Talk:Mauna Kea

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 2 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CLasconia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Base to Peak

What is meant by "base to peak"? Surely Everest is still the highest mountain if we take 'base' to mean the lowest point on the Earth's surface? ~~Everett~~

The base of Mauna Kea is several thousand metres below sea level. Viewfinder 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you define 'base'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettt (talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The base of Mauna Kea is below sea level, as it is part of the island of Hawai'i. Most other mountains, like Everest, just jutt up from the earth's surface. They don't extend below sea level.

"Base to peak" The base of a mountain is the origin of it, the lowest point of the mountain. Mauna Kea's origin (base) is several thousand meters below sea level. The Pacific Ocean is very deep (contains the deepest sea floor point in the world). Hawaii's island chain can effectively be classed as a mountain ridge with the base at the sea floor. It forms through volcanic activity between the plates where magma from the mantle can seep through. Consider it to be a volcano with most of the mountain below sea level. The peak of course, is the tip of the mountain. The highest point. The Himalayas were formed by India crashing slowly into Asia. Because there was a little water between India and Asia while the collision took place, you will find fish fossils at the peak of the Himalayas (just some interesting info). Mount Everest's base-peak is much lower than Maunt Kea but it has the highest point above sea level. (Sorry it's late, hope I'm making sense) (KMckelvin 21:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)KMckelvinKMckelvin 21:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Makes complete sense, and it's a pretty simple concept to grasp. Think of a guy who's 7 feet tall, and a guy who's 6 feet tall and is standing on a 2 foot chair. The 7-footer (Mauna Kea) is bigger from base to top. The 6-footer on the 2-foot chair (Everest) has a higher "peak." CM.65.102.39.98 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the concept is not simple enough for me. You can say the lowest point of a guy standing on a chair is his feet, but how do you define the lowest point of a mountain? From that point of view, you can say that Mount Everest is a little mountain of 4'000 meters which is standing on Tibet (average altitude 4'900). Or you can say that its base is at sea level, which makes it 8'800 meters high. Or since the Himalaya is formed by India crashing into Asia, you can say that its base is inside the Indian Ocean, average depth 3'890 meters, making it 12'600 meters high. And why not define Mauna Kea as a 4'000 meters mountain standing on an island? To make it perfectly clear: What is the exact definition of the "base" of the mountain? 142.157.15.84 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. Unless there is a precise definition of where the "base" of the mountain is (any geologists or surveyors care to comment?), the tallest mountain from peak to base is the one with its peak at Mt Everest and base at the Challenger Deep, being 19764 meters tall. 83.250.62.182 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that an attempt was made to clarify "base to peak" in the article, but to me it has only added to the confusion. The article contains this sentence: "Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain in the world when measured from base to summit, since its base is located on the seafloor... bringing its total height to about 33,000 ft" OK so far, but then it is followed by: "Mt. Lam Lam on Guam is 37,533 feet when measured from its base in the Mariana Trench" Oops! So why isn't Mt. Lam Lam the tallest mountain in the world when measured from base to summit?Enduser (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mount Everest's base sits on the Continental Shelf, while Mauna Kea's base sits on the ocean floor. Everest is higher, Mauna Kea is taller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.71.169 (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mauna Kea IS NOT TALLER! you must use the same measurement range for both heights. if mauna is measured from seafloor to peak then so must everest. unfortunately for US citizens this means the usa DOES NOT HAVE the tallest mountain in the world so from sea level mauna is 4,205 m (13,796 ft) and from sea level everest is 8,848 m(29,029 ft) so from the sea floor mauna is 10,200 m (33,500 ft) (5995m of water) and everest would be 12,248m(3,400m of water) {assuming average depth of 3,400m} and the indian ocean is considerably deeper than that average for much of the ocean close to india. sorry but intro must be re-written teknotiss wrote this forgot to sign in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.151.59 (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mauna Kea, looked at from 100 miles away, in a world without an ocean, would look bigger than Everest. That's all. The concept of a mountain's "base" is only an informal concept in geography. What many people consider to be important is prominence.

The following mental exercise may illustrate the meaning of topographic prominence. Imagine you are standing at the top of a mountain peak. Let an imaginary sea level slowly rise to the top of your peak. As the imaginary sea level rises, the mountain will shrink into an ever smaller island until the island disappears at your feet. Now let the imaginary sea level slowly drop. The island will reappear with your peak as its highest point. As the sea level continues to drop, the island will grow and merge with adjacent islands. At some point, unless you are atop Mount Everest, your island will touch another island with a higher summit.[5] This point is called your peak’s key col, and the elevation rise from its key col to your summit is called its topographic prominence.

If Mauna Kea is going to be special, we have to pretend that the ocean doesn't exist, which is also the conceit of "dry prominence." Dry prominence looks at the world as if there was no water.

The dry prominence of Mount Everest is, by convention, equal to its wet prominence (8848 m) plus the depth of the deepest hydrologic feature (the Challenger Deep at 10,911 m), or 19,761 m. That's not the same as "base," but then again, "base" isn't the same as "base," since there's no non-arbitrary definition.

The dry prominence of Mauna Kea is equal to its wet prominence (4205 m) plus the depth of its highest col (about 5125 m), or about 9330 m; this is the world's second greatest dry prominence after Mount Everest. 209.134.45.218 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is erronous, by what it claims is Mount Everest's actual height, as follows from the Wikipedia page: "By comparison, reasonable base elevations for Everest range from 4,200 m (13,800 ft) on the south side to 5,200 m (17,100 ft) on the Tibetan Plateau, yielding a height above base in the range of 3,650 to 4,650 m (11,980 to 15,260 ft)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.194.170.153 (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Those complaining about the vague definitions of base are correct. Should we define base by a point where it starts to curve back up (and where, is the col between Kea and Loa @ ~2000m below Kea the top of the base?), or the lowest point we can find if we keep going down in any direction? Without setting arbitrary base size boundaries, any mountain could claim Challenger Deep as its base. Topographical prominence is better, since it creates a definition for the top of the base (the key col). Mauna Kea's dry prominence is admittedly impressive. I have clarified the intro to reflect all of this. Madshurtie (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the concept of the 'base' of a mountain is not one with any accepted definition in geography (regardless of the perceived obviousness in some quarters), I do think it is odd that the second sentence of the article includes the very factual statement that "Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain in the world, measuring 10,200 m (33,500 ft) in height." I appreciate there seems to be some strong opinions on this issue, but given the lack of consensus on what the base is, shouldn't this statement be more qualified and less prominent in the article?

Furthermore, the calculations use an indicative 'base' of 6,000m below sea level. The mean depth of the pacific ocean is about 4,000m. The Hawaiian Trough surrounding the Island reaches a depth of 5,500m. What is the basis for the base of the mountain being 6,000 below sea level? There is a citation to an NOAA web page but that does not provide any further information on what is being considered the 'base.' This information is not verifiable. (From a quick look at Bathymetric maps, it seems you would need to travel 2,000km north west before you reach 5,000m below sea level. Is the mountain of Mauna Kea really 2,000km long?) This information is not verifiable and should not be stated without qualification and with such prominence in the article. --2A02:8084:C84:7180:F165:D38D:FB0C:4107 (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

English spellings (of Hawaiian words) are correct in an English article

In the paragraph below, it states that the meaning of Mauna Kea may be important. It should be in the first sentence of the introduction, yet it isn't there at all that I can find. Pat34lee (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I edited the article to use English spellings consistently. It's not an article about Hawaiian language, so there's no need to use any Hawaiian spellings. The explanation that mauna kea means "white mountain" is relevant, and correctly done with italics for the Hawaiian words. Other than that, there's no relevance for Hawaiian spellings in this particular article. There is nothing bad or wrong about using English spellings in an English article. So any font character representing a Hawaiian glottal stop ("okina") should be simply omitted in English. (That also easily solves the problem of the character which does not display properly in the most widely used browser.) Instead of the vowel with macron accent, used in Hawaiian spelling, simply use the regular unaccented vowel for English spelling of Hawaiian words. If the Hawaiian spelling for wekiu (for the bug) absolutely must be given (for some unknown reason), then it can be done in italics within parentheses with proper notice to the reader that it is the Hawaiian spelling, for example: "... the wekiu bug (in Hawaiian, wēkiu means 'summit')...". The English spelling (wekiu) is used, and the Hawaiian spelling (wēkiu) can be supplied in addition, if really needed. Agent X 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not follow above. Diacritics are precisely for English speakers, to indicate how non-Hawaiian speakers should pronounce the words. So according to the manual of style consensus, preference is to use them, except when a word like "Hawaiian" indicates a usage that has been absorbed into English. Removing diacritics does not translate a word into English. W Nowicki (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody add a standard English English prnunciation guide by any chance to the title? 212.124.247.77 11:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that the spelling of the mountain name, as pushed by officials at the Office of Maunakea Management et al., is Maunakea. Naea-a-liloa 21:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Request edit on 12 August 2016

Add: [1]

Thanks for your suggestion. It is unlikely that we will be able to use that image, as it is likely copyrighted (due to legal reasons, we must assume that images on the Internet are copyrighted unless the author explicitly waives their rights). Altamel (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

The "Mauna a Wakea" etymology was sourced to this website, which provides information for visitors to the mountain. It's not a scholarly source, not a dictionary, or otherwise reliable source for this sort of etymological information. I therefore removed the claim: diff. It would be helpful if anyone could find a more authoritative source that discusses the supposed "Mauna a Wakea" etymology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The Honolulu (magazine) seems a reliable source, therefore I added fact and reference. Best, --ThT (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Without discussion about the reliability of the Honolulu (magazine) the Mauna a Wākea etymology was deleted. Therefore I added another source from ResearchGate and included information about etymology in accordance with WP:REF. --ThT (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

There are more references:

• Mauna Kea: Most Recent Bulletin Report: December 2013 (BGVN 38:12) (Smithsonian Institution): There has been growing consensus that Mauna Kea is a shortened form of Mauna a Wakea, which refers to the sky father Wakea.
• McCoy, Patrick C., and Richard C. Nees: „Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Mauna Kea Science Reserve: Kaʻohe Ahupuaʻa, Hāmākua District, Island of Hawaiʻi (Volume 1: Inventory Survey Report)“, 2010. https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/01/B.62-FAIS-MKSR-Vol.1.pdf.

  p. 2-22: chant ʻO Hānau ka Mauna a Wakea

  p. 2-29: the reference to Mauna Kea as the abode of the gods is emphasized in some native Hawaiian traditions in which the word “Kea” is taken to be an abbreviated form of Wakea, the male god who procreated with Papa to form the mountain

--ThT (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Units: US customary first?

I noticed that this article consistently uses metric units first. According to WP:UNITS: In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary. Mauna Kea is in US territory, and the article topic is general knowledge (not specifically scientific), so I would think US customary units should come first. What do other editors think? — hike395 (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The units should be switched. Other U.S. mountain articles show metric 2nd. The Mauna Loa article begins with metric 2nd, then switches to metric 1st beginning in the geology section, then alternates through the remainder of that article, so it could also be made more consistent. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

First Full Ascent (from Base on Seafloor to Summit)

I would suggest added at least a sentence under "Ascents" regarding the first full, vertical ascent of the mountain from its base on the seafloor (made via deep-diving submersible) to the summit (total vertical gain of 30,507 feet or 9,323 meters, which is higher than Everest from sea level to summit). The ascent was made without powered vehicles (other than the sub, that drifted up from the bottom) including outrigger, bicycles, and hiking, over 54 hours. It was done by a mainlander (Victor Vescovo) as well as a native Big Islander/Marine Scientist, Dr. Cliff Kapono. The expedition was chronicled and verified by multiple parties, including this local journalist: https://hanahou.com/24.3/up-the-white-mountain There is also a supporting image of the expedition at this location off-site: https://caladanoceanic.com/expeditions/maunakea/#iLightbox[061bbd5e24eb36849b7]/1 The submitter of this topic for consideration is one of the climbers (Vescovo). Since I am conflicted, I am only suggesting it for inclusion because I think it is historically significant to the ascent history of the mountain. And it was quite difficult to execute.

Vlvescovo (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Science and colonialism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 24 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jfyfe17 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jfyfe17 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Change spelling

The correct spelling according to the W.M. Keck Observatory at Maunakea and the University of Hawaii is “Maunakea”. There’s an explanation here:

https://hilo.hawaii.edu/maunakea/culture/meaning

the spelling for Mauna Kea should be “Maunakea”, and for Mauna Loa, spell it “Maunaloa”.

Richard S Mitnick 240 Grant Ave Highland Park, NJ 08904 USA

908-812-8611

Please visit my blog

http://sciencesprings.wordpress.com http://facebook/com/sciencesprings Mitrich (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

ce3qt

3qh5trshewhqh rrwhwhtdshtw4htrrw trhwhw whrht54t erhtheherdgrgr eht653ye4 2403:4800:2534:F328:5C1C:B45:34E1:CD2F (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The map used

The map used is newer with more information and should be updated (since OSM updates every day). It is easier to read and understand. RuduskaMuduska (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)