Talk:Mountain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance to WikiProject Mountains on the project's importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
Earth sciences Portal
Mountain is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Geography
Geography Portal

This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Illogical Paragraph

Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22% of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24% of the Earth's land mass is mountainous. Also, 1 in 10 people live in mountainous regions. All the world's major rivers are fed from mountain sources.

This is currently flagged as needing verification, but surely this is impossible because (as it says earlier in the article, and as is discussed below) there is no official differentiation between a hill and a mountain. At least, then, this should include what quantifies a mountain for these figures (i.e. what the original source claims)? If no such number can be found then perhaps this is worthy of removal from the article (although it does give a good rough figure for interest's sake). Angus Lepper 18:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is valuable information and should be kept in some form. Perhaps it should say mountains over 1km or mountains/hills cover 54% ... --SRS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.173.199 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hill versus Mountain

I am truly interested in finding out the difference between a hill and a mountain. Any dictionary just tells you that a mountain is larger than a hill and that a hill is smaller than a mountain. Anyone that can give a more definitive answer to that I would like to hear from via this page.

To the best of my knowledge, Anon, that's about as definitive as it gets. Here in Australia, where it's mostly pretty flat, and the highest peak of all is on the same level as the entire plain that Mexico City sits on, we tend to call almost any little bump a "mountain" - features that I shouldn't think anyone would even bother calling a "hill" if they were in Switzerland or the Himalaya. Also, we call some very tiny streams "rivers". It's all relative. Tannin

Yep. Take a look at Yucca Mountain. I've been there and toured the facility and think it is very funny that the ridgeline (which is only 200 metres above the surrounding average elevation) is called a "mountain." As far as I'm concerned if a hunk of rock is smaller than the tallest building in the world then it is a hill. --mav

Often it's just perpetuation of a longstanding name - in the old days "mountain" was far more likely to be used - but in a couple places I've seen allusions to a formal criterion of the sort that a geographic names board might use. It's on my list to track down one of these days. Stan 04:38 28 May 2003 (UTC)

  • When I was in Nepal, my Nepalese guides called anything that probably didn't exceed 10,000 ft. a "hill" or sometimes a "big hill". All relative sometimes I guess when you have the Himalayan giants over 20,000 ft nearby. RedWolf 04:51, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • BRITANNICA NON GFDL QUOTE: A mountain is a landform that rises prominently above its surroundings. It is generally distinguished by steep slopes, a relatively confined summit, and considerable height. The term mountain has topographic and geologic meanings. It generally refers to rises over 2,000 feet (610 meters) [1].
  • In England and Wales there was a traditional standard of 1000 feet supposedly used by the OS. There is an anecdotal tale related to the village of Taffs Well (as dramatised in The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain) where the land mass known to the locals as the "mountain" was a few feet short of the 1000ft mark (I believe it is 16ft in the film) and thus designated a hill. Chris talk back 01:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the climbing of the mountain. Is it rocky? Do you have to use your hands to climb up? Is it steep? Then it's a mountain.--God of War 06:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, a mountain is measured, in most instances, relative to sea level. As such, in this geological sense, you can have mountains that do not rise very far above their surroundings at all viz. mountains that make up mountain ranges and are only given numbers rather than names. In this sense, the word 'mountain' is qualitatively distinct from that of hill, and you cannot say "here a hill ends and a mountain begins". 143.252.80.100 14:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Higher or Taller

Hears a question from the trivial facts file first posed on the Mount Everest talk page.

  • The summit of Mt Chimborazo in Ecuador is 2150m further away from the centre of the earth than the summit of Mt Everest. Does that mean it's higher or taller or what?

Should something be said about how mountain heights are measured on earth and elsewhere in the solar system? -- kiwiinapanic 09:31 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sure. The rule is "above mean sea level" - I believe cartographers have a model of the nonspherical earth, so they can calculate where the sea would be if it was lapping at the base of Everest. But we should get a cite-able source for this. Stan 13:34 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Under sea

This article doesn't seem to talk about mountains or mountain ranges lying wholly under the ocean. Which are the major ones ? Is there a list or article anywhere else ? Jay 11:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

try mid-ocean ridges. The East Pacific Rise, Mid-Atlantic Ridge are the obvious ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.98.21 (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rivers?

If all major river systems come from mountains - where is the range that causes the Mississippi River? Hmmmm? It starts in Minnesota in a bog if I'm not mistaken. The Wisconsin River comes out of Lac Vieux Dessert lake.

[edit] External links

External links section is empty - is that for a reason? Enochlau 05:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Britannica

I was sceptical about the Encyclopaedia Britannica "requiring" mountains to be over 2000 feet, so I went to the library and looked it up. This is all the EB (15th edition, 2002) has to say on the question:

Mountains generally are understood to be larger than hills, but the term has no standardized geological meaning.

It's only the Student Britannica that gives the 2000 foot threshold, and even then it only says that mountains are "generally understood" to be over 2000 feet, not that they definitively are. I think this article tries too hard to quantify something that can't be quantified, but if we must put a figure on it (as we probably should, since it's clearly a source of debate), it ought to be with the appropriate qualifiers. --Blisco 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Encyclopædia Britannica#Competition, the Britannica Student Encyclopedia is Compton's Encyclopedia by another name. Here is the start of the article (subscription required for the full whammy) in the 'real' Britannica, where the above quote can be found. --Blisco 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Why it is created? What for ? section

I removed this section because it violates NPOV and it has nothing scientifically to do with mountains. This section would better belong somewhere else. It is also a form of original research; see: Wikipedia:No original research.

User: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 19:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How could you know that this has nothing scientifically to do ? it's full of science كس اخت اللي أنفضك يا ابن الشرموطة

Seriously, stop putting it in there.

[edit] Higher than Everest?

Can someone please provide verifcation that there used to be mounains much higher than everest? I know this is true but I would like to see verification. I know there used to be volcanoes in New Mexico and Arizona much higher than everest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sunoco (talk • contribs) 21:20, March 29, 2007 (UTC)


Ice Volcanoes
Volcanoes have been known to erupt on other planets and moons in our solar system in our life-times (volcanoes on Venus for example, constantly erupt)and some of them erupt ice instead of lava.
Sorry I could not figure out how to make a new section. Can someone verify or site ice volcanoes. I find it hard to belive.

[edit] Bizzarely written section

Under the "Characteristics" section, there are a few bizarre statements, for instance: "Mountains are not generally liked for human habitation; the weather is harsher, less water is available, and there is little level ground suitable for peeing" - why is having level ground for urinating a significant problem for mountain dwellers?? I'd imagine being unable to erect structures easily would be a more pressing problem. It's a vaguely surreal statement, and does look out of place here.

Also, "At very high altitudes, there is less air in the air" - erm, well that statement really doesn't make any sense, it's the sort of observation a three-year-old might make when climbing up a mountain, if they actually did that kind of thing. Surely the correct statement is either "there is less oxygen in the air", or "the air is thinner and less dense, meaning more demands are put on the body to obtain enough oxygen" (I'm sure there's a better way of wording that, but you get the idea)

And here's a statement which surely must be a lie - "Despite some biological adaptation by peoples who have lived on mountains for hundreds or thousands of years, babies' average birthweight is reduced by 100 grams for every 1 meter gain in altitude." - What?, ok, so a baby born 10 meters above sea level weighs 1kg less on average? Maybe the writer got confused between a meter and a kilometer? I think that's the most likely case, and that kind of claim should be referenced, surely? Alanmarsden 10:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The first two of those statements have already been removed from the article, I removed the third statement. Doing a couple quick google searches the only thing I could find that indicated birth weight is affected by altitude is this article, and a research paper that somewhat covers the birth weight of animals in high altitudes. It's pretty safe to assume that all three were vandalism. Gh5046 06:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
McCullough et al (1977, Archives of Environmental Health) found both a decrease in birth weight and higher infant mortality as altitude increases in a study in Colorado. The mean birth weight of their "high" altitude babies was over 200 grams less than their lower altitude babies.2shots (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.240.201.13 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] too many mountains that look like postcard mountains?

This is a really wonderful and well-loved site. My only complaint is that, as far as the images go, there seems to be a disproportionate focus on particularly high mountains that conform to certain common stereotypes of what mountains are "supposed" to look like. I was wondering if there could be a little more balance. The Blue Ridge image is a good start; I've added one of the northern Appalachians. A few others should do the trick and balance out the images to show an informative range of mountain forms and sizes. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. Five images of mountains in Pakistan?? It's a great country with gorgeous mountains, but hey. . .--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and done it. Hope it inspires some lively discussion. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thinking of relabeling "Local definations" to "Definition" and moving to the top.

Seems to me that what should be first is a definition of what constitutes a mountain, and the arguments contained therein, as opinions vary regarding how high a landmass needs to be before it is considered a mountain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgagnon999 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Done--Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Any idea why this particular article receives so much vandalism? --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New image sizing parameter available in infobox mountain

Step right up & be the first on your block to use the new image resizing option available for Template:Infobox Mountain. This new option is expressed by the line "| Photo size = x " where x= the width of the photo in pixels. The line has been included in the template description for easy cut and paste. If the line is excluded from the template, photo width defaults to 300px. Note, however, if the line is included with no parameter, the photo will not display.

This option is especially useful in working with vertical compositions, which tend to display too large at 300px, or lower quality images that may appear too grainy at 300px.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I removed 5 external links. Reason: personal photo galleries referencing specific mountains rather than information dealing with mountain or mountains. Rationale: If everyone put up a photo gallery of their favorite mountain range , the external links section would be bigger than the article. It would be nice to see some useful links about mountains in general, or even a personal gallery that shows a diversity of mountains from around the world. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why mountains are cold

The article states that the reason mountains are cold is "the Sun heats Earth from the ground up". To my knowledge, the statement is false. At best it's a hypothesis that shouldn't be stated as fact. It should be removed from the article for the following reasons:

  • A high plateau is also cold; the hypothesis wrongly predicts that the air, being close to the high ground of a plateau, should be just as warm as a low valley.
  • Air heated at low altitude should rise -- why then aren't mountains warmer than lowlands?
  • Yes, some of the heat radiating up from the ground is absorbed by the atmosphere; but the sun sends a lot of heat downward. If the atmosphere were so optically dense that it blocked ground heat from reaching a mountain, then by the same reasoning the ground should be shielded from the heat of the sun.
  • The hypothesis would predict that at night mountains should be warmer than lowlands, because then the situation is reversed: the ground cools by radiating into space.
  • The article lapse rate which describes just this phenomenon doesn't mention the heat-from-ground hypothesis.
  • Such a hypothesis would be more appropriate in the lapse rate article.

Spiel496 (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I am no expert, but I learned that air cools with altitude because of adiabatic expansion of rising currents and cooling of descending currents, which agrees with the lapse rate article. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I have with this sort of reasoning is that referenced material has been removed from the article and has not been replaced with (better) referenced material. Granted, the original source material wasn't ideal, but from what I could see (and following the reference provided in the source material itself), there was some truth to the argument. That said, I have no issue with replacing that argument with a better (referenced) , but even if we are meteorologists (and we're not), I don't think we should get in the habit of making judgement calls about the validity of a source without backing our judgments up. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Pgagnon999's point is well-taken. I would prefer to find the definitive reference. My technical reasons above admittedly border on original research. But I think they constitute a good reason to be suspicious of what was a fairly recent addition to the article. A safe course of action is to return the content back to how it looked before 9 January 2008, which is essentially what Q Chris has done. Spiel496 (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Q Chris hasn't returned the content, but another editor just did. Then you reverted. Considering your remarks above (unless I am misunderstanding them), I reverted your revert. Again, it's a bad precendent to delete sourced material withouth replacing it with improved sourced material --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that Q Chris returned the bogus content; I meant that he returned the article to its pre-controversial state. Isn't that the safest course of action in a controversy? 16 days ago, user Eldiadefiesta added some material that, while sourced, is likely wrong. I'm simply proposing that we remove the material until we can find something that people can agree on. Spiel496 (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant Qur'an plugging

I tried to delete the "Mountains and religion" section, but some script designed to stop vandalism undid my edit.

Seriously, what the hell?

Just read the section and you'll see its obvious Islamic bias.

24.215.24.81 (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that paragraph is both unsourced and blatant original research. It should not be reinserted without exceptionally good sources. That said, edit wars are not the way to solve this. I strongly recommend editors reach consensus here rather than continue to remove and reinsert the paragraph in the article. Thanks, Gwernol 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean "Islamic bias"? Does it claim that Islam is better at describing mountains than Judaism or Christianity? No. It's just an example of a religious interpretation of the geology, and the religion happens to be Islam. I have no problem with the section. Spiel496 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest you re-read our policy on original research since the section in question is a clear example of that. On a minor note, if the only religion mentioned was Islam, the section would have to be titled "Mountains in Islam" and a full account of how mountains are treated in Islam would have to be given, otherwise it will fail WP:NPOV. Of course that doesn't really is a side matter until proper reliable sources can be given to allow inclusion of anything light the previous content. Gwernol 00:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)