Talk:Mount Elbrus

More Etymology: The Holistic Approach

Are we not overlooking a rather obvious interpretation, based on the widespread occurrence of similar names, e.g., Alborz, north of Teheran, etc. There is general agreement as to their identity. The alleged Avestan origin fails to bear any semblance of kinship. This, like Alps, is a survival, if not from Pleistocene times, more convincingly from Holocene Younger Dryas glacial re-advance as late as 8,000 BP, perhaps even later. The word signifies glacial cover on tall mountains, that once were visible from great distances in many areas of western Eurasia. Albus Horos, the White Mountain, is the holistic explanation. Latin has retained the adjective albus, white, and Greek the noun ὌΡΟΣ, mountain. Similarly Alba or Albion for Britain or Scotland, for the late remnants of glacial icecaps on this northern island and its far-north extremity. hgwb 06:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC) hgwb 06:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC) hgwb 06:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC) What is the matter with sinebot, I signed it in triplicate because that malfunctioning piece of software automation always does that to me. Signed by the author, hgwb, hgwb hgwb hgwb 09:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC) 09:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC) and double-signed again with "hgwb 09:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)","hgwb 09:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)" hgwb 09:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC) hgwb 09:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptiker (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Strobilus?

Is Strobilus really the ancient name of Mount Elbrus? Please check.

• In the very first version (May 2003), the article said: "The ancients knew the mountain as Strobilus and believed that Prometheus was chained here." No source mentioned.
• As of today, somewhat more text has been added, mainly: strobilos = a twisted object. Elbrus is allegedly having a twisted shape. No source mentioned.
• In reality, all we "know" about Strobilus (rather: Strobilos) is a single sentence in Arrian's Periplus of the Euxine Sea. Information about Strobilus/Strobilos must therefore follow Arrian and is very limited.
• Well done here: Strobilus. Arrian's sentence about Strobilos is the last one here in § 16; French translation, English translation.
• This means, Arrian did not say, Strobilos was the ancient name of Mount Elbrus. He said, when sailing toward Dioskurias (= Sukhumi) he was shown a peak in the Caucasus named Strobilos, and this was allegedly the mountain where Prometheus was fastened.
• Which peak in the Caucasus was Strobilos? We don't know that. It may be that mount Strobilos was today's Elbrus. But at least Arrian himself, the one and only source, doesn't say that. He heard this name by some local person oder persons when he travelled there, and he wrote this to Emperor Hadrian. Can we then say, "The ancients knew the mountain as Strobilus"? I don't think so, since Arrian's report only indicates that the name Strobilos was used by the local population of his day. Not by "the ancients".
• Arrian said that Strobilos was pointed out to him. Note that you can hardly, if at all, see Elbrus from the shore near Sukhumi. You can see Elbrus in this visualisation (to the right at 63°). But the viewpoint in this case is more than 30 km off the coast. Arrian surely traveled much closer to the coast, maybe not even 1 km off the coast. Elbrus would then diseappear in the panorama if you keep the angle. In any case, Elbrus does not appear to be a super-high or dominant mountain when you view it from a ship approaching Sukhumi.
• Is Elbrus clearly a "twisted" mountain, as suggested in the article text? Or is it more "twisted" than other Caucasian peaks? This is also questionable.

In the German article, we spread the same kind of misinformation as the English article, for some ten years. In our case, somebody had relied on a sentence in this travel report in the New York Times (1989) – possibly also the source of the original Strobilus sentence your article. Yesterday, I have changed the German article de:Elbrus according to the facts. I wood like to ask you to change the English article. --Lektor w (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I now tried to get the text about Strobilus right, by eight edits, starting with this edit. --Lektor w (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed content

A few days ago anon 104.172.225.189 (talk · contribs) deleted this content without leaving an edit summary. Another anon 83.181.79.84 (talk · contribs) tried to restore it four times, but that was reverted three times by user Beshogur and once by myself. I warned 83.181.79.84 on their talk page for edit warring, but having noticed the history now, I think they were correct to restore the deleted content in the first place. So I'm inclined to do that and to warn the first anon for unexplained content removal. Comments welcome. - DVdm (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: My own comment... I agree with this. I propose we keep it. - DVdm (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@DVdm:, that's not true. There are literally villages around Mount Elbrus, but that's not the issue. The article has three names, Russian, Kabardian and Karachay-Cherkess. Russian is logical for sure, and both are logical as well, the mountain lays between Karachay-Balkaria and Kabardino Balkaria, official and cultural factors, so two factors. It's the first time I've hearing something about Svan people related to Elbrus; any way, I don't get anything as well when I search "ფასა" in google. Also see my remark on the closest Georgian settlement. Also Tried restoring info that was on this page for a long time and was pointlessly deleted. he claims this name was here for a long time, however it has been on my watchpage since some 3 years. Beshogur (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I find this with Google. Elbrus is clearly there. See also this — even if there might be some circularity.

The content was added in August here and here again, by 78.40.106.202 (talk · contribs).

@78.40.106.202: of course, because all these websites citing wikipedia, nothing else. Beshogur (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Just please stop edit warring about this. - DVdm (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@DVdm: placing warning on my page, because some IP user is insisting about "ფასა" which gives one mountain picture, that isn't even Elbrus. Come on. Beshogur (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: this picture and page came up with this search. Perhaps you didn't scroll down? - DVdm (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@DVdm: Sorry but wordpresses are not wp:rs. And I explained why Kabardian and Karachay-Balkar names should stay and this not. Beshogur (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, you explained, but so did anon, even if it wasn't here. They are blocked now. - DVdm (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

so what do you think now? It's really very very weak reasoning to include that name. Beshogur (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the article might end up semi-protected . - DVdm (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Travel safety and Department of State

We have this quote still standing:

> As of 2019, the United States Department of State has issued a travel advisory against climbing the mountain

However, as of 2021 this is outdated claim, since USDOD has issued a travel advisory against all travel to Russia in general, so there is no longer any difference between Elbrus and Moscow in that regard.

What we could do:

• Find other travel advisories which still discriminate between Elbrus and the rest of Russia, refer to them.
• Drop that clause, maybe with the section altogether, maybe by linking to Russia's Travel Safety section if there's such thing.

Ilyak (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Dubious claim in Situation section

I just added a "dubious" tag for the claim that the Caspian Sea can be seen from the summit. I included the following for the "reason" portion of the tag: "Only an extreme refraction coefficient of 0.474 will allow for a horizon distance of 370 km from an altitude of 5642 m above sea level. The standard refraction coefficient is 0.16 or 0.17 and it changes very little at altitudes higher than a few hundred meters. Perhaps this is just poorly written, and the intended meaning was that the Black Sea, not the Caspian Sea, can be seen on an exceptionally clear day. I cannot read the cited source, which is behind a paywall." Perhaps someone can see what the cited source said. Or maybe this just needs to be re-worded so that it clearly means that the Black Sea, not the Caspian Sea, can be seen on an exceptionally clear day. Thanks and cheers! Holy (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Holy, I have access to the full article and just read it - I believe I understand what happened here. There are two references to being able to view a sea:

Third paragraph: "To the west is the Black Sea, and on especially clear days, the Caspian Sea is visible 250 miles to the east."

Near end of article: "The Black Sea appeared in the east for a moment and then vanished again in the mist."

I believe the author of the article made an error in the cardinal direction when writing the article, saying the Black Sea was visible in the east rather than in the west. It is likely an editor then summarised at the top of the article in the lead-in and just read west rather than the black sea.

Given the primary reference of the Author mentioned the Black Sea, I feel it's more likely he made an error on the direction rather than the name of the sea briefly seen. So I believe it is safe to edit this entry to state that the Black Sea is visible from the summit rather than the Caspian.

Cheeers! Fuberite (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)