Talk:Puncak Jaya

title should be "Puncak Jaya"
Why does the name used by mountaineers take precedence over the official and/or local names? -- Danny Yee 13:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that, the offical name should take precedence nick 21:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have switched them around. nick 07:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I will say that the new name was just arbitrarily changed to punkak jaya. It had the name Cartensz pyramid for hundreds or years prior. Its not just mountaineers that call it that. I learned it as that name, only people unfamiliar with it or pro-indonesian use that name. 50.80.150.100 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation
I only speak a little Bahasa so this would need confirming by a native speaker, but I think Jaya in this instance means Main, Biggest or Highest, not "Victorious"; that doesn't make any sense. "Highest Peak" sounds much more Indonesian to me. nick 21:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've just looked it up in a dictionary and yes, Jaya as an adjective means biggest or highest. Puncak is also taken to just mean mountain rather than peak specifically. Bahasa is usually fairly ambiguous about non-everyday things and doesn't differentiate between the two. nick 07:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. On taking over the territory as an Indonesian colony, they re-named the Capital City and tallest mountain to mark the Indonesian victory over the West Papuan population and elimination of its Parliament members who had been voted into office in 1961 before the territory was traded to Indonesia. Specifically Jaya is a Sanskrit word meaning "conquering, winning, conquest, victory, triumph, winning, being victorious".58.107.10.36 14:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

SEA vs Oceania
IIs Puncak Jaya located in Southeast Asia or Oceania? At Puncak Jaya, the article claims that Puncak Jaya is the highest in Oceania. In Mount Kinabalu, it states that Kinabalu is the third highest behind Puncak Jaya. So, there seems to be a little confusion here. __earth 17:37, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point, the text now reads that it is part of both. Perhaps it should be changed to highest point in Australasia not Oceania, as Oceania is a geo-political grouping not geographical. As to SEA if they are talking polictical yes (as it is in Indonesia), geographic no. Nomadtales 07:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Height
What is real height of Jaya? It is 4884 in article (also in External link, and other Wikipedias... only in deWiki it is 5080, and 5030 in esWiki). I'm not sure is it correct... I found 5030 or 5029 in most of my sources. For example, first link I found searching nternet: (see Geography ->Elevation extremes).

So, what is real height of Jaya? Meteor2017 09:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The real height of Puncak Jaya (aka Mount Carstenz) is 4,884m. See Seven Summits. 4,884m is also consistent with high precision radar interferometry data collected by Intermap. The above link is to the CIA, from its national elevation extremes data, but there are very many errors there. Viewfinder 03:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This link is the first I have found :) Here's another one: . I've searched again, and this is what I've found: 4,884 meters (although it is often marked, incorrectly, 5,029 meters on map), it is also 5029 or 5030 on my maps. This one is funny: . 5030 or 5029 is quite popular. Google hits: I think, we can include information about that... maybe it was old data, and someone can find information when it was changed into 4884? Meteor2017 23:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Puncak Jaya" + 4884 = 485
 * "Puncak Jaya" + 5030 = 837
 * "Puncak Jaya" + 5029 = 282

You have just carried out an interesting exercise. Take a similar example, Ulugh Muztagh on the North Tibetan plateau. This was long thought to be 7723m but was accurately measured in 1985 and found to be 6973m. This is no longer disputed, but getting the old height out of the atlases and encyclopedias that copy eah other, and the web articles that copy these sources, has been very difficult. "Ulugh muztagh 7723" got 119 hits; "ulugh muztagh 6973" got 60 hits. That the Seven Summits movement, whose knowledge of these summits is unrivalled, could have got Puncak Jaya wrong is inconceivable, although I do not know when and by whom it was found to be 4884m (I will try to find out). See the well informedsummitpost. I have a long web page about elevation inflation here. The heights of these mountains were estimated by early explorers, often deliberately on the high side to impress sponsors: and these heights continue to be reproduced, even where modern surveys have disproved them. Viewfinder 00:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would assume the "7 summits" to be have the most accurate/upto date measurements. However the current entry in the encyclopedia britannica still list 5030m and so do major atlas editions published after the australian expedition (like the international atlas by RandMcNally). It would be nice, if somebody has a source being aware of varoius measurements and explaining/noting the differences explicitly.--Kmhkmh 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

irian jaya v papua
"Western central" Irian Jaya does not translate to "western central" Papua... -- Danny Yee 22:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

accessibility

 * The area is highly inaccessible, requiring a 100-km hike from the nearest town with an airport

There's either something wrong with this statement, or something very weird going on. In the landsat photo in the article Image:Puncak_Jaya_Landsat.jpg you can see the huge freeport mine pretty close to the peak. Looks like no more than 10 km. That must obviously be accessible. So what gives? Deuar 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I have edited the main article. Viewfinder 19:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Curious. So the mine is a restricted area to such a degree that climbers (there can't be that many of them) can't go through the place where the miners live? There must obviously be some road traffic going to the mine to feed the miners and to take whatever they mine out. Makes me wonder what they mine... Deuar 16:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Copper and gold. A suspicious person might assume they are worried about "climbers" stealing something, but the more likely official explanation could be "Health and safety concerns" 62.136.43.9 17:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Viewfinder 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Seven Summits says, rather eliptically, "political problems are preventing further ascents of Carstensz Pyramid" - both that article and this could benefit from a better explanation. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that? The 7 summits webpage says it is open again. Viewfinder 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seven Summits says it in its "Criticism of promoting the goal" section ("as of 2003"). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Co-ordinates
World Wind (SRTM90) has the highest point at lat -4.08520 lon 137.18697, in close agreement with the quoted coords. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gergyl (talk • contribs) 12:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

On google earth, 4'5S 117'11E shows as land at about an 80foot elevation. I think the correct peak is at 4'05S 117'11E.


 * I think the author of the above has the wrong coordinates. The above location is in the sea. Viewfinder 04:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

History
I send the informations below in the discussion, because I am not an English speaker and I thus do not dare to edit the English text! For me, Hendrik Lorentz is not the first explorer who has reached the snowfield of the Puncak Jaya (Carstenz Pyramid) in 1909. That year, he only reached the snowfield of a shoulder of the Puncak Trikora, about 4750 m (formerly the Wilhelmina Peak). Puncak Trikora is 170 km in the East of the Cartensz Pyramid [1]. The first expedition which has reached the snowfield of the Carstenz Pyramid is the big (225 members of which 132 of a Dutch military escort!) English expedition of A.F.R. Wollaston (1912-1913). This expedition was partly financed by the Rothschild family. Wollaston reached the altitude of 4530 meters [2]. After 1913 and until 1936 no one had attained any of the summits of the Carstensz range. In 1936, A.H. Colijn, F. Wissel and J.-J. Dozy reached several summits of the Carstensz range, but not the highest, which is the Carstensz Pyramid. For that, they used an aerial help (seaplane dropping the provisions) [3]. During the expedition, the geologist Dozy discovered the Ertsberg (Ore mountain) close to the Carstensz Pyramid that gave rise to the Grasberg mine, the largest gold mine in the world and the third largest copper mine in the world.

Other thing : The book of Harrer is not “Seven Years in Tibet” but “I come from the Stone Age” [4], an English translation of the german book “Ich komme aus der Steinzeit” [5].

References

[1]	Lorentz H. A., 1911, An expedition to the snow mountains of New Guinea, The Geographical Journal, 5, XXXVII.

[2]	Ballard Ch., Vink S., Ploeg A., 2001, Race to the snow. Photography and the exploration of the Duth Guinea, 1907-1936. Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, 96 pp.

[3]	Colijn A.H., 1937, Naar de eeuwige sneeuw van tropisch Nederland. De bestijging van het Carstenszgebergte in Nederlandsch Nieuw Guinee, Amsterdam.

[4]	Harrer H. (Fitzgerald E., translator), 1964, I come from the Stone Age. Companion Book Club or Rupert Hart-Davis London.

[5]	Harrer H., 1976 (Erste Ausgabe 1963), Ich komme aus der Steinzeit. Pinguin, Innsbruck.

--128.178.17.75 17:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.178.17.75 (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Your english is fine. Just edit the page.  Others will tidy any little glitches. --Gergyl 07:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Link in Carstensz Expedition?
I ran across the article Carstensz Expedition on the Dutch Wikipedia, and translated the lede for en.wiki. It appears to mention an earlier Dutch expedition; should that be mentioned somewhere in this article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Theal animated image of the glacier
The animated image is manipulating because the chosen colors. Yes climate change is a big thing but methods like this shouldn't be used.

"(around 0.5 °C [0.90 °F])" is wrong; 0.5 °C =32.90 °F. I went to fix it, but instead of saying in the source simply "0.90" the conversion is done with some kind of code I don't know. So I left it as is. Dgndenver (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)