Talk:Nanga Parbat/Archive 1

Nanga Parbat not deadliest peak
Annapurna has a higher death/summit ratio.

If anyone is interested and thinks this is worthy of an update, there's a story over at the BBC about a climber who got stuck up there: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4137160.stm==Some changes/additions==

I changed a few things:

Spelling: Rakhiot, not Raikot.

I changed "vertical cliff" to "mountain face" since "vertical cliff" implies dead vertical, which this is not.

I corrected the statement about the vertical rise above the Indus: it's actually greater than was stated before, and it happens in 27km; but a few other peaks do actually rise 7000m in slightly less distance (e.g. Manaslu, Annapurna I).

I also added a couple of links; in particular, summitpost.org is usually much, much better than Peakware.

I may come back and flesh out the history at some point.

--Spireguy 03:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added that "among the eight-thousanders, it is the largest single mountain. It is so large a mountain that let's say you cannot see k-2 peak from the top of nanga perbat but nanga perbat will be in prominent view from the top of k-2. Similarly nanga perbat also can be viewed from very far off places. It is due to its very LARGE size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khuramonline (talk • contribs) 07:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Added more climbing history
I just hit the highlights; I may come back and add one or two more entries.

Also, I changed the comment about deadliness to reflect the fact that in recent years NP has not been as deadly as other 8000ers (e.g. Annapurna, as the comment above noted).

I am also suspicious about the Sherpa/"Maneater" line---I have not seen this documented, and the Sherpas don't live anywhere near. So I hedged it a bit but did not remove it. --Spireguy 19:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Seven Years in Tibet
I'm not sure that Nanga Parbat really does appear in the movie. The IMDB does not list Pakistan as a filming location (although that could be their omission). I haven't seen the movie so I can't say for sure. -- Spireguy 19:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairy Meadow
I am proposing that Fairy Meadow Nanga Parbat be merged into this article; it's good info but I don't think it needs to stand alone. It would make a good section here. -- Spireguy 14:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that both pages be merged. Siddiqui 15:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont agree with this suggestion, as many of the tourists have attraction for fairy meadows itself apart from nanga parbat, like those who don't want to climb the nanga parbat but wish to know and visit fairy meadows. and more info can be added to this article, as i will do in near future as i recently visited the place and have some updated info. (Mgu1981 (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

Rakhiot or Raikot
I am puzzled too that why a neighbouring peak of Nanga Parbat in an article is named as Rakhiot. I am not sure 100% but upto 80% that the exact word is Raikot. Raikot Bridge is just few kilometer away from this place on the Indus River where karakoram Highway changed its direction along the river.

Rai + kot are common words in the whole sub continent. Rai is an indo european word and even can be found in european languages.

Rai = king, kot = fortress. There are many towns in India Pakistan where this word is used for example Sialkot etc.

Rai becomes Real in Spanish and Royal and Regal in English.

Thanks for you invitation to wikimountain group. I am new at wikipedia. I am seeing the environment. Will participate.


 * Thanks for participating! "Rakhiot" is the spelling used in most European and American climbing literature, and it appears on the German topographic map from the 30's: Rakhiot Peak, Rakhiot flank of the mountain, Rakhiot bridge. If you have a source for the spelling "Raikot", feel free to make the change and cite the source. However if you are just 80% sure, or even if you are more sure but have no source, don't make the change. The key is that content is supposed to be verifiable, i.e. you can cite an authoritative source for it. -- Spireguy 17:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please just write Raikot Peak in google search and you will easily find abundant sources about Raikot Peak. Those early Germans must have misunderstood the word.


 * You are probably correct, but note that Google Searches for "Raikot Nanga Parbat" and "Rakhiot Nanga Parbat" turn up just about the same number of hits. So that's not conclusive. On a cursory look, I didn't see anything that looked like it would lead to an authoritative source--a source that relies on documented, reliable research--but maybe I didn't look hard enough.
 * It may well be that most of the "Rakhiot" hits derive ultimately from the German sources. But it may possibly be the case that the original word was Rakhiot (perhaps in an obscure local dialect?) and later got misinterpreted as Raikot. I'm not trying to be negative, but just pointing out that it is hard to be sure unless you can point to an authoritative source. The page WP:Verifiable is a useful guide here. -- Spireguy 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly 1998 when I went to Nangaparbat base camp. There I met a German scientist Mr Oswald who was a senior scientist at CERN laboratories Switzerland. And my God he also had 1930's map of Nanga Parbat.


 * Yes, this might still be the best topographic map of the mountain; I know of no better one. Many mountain areas are still poorly surveyed. However, recent advances might supersede it if that hasn't happened already. -- Spireguy 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan/India issue
I reverted the change in the location section back to Pakistan, but I put yet another footnote in that section (which should have been there already, sorry). I realize that this is a touchy issue, but the de facto jurisdiction of the peak belongs to Pakistan, so it makes more sense to say it is in Pakistan in the main body of the article, but also carefully footnote the Indian claim. Anyone concerned about this may want to look at the K2 page and Talk:K2, as this was discussed there and it seemed to come to a consensus. -- Spireguy 03:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that an editor has removed some of the instances of the footnote about the disputed status, characterizing them as redundant and POV. I'm not going to revert the change, since I think that it may well be appropriate only to mention the issue once. But the original reason for having multiple instances was that this is a touchy issue, as I mentioned above, and hence I figured that footnoting any place mentioning the location was the safest strategy. I realize that can come across as POV-pushing for the Indian claim, but it was not intended that way. Other editors can comment if they like about which strategy is preferred. -- Spireguy 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I must apologize for editing before discussion. I agree with footnoting the issue. But repeating the same footnote each time doesn't seem appropriate. As on History of Pakistan discussion, I would suggest using the expression once in the article at a suitable place.-- Isles CapeTalk 00:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation Error?
"Buhl continued alone, after his companions had turned back, and spent a night standing up on the descent"

I think that in German to stand up is to wake up, and this sentence doesn't really make sense in it's current form. Can anybody who actually speaks german verify that this is a translation error? -- nuffin (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a translation error. This is in an English-language source. The point is that he had to bivouac on the descent, but he had so little clothing or equipment for such a bivy that he had to stay standing up to keep warm. Should we make that clearer? -- Spireguy (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He was indeed standing upright, and his own account in Nanga Parbat Pilgrimage bears out that he was on a small ledge with barely room for his feet. I don't think it was the temperature that kept him upright - he mentions trying to reach a larger ledge where he's hae had room to sit or lie down, but darkness overtook him too quickly. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

31 deaths pre-1953?
I wonder if I'm missing something? Mummery and two companions died in 1896, ten people in 1934 and 16 in 1937. That makes 29. The accounts of the 1932, 1938 and 1939 expeditions that I've read don't mention any deaths (apart from Rand Herron, who died falling off the Great Pyramid of Giza on the way back from the 1932 expedition, which I don't think counts), so what are the other two? The number 31 does seem to be fairly widely quoted, including by John Hunt in his introduction to the account of the 1953 expedition, so it's not just something which a newspaper has copied from Wikipedia, but I'm wondering whether I've missed something, or whether it's one of these mistakes which has been repeated so often it's become the truth? Can anyone help? Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind - worked it out. A couple of British climbers disappeared low on the mountain in 1950 while studying glaciers. As they weren't actually attempting to climb it I'll adjust the wording of the article to avoid any confusion. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

External Link
I posted an external link http://www.ali.net.pk it got deleted!! there is nothing wrong on that page why it got deleted?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaar19 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read our guidelines on external links. That webpage seems to exist mainly to promote a business - "At Fairy Meadows best option for stay is Raikot Serai run by Rehmat Nabi, log cabins are available having the fascinating views of Nanga Parbat..." and so on. As such, it's unsuitable under point 5. Additionally, it's not at all obvious that the page meets the definition of a reliable source; it looks like a self-published website, and while there's nothing inherently bad about self published websites, Wikipedia practice is generally not to link to them, because they don't add anything to the article, and an encyclopaedia is not the same thing as a web directory. As the guideline notes, in general external links in an article should be kept to a minimum, and used only if they provide important information which could not reasonably be included in the article itself. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This was also discussed at the Help Desk: . --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  01:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from 84.186.156.6, 31 March 2010
Would you please be so kind to remove Salewa in the part shown below, the movie was made by director Joseph Vilsmaier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Vilsmaier) and is - by the way - only based on the books of Reinhold Messner

Movies
Nanga Parbat (2010) A movie by Salewa about the tragic expedition by the two Messner brothers in 1970, on which Reinhold Messner's younger brother Günther died.

84.186.156.6 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks. I also removed the imdb.com reference, since it is known to be unreliable. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 95.244.205.31, 20 June 2010
In Sanskrit "mountain" is "parvata (पर्वत)", not "parvat"

95.244.205.31 (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Done. Qwrk (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jozef, 12 August 2010
Would you be so kind add the successful Slovak expedition of 1971 to the list of ascents? Two climbers, Michal Orolin and Ivan Fiala, reached the summit.

Done Done. Qwrk (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Typo right above "References in popular culture"
Nanga is spelled Naga and I cannot edit the page because of protection.

Also, the sentence "Nanga Parbat has never been climbed in winter" isn't very accurate. There has been at least one attempt to climb the mountain by Polish climbers during the 06/07-winter, which was thwarted by bad weather at about 6800m. But there has (to my knowledge) never been a successful winter ascent of Nanga Parbat. NiclasCage (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by myself.NiclasCage (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the context of mountaineering, it is generally understood that the word "climbed" refers to a successful ascent of the summit. Whereas an unsuccessful ascent would be called an "attempt". In my opinion the context was clear in this case and therefore the statement "Nanga Parbat has never been climbed in winter" was accurate. However, that being said, since you yourself interpreted a different meaning from the phrase, it is possible that other users are also misinterpreting the phrase. I would say your current revision of the phrase, "There has not been any successful winter ascents of Nanga Parbat as of March 17, 2011" is better in the sense it would be less likely misread. The "as of" date at the end is not necessary however. I will fix this now. Racerx11 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I have changed my mind on this. I am changing it back to "has never been climbed". The use of the terms "climbed" and "attempted" are one of the few consistencies used across the board on mountaineering subjects here. I am not going encourage such a change of use in this article, not to mention all other related articles. Racerx11 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Over emphasis on climbing
There isn't anything wrong with inclusion of climbing related information in this article, but it appears heavily oriented towards climbing at the expense of useful geomorphic, geological or cultural knowledge about the mountain.

Where, for example, is the section dealing with the fact that this is reputed to be one of the fastest growing mountains on earth? The article needs a fair bit of work in my opinion. Peter b (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Update. There is information on the last point I mentioned above (regarding active orogeny) in the article on Geology of the Himalaya. Peter b (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to add other encyclopedic information. The current article shows the interest climbers have in the mountain, and that climbing information lends itself well to encyclopedic treatment. Ratagonia (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

1953 Movie
A documentary was made by the 1953 expedition. Here's the IMDB link: Nanga Parbat (1953). I'm not fluent with English to make the edition of the article myself. --Santisis (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File:ApproachingNangaParbat.JPG to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:ApproachingNangaParbat.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on February 1, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-02-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Protest these page protections
Don't let them protect this page! Protecting these pages, like Darkness Shines wants to do, is a tactic that is being used widely over many of the Bangladeshi-Pakistani-Indian pages so that the editors who do this can game the content for their own POV biases. What they do is to semi-protect a page, finding whatever excuse they can dig up. Then they go after editors who do not agree with them. It's much easier for them to game the system once they've protected a page. Sanction lists have been abused -- that's an established fact! Other are being accused of being sock puppets in order to get their accounts blocked so that minor content disputes from those editors will disappear. Editors are being ganged up and then goaded into making more than 1 revert so that they will be blocked, especially inexperienced editors. BLP is being abused to no end in order to game content. This has got to stop! We need to protest this tactic. Wikipedia policy is being abused in order for some editors to turn pages into their POV fiefdoms Crtew (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

See the current discussion at Requests for page protection.Crtew (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Gilgit Baltistan is a disputed territory and it's not subject to POV
Gilgit Baltistan is a disputed territory and it's not subject to POV. There is no question of POV here. Mar4d get your facts straight. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's disputed in the context of the Kashmir conflict, and in that case Jammu and Kashmir is also regarded as an internationally disputed territory pending a UN plebiscite; however: that Gilgit-Baltistan is a federal autonomous territory under Pakistani administration is a fact. Your edit calling it 'disputed' is WP:POV and is irrelevant to this page which is not on the Kashmir conflict. It would be akin to mentioning on all Jammu and Kashmir-related pages that "Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory administered by India."  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care about Jammu and Kashmir. If you think "Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory administered by India" needs mention somewhere you may do it, but don't edit war. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do care, plastering sentences on all Kashmir related articles that so-and-so territory is "disputed" is not only irrelevant but also enforcing a WP:POV. We have the Kashmir conflict article to deal with that issue, mentioning territorial status of Kashmir on non-related articles is irrelevant.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then don't mention "a region of Pakistan" it gives a false impression. Just say it is "a part of Gilgit-Baltistan". Would it be acceptable to you? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ]
 * There is no false impression; Gilgit-Baltistan is a region of Pakistan. It is a federally autonomous region and the government of Pakistan exercises de facto jurisdiction over Gilgit-Baltistan. The neutral international community i.e. the United Nations recognises it as Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Which part of this are you finding hard to understand? And for the last time, the Kashmir conflict is irrelevant here.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then take it to a noticeboard, if you wish. But I am not going to accept that. How can you even say that it is a part of Pakistan esp. after World Bank refused to fund Diamir Dam-because of its status?? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be same as saying the whole Kashmir is a part of India simply because India controls a part of it. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no mood to argue over trivial matters with you. Gilgit-Baltistan is de facto territory of Pakistan, period. Your arguments on the territory being disputed are related to the Kashmir conflict and that issue has no place here. You may take the issue to a noticeboard. I am going to restore the original status quo of the article, as it previously was. All article on Wikipedia mention Gilgit-Baltistan as a region of Pakistan, and the standards on this article should be no different.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"All article on Wikipedia mention Gilgit-Baltistan as a region of Pakistan" - except for the main article itself and for Azad Kashmir and for Jammu and Kashmir and whatnot. "Pakistan-administered", or "Pakistani-controlled", is an entirely different phrase. I don't mind using it. None of them say Baltistan is "a region of Pakistan". Mar4d, I have given you sources and I am factually correct, it's not question of personal feelings, it's about factual correctness. "Region of Pakistan" is for obvious reasons, misleading. Don't press me. If you restore it you will be reverted. I have not made any abusive edit, Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your sources are irrelevant and I will maintain as before that only the factually correct version of the article will stay, as it has since the beginning. I repeat: the territorial status of Gilgit-Baltistan in regard to the Kashmir conflict has no bearing on the presently accepted status quo which is that Gilgit Baltistan is de facto territory of Pakistan, the government of Pakistan maintains de facto jurisdiction over Gilgit-Baltistan as a region of the country and the region is an autonomous territory that is politically a constituent/entity of the federation of Pakistan . With regards to the subject of the article, which should be the point of discussion and not the Kashmir dispute, here is what a mix of academic sources on K2 mention with regard to its location (and the same applies to Nanga Parbat and vice versa):

Not mentioning Gilgit-Baltistan as a region of Pakistan is both misleading and in contradiction to the majority of sources written on the subject which show the mountain in Pakistan. Wikipedia will follow what the sources say, your personal opinion/POV-push on the matter has no standing whatsoever.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We have to be careful. Some of the books you mentioned are for kids. A fact is fact, it doesn't change with context. Besides, We are talking in context of territorial claim and control. Don't obfuscate it. We need more tertiary sources:


 * The third source doesn't mention Gilgit baltistan as a region of Pakistan, doesn't mention it at all.


 * This 4th one also doesn't frame it as an inherent part of Pakistan.


 * Again doesn't say it is a part of Pakistan. Doesn't mention Baltistan.


 * The number sources you have quoted was uncalled-for. It's not a question of reliability of information . And nobody is saying that Pakistan doesn't control the area. But to imply that it belongs to Pakistan would be undue misinformation. Don't edit war. This issue is serious and beyond question. We have to be neutral and objectively correct about it. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So, let's desist from hurling sources. It is not helping, at the end of the day we need to be judicious and neutral about it. What is your reason for rejecting my proposal to place "a Pakistani-controlled region" instead of "region of Pakistan", for clarity's sake? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I just reverted an IP sock of Nangparbat and have requested semi protection, Re the content dispute I have to agree with Mar4d,the dispute in the area really has little bearing on this mountain. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, you would agree with Mar4d now. The dispute in the area really does have a bearing on the location of the mountain. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with the banned ip this is mountain for crying out loud not a political bashing box for nationalists Mr T with respect your logic is terribly flawed I have removed your edit since itbis purely tenditious and does no good to betyering the article nationalists must detest from this sort of editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.238.135 (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with nationalism. Don't call me a nationalist, you don't even know my nationality. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise
If you will all agree, I want make very clear what I am proposing throughout. Let's leave the "disputed" part out since dispute isn't really due, and say Gilgit-Baltistan a "Pakistani-administered" or "Pakistan-controlled" region or region under "Pakistani control" or similar phrase because like I have been saying all along, "a region of Pakistan" it gives a false impression and is based on Pakistani-POV.If reliable tertiary sources like Britannica and others have deemed it necessary to exclude phrases which frame it as a region inherently belonging to Pakistan, so should we. Good part is our policies dictate us to do so. Agreeable? If not, why? Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Searching up sources using the phrasing 'Pakistan-administered Kashmir' doesn't really prove much. And it does not undermine in any way that the majority of sources on K2 mention Pakistan. Pakistan-administered Kashmir is just an alternative term used for Gilgit-Baltistan; it has no bearing on the fact that Gilgit-Baltistan is, in de facto terms, a political entity that is one of the several administrative units constituting Pakistan. Pakistan is a federation, and Gilgit-Baltistan is one of the non-provincial components of the federation. You are failing to understand this. The only place that the Kashmir dispute has bearing on is the main article of the topic itself and the main region articles like Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Apart from these articles, it is irrelevant on all other articles and has no bearing whatsoever. There are hundreds of thousands of Kashmir geography/politics articles, and they all treat Jammu and Kashmir as de facto region of India and Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan as de facto regions of Pakistan, and this is exactly what will remain in these articles. It has been like this since the start and you're personal opinion can't change the reality.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I am NOT asking to include 'Pakistan-administered Kashmir' in the articles. I am saying Gilgit-Baltistan should be referred to as "a region under Pakistani Control" or something in that vein. The sentence would be then: "Located in the Gilgit-Baltistan, a region controlled by Pakistan, Nanga Parbat is one..."and"K2 (also known as Chhogori/Qogir, Ketu/Kechu, and Mount Godwin-Austen) is the second-highest mountain on Earth, after Mount Everest. It is located on the border[2] between Baltistan, in the Gilgit–Baltistan region under Pakistani-control, and the Taxkorgan Tajik Autonomous County of Xinjiang, China."
 * Is it clear and agreeable now? If not, why? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Read my comment above before repeating the same thing again and again, FFS.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You do it first and I don't appreciate why you have to be so disrespectful towards me about it. Why use slang like FFS in a serious discussion like this??? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not my headache when you clearly choose to ignore what is constantly being reiterated to you while continuing to repeat your same argument that has been debunked over and over again. You're not debating, but rather flogging a dead horse.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What debunking? What debate are you referring to? What world are you living in? I asked a very simple question to you and don't presume that I haven't read your posts here. I am not repeating anything don't behave as if you are not listening. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Read this for the last time: The government of Pakistan maintains de facto jurisdiction over Gilgit-Baltistan as a region of the country. Gilgit-Baltistan is an autonomous territory that is politically a constituent/entity of the federation of Pakistan. This article is on a mountain in Gilgit-Baltistan, and anything that is part of Gilgit-Baltistan is de facto part of Pakistan. End of story. The article will be restored to how it has been for years. If you want to discuss your POV, use a noticeboard.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 05:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are repeating the same line which I don't remember actually contesting. Let me try a different logic: "Pakistan maintains de facto jurisdiction over Gilgit-Baltistan." —— true, but not the whole truth...the complementary truth is "it is a disputed territory and a part of Pakistani-administered Kashmir". Only mentioning one side of the argument and neglecting the other will be tantamount to partiality. Hence I believe "Gilgit-Baltistan, a region of Kashmir under Pakistani control" or "Pakistan-administered region of kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan" won't be unfair, do you? De facto jurisdiction is not good enough to frame the region as inherently belonging to Pakistan. It has always been a disputed territory (as a part of Kashmir). I didn't ask you mention the word "disputed". I simply wanted to change the language to prevent giving away false impression. You don't seem to agree with that simply because you believe Gilgit-Baltistan is a part of Pakistan since Pakistan controls it. You and I are nobody to decide who belongs to what. Dispute is there and yet to be settled, our job is to include in the article as neutrally as possible. I will not be commenting here again I have said what I could and you just don't want to agree. If you restore the article, I will revert it. Then perhaps you can go to the noticeboards. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing is simply not possible, but let's consider if it were to be imposed: what, then, should be done on the hundreds of articles which incorrectly depict Jammu and Kashmir as a state of India when it similarly disputed? We should be impartial, and there is absolutely no reason why the K2 and Nanga Parbat articles should have to adopt a different stance while other articles treat the respective Kahsmir regions of both countries as de facto parts of their territory. I will be lenient and give you one proposal, and that is the possibility of inserting a footnote into the article which explains that Gilgit-Baltistan falls in the part of Kashmir administered by Pakistan and link to the Kashmir conflict. That is as neutral as it can get. Saying 'Pakistan-controlled' in the article lead is POV and inaccurate, as GB is still an administrative unit of Pakistan. And we have all the sources agreeing that K2 is in Pakistan, there's no dispute over this.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me be the 1st person to say it here, Jammu and Kashmir is not a state of India until the dispute is formally settled, till then it's only under Indian control, that's all. Yes, I 100% agree with you it's disputed and should be treated as such. It is better than misinformation. But I fail to see how this non sequitur logical fallacy is valid or related here? Also see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Taliban attack statistics
The early various news reports are differing on the number and nationalities of those involved. This will likely stabilize as time goes by. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Raheel put up a list with names on his blog here; http://altitudepakistan.blogspot.com.au/ Qwrk (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Rupal Face is not the tallest mountain face
While Rupal Face is enormous (4500-4600 meters of vertical relief within 5 km of horizonal distance), it's not absolutely tallest in the world. There's a less known southwestern flank of Annapurna topping on a non-prominent peak of Baraha Shikhar (vel Annapurna Fang vel Bharha Chuli) at 7647 m. From its base (a very deep valley of some Kali Gandaki's tributary) it rises about 4800 meters within 5 km of horizontal distance including a huge 45 degree (average) slope with 4700 m of vertical relief. It can be verified by Google Earth (screen here) or good maps. here is a plane photo with the face exposed below Annapurna I. Unfortunately there are very little photos in the internet as the valley below Annapurna Fang is not the path of trekking routes. In addition there is the big west face of Dhaulagiri (8167 m) which is similar to Rupal Face (also about 4500-4600 meters of elevation gain within 5 horizontal km) where climbers start from Italian Base Camp (3600 m). These three faces are the biggest in the world. I think this information should be included in this article as well as Annapurna and Dhaulagiri articles. Places with even bigger vertical relief (like 6000 m of Rakaposhi-Hunza) obviously cannot be considered mountain faces as horizontal distance component dominates over vertical distance component.1123581321 (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary wording in image caption
Please discuss your edits here. You are a senior enough editor to know that what are you doing can be termed edit warring. It has been reverted by 2 editors. Get consensus here or explain how does that wording help the image. You were the other editor so I am mentioning you as well. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s obvious why that piece of info is relevant to the image of the pictured mountain. Is associated with an important fact regarding its place in a famous mountain range. Why is this being removed? Initially it was determined to be “puffery” which suggests an unfounded or exaggerated notion. This was reiterated by the other user. But that’s not the case because it is a sourced claim now. So now the issue is what? The claims that this was puffery were already disproved. I’m not sure this level of extreme nitpickiness is warranted, frankly.Willard84 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And not to mention that facts in picture captions is exceedingly common in encyclopedias. Encyclopedia Brittanica article for example. What exactly is your reason for removal? Because it’s been demonstrated as fact and is has been demonstrated as usual encyclopedia practice.Willard84 (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording was always present in the content section (but was not referenced) then you added to the image caption by you. It was removed by me because it is not relevant in the image caption. Please explain me to how the statement that it is western anchor of the Himalayas relevant in the image caption? I would say you are depicting WP:OWN behavior. If it is a minor detail which is nitpicky then you should let it go since the current image caption is explanatory enough. How is the word western anchor relevant in that particular image is my very specific question To elaborate more how does it help when it is already present in the content. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You’ve now changed your position. Please take note where you actually removed it on the basis of it being “puffery.” This was the same reason used by the other editor. You now changed your reasoning to something completely different. The reason why I included the source afterwards is because of your initial claim that this was puffery. I did it to demonstrate to you that this was not a false or exaggerated claim.

As demonstrated in that other Encyclopaedia Britannica our article, facts about the image subject can be included in captions, which are then repeated in the article. Bland descriptors are not the only permitted information. Can you point a WP style guide disproving this? Perhaps I’m wrong, so I’d like to know if this is based on style guides or your own preferences. This being the western most point of the Himalayas is actually a pretty interesting point in my opinion. This is the very western most point of perhaps the worlds most famous mountain chain. That’s a pretty interesting fact. How does removing that improve the article? There is no space constraint. Willard84 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that the content is already added in the lede. How is this helpful in better describing the image? (you still haven't answered this question just throwing around that it is an interesting fact. There are many other interesting facts so why this?) And you ask about policy/guideline. Please read the WP:CAPTION and the paragraph about Succinctness. It says to avoid needless words which these are since they are not adding to any more information about the image. By puffery I meant this very thing about being succinct. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Your use of the word “puffery” was incorrect, but this is still the same argument used by the other editor. But that’s why I included the source as you pointed out above.


 * And actually, the article you cite says this “Most captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious.” Such as it being the westernmost anchor of the Himalayas, since that fact isn’t immediately obvious from the image. This is probably the same reason why the Encyclopaedia Britannica article had information about the Tower of London and a image caption on the page about that site.


 * And you misread what it said about being succinct. It said in the lead to be succinct and informative because readers Often don’t make it past the first few sentences of an article and captions. This is why academic books often have descriptive captions with information also in the text. This is very common practice.


 * What I provided is a sourced claim directly relevant to the mountain about one of the few unique facts about this mountain. And the way I wrote it is very succinct. Succinct is about using the fewest words needed to convey a message-it’s not to be confused with brevity. Succinct doesn’t just mean short, it means being as short an concise as possible when conveying whatever it is you want to convey. What youre advocating is a shorter sentence by chopping out a fact. That isn’t what succinct means. So what I wrote was both informative, and succinct because I didnt use excessive wording by saying something like “Farthest West mountain peak in the great Himalaya mountain range in Asia.” So what I’ve written appears to be completely congruent with standards and guidelines, so lets reinstate what was written because it meets the standards you pointed out, and we can cordially move forward with no sour feelings.

Willard84 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the dictionary meaning of succinct but thank you for writing it here again. You still haven't answered my question. How does this wording help in understanding the image better? And this thing you keep harping about facts. Why this fact then? The very fact that is mentioned in the lede of the article is enough. I will provide you some examples of the existing articles on mountains to further convey the meaning of succinct and being directly relevant to the image. Mount Everest, Mount Fuji, Mount Kilimanjaro, Mount Kailash, Mount Baker, Mount Tamalpais, Mount Garibaldi. I can provide many more articles which are in the same area and depict succinct relevant captions. And you are very much depicting WP:OWN behavior now by claiming sour feelings. Please let's be objective about this and don't let our feelings (passion about the topic if you may) get in the way. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You’re not using the word succinct properly, you are confusing it for brevity. You’re talking about cutting out information. And none of this was puffery either as you and the other editor claimed. If you actually look under guidelines for writing good captions, one of them is that it draws you into the article. Did you look at the example they provided?


 * ”The caption should lead the reader into the article. For example, in History of the Peerage, a caption for Image:William I of England.jpg might say "William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, bringing a new style of government." Then the reader gets curious about that new form of government and reads text to learn what it is”

And this:


 * ”While a short caption is often appropriate, if it might be seen as trivial ("People playing Monopoly"), consider extending it so that it adds value to the image and is related more logically to the surrounding text ("A product of the Great Depression, Monopoly continues to be played today.").”

These almost exactly analogous to the kind of caption I wrote. There is nothing that says the caption has to directly reference only the image, as your demands imply. In fact, the second example clearly contradicts your position. Nothing in the style guide you posted contradicts what I wrote. A caption can in fact include interesting facts about the subject of the image, and can eve add infinite directly evidenced by the image - as the example above very clearly demonstrates.

These sorts of captions are a very common practice amongst academic and historical books. I find it very surprising that you find the sort of caption I wrote to be unusual. And pointing to other examples doesn’t really prove your point - because what Ive written is found in the style guide. Please demonstrate by using that style guide why I’m wrong. I’m not making the claim that those shorter captions aren’t valid. It’s you who is saying that mine is invalid, and you haven’t demonstrated this. Willard84 (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have explained to you what I meant with my usage and cannot speak for another user (not sure what the other user was going for who has not shown up at the discussion after that). By pointing to other articles I am trying to explain to you what the convention here is. The fact you add, might be interesting to you but you have no basis to say that fact will draw the reader in. If this is the case why chose that fact itself. Why not chose something like it is ninth highest mountain or the fact that it is nicknamed Killer Mountain which are equally interesting facts. Thus, for the sake of succinctness and keeping it relevant the text we have is fine. This also follows the convention on similar articles. The arugment about "drawing the reader in" seems to me very random and no real validation that this interesting fact itself should be chosen. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actially those other alternate facts are fine as well! I was never making the point that what I wrote is only the best option, my whole point is that an additional facts can be put into the caption which are interesting. It being the ninth tallest mountain is fine, so is it’s monicker killer mountain. Those are perfectly acceptable alternatives.  And again, even if those other articles use a certain style, that doesn’t mean the style on this page is incorrect, because the caption guide that you yourself cited permits more developed captions. Anyway, the “Killer Mountain” title you mentioned seems more interesting than 9th tallest mountain, agree? Willard84 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Killer Mountain might be more appropriate but please keep the text concise. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do. Glad we could work this out amicably. Willard84 (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Name
This mountain has a stress on first syllable “Naa-ngaa” (نانگا) Bare/naked in Urdu/Hindi is pronounced “Nangaa” ننگا with no stress on first syllable. The stressed name is corroborated by:

-BBC Urdu page with recent story of rescue on mountain here shows Naanga, so does [www.dw.com/ur/پاکستان-کا-قاتل-پہاڑ-ايک-اور-جان-لے-گيا/a-42339308 Deutsche Welle from Germany] -also on Voice of America -Pakistani newspaper Jang also shows stressed name -also on Nawa I Waqt, Express News, also on Geo TV

A google book search yields A Pakistani journal and this book with the نانگا پربت spelling, but no publications in Urdu with the ننگا پربت spelling.

There are some search results that display the unstressed ننگا that link to Twitter/Facebook, and an article on “Such Tv” but a quick google search shows these are much less common, and are likely spelling errors.Willard84 (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation is based on the urdu wording. There are many references which term in Nanga Parbat and even call in Naked Mountain. Here are some . So do we need more references? Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it’s based on the Urdu spelling - the country in which it is located uses Urdu as its official language. Why would the translation of the Urdu name *not* be based on its Urdu spelling? That would make no sense. Foreigners’ (mis)translations based on incorrect transliteration don’t trump the proper and official spelling in the local language (the journal I posted above was published by a Pakistani government ministry, and reflects the official spelling). Several sources show the naangaa spelling is officially used as listed above - so why would a translation of the wrong name trump the official name? But the confusion is easy since the words sound similar.I’ve included other sources in my original reply above after your comment by accident. Willard84 (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, your second source 2 just says Nanga Parbat - I don’t see anything about a translation as Bare/Naked Mountain. A term-search within the book for the terms “bare” or “naked” doesn’t yield the translation as claimed.
 * The first source you gave is also just a memoir, so I’m not sure if that deserves much credence since its neither an academic source, or a primary/secondary source like a major news outlet or the Pakistani journal I listed above which was published by a Pakistani government ministry. And why should that memoir be given more credence than this memoir by a popular Urdu writer who uses the correct spelling naangaa. Perhaps an etymology section explaining these issues would be useful.Willard84 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Break

 * I did a bit more digging and here is the issue with your line of thought. First you insist that your version is correct based on the urdu spelling but none of these sources speak about meaning of that name. They just use the urdu spelling of it. There is no mention of the naanga spelling since they are in urdu. The rest is pure WP:OR on your part. I have sources in English which spell it as Nanga Parbhat. Moreover, I have sources which state that this was from Sanskrit Nagna Parvata . This the reason why your edit later about Urdu was also wrong. It should mention Sanskrit. Now unless you have a source which explicitly states what you are stating about the origins of the name and not based on the spelling then we discuss more. Until then the new sources should suffice. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue isn’t my line of thought as none of your sources until the Brittanica one mentioned etymology in depth, but that source shows that the Urdu name is derived from a Sanskrit term, which is no surprise since Urdu is derived from that language. The other sources you gave aren’t necessarily independent academic sources, since they may just be referencing the Brittanica source. I think an etymology section would be useful to explain the discrepancies between the nangaa vs naanga issye. It’s nit as if the Urdu name can simply be ignored.Willard84 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well if you can find the sources which explains what you claim that it can be added. Currently as it stands your explanation is WP:OR since it is based on the spelling of the Pakistan government not any scholarly source. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the content back to lead that was moved without explanation. Unless there is more important material to be included in lead and section of etymology can be actually expanded, there is no reason that a separate section should be created. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Raymond, just to catch you up, if you res above you’ll see the etymology section was mentioned twice without any disputed. Etymology sections are exceedingly common on pages of every subject. This is just disruptive behavior. Show a style guide that justifies your removal of an etymology section for information discussing etymology.Willard84 (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018
Nanga Parbat (Urdu: نانگا پربت‬ [naːŋɡaː pərbət̪]), locally known as Diamer (دیامر‬), is the ninth highest mountain in the world at 8,126 metres (26,660 ft) above sea level. Located in the Diamer District of {change (Pakistan’s Gilgit Baltistan region) to Pakistan occupied Gilgit Baltistan region of Kashmir,administered by Pakistan Government}, Nanga Parbat is the western anchor of the Himalayas.[2] The name Nanga Parbat is derived from the Sanskrit words nagna and parvata which together mean "Naked Mountain".[3][4][5] The mountain is locally known by its Tibetan name Diamer or Deo Mir, meaning "huge mountain".[6 2409:4043:98C:2DDC:1498:4AD:ECA9:D16B (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌. It is not clear what change you want made. Please state it in the form "Change X to Y". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect location
Please fix it Pranav88in (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Done.

Name and location error
The name is derived from Sanskrit words नंगा means naked and पर्बत means mountain. So why do admins delete the Sanskrit name and post the Urdu name, I'm saying that post both names as it is derived from sankrit name नंगा पर्बत (Nanga Parbat) and native is Urdu name Diamer (دیامر) And the area is disputed so mention it like it is located in Pakistan occupied Kashmir because it is illegally occupied not by legal methods which we have proof. And when you have no justification then you have protected the page, means whatever you say is correct and rest is disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.57.202.46 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I cannot speak to the naming question, except to ask for the sources for your assertion. As for the disputed status: the article Gilgit-Baltistan has extensive discussion about the status of that region, including a background of the different ways of referring to it. Briefly, "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" is used only by Indian sources, while the United Nations uses the term "Pakistan administered Kashmir". Wikipedia uses the terminology found in authoritative and neutral sources. All this is discussed with plenty of reliable independent sources in Gilgit-Baltistan, and it doesn't need to be repeated in every article about places or geographical features within that region. This article was protected because of the many IP users changing wording decided by consensus into wording that does not conform to the neutral point of view policy, or to the policy of verifiability and reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@bonadea, with regards to the naming question: here's the source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Nanga-Parbat. Being a Sanskrit scholar, I can also affirm that the name is derived from Jamailfaroukh (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Peotection for article
Looking at the sheer amount of ultra nationalist indians starting edit wars on articles like these through words like "Pakistani Occupied Kashmir" and other pro indian propaganda. I suggest it would be better to add protection to every prominent mountains in Gilgit Baltistan and Azad kashmir regions of Pakistan Administered Kashmir. 203.175.72.22 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

=

Nanga parbat
nanga 182.191.27.10 (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023
In the opening section, second paragraph change "notorious to be an extremely difficult climb" to "notorious for being an extremely difficult climb" Cq14 (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)