Talk:Mountain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)

[edit] Illogical Paragraph

   Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22% of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24% of the Earth's land mass is mountainous. Also, 1 in 10 people live in mountainous regions. All the world's major rivers are fed from mountain sources.

This is currently flagged as needing verification, but surely this is impossible because (as it says earlier in the article, and as is discussed below) there is no official differentiation between a hill and a mountain. At least, then, this should include what quantifies a mountain for these figures (i.e. what the original source claims)? If no such number can be found then perhaps this is worthy of removal from the article (although it does give a good rough figure for interest's sake). Angus Lepper 18:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hill versus Mountain

  I am truly interested in finding out the difference between a hill and a mountain.  Any dictionary just tells you that a mountain is larger than a hill and that a hill is smaller than a mountain.  Anyone that can give a more definitive answer to that I would like to hear from via this page.

   To the best of my knowledge, Anon, that's about as definitive as it gets. Here in Australia, where it's mostly pretty flat, and the highest peak of all is on the same level as the entire plain that Mexico City sits on, we tend to call almost any little bump a "mountain" - features that I shouldn't think anyone would even bother calling a "hill" if they were in Switzerland or the Himalaya. Also, we call some very tiny streams "rivers". It's all relative. Tannin

   Yep. Take a look at Yucca Mountain. I've been there and toured the facility and think it is very funny that the ridgeline (which is only 200 metres above the surrounding average elevation) is called a "mountain." As far as I'm concerned if a hunk of rock is smaller than the tallest building in the world then it is a hill. --mav

   Often it's just perpetuation of a longstanding name - in the old days "mountain" was far more likely to be used - but in a couple places I've seen allusions to a formal criterion of the sort that a geographic names board might use.  It's on my list to track down one of these days. Stan 04:38 28 May 2003 (UTC)

• When I was in Nepal, my Nepalese guides called anything that probably didn't exceed 10,000 ft. a "hill" or sometimes a "big hill". All relative sometimes I guess when you have the Himalayan giants over 20,000 ft nearby. RedWolf 04:51, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

• BRITANNICA NON GFDL QUOTE: A mountain is a landform that rises prominently above its surroundings. It is generally distinguished by steep slopes, a relatively confined summit, and considerable height. The term mountain has topographic and geologic meanings. It generally refers to rises over 2,000 feet (610 meters) [1].

• In England and Wales there was a traditional standard of 1000 feet supposedly used by the OS. There is an anecdotal tale related to the village of Taffs Well (as dramatised in The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain) where the land mass known to the locals as the "mountain" was a few feet short of the 1000ft mark (I believe it is 16ft in the film) and thus designated a hill. Chris talk back 01:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

   I think it has to do with the climbing of the mountain. Is it rocky? Do you have to use your hands to climb up? Is it steep? Then it's a mountain.--God of War 06:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 ==   Higher or Taller ==
   Hears a question from the trivial facts file first posed on the Mount Everest talk page.

• The summit of Mt Chimborazo in Ecuador is 2150m further away from the centre of the earth than the summit of Mt Everest. Does that mean it's higher or taller or what?

   Should something be said about how mountain heights are measured on earth and elsewhere in the solar system? -- kiwiinapanic 09:31 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

   :Sure.  The rule is "above mean sea level" - I believe cartographers have a model of the nonspherical earth, so they can calculate where the sea would be if it was lapping at the base of Everest. But we should get a cite-able source for this. Stan 13:34 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  ==Under sea==
   This article doesn't seem to talk about mountains or mountain ranges lying wholly under the ocean. Which are the major ones ? Is there a list or article anywhere else ? Jay 11:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    ==Rivers?==
   If all major river systems come from mountains - where is the range that causes the Mississippi River? Hmmmm? It starts in Minnesota in a bog if I'm not mistaken. The Wisconsin River comes out of Lac Vieux Dessert lake.

   == External links ==
   External links section is empty - is that for a reason?

Enochlau 05:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   == Britannica ==
    I was sceptical about the Encyclopaedia Britannica "requiring" mountains to be over 2000 feet, so I went to the library and looked it up. This is all the EB (15th edition, 2002) has to say on the question:

Mountains generally are understood to be larger than hills, but the term has no standardized geological meaning.

It's only the Student Britannica that gives the 2000 foot threshold, and even then it only says that mountains are "generally understood" to be over 2000 feet, not that they definitively are. I think this article tries too hard to quantify something that can't be quantified, but if we must put a figure on it (as we probably should, since it's clearly a source of debate), it ought to be with the appropriate qualifiers. --Blisco 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Encyclopædia Britannica#Competition, the Britannica Student Encyclopedia is Compton's Encyclopedia by another name. Here is the start of the article (subscription required for the full whammy) in the 'real' Britannica, where the above quote can be found. --Blisco 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

   ==Removed Why it is created? What for ? section==
   I removed this section because it violates NPOV and it has nothing scientifically to do with mountains. This section would better belong somewhere else. It is also a form of original research; see: Wikipedia:No original research. 

   User:  Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 19:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

   How could you know that this has nothing scientifically to do ? it's full of science 

كس اخت اللي أنفضك يا ابن الشرموطة

Seriously, stop putting it in there.

Can someone please provide verifcation that there used to be mounains much higher than everest? I know this is true but I would like to see verification. I know there used to be volcanoes in New Mexico and Arizona much higher than everest.