Talk:Annapurna

[Untitled]

鱼尾峰 At some point it would probably be good to move Anna II etc. to their own pages. --Spireguy 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)-- crazyhbx

There is plenty of scope to write more about Annapurna II etc. within the massif article, and to send readers directly there if they search it. This encourages readers to explore the massif context more than isolated articles would. The names of a number of peaks -- e.g. Machhapuchre, Hiunchuli, the Nilgiris -- don't evoke the Annapurna context. LADave (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

New image

The new image from Google Earth is somewhat dubious. First, it may not qualify as "fair use"; I'm not sure. Second, this is not an actual photo, rather it is a digitally generated view, and that may be misleading. It is an OK rendition of the South Face, but it is far from perfect. It should at the least be marked as not being an actual photo, and perhaps it should be removed. Comments? -- Spireguy 19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair use at all. --Makaristos 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically this image posting breaches Google's copyright and should perhaps be eeplaced with a kml link. But I can't imagine Google objecting. GE images can be esily obtained from the article via the coordinate links. Re the quality if the image, Google have high resolution imagery in the Annapurna area, but unfortunately it has not been accurately placed, there is a c.400m displacement with respect to the underlying DEM data. Also, the image claims to be from the base camp, but according to the text the image was taken from 5.7km, whereas the base camp has an altitude of about 4.0km. Viewfinder 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

map

This page should really show Annapurna on a map of either the region or country or whatever is appliciable; for a reference point of where it is.

"The 7000m Mark"

I'm apt to remove this sentence from the article:

Machapuchare (6993m) is another important peak of the Annapurna Himal, though it just misses the 7000m mark.

From what sincere source do we apply the 7000m mark as a point of greater signifigance for a mountain? Machapuchare is a sacred peak, much more so than Annapurna, and therefore, by its cultural integrity alone, is a more "important" peak. The author obviously has an affiliation with mountains according to their elevation; this, in my opinion, is a characteristic not becoming of a mountaineer. I suggest a rewrite:

Machapuchare (6993m) is a sacred peak in the region, so sacred in fact that it is forbidden to climb it. --Bentonia School 14:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. "(6993m)" already implies that is misses the 7000m mark. The proposed version is more informative. Viewfinder 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. Perhaps better would be:

Machapuchare, 6,993 metres (22,943 ft), is a visually striking, sacred peak of the Annapurna Himal, so sacred in fact that climbing it is forbidden.

However, I would suggest that a comment like "The author obviously has an affiliation with mountains according to their elevation; this, in my opinion, is a characteristic not becoming of a mountaineer" is (while pretty gentle) ad hominem and somewhat presumptuous. It might be better to stick to the substance of the edit and not speculate on motivations. One could just as easily assume that the intent was "Machapuchare is more important than one would expect, given its lower elevation than the surrounding peaks." Disclosure: I might have been the author in question; I really don't remember and I haven't checked. -- Spireguy 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above paragraph. Viewfinder 19:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

suitic briefing on Annapurna 1 expedition

I wanted to know the actual mounteneering history about the mt Annapurna 1 then I went for yahoo search meanwhile got annapurna encyclopedia Wikipedia. I got here good historical breifing on the annapurna 1 expediton thanking you Jaya N Bhandari tre leader Adventure thirdpole treks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.241.131 (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New picture from basecamp

Which face of Annapurna I is pictured in the recently added image? From which basecamp (or is it an Advanced Base Camp (ABC), as the image name suggests)? I can't easily match it to the pics in my sources, so clarification would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Spireguy (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know exactly, but the French route to the top is from the (north-)east side of the mountain. If the given information "sunrise" is true, it'll make sense. To get there you must find a valley (or maybe a col, because the valley is too steep and to narrow) that takes you from Kali Ghandaki right to the Grande Barrière. So you start at the north-west side of Annapurna 1 and walk basically along it's north face until you're east of the mountain. Then you might get to see it from that perspective.--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the picture is actually from Annapurna South taken from Annapurna Base Camp (ABC). I think this picture might clear things up. Notice that from that perspective South looks a lot taller than Annapurna I, which might cause somebody to confuse the two. 80.221.38.30 (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct! Thanks for looking into it. I've changed the caption and moved the pic to a more appropriate location. -- Spireguy (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I think it actually is Annapurna South not Annapurna I. It was taken from Annarpurna Base Camp (ABC) from the Annapurna Sanctuary. I ammended the caption since it is not Annapurna South Base Camp. For further clarification here is a link to a panorama I also took. Cheers, Arite (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Prominence

I found an inconsistency between the prominence value given on this page and that on List of highest mountains. The best reference I found was on peakbagger.com. I updated the value to 2984m as given there. If the value of 2894m can also be referenced (I haven't yet found a good source), please give the source and we can resolve or note the uncertainty. --David Edgar (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It was likely just a typo. I will add a confirming reference for 2984m. -- Spireguy (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Annapurna IV's Status

Annapurna IV's Status is not given ? I did not find it in the list of highest mountains also. Is it too un-prominent ? Khalil Sawant (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Parent peak

I have boldly changed the parent peak in this article from Everest to Cyo Oyu to match the info on List of highest mountains. I think the latter is correct, but not 100% sure and I couldn't find a confirmation. If Im wrong on this please make the needed corrections on both pages. Thanks. Racerx11 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how can Mount Annapurna's parent peak can be Cho Oyu? Mount Cho you lies in Everest region close to Everest, where as Mount Annapurna lies in Annapurna region hundreds of kilometre far from Everest region.

I believe Wikipedia needs to do some research before publishing... Ajit Maharjan 1 (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Cho Oyu is NOT a parent peak of Annapurna. Annapurna is the highest peak in the Annapurna Massif. It is on the other side of Nepal from Cho, which is in the Khumbu range (Everest). 2601:6C4:8180:51A0:D06F:1E59:A8C7:A47D (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the best I can find; states that Annapurna's line parent is Cho Oyu and its prominence parent is Everest. So... they're both right, in a way. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Annapurna 1 highest fatality rate

The claim that Kangchenjunga has surpased Annapurna 1 as the highest death toll seems untrue.

Even the source cited by Eberhard Jurgalski has it listed as 4th with Annapurna much higher than the others. Am I missing something, please double check cite and lets give these moutains the proper respect they have earned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.82.97 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Jurgalski list has it fourth. However, the claim in the article says The Annapurna peaks are the world's most dangerous mountains to climb although, from figures since 1990, Kangchenjunga surpasses Annapurna's death rate. Keywords here "since 1990". In fact, according to the article eight-thousander, Kanchenjunga has the highest fatality rate from 1990 to ?, though I do not know the source of this fact or data.--Racerx11 (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The wording in the article suggested an interpretation precisely as you apparently understood it. I have changed the wording to avoid this kind of confusion.--Racerx11 (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Mount Annapurna South Face" Picture Gallery

I'm troubled by two things about this gallery.

1) As per local custom, it is customary to NOT refer to a Himalayan peak as "Mount" Anything - so "Mount Annapurna" is not the correct name for the peak. The exception to this is "Mount" Everest, which has become the accepted appellation due to its western origin.

2) In addition, none of the photos in the gallery are of Annapurna I itself - they are all of the South Face of Annapurna South: a subsidiary peak south of Annapurna I (although Annapurna I can be seen in the left distance of the 2nd photo from the left in the gallery). This is misleading.

I propose removing "Mount" from the names, and labeling the gallery as views of Annapurna South.

While we're at it - could we get a picture of Annapurna I in the summary block at the beginning of the article? Also, a view of Annapurna's North Face (by which the peak was first climbed) would be a welcome and informative addition to the article.

I will do some research and see if I can locate the appropriate photos and secure permission to use them.

Big Lew 13:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Sheen (talk • contribs)

I've located an excellent source for some illustrative and informative photos - comments on my proposed changes welcome. I'll give this a couple of days, then if there are no objections I will go ahead and make the changes I've proposed above.

Big Lew 15:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Sheen (talk • contribs)

After carefully reading the article, I believe the brief description of the first successful (French - 1950) expedition could be cleaned up, too. I'd like to clean up the grammar to make it clearer, and add brief references to the difficulty that expedition had even finding the mountain and also mention the fact that the first ascent was from the north side.

Big Lew 16:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Sheen (talk • contribs)

Existing Text (15 July, 2014)

Annapurna I was the first 8,000-metre (26,200 ft) peak to be climbed.[7] Maurice Herzog and Louis Lachenal, of a French expedition led by Maurice Herzog (including Lionel Terray, Gaston Rébuffat, Marcel Ichac, Jean Couzy, Marcel Schatz, Jacques Oudot, Francis de Noyelle), reached the summit on 3 June 1950.

Proposed Changes to Existing Text (15 July, 2014)

Annapurna I was the first 8,000-metre (26,200 ft) peak to be climbed.[7] A French expedition led by Maurice Herzog (with members Louis Lachenal, Lionel Terray, Gaston Rébuffat, Marcel Ichac, Jean Couzy, Marcel Schatz, Jacques Oudot, and Francis de Noyelle) reconnoitered the area for 6 weeks, exploring various approaches to, and deciding against attempting, both Annapurna via its huge South Face and also the neighboring 8,000 meter peak of Dhaulagiri. The lengthy exploration was needed due to the inaccurate maps available to the expedition.

On 3 June 1950, Herzog and Louis Lachenal completed an epic ascent via the North Face of Annapurna. As well as being the first 8,000 meter peak to be successfully climbed, it is the only 8,000er to be successfully summited on the first attempt - a unique accomplishment in the history of Himalayan mountaineering.

Big Lew 16:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Sheen (talk • contribs)

October 2014 trekking disaster

I've started a section on the current disaster, using this BBC source. More will need to be added, and I'm sure there is a need for a spin-off article specifically about it. Haven't seen it created yet, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Misnamed article?

Is this article appropriately called "Annapurna I Main" or should it be called "Annapurna I" as per what seem to be most references? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Most call it Annapurna I only when East and Central aren't relevant to the topic, but when it's discussed in tandem with the other two peaks it's called Annapurna I Main. DN-boards1 (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Is this an official name? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I better move this to Annapurna I. DN-boards1 (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Annapurna edit wars?

I contributed to this page some years back, treating it as an article on the entire massif with sections for the individual peaks. Returning now, I find some of the massif material still here, with other material split off into articles on individual peaks. Now Annapurna per se has ambitions as an outline for the massif with links to individual peak articles, without much contextual information. Unfortunately it fails to mention that Gangapurna, the Nilgiris and Machapuchare all belong to the massif.

All in all, I find the change counter-productive. Wouldn't it be better to have one consolidated Annapurna article, as before? With the individual peaks addressed in sections of an inclusive article? Readers searching even for variantly-named peaks like Nilgiri could be linked to the appropriate sections. Finding them embedded in the enveloping massif article would encourage further reading to understand the massif context.

I'm also finding it odd to see so many references to an "edit war" in the history, without any discussion of this in the Talk section. Could some of the "warriors" please edify us? LADave (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello [[User:LADave|LADave] I couldn't agree more with you! I have been trying to fix the whole Annapurna thing here, let me explain what happen.

A user (DN-Board1) who was blocked forever soon after his actions, Moved and in the process destroyed the original (your) Annapurna Page.. He created pages Annapurna II-IV and made (as you mentioned) extremely small and incomplete articles about them. He Then Moved the entire Annapurna page to "Annapurna I Main" so we no longer had a main article at all!!! That is why there is now a article called "Annapurna Massif" I created this because i was unable to move Annapurna I Main back to Annapurna, as you mentioned we need an article on the Massif itself. So for the past few months I have been trying repeatedly to Re-Consolidate the articles back together the best I can with my noob experience.. However even though I continuously am doing things properly, I continuously get my edits reverted by some hotheads to with there head stuck so far up there that they don't take time to even read the edits.

I have decided to give up after threats of being banned so perhaps you can re-consolidate them. Thanks, Grand Hustle Ent (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That's irritating. Short term, a new Annapurna I/Annapurna I Main article would be useful. I really don't mean the Massif when linking here --Spacepine (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)