Talk:Hayfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Additions and tidying up: 8 March 07 2 Additions as of 7 March 07 3 Kinder is a mountain (again)! 4 Hayfield

[edit] Additions and tidying up: 8 March 07

Just a handful of additions as well as tidying up. Additionally, the History section now has subheadings. I really can't think of anything to add to the entry without going into inappropriate detail (ie not encyclopaedic). I intend to add one or two photos to brighten up the article. Highpeakster 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions as of 7 March 07

I've made a handful of additions to the main article, largely based on information found in Hayfield in the 19th Century, a pamphlet published by New Mills Heritage Centre. Wherever possible I've corroborated the information provided in the book with online sources. Note that the pamphlet has an ISBN number (ISBN 0952186977) but this doesn't currently show-up on any book search engines (or Amazon.co.uk). Highpeakster

[edit] Kinder is a mountain (again)!

See ISBN 0903463687, or just click http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kinder-Scout-Portrait-Roly-Smith/dp/0903463687/ref=sr_1_3/202-4725717-2477430?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173112406&sr=8-3Highpeakster

Fair enough. We now have two conflicting citations: one suggests Kinder Scout is a mountain, one says it isn't. This merely confirms my earlier contention that calling Kinder Scout a mountain is stating an opinion, whereas plateau is a statement of fact. Dave.Dunford 11:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The book really does indicate there's a large body of thought that believes Kinder is a mountain. small>Highpeakster 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I've just had a thought. If Kinder isn't a mountain, why does it have a 'mountain rescue' team? :) (Also, note that I've now created a Wikipedia account to make my edits) Highpeakster 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I wonder if this discussion about is it/isn't it needs to be in the main article?

If anywhere, it should be on the Kinder Scout page (which already calls it a "plateau (and mountain)"; I personally disagree with that definition but I've left it alone) rather than on the Hayfield page where Kinder is just an aside. The same argument applies to Bleaklow, Black Hill and possibly to Dartmoor, Forest of Bowland, etc., so do we put it there as well? Is High Willhays on Dartmoor a mountain? It's only a few metres lower than Kinder (621m vs 636m). As for the "mountain rescue team", I take the point, but I don't think it really proves anything - it's a generic term for upland rescue organisations (though I note that the southern equivalents don't call themselves MRTs).

What's the problem with plateau? I think I've illustrated that calling Kinder a mountain is at the very least arguable...you claim a "large body of thought" in your support but clearly not everybody agrees (me, the chap at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills, and the climbing book I cited below, for a start). I don't think either side can legitimately claim to be in the majority without some sort of poll, but nobody would deny that it's a plateau. My argument boils down to this: it's definitely a plateau; it's arguably a mountain; so why use the contentious term when there's a less controversial (and more precise) alternative? Dave.Dunford 13:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The book really does indicate there's a large body of thought that believes Kinder is a mountain.

No it doesn't. It indicates that that particular writer considers it a mountain. I've got the book and here are some quotes that while not disproving your contention at least acknowledges that it's not an archetypal mountain:

• "anything less like the dictionary definition of a peak would be hard to find." (p.15)
• "In physical terms, Kinder Scout is a 15-square-mile plateau..." (p.17)
• "In truth, the only places that Kinder remotely resembles Dr. Johnson's definition of a sharply-pointed hill is when it sends out one of its shapely courtiers..." (p.17)

The book uses mountain and plateau more or less interchangeably throughout.Dave.Dunford 14:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I think we're running the risk of digging down to epistemological level when defining what is and is not a mountain. There are set criteria for what makes a mountain, chiefly its height, and Kinder ticks that box. In appearance it's more like a hill, I grant you. Also, the Kinder Scout: Portrait of a Mountain book is edited by one man: Roly Smith. Its contributors include Geologist Dr Trevor D Ford, National Trust Estate Manager Stephen Trotter, and Peak District National Park Archaeologist Bill Bevan... all these knowledgeable people have given their names and input to a book that declares Kinder Scout to be a mountain. Highpeakster 14:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There are set criteria for what makes a mountain, chiefly its height, and Kinder ticks that box.

No there aren't, though it's a common misconception. See [1] (which I quoted earlier: "The British Ordnance Survey once defined a mountain as having 1,000 feet of elevation and less was a hill, but the distinction was abandoned sometime in the 1920's. There was even a movie with this as its theme in the late 1990's - The Englishman That Went Up a Hill and Down a Mountain. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names once stated that the difference between a hill and a mountain in the U.S. was 1,000 feet of local relief, but even this was abandoned in the early 1970's. Broad agreement on such questions is essentially impossible, which is why there are no official feature classification standards.") and mountain (which has a link to Encyclopedia Britannica that says categorically "Mountains are considered larger than hills, but the term has no standardized geologic meaning.") This is precisely why I object to the use of the word with reference to Kinder. I'm sorry to bang on about this, but here's another quote that supports my position (from The Pennine Way, Cicerone, ISBN 1 85284 385 1, p.11-12: "Unlike well defined mountains such as are found in the Lake District and Snowdonia, Pennine summits rarely distinguish themselves in a clear-cut fashion. The higher tops may have specific names – Kinder Scout, Great Shunner Fell, Cross Fell – but (with a few exceptions such as Pen-y-Ghent) they are more the culmination of swelling moorland surrounded by rolling ridges or plateaux than individual peaks." Dave.Dunford 15:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally I take these quotes "The British Ordnance Survey once defined a mountain as having 1,000 feet of elevation and less was a hill" and "The U.S. Board on Geographic Names once stated that the difference between a hill and a mountain in the U.S. was 1,000 feet of local relief" [my emphasis] to imply that it's not the height above sea level that defines a mountain, but the height above the surrounding area. Kinder fails to qualify as a mountain on those criteria, which are outdated anyway. Dave.Dunford 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Its contributors include Geologist Dr Trevor D Ford, National Trust Estate Manager Stephen Trotter, and Peak District National Park Archaeologist Bill Bevan'

Only one of these (Bill Bevan, the archaeologist) uses the word "mountain" in their chapters. The other two (and I think the geologist's choice of words is the most significant) consistently refer to it as a plateau or as moorland. Dave.Dunford 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, this debate has gone on for long enough, and it's not fair to use the Hayfield entry as battlezone! I've edited the Hayfield main article to simply remove the reference to it being a mountain. If readers want to find out what "Kinder Scout" is, they can click on the link, and learn more.Highpeakster 15:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Highpeakster, though I thought it was a sensible discussion, not a battle. Let's agree to disagree. Dave.Dunford 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hayfield

(Copied from Dave.Dunford's talk page)

Dave, I feel we're about to enter an editing war regarding the Hayfield entry. To explain my position, I live in the village and I've been writing for Wikipedia since it first started. As a resident, I know many local people in Hayfield and am aware of most local references. I regularly walk the hills and know the OS map like the back of my hand. With this in mind:

• Kinder Scout: This is considered locally as a mountain. Ordnance Survey refer to it as a mountain. Local people are proud that it's a mountain! To edit the Hayfield entry to say otherwise is to insert your own point of view. Please don't do that. Yes, to all intents and purposes it's a big hill. But it's classed as a mountain, even if it's an unimpressive one :)

I won't get into a revert war if you insist on mountain—life's too short and the term too imprecise—but I do think you're wrong. I live in Hayfield too (we might even know each other in the real world!), I do a lot of walking too, and none of my hillwalking friends would refer to Kinder as a mountain. It's a hill. I don't believe it's really high enough to be considered a mountain, it's not prominent enough, and it's too flat (just not "mountainous" enough!). The mountain article discusses the lack of an exact definition, and suggests a minimum height of 2000 feet (610 metres), which Kinder just exceeds. I also think plateau is more informative and descriptive (and surely isn't an overly obscure word). I see the word mountain and I imagine a rocky peak like Snowdon or Mont Blanc—not a flat peaty plateau like Kinder. But as I say, if you feel strongly enough to change it back [Edit: I see you have], then I'll grit my teeth and leave it alone.

I'd dispute your statement "Ordnance Survey refer to it as a mountain" (do you have a citation?) See hill: "In the United Kingdom it is popularly believed that the Ordnance Survey defines a "mountain" as a peak greater than 1000 feet (305 meters) above sea level, a belief which forms the basis of the film The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain; in fact the OS maintains no such distinction today. [2]" That link ([3]) bears examination: "The British Ordnance Survey once defined a mountain as having 1,000 feet of elevation and less was a hill, but the distinction was abandoned sometime in the 1920's...Broad agreement on such questions is essentially impossible, which is why there are no official feature classification standards." I read this as suggesting that in fact mountain is POV, whereas plateau is encyclopedic. I've got nothing against Kinder—in fact I love the place—and I don't feel that it's a slight to deny that it's a mountain.

I've switched "mountain" back to "plateau", for the reasons given above. I have unearthed a citation to support this: Peak Rock Climbs - Fifth Series Volume 2: Moorland Gritstone: Kinder and Bleaklow (ISBN 0 903908 76 X), p.19: "...a certain kind of climber who is attracted to areas such as Kinder and Bleaklow. Although not necessarily mountaineers per se (after all these aren't mountains)..." [my emphasis]. Come up with a counter-citation and I'll reconsider. Dave.Dunford 19:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills for independent support of my position. Dave.Dunford 12:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Lantern Pike: I and many others have not heard of the term "outlier". Indeed, I had to get a real-life dictionary out to find out what the term means. Most online references (including Wikipedia's own) refer to "outlier" in the mathematic sense. Now that I do know what it means, I have to ask you provide evidence that Lantern Pike is actually an outlier. Maybe you can create an entry for Lantern Pike, and cite references? Anything else is, again, point of view editing. I really think you should change this reference in the Hayfield entry to something more easy understood, and more informal, as is the style of the rest of the Hayfield entry. 86.135.160.199

I remembered the term "outlier" from geography lessons at school, as a (fairly loose) term meaning "a hill separated from a larger range"—but my dictionary (Collins English) indicates a more specific meaning that I wasn't aware of: "an outcrop of rocks that is entirely surrounded by older rocks". I've no idea whether this applies to Lantern Pike so I've changed it to something less specific.

An aside: if you're a long-term Wikipedian I do wonder why you don't use a handle...it might just be me, but I tend to be less respectful of edits made by anonymous users, and it makes responding to comments like this harder. As you've (apparently) edited the Hayfield article from three different IP addresses I didn't know where to respond, hence copying this here. Dave.Dunford 11:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)