Talk:Mount Olympus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

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)

The name means "The Luminous One" in Classic Greek language. Is there any secure etymology of "Olympos"? Wetman 10:27, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes I wonder about this too. I found a source which claims it is "a pre-Greek word, unrelated to anything in the language of the ... Hellenes." (The New York Review of Books, October 21st, 2004, pg. 19, column 2). More research is needed. JesseW 08:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

This article is explicitly about the mountain in Greece. Other peaks named Mount Olympus have their own articles, e.g., Mount Olympus (Washington), Mount Olympus (Utah). Please don't mix the material up: that is what the disambiguation page Olympus (disambiguation) is for. -- hike395 05:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I understand what disambiguation is for. However, some Wiki users don't know what that means. It would be much clearer if the disambiguation page was combined but cordoned off from the original Mount Olympus article. It is ideal to have ALL Mount Olympus' in the same place due to the fact that many people may be searching for information on a non-Grecian Mount Olympus and completely overlook the disambiguation link. Hell, most people don't even know what "ambiguous" means, much less "disambiguation". I stand by my position and would like to refer to a higher authority than yourself, Hike. --Piewalker 18:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Piewalker. I think there may be a misunderstanding. I'm following Wikipedia custom (which is what passes for a "rule" around here). Check out Wikipedia:Disambiguation if you would like. I claim what we have here is a "Primary topic" disambiguation (see type 3 in Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Types of disambiguation --- Mount Olympus in Greece is the predominant meaning in the world. As evidence, do a Google search for Mount Olympus: 9 of the top 10 pages are about the Greek mountain.

I think it is important to maintain consistency across the 'pedia, otherwise readers have a hard time navigating through the chaos. As you can see from Wikipedia:Disambiguation, this is the standard way we treat pages for multiple topics with the same name. If you don't like this general method of disambiguation, you can certainly bring it up at Wikipedia Talk:Disambiguation, but changing the whole 'pedia at this point would be a Herculean undertaking.

If you think that we have a type 2 disambiguation (i.e., that all of the meanings of Mount Olympus are approximately equal in frequency), I would welcome any evidence you can show to support the view.

There is not really a "higher authority" at Wikipedia, in the strict sense ---- there isn't a "super-editor" who can break deadlocks. It is certainly within your rights as an editor to ask for more input from the community: that process is described at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I would like to suggest, however, that this is a pretty simple question, because of the precedent described in Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and it does not require community input.

-- hike395 03:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Olympus - 2925 metres?

What I know and what I find on the web is 2917 metres. Importantly, The CIA World Factbook and Encyclopedia Britannica, being influental sources, state 2917 metres... even the NASA website has this number mentioned. Practically the only source stating 2925 I can find is Wikipedia! Interestingly enough, Mount Musala in Bulgaria is 2925 metres high, and Mount Olympus is mentioned in Wikipedia as being as high as it, making them both the highest peaks of the Balkans. So, could someone please provide some serious evidence or otherwise correct this mistake? → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk} 11:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Something to add after brief research: what's more, it's an anononymous user making these corrections (User:201.254.185.136), so it's very probably some kind of vandalism, as the Web actually lacks any evidence in support of the opinion. Other pages affected by these edits are List of mountains#Balkans, Musala, Geography of Greece and Balkans. Here [1] is the user's list of contributions. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk} 11:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be interested in replying, so I'm beginning to clean up the false info. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk} 08:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a revert war's arising right here. I'm not willing to take part in a such, so please be so kind to leave some evidence on your changes, 201.254.150.38. I would accept your changes provided that you give some proof. Until then, I would be reverting to what's the established version - Musala at 2925 m, Olympus at 2917. Mountains are usually measured in height above mean sea level, not in any other feature. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk} 09:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mitikas height at 2,919

Todor

Seems like this Olympus height fight has reached an end, since the source of the 2,925 meters I had (and defended of course) proved to be false (for the time being of course since further studies could show it truthfully again), anyway after deep investigations on the issue I found it was just erroneous as well as one that I found showing it at 2,985!!! (though it was an old source...quite very old btw!)

Finally I found some more precise sources including one that someone (maybe you) included in the article. http://gserver.civil.auth.gr/indexen-research.htm (these guys made use of professional modern tools like the GPS)

Finally, I have to say that I edited the Olympus article for a last time (or until next studies done in the range) leaving the height of Mitikas at 2,919 and Stefani at 2,912 (due to the fact that I've found all this detailed info about the range and its peaks). Also I trimmed it deleting any mention of Musala in it as well any mention of Olympus in the Musala article since it looks somewhat out of place, adding for the first time info about Stefani in the Oympus article as well as Little Musala 2,902m and Irechek 2,852m peaks being the second and third highests in Musala respectively, in the Musala article.

This leaves the pattern at the following status.

Musala 2,925 Mitikas 2,919 Stefani 2,912 Little Musala 2,902 Irechek 2,852

I have to add that the older 2,917 meters datum available in some sites is erroneus and is based in older studies made with less precise tools.

End of the issue.

I wouldn't call CIA, Encyclopaedia Britannica and NASA, to begin with, "some sites".

Sources stating 2,917 m: CIA, WorldAtlas.com, Britannica Student Encylopedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, NASA.

Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. Since I was unable to find any other source confirming the 2,919 m you stated, I will continue to revert back to 2,917, which is the established version. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk} 09:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

And besides, this "pattern"... you're forgetting Vihren, which is 2914 m. Anyway, thanks for taking part in the discussion I opened here. I do not say the source you cite is wrong, I'd be happy to leave the height 2917 m as soon as other big sources like CIA WF and EB accept it, but I wouldn't rely on a single and quite unfamiliar Greek source. Also, here is another influential site stating 2917 m - Encarta. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk} 09:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you have a problem buddy well I gave you an address were the last measurements have been done also I gonna give you another one were they claim the same thing and this place is the Guru site of summits all around the world made by people (like me) which take mountain climbing and hiking very seriously and also make use of modern tools like GPS

http://www.summitpost.org/show/mountain_link.pl/mountain_id/986

Which is not Greek at all!!!

Also I´m going to change it back again to the real height which is 2,919 for Mitikas. The 2,917 one is an old Datum just like it's the one which claimed the earth was the center of the universe until Gallilean times. People like YOU defended the old Ptolomeic system while people like me used to back the new discoveries.

Also I have to add that I perceive airs of fanatism in your claims and this is now for you a matter of national superiority since you always mention Musala in the Olympus article, that's nonsence!!!!! Looks like you are trying to show a Bulgarian superiority over Greece because of a mountain. Let's put it this way The Netherlands are plain as my paper and I can tell you it is a country much richer in economy and technology than Greece and Bulgaria! So forget such nationalisms it's just a mountain.

I suggest you first make some investigation and please be more logical and less passional, looks like you WANT to see mount Olympus as low as possible!!!! Since I know you are the one who once made a vandalism act adding false info like Olympus is the lowest mountain in Greece at 100m and other offending things towards people who just are seeking for info.

I finally suggest you to admit that things change and continouslly new measurements are done daily in every aspect of life in this case the latests climbers of Olympus in the last years registered the 2,919 meters with new technologies. While the 2,917 was done with barometric ones and thus happened with many other mountains which also now adjusted to their real height.

As with cloning 20 years ago was impossible.....now, what happened? It is!!

Good luck

---

Another climbing site showing that height

http://www.anavasi.gr/geographia/macedonia.html

Climbing sites aren't as influential sources as the ones I've stated, but you see I've added your data anyway. Whoever wants to will accept it, but it can't and will not be the only one shown on the page, as long as big encyclopedias and web resources don't take it up too, which I doubt to happen soon.

Accusing me of whatever comes to mind is silly and is a personal attack, so please stop - it's against the policy of Wikipedia and it's unprovoked. Do not give way to your feelings, this is just a dispute about data, nothing about nationalism, fanatism, which I actually do not accept. And... cloning?

I haven't vandalised this or any other page EVER, which is the worst thing you have directly accused me to have done. It insults me and is utterly erroneous. - Todor Bozhinov

I asked a friend to put this here from me, because I had (and still have) some problems with the Internet connection. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk} 15:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 8 year old Despina Papathemelis at the summit of Mount Olympus

I have added a link to an account of climbing Mount Olympus and some additional information written by Dr. Despina Papathemelis when she was 15 years old. She has since this time qualified as a Doctor with a degree in Medicine from the Aristotelous University of Thessaloniki. The photograph was taken at the summit of the mountain when Despina was aged 8.

Harfo32 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)