Talk:Mont Blanc
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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) | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-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. | ||
 |
Mont Blanc is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.) |
|
 |
Mont Blanc is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Mont Blanc as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia. |
What about someone scaling this image to provide a thumbnail? Then, provide a link to this larger version? I can do it if there is consensus. RedWolf 01:03, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Elevation Figure
Hallo Anthere, you have reverted my yesterday edit related to Mont Blanc heights on English wiki pages. I had changed the height of the peak. If you read the website http://www.ign.fr/telechargement/Pi/C_PRESSE/CP_Mt_Blanc_2003.pdf you can revert your changes. Best wishes HeBB 12:30, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hello HeBB.
I am glad to learn that once again experts have changed their minds. Here is my feeling...I think that the most well known current height is 4810 m and not 4808 m. Hence, my reverting was quite natural. Your changes rather looked like a change made by an uninformed editor.
Since the news are quite recent, you might have mentionned this reference, at least in this article, which would have avoided me all that painful work to revert you.
I have the deep feeling that you are subtilely (or whatever spelling) trying to suggest I was real bad in reverting you, when all I did was protecting the quality of the encyclopedia from a motivated newbie :-) I should have headed for a herbal tea instead :-)
Due to your slight sarcastic comment, I will not revert my changes back. I am just not in the mood :-) Best wishes for you to do so. fr0069
- actually, I mostly do not have time. If you do not do it yourself graciously, I will check to make the correction in a couple of weeks :-) Regards [Documenting what confused me: that's Anthere/fr0069 again, a day later, per Page history.]
Hallo Anthere.
Sorry, if you was angry for me. I am new in wikipedia and I have still to learn. Really, I had forgotten to give my reference. But it will be better in future. Regards HeBB 16:09, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The final 'graph of the article clarifies that following these numbers is not a matter of tracking the improvement of the height to within a 20 cm. accuracy band and eventually beyond. That is, BTW, why i removed the portion that pointlessly specifies
- However, some GPS measurements made in 2001 revealed it was 3 meters higher than previously thought. New measurements of the Institut Géographique National of France made in 2003 had given the new result of 4,808.45 m. (Numbers stated with false precision, by the way.)
In the source cited above, the 'graph headed "variations constees au sommet" (which is uncomfortably beyond my incompetant French) should be paraphrased in English on this page, for the sake of the elevation, and also, perhaps, for information that may show whether i, and/or the editor whose contribution i tried to clarify, are confused about whether the summit is definitively in France, or also moves as the glacier slumps one direction or the other. (We can't rule it out; on a steep enough slope, 23 m. of glacier can, tipped, account for 200 m. of vertical depth. Also, if the ground immediately across the border is especially level, a lot of depth could sometimes build up there, even if there are times when it's only 23 m. down to rock at the summit.) --Jerzy 05:36, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
[edit] Highest in What?
I notice that my edit from "Western Europe" to "west of the Volga" here is probably not my first: my first seems to have been changed w/o my noticing. I continue to point out that "Western Europe" is far too weak a claim; Elbrus is 3000 km. away, and it is of interest that Blanc is higher than everything in Europe, except for what's in that little corner in the Caucasus that i, and i expect Europeans as well, think of as having the least in common with the rest of Europe as you can get away with and still be counted in Europe.
Changing it to Western Europe doesn't make the article false, but it detracts from the article.
On the other hand, i looked at a map again, and realize i wasn't looking at the Volga when i wrote that: i was looking at the lower Don, the Don-Volga canal, and the upper Volga; the Volga flows into the Caspian, and i'd have to confess that Elbus can only be described as west of it.
In light of that, i propose describing Blanc as the highest west of Russia. If there were a more inclusive term brought forward, that is equally visualizable, i'd favor it. (I'd oppose "west of the Caucusus", bcz no one in most of Europe can picture that without a map.) What i'd really like is a way of saying that you can include everything to the Urals and a long way south, without finding Elbrus, but i'm not seeing it.
(Hmm, "in the 95% of Europe that isn't within X km. of being in the Middle East"?)
For now, i'm holding off a few days before settling for the "west of Russia" terminology.
BTW, is this "in Western Europe" thing a matter of national pride? If so, bear in mind that there's nothing wrong with the overlapping but not conflicting claim that Elbrus is the highest in Europe. --Jerzy 10:54, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
IMHO it is a good idea to include references between the two saying that scholars and wikipedians alike are discussing which of the two is the highest in europe. Or we should start Mont Blanc vs Mount Elbrus discussing the controversy. MartinBiely 21:23, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
On a related note, I think the new addition "and the fifth highest in Europe" needs a source and/or clarification, especially in light of this list placing it at #18. The addition may be correct if one means "fifth highest independent peak," with a certain cutoff to define "independent," but I'm not sure. -- Spireguy 01:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is Mont-Blanc in Italy or not ?
I have read various mistakes about this question and I am soon to edit the article on this tiny question; I prefer to point here to a precise external reference (in italian, pdf), an article by Umberto Pelazza since this is notoriously a "passionate" issue - hence some use for a Talk section if somebody has some other info to part about this.
First the reference to "17th century" as the beginning of the controversy of the border line in this sector seems unlikely to be true: in this period both sides of Mont-Blanc were part of Savoie, and there was indeed no international border running there.
The border existed for a few years during Napoleonian wars; then Savoie got reunited with Valle d'Aosta. Things changed for good in 1861, where Savoie was devoluted to France, Valle d'Aosta remaining in the kingdom of Sardegna. The article quoted above reminds of the precise text of the treaty, (indeed more precisely the convention about border delimitation following the treaty): the border line "monte sur le groupe du Mont-Blanc, en touche le point le plus élevé", which I would translate roughly as "the border line strides over Mont-Blanc group, and touches its higher point". Furthermore an annexed map shows the quoted 4807 point as a border point (I saw once a picture of this map in a geography newspaper, which is not available on the web as I know).
A few years later only, military French maps have added to the French territory in this area a small half-circle, but this is clearly in contradiction to the treaty. Italian maps have constantly traced the border as following the watershed line.
The "200 m" related in the article has probably been read on these inaccurate French maps.
As concerns the "advanced surveying methods", I think the editor of this sentence might refer to recent measurements (this spring indeed) trying to locate the very rock summit of Mont-Blanc, ice removed. Since this summit is a bit further west than the visible summit, it might be considered that it is a piece of France alone. But in any case, Italy should nearly reach the altitude of this summit, missing it by only a few meters, not 200.
With all those elements, I feel it is justified to completely rewrite the sentences of the article about the position of Mont-Blanc relative to the border. French Tourist 21:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] The French maps
French maps indicate that the "Monte Bianco" is French. Where say other maps (not italien)? --Ilario 10:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] French Translation
I have translated the passage "The Ascent" from the french article. Feel free to edit it to improve how it reads in english, since I am biased having read the french. A few things require clarification, since the French article isn't perfect and neither am I.
- Horace-Bénédict de Saussure had something to do with the first ascent, but I am not sure of the exact nature. It appears he offered a prize for the first ascent. See also Mountaineering#History
- In reference to the difficulties of the ascent, the french mentions "le couloir du Goûter" (the corridor of Gouter, Gouter means "to taste" or "afternoon tea") and rock slides, it could be good to get some more direct information on this.
Matt73 12:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
And now moving on to "Protection".
- The French version does not provide a citation for "Mont Blanc is one of the most visited tourist destinations on the planet", but it would be nice to have one.
- 'Pro-Mont Blanc' - anyone want to do an article? :-)
- I'm not sure what category they want it listed under. The one mentioned in the french version is Exceptional and Unique World Site (my translation) which doesn't seem to match a UNESCO category.
Matt73 11:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Definition of Europe
(Transferred from User_Talk:Elk Salmon
Hi, if you look at a topographic map of the world, you will see that the Caucasus mountains are much more closely connected to the Asian mountains of Turkey and Iran than they are to other European mountains, and that they are therefore, physically, part of the Asian continent. To reach European mountain ranges from the Caucasus, you have to travel a long distance and descend almost to sea level, by contrast the Greater Caucasus are connected to the Lesser Caucasus by a short distance and a 943m pass, and the Lesser Caucasus are part of the same high area that includes Turkey and Iran. Viewfinder 15:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Viewfinder, please withstand from WP:OR. Border between Asia and Europe is going by the water divide in the Caucasian and Ural mountain ranges. And not based on the personal feeling of land masses. Check the Europe article. Elk Salmon 00:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that you can "withstand" from OR. You mean "refrain" perhaps? Anyway, I reject your OR claim. The view that the Caucasus are not, geographically, part of the European continent is not my personal OR; it is frequently put forward. Examine the edit history of Mont Blanc, especially [1]. The footnote should remain, although the wording is debatable. As a matter of interest, the Caucasian water divide does not define political Europe; Georgia is part of political Europe. There is no fixed view about the extent of geographical Europe, but the Caucasus mountains are much more closely linked to Asian mountains than European mountains - and this page is about a mountain. Viewfinder 12:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Viewfinder 13:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
(above slightly modified after transfer) Viewfinder 13:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Those who consider that, geographically, the Caucasus is Asian may not be in a majority but they are not limited to a bunch of crackpots, and the view is not OR. There is room for discussion about the wording of the footnote but please do not delete it. Viewfinder 13:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree completely with Viewfinder's last comment. Mont Blanc is the highest peak in some sort of Europe, and is widely seen as such. Since the definition of Europe (an essentially arbitrary border) is not unambiguously defined, we should leave the footnote in. In fact, in general, it is better to leave in extra information, rather than removing every vestige of a conflicting opinion. The wording of the footnote could perhaps be improved to make it sound less like one person's opinion and more like objective truth, but wholesale deletion is not an improvement. --Stemonitis 14:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Roosevelt
Anyone know what this sentence in the article is about?
- In 1886, Future [sic] US President Theodore Roosevelt led the third recorded expedition to the peak.
To me it looks somewhat fishy, to say the least. Ericoides 21:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- The claim is made on other websites too, e.g. [2], but that does not rule out the possibility of the reproduction of incorrect information. Viewfinder 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for that - but you know how Wiki itself disseminates such errors - perhaps in this case too? I'll leave this objection here for a fortnight and if no one has given a good case why, a hundred years after its first ascent and with numerous other recorded ascents having been made, Roosevelt gets the credit for the 'third recorded expedition', I will remove the claim from this article (and from the main T. Roosevelt article as well). Ta. Ericoides 07:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Exploits
Does anyone consider Marco Evaristti's feat an "exploit" ? Personally, I don't. 82.229.209.33 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
