Talk:Ama Dablam

Mountains High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nepal High‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elevation

The Peakware site shows elevation at 6,856 metres as does one of my maps and Google search shows many sites as well using 6,856. Another map of mine shows the elevation at 6,812 metres as well as [1]. I also found a document from the Nepal government [2] that consistently used 6,812 m throughout. I therefore chose 6,812 metres as the official height of Ama Dablam. RedWolf 05:17, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

That's simply not good enough. Wikipedia's method of figuring altitudes for mountains is highly bias, using speculation of one source over another. There's obviously disagreement on the altitudes of most mounains, especially in the Himalaya, and if Wikipedia is to live up to its "quality standards" it should provide non-bias information of however many altitudes are suggested for a mountain. I'm editing this article to support such. --Bentonia School 06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was I being biased when I based the 6812 figure on two sources (map and Nepali govt)? In any case, I agree that the mountains in the Himalaya are especially prone to having incorrect elevations due to discrepencies in various sources. RedWolf 16:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish-American ascent

It is still not clear to me how this recent addition is a particularly notable ascent. Was it a new route? Was it noted as particularly important in a reliable source? -- Spireguy (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i summitted the mountain this year and got 6830 to 35 meters on the Suunto altimeter. It depends on the face, snowfall and place of summit that you get differing altitudes, i would go with both readings 6812 and 6856. 30 meters isnt even 1% variance in the height of the mountain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.102.63 (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Ascents

Should Asma Al Thani's 2021 ascent really qualify as a "notable ascent"? There is no indication of which route was used, and the sole point of "notability" appears to be the fact that she is the first Qatari woman to have summited (which then raises the questions of "why not indicate the first woman to summit? The first Nepali woman? The first Indian woman? Or for that matter, the first Qatari of any gender? etc). It seems like the kind of information that would be a valuable contribution to Asma Al Thani's page, rather than this one (and indeed, her Ama Dablam summit is mentioned twice in the same paragraph) Allthegoodghosts (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited my talk point above to correct the broken link Allthegoodghosts (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]