Talk:Mount Monadnock

M'k Hazards

I included safety warnings, even tho Monadnock is different from Sodium or Florine. As Dennis Hopper's character said, "I know, sometimes he goes too far. He's the first to admit it." Well, probably i haven't left anything out, and hopefully it's easier to edit out than edit in. Have at it. --Jerzy 06:39, 2003 Nov 20 (UTC)

But I'm not sure warnings belong here - it seems to me, wikipedia could put similar warnings in every article about a mountain or trail or ski area - or almost anything. I'd like to take them all out, I think - maybe reduce it to one sentence along the lines of "Despite the popularity, Monadnock remains dangerous enough to require caution" or something better-written that that. - DavidWBrooks 14:26, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Tnx, David; this is the kind of discussion i was hoping for.

As i indicated, my edit is the maximum i would consider, but my take right now is that if this article ends up with only a warning like your suggestion, i will consider that

• my contributing at all to that article was a worthwhile but failed experiment, and
• further articles on WP, intended to aid experiencing of mountains this or more hazardous, would be irresponsible.

I'd be interested in whether you see the warnings text as unsuitable to

• the respective pages at least 90% of the northern-New-England mtns that are at least that tall, or
• WP entirely.

I.e., would your concerns be satisfied if this section were linked from the article, on Mountain safety as, e.g., the "three-season" sub-sub-section of "Intermediate-sized northern-New-England mountains"? Probably with the language you were working toward providing the context for the link, e.g. "Despite the popularity, Monadnock remains dangerous enough to require caution." or "Despite the popularity, Monadnock remains dangerous enough to require caution; see Mountain safety."

I'm glad you mentioned "every ... trail or ski area". IMO,

• it'd be (at least) rare for a non-mountain trail to need a warning, and
• skiing is a perfect example of what mtn hiking is not, and why mtn hiking may be unique in the degree of need for warnings.

Most dangerous sports ("forms of recreation", to be precise) require a newbie to talk to at least a salesperson before starting. In fact, i've been in a ski-equipment store where i could imagine the owners having a set speech for new employees like

We hired you for your skiing experience, and our business is about repeat customers; don't hesitate to tell a customer "I'm sorry, sir, if you really insist on having the A without getting the B to go with it, you should go see if you can get it at Walmart. I don't want your business, if it means endorsing something unsafe to get it." When they demand to see the manager, i'll probably tell them that you got a little out of hand, and say "The 'no implicit warranty of safety' language the lawyer put on the sales slip for dealing with ignorant punk kids can work in this situation as well, and yes, we'll take your money, uncomfortable as it is to profit from someone else's probable misfortune. And we hope you'll end up seeing it as a plus when our guys try to discourage choices like yours, because they really do know some important stuff."

Eastern Mountain Sports prints on its shopping bags "Not just knowledge, know-how." as another example of the principle. But the problem is that many people get started on mtns w/o buying anything specific to the project. If i see someone on a mtn in tennis shoes, i may well ask without preface whether they have a map. --Jerzy 18:10, 2003 Nov 20 (UTC)

---

Yeah, but this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide. Having said that, I think your mountain safety idea is excellent: Wanna implement it? DavidWBrooks 22:09, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I like that approach if only bcz the repetitive text should be centralized. Yeah, i think i'll put it near the top of my to-do list; i'd expect to do it piecemeal, and leave places i'm ignorant abt to others after creating red links on their mntns. Presumably an incomplete treatment that acks its shortcomings is superior to nothing. Tnx again. --Jerzy 02:14, 2003 Nov 21 (UTC)

Red-font markup

An editor summarized the removal of red-font markup by a question abt Monadnock's death and injury rate per year.

Casualty Rate

There won't of course be any record of injury rate, since the term is ill-defined, and i don't have any annual death- or rescue-rate figures. However:

On busy summer days, at the summit, a uniformed on-duty ranger sits, apparently enjoying the view. "It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it", right? In fact, a similar question has been asked without irony: "It looks like you've got light duty today; is that a matter of seniority, or does every one get a turn at it?"

The answer is that only one person does that duty, bcz no other ranger assigned to M'k is able to climb from the ranger station at the main entrance to the summit several times in the same day, and that is how often, on the high-volume summer days that build the estimates that say M'k is a highly climbed mtn, the ranger at the top is notified that someone (presumably nearly always somewhere down the mtn a ways, on any of a variety of trails) is in trouble. I presume that some of them are already injured, that others have decided they shouldn't continue either up or down and are waiting to be told what to do about it, and that others have lost enuf of their judgement to dehydration and/or low blood sugar that they can't see what is obvious to the person notifying the ranger: they are the scene of a race among discouragement, stubbornness, and the ranger, whose outcome determines where they fit into the statistics.

So IMO the question should not focus on the injuries and deaths, but on

• the effort invested in routine rescues
• the effort and risk invested in major rescues and
• the value of people who have no idea what they are getting into on M'k knowing more, and
• the value of people who get a major part of their knowledge of M'k, or of their interest in it, from WP, getting NPOV, rather than the PoV from which it is easy to infer the invitation "everybody and their cousin climbs M'k, what's keeping you away?"

Red Type

As to the red type, i am restoring some of it pending further discussion, in the belief that the removing editor either

• intended to implicitly state a criterion for use of red type, which the section above IMO meets, or
• acted in the mistaken belief that "we don't use colored type in WP", whereas the fact is that at least red is used, in a practice dating from at least over a year ago, routinely in highlighting safety information, as with florine, and no doubt many other chemical elements. (I haven't checked compounds and categories, e.g., nitric acid, strong acid, trichlorethylene, and hydrofloric acid (HF).) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 November 2003 (UTC)

Fuji comparisons

"Since 1990, it has been suggested that so many of Fuji's climbers have shifted to new public transportation that Monadnock's annual total of foot traffic now exceeds Fuji's."

I keep hearing claims along those lines, mostly from New Hamphire tourism committees. But I can't find any sign of such a transport system in, say, maps or photos of Mt Fuji. There's a choice of buses to get to a "fifth station" at about 2400 meters on a few different sides, but from any of those you still have to hike about a thousand meters(comparable to the total elevation of Mt Monadnock) [I edited this sentence after having originally pulled a NASA and mixed feet and meters] to reach the summit - not the kind of thing that would disqualify Fuji as "most hiked mountain in the world" based on "annual total of foot traffic." Has anybody SEEN this supposed 'new public transportation' on Fuji??

BTW, the NH parks department compiles estimates of Monadnock traffic as part of their budget projection process. I'll post a link in a minute.

And on a third topic, I don't think any warning is justified. Yes, there are plenty of injuries in terms of annual numbers, but that's because Monadnock is a very crowded place. Would you include a warning in an article about a movie theater, a sports stadium, or a city sidewalk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.242.3 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good add about the Fuji people-carrier ...

I have moved your comments to the bottom of the Talk page, where new discussions usually start, and removed the lines between paragraphs, which made it confusing to read. Also, don't indent - in wikipedia that makes it print your text in a weird bos

like this

The safety warning discussion is a couple years old and, as you'll see from the article, the consensus agreed with you: There are no warnings in it. The Mt. Fuji public transportation does refer to direct buses to several of the so-called 5th stations, which otherwise are estimated to take from 5 to 10 hours to reach by foot. Whether that has had the discussed effect on foot traffic is debatable. It depends on whether they count people who only hike partway up the mountain as having hiked it.

Why not start an account and sign your messages? You can stay completely anonymous, but it makes it easier to figure out who is saying what in discussions like this, and it makes it easier to include a time stamp. - DavidWBrooks 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I found it: http://www.nhstateparks.org/ParksPages/Monadnock/MMP040103/monadnockmasterplanch1Final.pdf

"Today, approximately 95,000 visitors come to the state park annually." This report was written in 2003. The state park includes the summit, nearly all the hiking trails, the parking lots, a picnic area, and cross-country-ski trails. Some hikers use trails that start outside the state park and may be harder to count, but this is a very small percentage of the total: the non-park trailheads don't have any parking!

So where did the 125,000 figure come from?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.242.3 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've answered my own question: that figure came from a web page http://www.tmclark.com/monadnock.html quoting "Grand Monadnock: Exploring The Most Popular Mountain In America" By Julia Older and Steve Sherman, Appledore Books, Hancock, N.H., 1990. That same quotation was plagiarized for the whole paragraph mentioning Fuji in the Wikipedia article (I've since edited it). I have my doubts about the reliability of this source, since it takes one I consider a one-sided view of the Fuji question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.242.3 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to the Fuji bus question: I made an edit that makes it clear that Fuji's buses don't go all the way to the top and removes the deceptive and plagiarized phrase "total foot traffic". I originally included the following sentence, but decided it came too close to taking a position and is too detailed for the top of the article:

"Whether it's fair to disqualify a hiker who starts from Fuji's highest bus station at 2,380 meters, and gains 1,396 meters on foot, compared to hikers on Mt Monadnock who experience under 600 meters of elevation gain but have climbed "the whole mountain", is debatable." Would it be worthwhile to devote some kind of sidebar to this question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.242.3 (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think what you put in was good; leaves the question open without being windy. I tweaked it all very slightly and put in the 2003 year for the NH parks figure. - DavidWBrooks 19:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

you wrote: "..state park authority estimates that 95,000 people climbed to the top in 2003". That's not precisely what they said. I'm editing that sentence so as not to put words in their mouths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.242.3 (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite correct - my error. - DavidWBrooks 22:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of Mount Monadnock, and I actually grew up in the next town over, but having spent a large chunk of time in China, I have to say I really doubt that Mount Monadnock surpasses any of the important Chinese mountains (Tai Shan, Wutai Shan, Huang Shan, Hua Shan even Changbai Shan etc...)in terms of numbers of climbers per year. Is there any hard numbers on this? I feel like the NH Tourist Bureau has really strung people along. It's a bit irresponsible. W. Little — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.85.106 (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You may well be correct. Do you know of any numbers for Chinese mountains? - DavidWBrooks 20:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi just came across this old discussion, if anybody is still interested. I can't comment on the Chinese mountains, but Snowdon/Yr Wyddfa in North Wales is claimed by the National Park Authority to have 400,000 visitors to the summit every year, with another 100,000 on the mountain railway. The NPA has never made the most climbed claim itself, but it has been made by others including the popular UK mountain and hill walking magazine Trail . Having done the climb many times myself, I can attest to the popularity of the mountain, I have sometimes had to queue for the summit. The shortest path to the summit has a vertical climb of about 600m, while the longest are about 1000m. Flossiesheep (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

References

The Cave

I've climbed Monadnock maybe 100 times in my life, mostly without much meandering off the trails. I've heard locals talk about a large cave on the mountain. Many people have told me it's in such and such a place or such and such another place but I never seem to be able to find it.

Is it just some local folklore or is there actually a significantly sized cave on the mountain? And would anyone care to describe where it is for us discussion page lurkers? Perhaps a photo? Glippy00 11:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

New Hampshire has very little in the way of caves because of our geology. All that igneous rock, you know - cave-rich areas tend to be made of limestone, a softer rock that wears away from moisture. So my guess would be no, although that's far from certain. - DavidWBrooks 13:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In New Hampshire, "cave" often means a man-sized gap left behind when a block of granite has slipped, or the gap beneath two or more large boulders jumbled together. (example: http://www.polarcaves.com/areas/caves.html) I don't recall seeing one on Monadnock (or ever hearing of one), but it wouldn't surprise me if one existed, especially off-trail. "Significantly sized"? That'd surprise me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.45.242.3 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

There is a small man-made cave on the mountain. It has a manmade (metal? wood?) roof and it used to have a door (now gone, as I understand it. My neighbor's son's scout troop has hiked to it. It is off of Cascade Link near the junction with Pumpelly Trail and not easy to find. My understanding is that it is easier to locate from Cascade Link Trail moving upwards. No idea if it's on the left or the right. It is not visible from the trail. It is apparently near some ledges. I've seen photographs of the cave taken by my neighbor's son. There is a story (perhaps a "rural" legend) that the cave, which faces east, was used during World War I as a beacon location for a german spy to signal ships off the New England coast. I have my doubts whether the story is true, but the cave is in fact there. DHLister 01:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC); Comment edited 20:13, 14 May 2007 by User:192.18.128.13

I must protest your removal of my panorama.

From what I have read of the wikipedia image guidelines, the original panorama does not meet them. The picture has visible seams for one thing, and for another, the left and right sides don't match up. Also, the guidelines state that bigger is better and images should have a resolution of at LEAST 1000. The original panorama's vertical resolution is only 518 pixels tall, yet nearly as wide as my image which is twice as tall.

The guidelines also state that the image should not be compressed too much. An image that size should not be a mere 380K. That is part of the reason it is so blurry.

These policies of having large images which are not over comrpessed go against what you said about having pity on people with slow net connections. When you click a thumbnail you get a larger version. When you click that larger version you get a full sized image. Those with slow net connections need not click for the full sized version. You might as well argue that the original image is too wide for people with an 800x600 display which is what a good 50% of PC's on the market are set to.

You also said my image doesn't add anything new. I counter that my image shows off the beauty of the mountain better than the original image, which looks flat and boring. I have many other very nice pictures of the mountain which I was considering submitting, but if the people maintaining wikipedia think awful images like this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:DSC_0456.JPG are good enough, then what's the point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scswift (talk • contribs) 03:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

I didn't say your picture wasn't good - it is. But Wikipedia is not a place for a collection of "nice pictures" of places; just think what articles about, say, the Grand Canyon or Eiffel Tower would look like that in that case. One panorama giving a sense of the sweep of the view at the crest is sufficient. If you had something very different - a good aerial view from above, for example - that would be a new addition and worthy of inclusion.

If you think the current photo is crummy, then remove it and put yours in its place and see what the reaction is. But we can't just pile up similar photos. - DavidWBrooks 11:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do that (remove the original) because I didn't think I should make the decision about which one is kept. I thought by placing the second one there, whatever mechanisms wikipedia has for opening up discussion on the merits of one image over another would be put into motion. But if that's the proper way to go about doing things, then maybe I'll do that. Scswift 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I say put yours back in and take out the original. The new one is better. That's my vote anyhow. --Glippy00 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fire / Wolf Myth

I believe that the story about the wolfs and setting fires etc, is a myth, if there is a source for this please cite it or move this subject out of history and into folklore. thanks, Strangealibi 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty well regarded as true. I put in a reference as an external link. And here's another: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:ehf20CiFNxkJ:www.nhstateparks.org/ParksPages/Monadnock/MMP040103/monadnockmasterplancvrFinal.pdf+monadnock+fire+wolves&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us - DavidWBrooks 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Most park staff will tell you otherwise, especially the Park Manager who is something of a Monadnock Scholar. As for a citable source, according to Craig Brandon's 2007 book Monadnock: More than a Mountain, "The wolves, however, were exterminated some years before that[1820], so it seems unlikely that the 1820 fire was deliberately set." TerminalSaint (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox photo

The infobox needs a good photo of the mountain. For a mountain that is reportedly the second most climbed in the world, hard to believe we don't have any good photos. RedWolf 03:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Melville and Moby Dick

The statement "Herman Melville compared the hump of Moby Dick to Monadnock when describing Captain Ahab's final struggle with the whale." is not correct. It was Mt. Greylock in Adams, MA that was his inspiration. He could view this mountain from the very room in which he wrote Moby Dick. (The estate is called Arrowhead in Pittsfield, MA and can be visited most days of the year.)

The shape and snow-covered summit reminded him of a whale. I don't know if he ever climbed Monadnock but he certainly did climb Greylock many times and loved the mountain as did many other artists and authors such as Nathaniel Hawthorne, William Cullen Bryant, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Henry David Thoreau. In fact Thoreau's experience on Greylock was said to have a huge effect on his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.183.236 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd then though that Monadnock would be capitalized in the book, no? That seems to point towards the notion that Melville is in fact referencing specifically the Great Monadnock or Mt. Monadnock as it's also known as opposed to any old monadnock mountain. Seems to me the evidence is pretty blatantly in support of the reference being about this particular mountain. Unless you have some reference in a journal of his or letter or some such that mentions him referring to Greylock as a Monadnock with a capital 'M'.

Glippy00 04:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See the Mount Greylock article for references. If you make me work it, I can find many others as well; its a well documented item. Melville even dedicated anotehr book to Greylock. You'd be hard pressed to find a Monadnock connection from a reliable source. Monadnock was commonly used to describe mountains in New England at that time. The writers of that time often capitalized such things without meaning a proper noun. Also, the profile of Mount Greylock resembles the body of a whale. All said, I don't think a Monadnock=Mellville reference belongs in here unless you can find a reliable documented source that specifically suggests such a connection. (--Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Mount / Mountain?

The GNIS lists this as "Monadnock Mountain", not "Mount Monadnock".[1] Should we rename this article?
—wwoods (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody - and I mean nobody - who lives anywhere near it calls it anything mountain - mostly "Mount Monadnock", or "Grand Monadnock" to differentiate it from other Mondandocks nearby. We absolutely should not rename it. (I have created Monadnock Mountain as a redirect to here, in case a GNIS reader tries that name) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaning towards no. The State of NH refers to it as Mount Monadnock in their "Monadnock State Park Master Plan"[2]. Using the quick (and dirty) Google check, "Mount Monadnock" [3][4] has more hits than "Monadnock Mountain" [5][6]. I know that, typically, it is locally refered to as Mount Monadnock. A very good question. Is there any type of guideline on this? ZueJay (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all the mountains in New Hampshire - New England, I think - are "mount so-and-so" not "so-and-so mountain" - most famously Mount Washington. That GNIS name is really quite odd; it must have been plugged in to some generic mountain-naming formula. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The GNIS page lists "Mount Monadnock Mountain" as a variant name. 8-) Maybe we should drop them a email, suggesting a change?

—wwoods (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

new edits

Added a bunch of material, reorganized the article under more comprehensive sections, and made other edits. Let me know what you think. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

southwest NH

Hi Pgagnon999, sorry we got into a bit of an edit back-and-forth there. It was late! If you look at the article history, you'll see that it said southwest New Hampshire before you changed it to southeast New England, citing the Berkshires - that's when I entered. All I ever did was revert edits, never rewrite.

More importantly, though, it's not correct to say Monadnock is the most prominent mountain in southeast New England because it's in northern New England. Nobody ever calls New Hampshire part of southern New England - that would be like saying Nebraska is in the Southeast U.S. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Does that mapping software reference you just added call it southern New England? I really believe it is confusing to many readers to call something in New Hampshire part of southern New England, which almost always means Mass., R.I. and Conn. - if they're a little iffy on their geography, that statement will really throw them off.

I think the point of adding "southern" is to show that it's smaller than the Whites.

But when you think about it, that long, clunky phrase just says that Monadnock is the most prominent mountain not in the prominent ranges in adjoining states - is that something we really want to gum up the introductory paragraph saying? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have understood Southern New England to be MA/RI/CT. Perhaps there's another way to restate it to ease confusion? Jrclark (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

David, if you look at the history, you'll see that the southeast reference has stood on the article for some time now; it was changed by an anon user;[7] I reverted that edit because it created a poorly worded sentence (echo reference to location as "New Hampshire") and removed reference to Monadnock's place in the geography of New England. Then you reverted my revert (leaving the poorly worded language intact), and here we are.

As for the confusion about southern New England, it's a matter of perspective, but I see your point (and yours Jrclark); I'll work something out to clarify that. Thanks for discussing.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the "southeast NE" comment having been there for ages and I never noticed it - so much for my righteous indignation! (smacks forehead) Anyway, the wording you've redone looks fine to me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think the sentence "the most prominent New England mountain peak south of the White Mountains and east of the Massachusetts Berkshires" is really clunky. What's the point of being so specific like that? Wouldn't it be easier to say "one of the most prominent New England mountain peaks" and leave it at that? Trying to pinpoint "most prominent east of here, south of there, and within a ten mile radius of this point" makes it too wordy and specific for your average reader. Just my thoughts... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it isn't one of the most prominant peaks in New England. There are dozens of peaks more prominant or higher in northern and western New England. The sentence is precise and maybe a tiny bit long, but gramatically correct, and it puts the mountain into geographic context, which is important, as the mountain occupies an unusually dominant position within a relatively large geographic area.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something like, "the most prominent peak in the southern half of New Hampshire"? The next one up being Smarts, and the closest more-prominent peaks being Ascutney and Stratton in Vermont.[8][9]

—WWoods (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Perhaps the best way to show geographic relationship would be to bring up the material that shows Monadnock's distance from Boston and Concord and eliminating mention of New England topography in the top of the header--Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC).

What's wrong with (if I may be repetitive) "southwest New Hampshire"? Does that seem too narrowly focused, perhaps? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in of itself. The attempt was to show the mountain's topographic importance within the context of the New England region; but it looks like that won't be easy to do after all.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if there might be some formal source we could quote that would illustrate its importance - "the mountain has been called "one of the finest examples of stand-alone-mountainification in the Eastern seaboard" by professor XYZ" - without our having to be geographically specific. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

On further consideration, I think we could fairly say, "one of the [[New England Fifty Finest|most prominent]] New England mountain peaks" in the introduction, if we identify our criterion. Push the details on topography down in the article. Being #33 isn't as impressive as being #3, but it's still among the top 50 out of however-many-thousand NE peaks.

—WWoods (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That might work; the hard part will be squeezing the criterion into the header, as the term "prominence" per the Fifty Finest isn't an apparent concept; it would probably be confused with the dicdef "prominence."--Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've come late to this discussion. I've never really been a big fan of the whole "prominence" concept, because the lowest separating valley from the next highest peak can be an awfully long way away - for Monadnock, it would be the gap in Canaan, New Hampshire, that Route 4 and the Northern Railroad take to the Lebanon area. Really, the significance of Monadnock lies not in its certain number of feet that it rises above its surrounding terrain, but the fact that it is a prominent (used non-technically), isolated peak, whose name has come to be used as a generic term for any isolated peak. Let me see if I can work that idea into the opening sentences of the article. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

move article and dab?

I'm thinking that it might be best to move this article to either Mount Monadnock (Jaffrey, New Hampshire) or Grand Monadnock. The reason: there are other mountains with the same or similar names; per Wiki general policy, that would indicate the need for a general dab page to which are linked specific article pages with unambiguous titles. Granted, Mount Monadnock is by far more widely known. . .and I feel a certain resistance to altering it. ..but it would conform to policy better. Someone living in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont might well be more familiar with the mountain by the same name up there. What do you the rest of you think?--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Having been through about 20 of these, my first reaction is "don't move it unless there's compelling evidence of confusion." My second reaction is that this Mount Monadnock is so much better known that any other that it should remain the default article (however, I live fairly near it, so my viewpoint may be skewed). But my third reaction is that wikipedia's vast reach has made following naming policy more important; if this article was being created today, it would probably start as a disambig. So I guess I'd agree that Mount Monadnock should become a disambiguation page. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to maintain the fact that this Mount Monadnock is by far -- more "by far" than in most cases -- the most well-known mountain. Before we go and move the article, let's start with a "hat note" (I've been hanging out with the disambiguation people) at the top that will direct people to a disambiguation page. I'll be happy to create the note and the page. I suspect that in this case, that is all that would be needed. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good & seems to solve the problem. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I went a step further and created a general Monadnock (disambiguation)--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. That solves the issue nicely.--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Advertising?

Something that resembles an advertisement for a dance (including an external URL) continues to be inputted on the article. Another user has also editted this down. Jrclark (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Craig Brandon's Monadnock: More than a Mountain mentions a compelling theory on the name of the mountain presented by former NH Parks director Will LaPage. Specifically he contends that the mountain was named by Scotch Irish explorers who left Boston in the late 17th century. "monadh" means "mountain" in ancient Gaelic, and "nock" means "low hill". The name could have be adopted by Native American guides and then assumed to be of aboriginal origin by later Europeans entering the region.
While not a citable source, Will LaPage lays out the theory himself here: From The Monadnock File #1 -- What's in a Name?
TerminalSaint (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a British geographer/geologist who has long been familiar with the term 'monadnock' as applies to this form of mountain. Until reading this article I'd never considered for a minute that the name origin might have been anything but an anglicisation of the Scottish Gaelic 'monadh' + 'cnoc'; it fits so well. Of course I know next to nothing about native American languages. Can an expert in the Abanaki language assist us here, in case it is a borrowing from Gaelic? Geopersona (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'm going to copy your request to the Abenaki people talk page, since that is probably where the language experts will see it. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Also copied to Talk:Abenaki language, which seems to get less traffic, however. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty, of course, is that there are way more Gaelic language experts than Abenaki. Not sure when the latter was written down, but I suspect no native speakers left, except self-taught. Nearly all languages have "borrow" words. We can probably trace those in Gaelic. Probably can't in Abenaki. I'm pretty sure I have stumbled across a single "dictionary" someplace in the various articles, but it might have been on an allied language. One dictionary, written late in the language use. And quite probably without this word in it. Even if it were there, no possibility of tracing its derivation (was it "borrowed" from Europeans?). Student7 (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that "The Mountain that stands alone" would be an Indian word, considering that "Monad" is Greek for "Alone". 99.111.149.90 (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a common confusion. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The question was answered and sources provided in 2020 at Talk:Abnaki language, copied below: Ken Gallager (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

"The etymology of Monadnock:

The name “Monadnock” — “Mon-ADD-nock” seems to be the preferred pronunciation — is derived from the Native American Indian Abenaki language: menonadenak, meaning "smooth mountain," or menadena, meaning “isolated mountain.” Other sources identify it deriving from menonadenak, not menadena. At any rate, it seems unlikely it is connected in any way to Scottish Gaelic terms as Indigenous place names are often constructed from their own words that describe the particular place, its location or, especially, its features.

That is from this source: https://altamontenterprise.com/opinion/columns/back-roads-geology/10042013/monadnock-peak-became-paradigm

Also, Monadnock, from Mnona'denak meaning To the bare smooth mountain. Source:

Abenaki Indian Legends, Language, and Place Names, by Henry Lorne Masta, copyright 1932:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Abenaki_Indian_Legends_Grammar_and_Place/ojg76JFg6eIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=monadnock

PaulThePony (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)"

First Ascent

Shouldn't that be first European Descent? I find it hard to believe no Natives climbed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.30.197 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The article in fact says "Earliest recorded ascent", so there is nothing misleading about it. Of course we can all presume the local Abenaki climbed it now and then, but there is no record of it. --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not: many American Indian cultures deliberately did not climb their local high peaks out of spiritual tradition and culture. It's impossible to say for Monadnock, of course, and it seems unlikely that nobody would ever have made it to the top in the pre-European era, when it was still forested - if for no other reason than as part of hunting game. But "recorded" covers the facts nicely. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also laughable to state with any kind of straight face that it's first ascent was in 1725. There are all kinds of political and racial issues associated with historical events such as "first peaked" but it's ludicrous and laughable to say this incredible peak, available to all kinds of groups for thousands of years, was "first peaked in 1725." Come on... — Preceding unsigned comment added 21:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC) by ChrisEOlive (talk • contribs)

I moved the above comment here from the "Infobox photo" section above. The comment is already answered by the discussion above. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Picture removed

A picture was recently removed, supposedly because it adds nothing to the article. I would agree that the picture is not essential, but it surely adds something. Since the mountain is climbed so frequently, an example of the sort of detail that brings people back many times (in my case, 73 times) seems completely appropriate. It also is relevant that the trails often double as streams or intermittent drainage. Perhaps this fact can be mentioned as part of the caption?Witnessforpeace (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the photo, which showed a small cascade of water falling on a trail. Speaking as somebody who has climbed Monadnock many times as well as many similar small mountains in the region, it could easily have been taken in 100 different places hereabouts. Many, probably most, New England mountain have trails that often double as streams. (As a volunteer trail worker, lots of what we do on trail days is built "water bars" to limit this happening.) This a situation is not specific to Monadock at all - virtually the same photo could be attached to almost any article about a New England mountain with trails. That's why I removed it; there needs to be a higher bar for pictures to do added to articles about popular sites, or else they turn into tourist photo galleries. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

New Infobox Photo

I was wondering if we could select a new photo for the infobox? I have two concerns with the current one: The first being that most Wikipedia articles on mountains have a very clear view of the summit and some of their surroundings. Where as the current one is a shot of the north-western ridge line (Dublin/Marlborough Trail). The photo is also a little blurry for one taken mid-day.

I uploaded some photos to Wikimedia awhile ago and would love to use one of them for the photo but I wanted to see what others thought first. The photos can be seen here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mount_Monadnock#/media/File:Mt._Monadnock_Summit.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mount_Monadnock#/media/File:Mt._Monadnock.jpg

I also have an extremely high resolution stitched-photo that could be used on my site: (warning 8MBs) http://blarney.me/projects/imgGallery/photos/2013-12-07_Monadnock/2013-12-07-Panorama02.jpg

If I don't hear any objections I will probably change the photo in a few weeks and see how it is received.

Additionally the current panorama is very blurry and has some exposure issues. I don't have any suitable photos but if there is any interest I could take a good one. Probably once the warmer weather roles in since I think a warm season photo better represents the mountain.

Jonwmcinenrey (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not go ahead and replace it now? Either of the first two in your set would provide better context than the current photo. The second one shows the full height of the mountain (and is quite striking), but the first one fills the photo area better, so it's your call. Thanks for offering! --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the go-ahead. I went through my photos and found a photo that was a little more "plain" which I felt was more appropriate for Wikipedia. It's a clear shot of the summit, during mid-day. I wish I had a photo that better showed the scale of the mountain versus the surrounding area but maybe down the road. Jonwmcinenrey (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitive (?) Elevation

I am a fan of LiDAR data, and I recently noted that the summit elevation for Monadnock seems to vary by source. Google lists 3166', this page 3165', and Peakbagger lists NAVD88 of 3149' but allows a range from 960-966 meters (3149' to 3169'). NH GRANIT http://granit.sr.unh.edu/ has LiDAR data for the mountain, and from what I can gather, lists the peak at a few inches over 3170' (with an error of less than a foot). Is it policy here to reflect the "official" elevation? I've contacted the NH Division of Parks and Rec. about this. Markstock (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Mount Monadnock. 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/20120731233111/http://www.monadnockmountain.com/10%20fun%20facts.htm to http://www.monadnockmountain.com/10%20fun%20facts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201084314/http://www.americanprofile.com/article/997.html to http://www.americanprofile.com/article/997.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730234054/http://www.monadnockmountain.com/ to http://www.monadnockmountain.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723102207/http://www.chesterfieldoutdoors.com/plands/nugentDaniels0501.html to http://www.chesterfieldoutdoors.com/plands/nugentDaniels0501.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008120916/http://www.mmmtrail.org/ to http://www.mmmtrail.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120731233145/http://www.monadnockmountain.com/poetry.htm to http://www.monadnockmountain.com/poetry.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119065516/http://www.mount-monadnock.com/ to http://www.mount-monadnock.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)