the 'expert witness'). I'm contemplating writing to the very interesting Elaine and putting the question directly to her. I'll respond again at the end of my original deadline. Cheers, Tban 12:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_climbers_acea.html"