Talk:Mount Rainier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.

This article is part of WikiProject Washington, a comprehensive WikiProject dedicated to articles about topics related to the U.S. state of Washington. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or join by visiting the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)

Mount Rainier has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Contents 1 Who 2 Name 3 Pictures 4 Delisted GA 5 Lahar mudflow threat? 6 New Geology Section Added 7 "refered to as 'the mountain'" 8 U.F.O. sighting 9 Delinking of lahars 10 photos 11 External Links 12 Change Type to Stratovolcano? 13 Ascent records

[edit] Who

Mount Rainier's earliest lavas are about 500,000 years old (Sisson and others, 2001).

Who is Sisson? Where was this published?

Thomas W. Sisson is a volcanologist with the USGS in Menlo Park, California. [1]. I don't know the reference, I'm afraid. -- hike395 03:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Found an earlier reference by Sisson that contained the same info, included in article. -- hike395 13:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Article says mountain was originally named Tahoma or Tacoma. Why the change to Rainier? Certainly not to promote Rainier Beer, right? (Rainier was a local brand which at one time was by far the #1 selling beer in the seattle area. A national company bought it and dumbed down the formula, so it is no longer as prominent.)--Measure 13:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

See the History section --- it was renamed by Captain Vancouver on his exploration voyage. -- hike395 22:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tahoma was the original Native American name for it. 'Tacoma' was a mis-interpretation of the word and that name was given to a local city. 'Tahoma' appears in a few places, such as 'Mount Tahoma High School' ... 'Mount Tahoma,' of course, is Mount Rainier.

[edit] Pictures

While the gallery is perhaps unnecessary, this article ought to have more than one photo. For instance, the view from Puget Sound gives a sense of its ubiquity in the area's landscapes. Stan 22:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Rainier definitely needs another pic exactly from the area you mentioned. Puget Sound or Seattle perhaps, just to show how dominant it is in the geography of the whole area.

[edit] Delisted GA

There are no references. slambo 17:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Now there are. -- hike395 13:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lahar mudflow threat?

How about including more information on the mudflow threat from Rainier to the greater Seattle area from a lahar, as detailed here?

From the Seattle Weekly

There is a similar (if tiny) reference like this on the talk page for Glacier Mountain I believe. Something specific to Rainier that can wipe out lower King County might be worth a section. --rootology 20:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Geology Section Added

I decided that this Wikipedia article on Mount Rainier deserved a geology section. I was a little surprised that, unlike most of the other Cascade volcanoes, Rainier's article didn't have one in the first place. It is indeed a potentially dangerous volcano because of the potential for large lahars, and it certainly *has* produced huge lahars in the not-so-distant past. NorthernFire 20:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Test edit.

[edit] "refered to as 'the mountain'"

I took out "Because of its scenic dominance, Seattle/Tacoma-area residents often refer to it simply as 'the Mountain.'"

I've never, ever heard anyone refer to it as just "the mountain." If I were to hear "the mountain," I would probably think of Mt. St. Helens, since Seattlites are excited about its recent activity.

Where do you live, Spokane? During the ten years I spent in Seattle, any time anyone said "the mountain", it was always in reference to Mt. Rainier. Things like the weather forecaster saying "it'll be clear and sunny today, and the mountain should be out". --Carnildo 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that. "The mountain" out of the mouth of a Puget Sound resident always means Mt. Rainier, never Mt. St. Helens. I've reverted the change. --Lukobe 05:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not from Seattle originally, but my native wife and *everyone* she knows always refers to Rainer as simply The Mountain. Sort of how if you're from a suburb of St. Louis, St. Louis is "the city", whereas everyone from vaguely near the New York Metro area always knows "The City" is New York City, especially Manhatten. rootology 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a way of predicting the weather in Seattle using The Mountain. "If you can see The Mountain, it's going to rain. If you can't see The Mountain, it's raining." --Dan 18:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

All the above aside, how notable is it that it is (often/always/sometimes) called "the Mountain"? The same is true, to some extent, of many mountains (e.g. the Sandia Mountains near where I live, Albuquerque, New Mexico). For example, I think it would be silly to have a line in an article about New York City saying "residents often refer to it as 'The City.'" This case is a bit different, but does the line really need to be in the article?-- Spireguy 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it is interesting. Not all cities are referred to as "The City". In the U.S., I've only heard that label applied to NYC, and (rarely) San Francisco. Never, to my memory, to Chicago or Los Angeles. And, I've only heard "The Mountain" applied to Rainier, never to, e.g., Mount Diablo, Mount Baldy, Mount Hood, or even Mount Shasta or Mount Whitney. Aren't the Sandias called, well, "The Sandias"? (I've only spent a little time in New Mexico, so my ignorance is showing). In any event, my argument is that the usage is rare enough to be notable. hike395 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are conflating two different things. Someone in Albuquerque could be talking about the Sandias in a casual way, as in "the mountain is pretty today" or "I can't see the mountain very well, it must be hazy." (Note that I'm not capitalizing.) The same, I expect, is true of Rainier for Seattle. Similarly a resident of any city can say "the city hasn't been the same since the new mayor took office." (E.g. the comment about St. Louis above.) On the other hand, someone in Albuquerque could be talking about the Sandias in a more specific way, in a context where it wouldn't be clear which mountain is meant without specifying it, as in "The Sandias are not as high as the Sangre de Cristos." Similarly someone in Seattle could say "Rainier is higher than St. Helens." I find it unlikely that they would say "The mountain is higher than St. Helens." Similarly for cities, lakes, etc.; I would claim that this usage is quite common, whenever there is some obvious "default" feature.

In short, I don't think it is necessarily notable that Rainier is called "The mountain". However, it is relevant that Rainier is much farther away from Seattle than, say, the Sandias are from Albuquerque. Given that fact, Rainier's status as the default mountain is perhaps notable, since it is another reflection of how darn big it is. I'm not sure. -- Spireguy 02:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a reflection not only of how darn big it is, but of how big it is compared to anything else within visual range. You can see plenty of mountains if you scan the horizon in Seattle, but Tahomas sticks up so much above the rest that it is in a class by itself. Even to the west, Mt. Olympus is obvious, but nothing like The Mountain. --Dan 21:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I wasn't clear. I meant the use of "The City" or "The Mountain" as agreed-upon subjects of sentences without prior or immediate physical context. I can be in Newark, New Jersey, and if I refer to "The City", it doesn't mean Newark, it's New York. If I come up to you in Albuquerque, in the middle of the night, indoors, and say "How far is the mountain?" -- would you even know what I was talking about? In Seattle, people would. I think linguists refer to this as a homophora, but I'm not a linguistics expert. hike395 05:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That is clearer. If that is so, then I would agree that Rainier is a special situation, and probably notable. -- Spireguy 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "the mountain" being Rainier is like "the city" being New York. What is the source of that info? It's true that people in Seattle (and Tacoma even more) say things like "the mountain is out today". But if you said that to someone in Portland, OR, I'd bet they would think you meant Mt Hood. My understanding of wikipedia is that it doesn't matter how tall or far away Rainier is from Seattle -- what matters is citing a reputable source, no? Pfly 23:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a few examples:

1. The book "The Measure of a Mountain" by Bruce Barcott, first chapter is called "The Mountain is Out", you can read it here, look at the first 2 paragraphs.
2. Instructions for attendees of ICDAR 2001, proof of local vernacular
3. Local hiking vernacular: Karen Sykes, who is the hiking columnist for the Seattle PI, uses the phrase (see first paragraph)
4. American Library Association lists "The Mountain" in their slang glossary for their Seattle 2007 conference.
5. AOL travel guide, first sentence about Mount Rainier

hike395 09:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.F.O. sighting

I noticed that there was no mention of the U.F.O. sighting in the 1940's over Mt. Raineer. Does anyone have any specific facts to add. BiggKwell 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to vandalize this article, I would suggest you identify yourself in the future. BiggKwell 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the location of the putative sighting is incidental. I think it is fine to link to Mount Rainier in the discussion of UFOs, but I would object to including in this article since it really isn't pertinent. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There were quite a few Japanese Fire balloons that landed around Rainier and elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest during World War Two. Perhaps those were the UFOs. They were UFOs in the literal sense of the word to most people who saw them. But in any case, they don't pertain to Mount Rainier so much as the whole western US. Pfly 23:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delinking of lahars

Point taken about it being linked earlier in the section, but (i) the link was quite a way back, so I do not think the delinking case is clear cut, (ii) the reason for the delinking was not given by the previous editor, and (iii) I cannot find the relevant guideline about earlier linking in WP:MOS or WP:CONTEXT. Viewfinder 01:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photos

the last picture (View from the space needle) provides the best vista, but I wish you could get a sharper image. There are plenty available, even on postcards. Dunnhaupt 17:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Replaced the main image with a more life-sized version of the summit. Anybody unhappy with the new picture? Murali

The previous one was a better representation of the mountain as a whole, I think - attempts to do closeups of the summit are going to be either distorted or show only a tiny portion of the mountain as a whole. It's just a big mountain... Stan 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the previous one was a bit better, although the new one is not bad. The previous one did place the mountain better in context. If the new one is kept, a better caption would be "Mount Rainier from Paradise" or somesuch. -- Spireguy 23:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I liked the old one, because it is a WP featured photo. Given that 3 of us prefer the old one, I put it back. hike395 05:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Would this site benefit from having information about local accommodations? I think a lot of people come here to research a trip to the area. Is it appropriate to add a link to our Mt. Rainier Cabins on this page?

No. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Carnildo 01:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPAM for the relevant guideline. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change Type to Stratovolcano?

I noticed that composite volcano links to stratovolcano, I propose changing the type to stratovolcano and replacing all references to composite volcano also. --Withamk@usa.net 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry forgot to link, stratovolcano --Withamk@usa.net 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It is almost always appropriate to change wikilinks to avoid redirects. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Stratovolcano and composite volcano are the exact same thing. Volcanologists prefer to use stratovolcano over composite volcano because all volcanoes have composite layers. It just so happens to be more noticable on stratovolcanoes, hence the synonym composite. JustN5:12 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ascent records

I have edited the Ascent records section for a number of reasons:

• I cleaned up the language a little. I changed none of the facts.
• I removed the eternal links because I believe they don't meet the criteria in Wikipedia:External links. They are not directly about Mount Rainier. They are also not citations which backup the facts.
• I have put back in the {{facts}} tag as the facts in this section have no source and may be in dispute.

Lastly, I don't know what it means to say that these records are official. Who decides that a record is official?

-- Patleahy 06:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally, "official" indicates a record that is recognized by the governing or record-keeping body for the sport. For example, aircraft-related records are tracked by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. --Carnildo 06:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That’s what I thought. Over here Jane.freeser explained what she meant by official. I would appear that she means "independently timed" when she says official. I would like to see some source for these facts to see of they refer to them as official. -- Patleahy 14:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Over here The sources were given and then removed by you I believe -- the links to Rainier Mountaineering Inc (who timed Whittaker et al, and two links for the organizations/companies who timed Howitt. I'd like to add a wikipedia link to Whittaker as he was the first US citizen to summit Everest and one of the world's best Rainier climbers and co-founder of Rainier Mountaineering Inc back then. Do you have anything on him to link to?

Over here A $5000 offer was made in 2004 by D.Howitt to C.Kellogg, to have a Rainier speed climbed timed by independent timers. C.Kellogg claimed two record times both untimed and unverified, one in 1998, then 2004. Prior to 2004, D.Howitt offered $500 and then $1500, offer refused by C.Kellogg and instead he did a unverified 2004 climb and claimed a new record and publicized it widely and profited from it with sponsors etc. Then D.Howitt makes offer later in 2004 after this climb for $5000. Offer refused by C.Kellogg. Unprescedented offer as climbing is a kind of poor-man's discipline for most and this is huge amount of $ for such a thing. Offer made publically, to CK directly, and through two speed climbing resources [[2]] Hans Florine, and Bill Wright [[3]]

The links I removed provided no details about the records in the article. To be used as verifiable sources they must contain the facts cited and not just be links to organizations mentioned in the article. -- Patleahy 19:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All content must have a reliable source and satisfy the attribution policy. I don't know of specific guidance on records, but I'm not sure one is necessary if the above two policies/guidelines are satisfied. When citing other discussions, linking to difs is preferable since they are not mangled by archiving.[4] Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

After doing a little research on this topic the only things I can conclude are that there is a great deal of unpleasant argument among the Northwest speed climbing community and very little verifiable facts as to the validity of clamed records. I found one mention of a record in a disputed book and a handful of newspaper articles. I am not familiar enough with the topic to edit it for content myself. However if there are no reliable published sources for these records I suggest the section should be deleted. -- Patleahy 22:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is correct. The content can always be restored if and when reliable sources are found. I would really like to avoid adding the {{totally disputed}} tag to the article. It seem to me that records have more to do with egos of climbers than the mountain and hence are arguably not germane. Moreover, they seem to apply to primarily to a single route and thereby give it undue emphasis (eschewed in the manual of style). Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the following content is disputed above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ascent records

Mount Rainier mountaineering speed ascent records include those of Jim Whittaker, Lou Whittaker, and John Day; who in 1959 set the official roundtrip speed climbing record of 7 hour and 20 minutes from Paradise at 5,900 feet (1,798 m) elevation to the summit of 14,411 feet (4,392 m) and back to Paradise, timed by Rainier Mountaineering Incorporated. The officially timed speed ascent record of Dan Howitt set in September 2003 is 4 hours 59 minutes and 5 seconds from Paradise to the summit, timed by Brogan Adams of Climb Max Mountaineering and Carl Poland of the Fort Lewis Army Rangers. Others have claimed faster times but none of the climbs have been officially timed. [5]