Talk:Green Boots

Untitled

Moved a lot of uncited stuff from article to here, presumably from the film. Please reinsert with reliable cites. Please note Financial Times article (also Reuters) quotes were later disputed by Japanese.-Wikianon (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncited stuff

The next day, two Japanese climbers, Hiroshi Hanada and Eisuke Shigekawa, of the Fukuoka Mountaineering Club, aided by three Sherpas, making the summit attempt found one of the climbers shortly above First Step. The climber, (whom Krakauer believes to be Paljor) was still moaning and frostbitten from exposure over the night. The Japanese climbers left him and went for the summit. After they climbed the second step, they ran into the other two climbers, probably Samanla and Morup. Krakauer notes "No words were passed, No water, food or oxygen exchanged hands. The Japanese moved on ...".

The Japanese team pressed on and summitted at 11.45am (Nepal Time). By the time the Japanese climbers descended, one of the two climbers was already dead. The other near death. They could not find any trace of the third climber farther down.

Much discussion ensued on why the Japanese did not help the Indian climbers. While the consensus suggests a rescue mission at such a high altitude was out of scope, it is not understood why the Japanese did not offer any succor to the dying Indians.

The Japanese version of the events do not explain why the Indians, though in a position to walk, talk and greet did not ask for help.

The Indo-Tibetan Border Police sent a second summit party a week later on May 17. This party was successful in reaching the top; Hira Ram, Sanga Sherapa, Tashi Ram and Nadre accompanied by one Sherpa reached the top in a record time at 9.55 A.M. They also passed by the dead bodies of their compatriots.

Surely this article should be moved to Tswelang Paljor. Treat a deceased person with a bit of respect. PatGallacher (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Its nothign to do with disrespect to a deceased person. I would have created it under the name - But there is no confirmed source its Tsewang Paljor other than a solitary news article. jaiiaf (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing Green Boots

Delete the following:

A recent report from May 28, 2007 quotes Ian Woodall, a South African mountaineer that the body of the Indian climber is now missing. After ten years of vigil on the top, it was either swept away by snow, or possibly recovered by another expedition sent to retrieve the body of David Sharp.

http://www.taoofeverest.com/index.html appears to be the main source for the article on Woodall, doesn't say the body was gone, just that he was unable to recover it. As it's uncited, and the source doesn't agree, I'm deleting.

97.113.108.36 (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark Inglis

@Le Grand Bleu: The sentence "It has been theorised that some other climbers passed by Sharp without offering assistance, believing him to be Green Boots" is based on this sentence from the source: "Others among the three dozen or so climbers attempting the summit that day assumed Sharp was "Green Boots," or didn't notice him at all." The source has already mentioned Inglis' group, and is now explaining why the other three dozen climbers didn't stop. The article isn't defending Mark Inglis, because that sentence doesn't concern him at all. Inglis' reasons for not stopping were completely unrelated to Green Boots, and therefore irrelevant to this article. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The source may say whatever they want. But we are limited by NPOV rule. This phrase is not in line with it. It expresses an opinion in a controversy while this article isn't about. Why don't we just remove it altogether? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not at all non-neutral to say "It has been theorised that..." – that's not expressing an opinion, but stating a fact. How about we make it clear that the sentence doesn't refer to Inglis by mentioning him earlier in the section, like this:

"In 2006, British mountaineer David Sharp was found in a hypothermic state in Green Boots' Cave by climber Mark Inglis and his party. Inglis controversially continued his ascent without offering assistance, and Sharp died of extreme cold some hours later. Around three dozen other climbers would have passed by the dying man that day; it has been suggested that those who noticed him mistook him for Green Boots, and therefore paid him little heed."

Does that work for you? DoctorKubla (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay. If you have a citation for the last sentence, it works for me. If not, it needs to be removed. It's extremely difficult to mixed a prone person (the "green boots") and a sitting one (David Sharp). Le Grand Bleu (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated the article. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Why has no one moved the body?

Wouldn't someone have moved the body, even to see their face? Or, better yet, moved the body off the mountain for examination and then for it to get a proper burial? Or is that illegal? DN-boards1 (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason why no detail is stated in the article, is that nothing has been officially done yet and reported in any newspapers or any mountaineering magazine. Only information that exists is a rumour and it's not enough for elaborating in the article. It says the body had been moved once, probably in an attempt to push him off the path, down the slope where climbers wouldn't see him anymore. The body is so high in altitude, in such a place where any effort is extremely difficult and where any such effort would put at risk anyone who would attempt it. Solution would be financing a dedicated expedition, just to recover this body, but it seems the Indo-Tibetan Border Police has not yet planned or cannot afford yet, such an expedition. Akseli9 (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've heard he and David Sharp are now in a cave nearby where he was, at a slightly lower point on the mountain. He needs to be recovered and identified. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, someone moved the body to see the face and check the ID. We now have positive ID it is Tsewang Paljor, can we merge Green Boots into that?DN-boards1 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

An even more pressing question is - am I color blind or are those boots yellow (with a slight teeny tiny hint of green around where the shadows are)? 121.210.33.50 (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you may be colorblind, friend; they're pretty clearly a neon green. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that the contents of this article be merged into Tsewang Paljor. A few years ago, someone flipped Green Boots over, examined his face, and checked for an ID. The result was that the body was identified to be indeed Paljor. Therefore, this article should be merged into Tsewang Paljor. DN-boards1 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@DN-boards1: It would be nice if you'd allowed a little time for discussion, rather than performing the merger immediately after proposing it. If it's true that Green Boots has been identified as Paljor, then I support the merge, but I can't find a source that confirms this. Can you give me a link? DoctorKubla (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

+1 to DoctorKubla. Years ago, I moved this from the name of the individual on request of the family, as the identity had not been confirmed. If it has been confirmed, we need a reliable source. The source cited in the article before the merger that claims his body is known as "Green boots" is [1]. It doesn't say that at that source. If there is a source confirming identity, we need to add it. In the absence of that, I think we should restore this and work further on that article to make clear what is verifiable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's see....If I recall correctly, when it was flipped from facing right to facing left, someone checked his face and ID. Plus, general consensus is that he IS Paljor. Paljor collapsed at the First Step. There's a cave at the First Step. There's a body wearing green Koflach boots there. Paljor was wearing green Koflach boots. Morup was higher up on the mountain, rather than the location of the cave. It's easy to figure out from the evidence and te ID part that Green Boots = Paljor. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

So, we don't have a source? Do we have any published evidence that this assertion meets verifiability, User:DN-boards1? If not, our policies forbid us assuming, and the merge needs to be undone until a positive source is provided. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• As no source has been provided, the merger has been undone. I have modified the other article to accord with what can be sourced, but I have also removed extra personal detail about the subject, as it impacts living persons who are related to him. Per WP:BLP, we are conservative about discussing people on Wikipedia who are not widely sourced. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I found the articles original merger said they read. They seem to be these ones:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151008-the-tragic-story-of-mt-everests-most-famous-dead-body
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151008-the-graveyard-in-the-clouds-everests-200-dead-bodies
Author of the articles builds a story of the dead of Mount Everest and arbitrarily chooses the Paljor option for Green Boots' identity. Author of the article ignores another article by Indian Border Police team leader P.M. Das according to whom Green Boots' identity is more likely Morup.
This BBC article is not more reliable as a source IMO. Confirms there was no solid reason for merging. Akseli9 (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green Boots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100912163732/http://outsideonline.com:80/outside/destinations/200609/mount-everest-climbing-ethics-1.html to http://outsideonline.com/outside/destinations/200609/mount-everest-climbing-ethics-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

What does "according to 2-stage hearsays" mean? Is it slang? Or does it mean "gossip"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.254.201.36 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously?

Who writes this stuff? "However, in 2017, it became visible again with more rocks surrounding the body." with the source linking to an article from 2015... SMH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.78.167 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that line of text is a good candidate for the dust bin. Tungsten58 (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This article makes the same claim, and is dated 2022:

https://www.nestadventure.com/blog/green-boots-of-everest/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Green Boots.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of phrase by 62.121.129.170

62.121.129.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has removed language that has been in the article since its creation. I have attempted to explain that this is against WP:EDITCONSENSUS & as WP:BRD suggests, invited the editor to discuss the the matter here. Instead, 62.121.129.170 repeatedly restores their preferred version & thus appears to engaged in an WP:EDITWAR while accusing me of the same action even though I have cited policy (WP:EDITCONSENSUS). 62.121.129.170 also has removed this warning & this warning on their talk page. Peaceray (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I have warned the IP about this and requested temporary full protection of this article. And also reported the IP to WP:AN3. signed, 64andtim (chat) 21:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

An error is still an error, no matter how long it's been in the article. User:Peaceray reverted initially for no good reason; they've only subsequently attempted to justify their actions with reference to a guideline. They have yet to answer the question: is the article about the body, or the name of the body? 62.121.129.170 (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

64.121.129.170, as I have no intention to game the system or win a dispute, I have removed the page protection request and warned the editor as well. signed, 64andtim (chat) 21:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that the removed phrase is the better wording. There have been 335 editors total, so it seems obvious to me that if well over 300 editors have left the phrase in the lead sentence, then there is an edit consensus for it. I believe that Green boots is the name given to the body, & therefore must be prominently mentioned as such. Peaceray (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The phrase is obviously wrong: consider whether the photograph to the right of the lead section (a photograph of Green Boots) is a photograph of a name or a photograph of a body. But also there's really no upside in arguing with WP:LTA/BKFIP (wrestling with a pig and all that), just wait patiently until they next get blocked. --JBL (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The IP is now blocked due to block evasion of BKFIP. signed, 64andtim (chat) 03:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)