Talk:K2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Map needed
 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in China or Pakistan may be able to help!
WikiProject Mountains
 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 Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)


An event mentioned in this article is a July 29 selected anniversary

Contents

[edit] Disambiguation

  • I have undone the move of K2 to K2 (mountain) because google reports over 1.2 millions hits for "K2 mountain" while K2 League only returns 1,100 hits. There are many ways to disambiguate and if one meaning is the one referred to in the vast majority, then it should remain at the main article. RedWolf 17:04, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Bias

I don't understand what the purpose is of only presenting one point of view (that of India) with regards to Kashmir in this article. Here is the quote: "The general area of K2 lies in the state of Jammu and Kashmir - claimed by India but currently occupied by Pakistan. (According to the document of accession by the last princely ruler of Kashmir, India controls the mountainous state and K2.)" -- as if Pakistan doesnt claim it. India & Pakistan were seperated on religious lines and India chose to ignore that for Kashmir. According to this guy, pakistan can claim the state of Kentucky and say we claim it even though it accessed to USA after the civil war. You can CLAIM the whole world , doesnt mean that the world belongs to you. The documents clearly state that the king accessed to India and Jammu and Kashmir is a integral part of india..end..You can Claim what ever your fantasies are.


"Claimed by India, Occoupied by Pakistan... well its under pakistani territory and thats where it shall remain...pakistan Controlls and OWNS K-2 which is a fact...wether indians like it or not...digest the truth and stop wining


I do not really understand these issues. Anyway, I see that there is a little edit war in the article, and that the edits around this issue are always done by anonymous. At the moment, the India-Pakistan dispute is not cited in the article, but it is in the box. We should decide coherently what to write. Moreover, signed discussions help to understand who said what, what part is a reply etc. gala.martin (what?) 21:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
If Srinagar, Baramulla and every city and lake of Indian occupied Kashmir doesn't have a note that says This part is claimed by Pakistan, and is called Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOC) by Pakistan., then we should not have such a note on every part of this page or any other about peaks in Pakistan. Waqas.usman 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women

In 4-2005 an Woman from Spain (I don't know her name) reach the summit and she is alive (at least at 1-Agost-2005)

Reply

Reference: Your comment. The 2005 K-2 season is over. I appreciate Your ..... Spanish Woman. Received with WirelessAccessProtocol((WAP) 2 times) the unconfirmed message from the Andalusian K2-Team July 2005 of a deadly K2-casualty. Could comment further this "storia trista".

[edit] Godwin-Austen

Which name is used by locals?


[edit] Casaulties in 1986

Quote:13 died in 1986 in the K2 Tragedy when eight climbers from several expeditions died in a severe storm.

So, five were resurrected?

I did not write that, but I suppose that means: "13 people died in (the whole year 1986). 8 out of this 13, died on a single severe storm." Gala.martin 17:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity about Wanda's demise

In the article, the sentence "Rutkiewicz herself died on a subsequent ascent in 1992" seems to indicate that Wanda died on a subsequent summit attempt of K2, while in reality her death occured while attempting Kanchenjunga. The sentence needs to be modified to clearly inform this. Darksideofchand 13:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 189 Summiters; Verifiable?

This article states: "As of June 2000, only 189 people have completed the ascent, compared with almost 1,900 individuals who have ascended the more popular target of Everest. 49 people have died attempting the climb;" This is not attributed to any source, hence it fails WP:V and should be considered for removal. 71.231.164.103 08:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

June 2000 should be replaced by July 2000; I will do this. Otherwise I can verify the accuracy of the article, although to post the source data would be copyvio. Viewfinder 16:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K2 is on the border with China

Therefore I have reverted the edits by 203.135.0.66. I reverted the earlier edits because they unnecessarily re-emphasised that K2 is in Pakistan, when infact, although it is on the Pakistan side of the line of military control, it is claimed by India. It is already stated in the article that K2 is in Pakistan. Viewfinder 16:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems that some Pakistani editors are unwilling to accept the above and are continuing to revert to a version which has K2 wholly in Pakistan. I do not know if this reflects the official Pakistan position; I realise that these areas contains many unsettled territorial claims. But as far as I know, every Wikipedia article that lists K2, and every other mountain list that I am aware of, has K2 on the Pakistan-China border, so listing K2 as being on the Pakistan-China border has become established Wikipedia practice. Therefore editors who wish to challenge this should do so on this and other talk pages, and not make unilateral POV edits to the main articles.

By the way, I have reverted several pro-Indian POV edits to this and similar articles, and will continue to do so. Viewfinder 16:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have transferred the above comments, and other posts, to a single area at Talk:List of highest mountains#Kashmir_border_dispute. Constructive and helpful contributions about this awkward issue are welcome. Viewfinder 11:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ok... Would Pakistan Administered Kashmir satisfy everyone?

Ok... Would Pakistan Administered Kashmir satisfy everyone? I argue that since even Pakistan does not claim that Kashmir is an integral part of Pakistani territory but is only a protectorate, it should not be referred to as being in the Northern Areas of Pakistan. I belive that the term Pakistan Administered Kashmir should be acceptable to everyone.Bishnoi 12:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, and thank you for taking ther trouble to make the case for your edit on the talk page, although I would have preferred it if you had done this before editing the main article. The term "Pakistan administered Kashmir" is more accurate. No definite international border in this area is internationally recognised. But the problem is that the logical extension of your edit is that articles about anything in Kashmir, including Indian administered Kashmir, should change. It has become the established practice on Wikipedia's topographic sites to regard the line of control as a genuine international border, even though, strictly speaking, it is not. Your edit is likely to be contested by Pakistanis who have made it clear that as far as they are concerned, K2 is in Pakistan and that it is all there is to it, and nasty edit warring will ensue. I do not want Wikipedia's main article pages to become vehicles for Indians and Pakistanis to push their POV's.
I will revert your edit this time, but there needs to be more sensible discussion about this, and less POV editing on both sides. Objections to the amending of [Pakistan] to "Pakistan administered Kashmir" should be raised here. If none are raised after seven days, and you restore your edit, I will not contest it or similar edits. Nor will I contest appropriate Pakistani edits of India to Indian administered Kashmir. But frankly it would be better if this issue were handled by a higher Wikipedia authority than me. I am not an administrator. Viewfinder 13:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is a non-issue! K2 is in Kashmir, call it Azad Kashmir, Pakistan Administered (or Occupied!) Kashmir, or India Claimed Kashmir or Jammu and Kashmir... I don't remember there ever being an argument about the name of the place! It was always Kashmir. Though Pakistanis might have claimed so in the discussion here, Pakistan Government has never officially claimed that Kashmir is a part of Pakistan. The whole issue is alive because Pakistan says it wants an independent Kashmir and India claims it is Indian territory. So I'm not taking any side. I'm just saying it the way it is. Pakistan calls Kashmir Azad Kashmir, which, if I am right, means Independent Kashmir and India disputes, India calls this part of Kashmir Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, which Pakistan disputes! The international media prefers the phrases Pakistan Administered Kashmir and Indian Administered Kashmir referring to the two sides of the Line of Control. So we either call the place just Kashmir or to be more precise call it with the internationally accepted term of "Pakistan/India administered Kashmir", which is also the only technically and politically correct term that makes the two parts differentiable.
So basically I'm not making a POV edit... It is a technical correction. Now if you would revert to my edit please!!! I would also like to make this change to all wikipedia pages changing all locations in Kashmir to India/Pakistan administered Kashmir to correctly reflect the reality. Since these are internationally accepted terms and are acceptable to both Pakistan and India there shouldn't be a problem with this. By putting down an area in any country without acknowledging that the area is disputed we are not reflecting the reality correctly.Bishnoi 14:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I can understand your frustration. But even if you are right, changing many Wikipedia pages in this manner will likely be contested. It is much better for us to discuss this issue and give those who disagree with you time to make their case. The case is not straightforward. For example, if Khardungla Pass is changed from Kashmir, India to India administered Kashmir then it will almost certainly be contested by Indians, even though Pakistan claims this area for itself or for an independent Kashmir, and the international community in neutral on the issue. (The Times Atlas lists "Leh, Kashmir", NOT "Leh, India" or "Leh, Kashmir, India"). If you want to appeal to a higher authority then that is OK with me, but otherwise, please allow time for two way discussion. Viewfinder 15:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


How about just adding 'it is under Pakistani administration' at the end of the paragraph which tells the location?? Red aRRow 09:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe the incredible bias on Wikipedia. There never has been a dispute as to which country world class mountain climbers must go to for their K2 expeditions. There never is a doubt which military helicopters must rescue them if they get stuck. It's Pakistan. Call it disputed, call it protected, call it "occupied." It's not China and it's not India. On the Jammu and Kashmir page, nobody is screaming about making sure to include that Pakistan also claims it. In fact, it's written as if Jammu and Kashmir, more specifically known as Indian occupied Kashmir is a legitimate and recognized part of India. It is not. It is just as disputed as Pakistan's Northern Areas, where K2 is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.130.77.100 (talk • contribs).

The above comment was also moved to this location from the top of the section. Please do not contribute to debates by placing comments at top of sections. Also I reject your claim that Wikipedia is biased. Viewfinder 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If location is changed from "Pakistan" to "Pakistan administered Kashmir" then I will not immediately oppose the change, but please be cautious about making too many similar edits too soon. As I stated above, the point about the disputed status of Indian administered Kashmir is valid. Viewfinder 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Countries

K2 is in the Kashmir geographical region, and its summit is on the border between areas administered by Pakistan and China, in an area which is claimed by India. The article and links make its status 100% clear. Please see the map of K2 and stop making uncited claims that it is wholly in Pakistan. It is usually approached from the Concordia side, which is in Pakistan administered territory, and therefore requires Pakistan visa authorisation. If approached from the east, Chinese authorisation would be required, not Pakistani authorisation. Viewfinder 09:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No side required China visa. Can you prove this POV? Who care that India claim is on Kashmir? We used to rule India and we have claim on whole india. Hence go and change that Taj-Mahal is in Pakistan. Also as long as Kashmir is in Pakistan, K2 is in Pakistan. CLAIM DOES NOT MATTER. --- ابراهيم 09:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
My two cents: first, let me say that the article as currently written looks pretty good. (Although I might propose a slightly new version, which everyone can take a look at.) So hopefully this disagreement is settling down and a productive result has been obtained, which would be my hope. However it makes sense to respond, respectfully, to the previous comment.
The claim that no side of the mountain is accessed from China is a little strange. Any route on the north face is accessed from the Chinese state of Xinjiang, see for example most any issue of the American Alpine Journal, or Fanshawe and Venables, Himalaya Alpine-Style, Hodder and Stoughton, 1995, ISBN 0-89886-456-9.
As to the rest of the comment, there are two issues here: de jure status and de facto status. Both are important. K2 is, de facto, on the border between Pakistan and China. It is, de jure, claimed by those countries and by India. (Note that some people have pointed out that Pakistan's claim may actually be a claim that it should be part of a new independent state; however, even if so, it currently enforces this claim by administering it as part of Pakistan, so it is pretty correct to describe it as a claim by Pakistan on the territory. A footnote to further clarify might be appropriate.) These are official claims of governments, which is why they are important to mention, as opposed to the "claim on whole India" mentioned above: I don't think that the government of Pakistan claims that Agra should be part of Pakistan or part of a new independent state. The point is not to adjudicate the morality of the status of the peak, it is to describe accurately what that status is. -- Spireguy 14:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a few changes. I tried to make the infobox description as much like the main text as possible, and explicitly included Kashmir. I also added Kashmir to the endnote; that is a good link for people to follow, since (right now at least) it is a pretty good description of the situation. I did not add anything about Pakistan claiming that it should be independent, since I have no reference for that.

I also changed "professional" to "serious" since these were not professional mountaineers; the only such people at the time were "guides" and these were not such, they were gentleman adventurers. I reworded the prominence fact as well. -- Spireguy 15:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is better now as it says it is in Pakistan and China. Previously it was saying it is in Kashmir (mentioning Pakistan no where). --- ابراهيم 15:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I more or less reverted the addition of the line "K2 is under Pakistani administration" (from Britannica) since it is superfluous and misleading in this context. In the Britannica article, that line serves to make clear that it is not under Indian administration; we are making that clear already. In this article, that line would make it look like no part of K2 is in China, which is false; the north face is definitely in China, and the border passes over the summit. -- Spireguy 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

'K2 is under Pakistani administration' means what it says...i.e. K2 is under Pakistani administration. That is the permits for climbing K2, the rescue of trapped mountaineers, cleanups at basecamps etc. are all managed by Pakistani authorities. To mention that the line is added just to show K2 is not part of India is incorrect and is probably the user's own perception because the fact that K2 lies on the border between Pakistan and China is mentioned explicitly in this article and adding verified information that K2 is administered by Pakistani authorities isn't invalid. Red aRRow 13:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with Red aRRow's position. If you were approaching K2 from the Chinese side, you would need Chinese permits etc, not Pakistani. The fact that K2 is mostly tackled from the Concordia side, which is Pakistan administered, does not change that. The cited Britannica article "under Pakistani administration", which has been badly written, is intended to refer to the south western approaches. Revert to Spireguy's version. Viewfinder 14:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are right then it is okay. We do not need to fight an edit war but prove yourself. Please list here some expedition that are carried out with China permission and no visas of Pakistan at all (espacially after 1960s in 70s)? I had read somewhere long time ago that according to an agreement (in 60s) between China and Pakistan Govt. K2 is under Pakistan control. Before that it status was unknown. I will try to find that reference but could you give me reference of your claim too please? (not give me reference that it is on border as that we already agreed on but tell me that whose visa is required). I hope to hear from you soon util then we could have the version of Red aRRow that has a refernce. --- ابراهيم 16:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


To user Viewfinder: Even if the mountain is tackled from the Chinese side, Pakistani permits are required in addition to Chinese permits. This is due to the fact that the summit of the peak lies inside Pakistani borders. The area inside China are the lower regions of the mountain and thus a team cannot scale the mountain peak without having to go through Pakistani authorities. Thus either go from China or Pakistan...Pakistani permission is required nonetheless. As for the allegation that Britannica has a 'badly written' article..I have to say that is quite a statement. Britannica Encyclopedia articles usually go through a rigorous review and are written by experts in the respective fields...unlike Wikipedia which anybody can edit. Britannica is neutral, verifiable and free from any bias. Personally I don't understand the resistance some people seem to have to mention the truth on the article here. Red aRRow 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to the above claim, K2 is on the border and the border passes directly over the summit. The summit is not wholly within Pakistan. Therefore if the mountain is climbed from the Chinese side you would need Chinese permits, and that should be regarded as fact until proved otherwise. However, as far as I can tell, all the practical routes to the summit (including the NE ridge) are either along the border or within Pakistan, and it may be that China has agreed that climbers can consider such routes to be within Pakistan, but this needs more specific citation, and a more specific article comment than "K2 is under Pakistan control". Re Britannica, see the links on my user page about Ulugh Muztagh. I do not call that "rigorous review". Viewfinder 20:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to clarify: Ibrahimfaisal correctly points out that there are two issues here. (1) Where is the border, and is the summit exactly on the border? Ibrahimfaisal and Viewfinder and I agree that the answer is yes; Red aRRow claims otherwise. (2) What permits/visas/etc. are required to climb the peak, from (a) Pakistan or (b) China? Ibrahimfaisal and RedARRow claim, I think, that what is required is (a) Pakistani permission only or (b) Chinese and Pakistani permission. (Correct me if I'm wrong about your claims.) If this is correct, it does support the contention that the summit area/upper mountain is primarily under Pakistani control, at least for purposes of climbing permits. If, instead, permission from both countries is required, even for an ascent from Pakistan, then the evidence would not support the contention; instead it would support Viewfinder's position that the summit is border territory, equally administered.
Certainly it would be good to have authoritative sources for these claims, beyond one ambiguous line in a tertiary source (Britannica). Ibrahimfaisal refers to the possible existence of such a source, which would be great to have--some sort of official agreement between the two countries on how to permit the mountain.
If the summit is exactly on the border (resolving issue (1) above), then I would propose that issue (2) pertains more to the climbing section, and is misleading in the opening paragraph. Putting it in the opening paragraph seems to me to imply a claim about the actual ownership of the mountain, rather than a more limited issue of who controls climbing access. That's how I read it, anyway. -- Spireguy 23:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, here I am again. I looked in my main sources. From Himalaya Alpine Style—the prize-winning mountaineering tome with detailed climbing descriptions—specifically its chapter on K2's North Ridge:

Permission: Sinkiang Mountaineering Association, Urumqi, or Chinese Mountaineering Association, Beijing, usually through an agent.

Not a word here (or in the text of the chapter) about any kind of permit from Pakistan. I doubt that a book as thorough as Himalaya Alpine-Style would overlook the need for two permits instead of one, as that kind of thing can be, at a minimum, a huge pain, and at worst, can prevent an expedition from happening at all.

Also, I looked in all of the American Alpine Journals from the early 90's to 2005, and in a few from the 80's. In the reports on North (Chinese) side routes, no mention of needing any Pakistani permits or visas. There was one feature article, from 1991, which talks about the Chinese approach, the Chinese liaison officer, etc., but nothing about a Pakistani permit being required. Another short note made specific mention of the difference in rescue potential on the north side, namely, that there is no possibility of quick evacuation, helicopters, etc. on the north side, as opposed to the Pakistan approach. This emphasizes the fact that the north side is completely different politically.

In short, I don't see any evidence that there is some special agreement that Pakistan controls the summit, or that Pakistani permits/visas are required to climb from the north side. Instead, I see specific evidence to the contrary. It looks to me that the situation is as with most border peaks: if you climb from side X, you need permits from side X, and not from the other side, unless you are planning a traverse. Hopefully this is sufficient documentation to address Ibrahimfaisal's concerns?

One more note, while I'm writing a book here...(sorry)...While I don't think I would call the entire Britannica article "poorly written" (and I think Viewfinder simply meant that the portion we are discussing was poorly, i.e. misleadingly, written), I will note that the single picture included with the article is incorrect. It is labeled "Godwin Austen Glacier and K2", and while it does show K2 in the far background, it doesn't show the Godwin Austen Glacier, as it is taken from much too far away. It's also a pretty sad picture of K2, especially compared to ours :) So how trustworthy is the vaunted Britannica, anyway? -- Spireguy 03:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I must add here that Viewfinder does his homework deligently and given past interactions with him on Khardung La, he seems well versed with mountaineering subjects. It was interesting to read comments about Britannica's accuracy/trustworthiness, but even the venerable Encyclopedia has made lots of mistakes. Look at Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia for a start. The "experts" at Britannica do a fairly good overall job but when it comes to specifics on a subject it is sometimes a bit too small, or slightly wrong, leaving the reader hungry for more quality information. This is especially true on topics related to Asia.
  • I'm not saying who is right or wrong, just that Britannica too shouldn't be taken at face value. That's all. Idleguy 06:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well Spireguy Firstly I never said that climbing from Pakistan side requires China Visa. However, I believe that climbing it peak from any side requires Pakistan visa. I have not changed my view 100% after reading yours above post but now I am doubted enough that I will not revert it back. So you can change it back until I do not have a better reference to back my claim. I think that the border between Pakistan and China was disputed till 60s then that dispute was settled and it includes K2 possession to Pakistan. However, I know I need to find a reference which I am not able to find as yet. Until then you could change it back. best, --- ابراهيم 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Ibrahimfaisal very quickly found a good reference for the border agreement--thanks! The link that worked best for me was this one. The most relevant section is point (5) on page 4 of this document, which says that the border passes "over the summit of the Chogri Peak (K2)." Nowhere is there any mention of a special provision for K2 being entirely or mainly controlled by Pakistan; it simply says that the border follows the main water divide, right over the summit, as one would expect.
I think that we have clearly settled both points (1) and (2) I mentioned above. (1) The border is on the summit. (2) (a) An ascent from China requires Chinese permission only. (b) An ascent from Pakistan requires Pakistani permission only. So it really seems that there is no special status here. I'll put in the above doc as a reference for the article. -- Spireguy 22:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Great! At lease now I do not have any doubts. --- ابراهيم 08:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a note: Mountaineering passes and the issue over who issued them for disputed territories can sometimes turn into a conflict. The Siachen Glacier being an infamous example. Idleguy 09:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names

"Chogori" and "Mount Godwin-Austin", added by Ibrahimfaisal, are already given. I see no need to give them twice but I cannot delete them without breaking WP:3RR so other editors must decide on this. Viewfinder

The above mentioned duplication has now been removed. Viewfinder 10:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Himalaya vs. Karakoram

I don't think the usage saying that the Karakoram is part of the Himalayas is correct. It is part of the same large mountain system, also including the Pamir, Hindu Kush, etc., but it is distinct from the Himalaya. (This issue comes up on many other pages too.) Or does someone have an authoritative reference stating otherwise? -- Spireguy 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/2/_/Talk%7EK2_629c.html"