Talk:Alec and Peter Graham

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article name

Shouldn't the name of this article be Alec and Peter Graham maybe with alpine guides. i.e.
Alec and Peter Graham alpine guides. Eddaido (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article - no apparent purpose to this list

The seven highest peaks of the Southern Alps

Aoraki / Mount Cook 3,724 metres

Mount Tasman 3,497

Mount Dampier 3,440

Mount Vancouver 3,300

Silberhorn 3,300

Mount Hicks 3,218

Mount Graham 3,203^[1]^[2]

MurielMary (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MurielMary: Hi MurielMary have you noticed the name of the seventh item in the list? Eddaido (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed Mount Graham. If the point of the inclusion of the list is to state that "There is a mountain named for xx person/family, and it's the 7th highest in the Southern Alps" then that is what the text should state. Just having a list doesn't make that point clearly at all. MurielMary (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth it was the weekend and I couldn't check with the board that decides the names of these things and it is incorrectly linked elsewhere so I hoped someone with the facts would confirm or deny. I will try to remember to check who it was named after tomorrow. Eddaido (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ location Geodata US
^ Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand

Discussion of removed material

Hi E. Please explain the rationale behind including an image of a plane in this biographical article about two mountaineers. There is no mention in the article about planes, so the image appears unrelated to the content. Likewise, the material about the later rebuilding and flooding of the hotel - which these two people no longer owned - also appears unrelated to the content. If you want to write an article about the hotel/building itself, that would be the perfect place for information such as this, but IMO it's unrelated to the biography of these two people. MurielMary (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article it is about two mountaineers who run a hotel for the people that they guide round the mountains. Their climbers came from all over the world, the airline was the final link for their customers. The flooding text explains why there is now no obvious remains of the outfit and why/how certain people view the little church in isolation. The hotel is an important part of the lives of the subjects and so is the airline. If you think more mention should be made I look forward to reading what you provide.

There is a great deal more material available about the Grahams if you take a look around. Eddaido (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think things are the other way around, E. If you want to include information about the rebuild, the flooding, the airline, then you need to explain in the article how this information contributes to the biography. As it stands, the information and image appear unconnected/not relevant to the subjects of the bio (the information about the flooding relates to a time 70 years after they sold it, for example) and I believe they (info and image) should be removed. MurielMary (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absolute classic content dispute. The material belongs there and stays. You are welcome to further develop it. Eddaido (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree that the material belongs there and should stay; I think it's not relevant and should be removed. Let's wait and see what other editors' opinions are, given that the article is a collaborative piece of writing and the product of a number of editors' work.MurielMary (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well you would wouldn't you. I mean its all very much to be expected from you. The list of seven mountains is there because all the others are / were named after foreigners. I know you are a very great fan for adding the blindingly obvious to your hyper-potted biogs. (to take up space?) For a fresh example could you try considering there might be readers able to read Rail on the poster (if they care) and not need the new version of the caption. Ugh. Eddaido (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments: I don't think the photo of the plane belongs in this article, and especially not without some reference in the text. More relevant is the photo of the hotel in Commons. There are some important facts about these 2 guides worthy of inclusion in the article e.g. Peter Graham had a plant named after him. See the Te Ara article. Why is the name of the hotel, Franz Josef Glacier Hotel, not included in the article? The quote about the hotel being the grandest on the coast should be sourced. I would be OK about the sentence about the flooding staying there for now until and unless there is a more appropriate place for it to be such as in the notable buildings section in the article about Franz Josef or about the hotel building itself. Over to others for their opinion.--Gertrude206 (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two editors who agree that the photo of the plane does not belong in the article as there is not reference to it in the text. It has been removed twice but Eddaido has put it back twice with no discussion here. This is disruptive editing. Eddaido, the usual process when editors disagree on the content of an article is to discuss it on the talkpage, not remove/replace/remove repetitively. Please justify/explain here why you think the image of the plane belongs in this article? MurielMary (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please just wait without trying so very very hard to give offence. You do it anyway. Disruptive seems to be the very word for your editing. I've provided something now below to keep your mind off things for a few minutes. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MurileMary

For sheer rudeness you take the cake. Why don't you take the airline link and learn a little, why . . . Eddaido (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aroha Brustad first woman . . .

Airwoman's death. She climbed from the Hermitage over Graham's Saddle to Waiho and back and then she married her guide. A subject not yet bio'd in WP.^[1] Eddaido (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Aroha Clifford . New Zealand Herald 1 December 1933 Page 12

Chancellor Hut

This article currently has no mention of Chancellor Hut, which the pair built. —Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 08:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] tion Geodata US

[2] Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand

[3] Aroha Clifford . New Zealand Herald 1 December 1933 Page 12

[1]

[2]

[1]