Talk:Gangkhar Puensum

Mountains Top‑importance

	Mountains portal 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 Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bhutan Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bhutan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bhutan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BhutanWikipedia:WikiProject BhutanTemplate:WikiProject BhutanBhutan articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elevation

A lot of web pages stating Gangkhar Puensum as the world's highest unclimber peak give its height as 7541 m (24750 ft).

For example: [1]

Fewer seem to give 6896 m (22624 ft).

Does anyone know the correct height? Thincat 15:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are surprisingly few official sources on this. The Sierra Club, says 24741 ft. Do we trust them? Also, I count at least 18 peaks on that list that are higher than Gangkhar Puensum. -- Scott e^iπ 17:31, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

white peak of the three spiritual brothers

Who has a source for the translation of this? The only thing I found online was that it means "3 mountain siblings".--Josh Rocchio 22:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please someone answer, this is translation of the week, and it can't very well be translated if I don't know what to call it.--Josh Rocchio 12:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to doubt that the translation given by the above link is correct, and thank you for this link which has an excellent image of the mountain. Viewfinder 12:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So should we change it in the article? Thanks, for responding.--Josh Rocchio 13:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 mountain siblings is a shorter version of the above. Whether the words "white" and "spiritual" are correctly included in the translation, I do not know. Viewfinder 14:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I certainly see that it is a shorter version of the longer one...my point is that white and spiritual are two extra semantic objects...siblings, for that matter, is a different semantic object than brothers, not in all languages, but certainly in english, and I haven't the expertise to assess whether or not brothers and siblings are a different semantic object in dzongkha. The problem is, "white peak of the three spiritual brothers" is getting translated word for word into many wikipedias:

it:Vetta Bianca dei Tre Spiriti Fratelli
tr:Üç Ruhsal Erkek Kardeşin Beyaz Zirvesi
scn:Tettu jancu di tri frati spirituali
da:De Tre Åndelige Brødres Hvide Bjerg
lt:Baltoji trijų dvasingųjų brolių viršūnė

etc...and this is potentially misleading, as three mountain siblings neither includes peak, white, or spiritual, and there is no reason to assume that dzongkha thinks of "mountain" as a masculine object (does dzongkha even have gendered nouns?). I mean even in descendant languages, this gender is not always kept, cf latin mons,montis, masc, and its descendant, spanish la montaña, fem. So if mountains are feminine, this could be three mountain sisters. I know that it was not you who entered the translation, and I have sent a message to User:Thincat, who seems to have been the responsible party. The problem, again, is that people all over the world atre taking this page on this wikipedia as a credible source for this article, and it might be terribly misleading.--Josh Rocchio 15:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now fr: sommet blanc des trois frères spirituels...--Josh Rocchio 17:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now ca:Cim blanc dels tres germans espirituals

and po:Biały szczyt trzech duchowych braci...--Josh Rocchio 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and ast:Cume blanca de los tres hermanos espirituales

If this bothers you, add a footnote to the main article, stating that no citation that goes further than "3 mountain siblings" can be found. Viewfinder 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than it bothering me. It's that I can't even really translate the name or the article, much less the rest of it, into latin until I know what it means. Latin semantics, orthographics, and even the alphabet strongly discourages transliterating Gangkhar Puensum (ie, not using k, certainly not using kh, and certainly not ngkh). It would properly be Mons Trium Fratrum Montanorum (mount of the three mountain brothers) or Mons Albus Trium Fratrum Spiritosorum (white mountain of the three spiritual brothers) or something, but something like Gancar Punsum would be hardly appropriate.--Josh Rocchio 15:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These next two copied from my talk page...--Josh Rocchio 18:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just back from holiday, hence my delay in replying. I certainly didn't translate "Gangkhar Peunsum". I found the translation either on-line or in Steven Berry's book (reference in article), I suspect in the latter. I have a copy of the book but when I last tried to find it I couldn't! I'll try again. However, Berry is a mountaineer and was probably just repeating what someone told him. Thincat 08:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this on the web [2]. I'm not sure of its date but anyway, I doubt this was my original reference. It can't simply be copying erroneous material from Wikipedia (!) because it has additional details not reported there. Thincat 12:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well that says it's derived from a phrase that means white peak of the three spiritual brothers...and 3 mountain siblings certainly counds derived from that. Can we agree to emend? I will send out a note to the other wikipedias, I can speak about half of the languages whose wikipedias translated this well enough to write a quick note, and for the others, english will have to do =].--Josh Rocchio 18:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I've arranged it in the Catalan version. (Els tres germans de la muntanya) --83.44.189.186 11:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.--Josh Rocchio 03:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan or China?

Can somebody clarify this? The Mountain's summit is actually in Tibet, isn't it? As such it doesn't really make sense for the map to show its location "within Bhutan" when it isn't in Bhutan, at least the red tiangle representing the summit isn't. It doesn't make sense either that there's no mention of Tibet in the intro. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the change to Tibet, since no source I've seen supports that. Instead, I cited a detailed discussion of GP (and Kula Kangri) which lays out the different claims. I did put into the intro a sentence mentioning that it is on the border with Tibet. -- Spireguy (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at those coordinates on Google Earth, the summit does seem to be within Bhutan. The reasons I thought it was in Tibet were firstly that the red triangle on the map was entirely outside Bhutan (I think the location map possibly needs to be recallibrated)) and secondly that the GeoHack coordinates gave China for this location, though they don't seem to any more. [3] --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 01:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other point, comparing these two maps, it seems there are about 200 square miles along the northern border that the first map places in Bhutan and the second places in Tibet. This may be because the borders are not properly defined but it is telling that there are several maps in the Bhutan article and none of them is the same shape as the green map here, which makes me think the borders of the green map are less widely recognised. The green map shows Gangkhar Puensum in China but all the others would show it in Tibet. I'm tempted to revise this map along the lines of [this image]. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 02:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your remarks and a better map would be most helpful. Since the present map seems to show a northern border for Bhutan which bears little relationship to what is shown on several mapping sites, I am deleting it as being worse than no map at all. Thincat (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map and infobox

I shall revert the last edit to the article which put a different map in the infobox which then shows GP entirely within China (see last section of this discussion above). Interestingly, Bing shows the GP coordinate given in the article as being within Bhutan [4]. I think the underlying issue is that the border between the countries is not defined clearly (but maybe it is convenient to say GP is on or near the border).Thincat (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The location map in the current article[5] seems to be working appropriately. File:Bhutan_location_map.svg of 08:22 14 October 2008 (from Germen WP) is the file in use. Thincat (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This map below recently became available. It shows the disputed borders in the north and west that account for the descrepancies in the above maps. Just thought I'd share it here although unsure if should be included in this article. More info in Talk:Bhutan page.

--Racerx11 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates in the infobox give 0 seconds for both the latitude in longitude which usually means that the source (which is no documented) did not specify the location with much accuracy. This makes it impossible, using this data, to determine were the summit is with respect to a border. If the border is in dispute, the article should make no claim about which country the summit is in. The body of the article makes the situation clear but the claim in the first sentence that the mountain is "in" Bhutan is probably inappropriate (IMHO). –droll [chat] 05:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a better set of coords with ref to the article. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gangkhar Puensum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041225005944/http://nirvanaexpeditions.com/pictures/nature/imagepages/image3.htm to http://www.nirvanaexpeditions.com/pictures/nature/imagepages/image3.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Gangkhar Punsum China Bhutan Animation Video.gif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Gangkhar Punsum China Bhutan Animation Video.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]