Talk:Mount Hood/Archive 1

Archive 1

Second most frequently climbed mountain in the world

... second only to Japan's Mount Fuji.

Someone justifiably added the citation needed tag to this factoid. I have heard the claim for decades, even before I first climbed it in 1975, but how is it qualified? Is it climbed more frequently than Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania's Mount Washington? As that is in the midst of the south urban area and covered with houses, apartments, etc., it's highly doubtful. Besides, it isn't even close to being a foothill to western U.S. eyes.

What's the definition of a mountain? Maybe it only applies to mountains more than 10,000 feet above their surrounding area? Or glaciated as one of these links notes.

• http://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail.asp?trailid=HGU060-037
• http://homepages.wmich.edu/~acareywe/mountains.html claims Mt. Hood as second most climbed glaciated mountain

These claim that New Hampshire's Mount Monadnock is the second most climbed mountain in the world

• http://www.nhstateparks.org/ParksPages/Monadnock/Monadnock.html
• http://www.projo.com/cgi-bin/include.pl/hiking/archive/projo_20030605_hiking.htm
• http://www.wildernet.com/pages/area.cfm?areaID=NHARMO&CU_ID=1

Or maybe Mt. Hood has the 893rd most climbed granite with snow in the world—but the proudest, wikiliterate locals. EncMstr 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's granite anywhere on Mt. Hood, nor on any of the other volanoes in the Cascade Range. It's all young volcanic rock, lava and ash. —Quicksilver^{T @}!

I was just watching the news and happened to see them post this very information, second most climbed mountain. Gonna recheck the article to see if its still in, if not I might add it with some news citation.--Azslande 00:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• They might be citing this page, or an earlier version. It would be better to find a site someplace that has actual mountain-climbing figures, and get some context to it. Pikes Peak has a road you can drive to the top on. Does that count? You can start climbing Hood at Timberline Lodge, which is already more than halfway up, so does that count? And for all I know, Fuji might have an escalator by now. This is one of those slippery, tourist-hype kinds of statistics, so without some context, it should be left out. Wahkeenah 03:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• CNN on Sunday (when I saw it) also said it was the second most frequently climbed after Fuji. Where they got that stat from is unknown. As others have pointed out, second by what standards? RedWolf 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So this claim has been in question since 2006? I note it has apparently been revised to "After Mount Fuji, Mount Hood is the second most climbed mountain in the world above 10000 feet", with both a ref and a citation needed tag. Looking at the ref I agree with the CN tag's comment, "This claim revolves around and around, but no original author is ever identified. PortlandHikersFieldGuide could be repeating hearsay: please provide a *primary* citation." First, the referenced page merely says "Mt. Hood is said to be the second most climbed mountain...", while our page leaves out the "is said to be" bit. Second, the referenced page says at the bottom, "Portland Hikers Field Guide is built as a collaborative effort by its user community. While we make every effort to fact-check, information found here should be considered anecdotal." I did some searching for climbing statistics but did not find anything more specific than "about 10,000 a year". Apparently climbers don't have to register so perhaps precise stats are not possible? Climbers on Mount Rainier do have to register so there are precise stats. Here is a report up to 2004. From 1994 to 2004 Rainier has had more than 10,000 attempted climbs more years than not. The Mount Hood claim of "about 10,000" is also for attempts, successful or not. So, given the poor reliability of the reference and that the CN tag has been here for nearly two months, and that my (admittedly brief) search for a good reference failed, I'm going to move the text from the article to the talk page here. I've nowiki'ed out the ref and CN tags to make it functional and readable here on the talk page:

“ After Mount Fuji, Mount Hood is the second most climbed mountain in the world above 10000 feet.<ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.portlandhikersfieldguide.org/wiki/Mount_Hood | title = Mount Hood - Hiking in Portland, Oregon and Washington | accessdate = 2009-07-23 }} </ref>{{Citation needed|date=July 2009|reason=This claim revolves around and around, but no original author is ever identified. PortlandHikersFieldGuide could be repeating hearsay: please provide a *primary* citation.}} ”

Perhaps the solution is to just say Mount Hood is one of the most climbed mountains, or something to that effect? Pfly (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Name

"29 October - Mt. Hood (Oregon) is named after the British naval officer Alexander Arthur Hood by Lt. William E. Broughton who spotted the mountain near the mouth of the Willamette River. " according to 1792. "It was named after a British admiral, Samuel Hood" according to this article. Which is corrct? Rich Farmbrough 13:49 31 July 2006 (GMT).

Oregon Geographic Names has the above story about Broughton naming the mountain after "Lord Hood", who was indeed "Samuel Hood"--an admiral. Horatio Nelson was a captain under him. It also says: "Occasional statements to the effect that Mount Hood was named for other members of the Hood family cannot be substantiated. It is certain that the mountain was named for Samuel Hood...The mountain could not possibly have been named in honor of Alexander Hood, Lord Bridport...[who was] not raised to the peerage until after 1793 and never had the title Lord Hood." I just took the liberty of changing the 1792 article. Katr67 14:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the man himself: Samuel Hood, 1st Viscount Hood. Katr67 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Eruptions

I was interested to see that the 1907 eruption was not mentioned, so I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericl (talk • contribs) 08:27, September 26, 2006

There is some conflict in this article regarding the date of the last eruption. The text states 1907, the infobox says 1790s and one of the sources that I have looked up claims 1865. Are there any suggestions as to what should be considered the definitive source? (The Smithsonian GVP has it down as 1866.) --Burntnickel (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dormant or active?

The wiki page on volcanos claims that the terms "active" and "dormant" are poorly defined and not really scientific. I am going to drop the word dormant since it seems meaningless without a lot of discussion that would be inappropriate on this page. As long as the eruption history is presented, each person can decide for themselves whether this constitutes active or dormant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.182.206 (talk • contribs) 22:15, December 12, 2006

• The word "dormant" means "asleep", which is a fair way to describe Hood. It's also pretty much meaningless. St. Helens was "asleep" until it dramatically "awoke" in 1980. So presenting the facts and leaving the judgment out is probably the best course. I've seen Hood described as "extinct" sometimes, which is dead wrong. Some other ancient volcanoes can safely be described as "extinct" when geologists have determined that there is virtually no chance of tectonic activity beneath them. Crater Lake is effectively extinct... but that's just today. Wahkeenah 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of calling it dormant, if the meaning of dormant is ambiguous? Here are some places that call Mt. Hood active:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

So what are we going to do? Call it active AND dormant? Wouldn't it be better to just say when it erupted and not silently select one of the many available definitions of dormant/active? Its not like calling it dormant is adding any information.

--198.102.182.60 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The active fumaroles and earthquake swarms make dormant a bit of an understatement. Still, checking the definitions at Volcano#Volcanic activity, the menu of terms is minimalistic (active/dormant/extinct), and reaffirms Wahkeenah's point that it's a popular term and not a particularly scientific one.

I'm not sure it would be satisfying to the casual reader to leave it out as 198.102.182.60 suggests, though s/he has a good point. How about this as a compromise?

For that reason, the volcano is typically characterized as "dormant" by some scientists and "active" by others, though neither term has broad scientific consensus.

What points of view did I miss? —EncMstr 01:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've often heard it referred to as "dormant" sometimes as "active". I've even heard it described as "extinct", which is clearly wrong but reflects the fact that it has not erupted in recent memory. "Dormant" means "asleep". You might say Hood is a "restless sleeper", but it has not actually erupted for a long time. In contrast, St. Helens is active, by any comparison. Wahkeenah 02:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed compromise is accurate, but I am not sure that it is adding information about Mt. Hood (presumably our purpose). One way to try to make it informational would be to define the terms (since the wiki position would appear to be that there is no standard definition). But even then it still doesn't add any information. Rather, it would be an imprecise restating of information already on the page (i.e the the eruption history). Further, I think you would agree that the (multiple) definitions of dormant and active belong on the "volcano" page, not replicated on the page of every volcano.

I am curious ... what would peoples opinion be if the page said "Mt Hood peak rises 11,249 ft. It is tall." or "It is tall (where tall is defined as greater than 10,000 ft.)" or "Some scientists consider it tall, but some do not."? Is this a fair analogy?

I will stop reverting things for a while, but I hope you will give these points some consideration (or perhaps help me see the flaw in my thinking).

--67.171.177.170 08:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (same as 198.102.182.60)

Your tall example effectively illustrates the silliness of a summary term when most understand the underlying data. I think a fairer example is the hospital spokesperson's statement of patient condition: critical, serious, stable, and good. Most people are fine with the simplified version, though medical folks have little use for it. The same thing applies to Mount Hood: the general public doesn't necessarily care about a collection of facts, they mostly want to know if it's safe to climb it, build a house on it, or remain far away. —EncMstr 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Potential climbers want to know if it's "harmless" (extinct) or "mostly harmless" (dormant). Apart from the ever-present risk of bad weather and/or butterfingers. Wahkeenah 01:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Glaciers

Because of some talk over at Palmer Glacier about the twelve glaciers, I thought we should create a section and add them to the main article. I found a nifty diagram and some references, so I went for it. Thoughts? Mmoyer 02:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I was going to do it in the next week or two. Thanks for doing it for me!

The only thing that's a little "off" is that the bulleted items don't include Palmer. I realize it is in the introduction, but it throws off item counting and trying to find it in the list. —EncMstr 02:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts or feedback about the expanded glacier section? I expect to expand this further about seasonal and long-term variations and characteristics, species specifics, etc., as I find the information. —EncMstr 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Climbing section

A reference to the route and some licensed photos are forthcoming. Please do not delete. Thanks! Mmoyer 04:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure Wikipedia should have climbing directions? This is extremely dangerous. In fact, this is almost no longer true. The Hogsback is actually much farther west this years, and the Pearly Gates is difficult to get through. The current description makes this sound too easy. To get through the Pearly Gates, you currently have to climb a 10ft vertical wall. At least add a disclaimer, please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.117.32 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-28T03:22:05 (UTC)

• Anybody who would rely solely on wikipedia before attempting to do something hazardous ought to have his head examined. Meanwhile, feel free to correct the text if you have sources for it. Wahkeenah 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If such a fool prints off the article for that scant section and runs up the mountain, hopefully they'll notice that sometimes people die trying. Maybe that will lead them to ask some questions. —EncMstr 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation Issue

As part of my article on OR 281, I noted that the southern terminus of the highway is in the community of Mt. Hood. I think we need to edit the disambiguation page. Dan ad nauseam 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked for, but didn't find any explicit disambiguation page, like Mount Hood (disambiguation). Maybe you're suggesting to add another inline disambiguation on the article?

For the community, see Mount Hood, Oregon.

Unfortunately, that particular link is a redirect back to the Mount Hood article. So what do you mean? —EncMstr 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it. At some point... Katr67 00:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

All done. I made Mt. Hood, Oregon redirect to Mount Hood, Oregon, which is now its own article. And I created Mount Hood Parkdale, Oregon for good measure. Katr67 02:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wyeast

This looks more like an article than a "talk" page...

The "Mt Hood" article is redirected from "Wyeast", yet there is no mention of "Wyeast" on the page. What is Wyeast? Why is it redirected to Mt. Hood? Why do these "talk" pages end up looking like extra parts of encyclopedia article instead of a "discussion", as the tab implies? 208.64.241.229 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This article's talk page is for discussion about and reaching agreement on the article's contents. Sometimes the most expedient way to float an idea is to write an example which might be included in the article if consensus develops.

Wy'east is mentioned in the article here: Mount Hood#Origin_of_its_name. You make a good point though. It should be explained in the first sentence. I'll go fix it. —EncMstr 01:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see it, I guess (or was it added since then?). Perhaps the redirecting page "WYeast" should be renamed "Wy'east", so when I'm at the top of the Mt. Hood page, I can see the proper way of spelling "WY'east", as it will then say "redirected from WY'east", rather than "redirected from WYeast" at the top of the page. Then, when I do a "control-F" to find "Wyeast" in the article, I will spell it correctly (or just search for "wy") and find it rather than accusing folks of neglecting to mention it. See what I mean?

BTW, WYeast is also one of the largest zymerlogical yeast manufacturers in the US. Maybe they deserve their own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.64.241.229 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-15T21:20:45 (UTC)

I added the first sentence clarification in response to your query. There already was Mount Hood#Origin of its name which described it at length. There are a number of redirects to the article, including Wyeast and Wy'east (as well as many Mt Hood variations). WY'east will also work as a search. Go ahead: click it, then click on search for WY'east in Wikipedia near the top of the Editing WY'east page.

BTW, One of the great things about creating a wikipedia account and logging in is maintaining a watchlist so you can easily track changes of articles you care about. —EncMstr 21:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Most active

The text "Mount Hood is considered the Oregon volcano most likely to erupt,[5]" is not supported by the referenced source. Can anyone provide a source for this? Fireproeng 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I added that reference. I remember some discomfort with it because of the way the fact was written, perhaps as a notation shown for recent seismic activity which has long since aged away. So far, the best replacement I've found is http://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail.asp?trailid=HGU060-037 but that could be based on this article. —EncMstr 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I found a better one; see what you think now. —EncMstr 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

GA notes

Some suggestion for improvement to get to GA:

• Expand the glaciers text, maybe a paragraph with name origin info, this would eliminate/reduce the white space caused by the map.
• Move most of the ski info into a new section (Ski or Recreation?) and expand on the ski info to include some history (years, old operations if any). Also names of the wilderness areas, hiking trails, lakes could be worked into a better summary of Mt. Hood National Forest as a distinct section. Though I don't recall if wildnerness areas are technically part of a national forest, or more like the Vatican in Italy.
• Copy edit. Get someone who hasn't worked on the article to read through and copy edit to reduce NPOV, weasal words, and grammer errors.
• Then nominate at WP:GA.
  • Aboutmovies 20:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Climbing Records

I'm trying to include a climbing records section with references to news articles. It's an interesting part of the human history of Mt. Hood. Any advice on what would constitute an acceptable entry? --Saffron1x (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this spam/promotion? Thanks. Any suggestions for including any information on climbing records? Or are ALL climbing records not permitted to this article on Mt. Hood, thanks.--Saffron1x (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

An acceptable entry would be something like Joe Blow set the X record on date. As written (before the revert), it puts undue weight on the people surrounding the event (even a dog) instead of the record. Also, it's not Mt. Hood, but Mount Hood. —EncMstr (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I proceed with a 1-2 sentence statement like you provided?--Saffron1x (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked for Hu12's advise on how to proceed but didn't receive any reply. So far he has considered all aspects of the records listing as "spam and promotional" when in fact climbing records are interesting and relevant, as are climbing accidents and other mountaineering events.--Saffron1x (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a mountaineering section would be interesting, with the history of mountaineering/climbing on Mt. Hood. Also, it's common for many, especially climbers, to often write Mount Hood as 'Mt. Hood'--Saffron1x (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an article for Dan Howitt would be better (contingent it meets inclusion criteria and WP:BIO).--Hu12 (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try out the addition you'd make right here. Hu12's suggestion depends on there being enough notability for a biographical article to stand. If not, then a few sentences here, or in one of the articles in category:Peak bagging or category:Mountaineering would be appropriate. —EncMstr (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

EncMstr's suggetstion makes the most sense to me.;)--Hu12 (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Posting an idea into the talk page is what the talk page is for. I am concerned that something about records is a WP:Coatrack, i.e. an excuse to promote some guy. I'm guessing that's the initial concern here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible entry: "On April 9, 2004, timed by hired 3rd party timers Jacob Kammermeyer and Charlee Gribbon, Dan Howitt of Portland, Oregon set the official Mount Hood speed record from Timberline Lodge to the summit in 1:56:39 seconds.--Saffron1x (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The ref go to screenshots of the Hood River News article on the record where one timing official is interviewed. The news company doesn't have a direct link to their archived story. have to go to their archive page and then enter the terms 'Dan Howitt' to find it: http://www.hoodrivernews.com/Archive.asp?Tag=HRN&Database=Story--Saffron1x (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Why do you have the names of the timers? Isn't the essence A new speed climbing record of 1:56:39 was set from Timberline Lodge to the summit by Dan Howitt of Portland on April 9,2004.? Presumably the reference has the rest of the details. —EncMstr (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the reference will convey this. I just thought it would be significant to note in this article, since it's a precedent for Mt. Hood's 100+ years of climbing history. There is a long tradition of speed climbing starting in about the 1930's and no records are official....it's very difficult to arrange a time-verification, and costly, and most previous climbers are thought by many to have fudged their times for the press, reputation, etc. One person was even proven to have done some fradulent speed climbs (in the 1980's). As an aside, speed climbing on this peak is very difficult and dangerous - very steep, glaciated terrain, considerable dangers, potential fatal dangers (a major crevasse, frequent rock/ice fall, 45+ degree terrain above the crevasse, other steep areas where a fall is very dangerous, many people have died from falls in the crevasse. Also bringing a dog to do this is extremely difficult and a precedent, and Howitt took great measures to climb with his dog (via rope leash, etc) through the dangerous areas. Anyway, I just wanted to mention that it's not a "hike" up a mountain, but rather, a glaciated, dangerous, steep mountain, with 90% of the climb having no defined route (just open glacier where you choose your path, negotiating broken glacier, ice, holes, soft spots, etc. Also, Howitt speed climbed it in track and field sprinting spikes, then crampons over the last 1/2 mile to the summit. --Saffron1x (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why we have Mount Hood climbing accidents. I'm glad there were no related incidents in 2004. —EncMstr (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the "coatrack" concern. OK, the guy climbed the mountain in record time, so maybe he's notable. But the timekeepers??? Maybe they just wanted to see their names on the internet? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Done just to emphasize there were timers and who they were. But as EncMstr says this is indicated in the article, so I suppose would be redundant in this article. Thanks to both of you for the feedback, will try what EncMstr suggests.--Saffron1x (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on your recommendations, I did the following in the article, please advise on any changes that should be made. I also did a picture, and placed it slightly above and to the right, is the size ok, or should the thumb be smaller? The officially timed Mount Hood speed ascent record from Timberline Lodge to the summit was set by Dan Howitt in 1h:56m:39s on April, 9 2004.--Saffron1x (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I added another Mount Hood record of Dan's and a press article that mentions it, see the 2nd photocopied page of article. The officially timed Mount Hood speed climbing records from Timberline Lodge (start location) [[6]] to the summit in 1h:56m:39s on April 9,2004, and Government Camp, OR (start location) [[7]] to the summit and back in 2h:58m (ascent) and 4h:47m (round-trip) on July 7, 2003, were set by Dan Howitt.--Saffron1x (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Katr67 re your edit of Mt. Hood, you misspelled 'Dan Howitt' name. It would be briefer to have the hours of the time in numbers rather than spelled out, could you have suggested an edit in the discussion section prior to doing one?, the text in the picture was fine before.... The two letter links to the start locations of the climbs was useful, why delete them since they were so brief and were useful to the discussion? I'd like to ask for your edit to be undone.--Saffron1x (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I basically support Katr67's edit. If there is a misspelling it should be corrected but the rest of the edit is fine. At first I didn't like the spelled out time units but in my opinion from a general style point of view I think it is better. I also feel that documenting these speed climbs is not esential to the article at all. Maybe there could be an article about speed climbing and records on different mountains. Just a thought. --DRoll (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Saffron, you can undo any part of Katr's edit you think needs undoing -- no need to request others do it. (Though noting a disagreement on the talk page, like you did, is a good thing!) But that said, I pretty much agree with Katr an DRoll. Regarding whether or not to spell out numbers, please take a look at the Manual of Style, which I think is pretty specific; I'm pretty sure Katr's version is the right approach as far as that goes. -Pete (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is my earlier reply to the same post from Saffron1x cross-posted to my talk page. Katr67 (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Oops. You don't need to point out people's typos on their talk pages, just go ahead and fix them. Thanks!

2) For a general readership, such as an encyclopedia, it's better to spell things out for clarity. If this were an article relating specifically to speed-climbing, or some other sport that generates scores as a time sequence, that might not matter so much.

3) I don't discuss minor formatting, spelling, syntax, etc. (i.e. basic copy editing), on the talk page.

4) The text wasn't fine. We don't use credits in the captions, nor ampersands. The precise date isn't necessary either, as the nearby text gives the context, though I suppose since he did two record-setting climbs, the date could be mentioned. (It should be spelled out in prose and wikilinked to enable user's date preferences, however: [[April 9]][[2004]].)

5) The starting locations are clear from the context, no need for "(start location)" and both places have their own articles in which there should be coordinates. I'm not sure the casual reader would need to know the precise starting location of each climb. If you feel they are important, it would be better to include them in the refs at the end of each sentence. Brief, yes, but also malformatted and disruptive to the flow of the text.

I hope this explains. Katr67 (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it unnecessary this needs to be included at all. The references are of screen shots of an article (which cant be viewed otherwise) posted in web forums (probably all the same person) by Self-promoting (WP:SPA) "Dan Howitt " accounts^[8], citing sources which barely can be considered notable by wikipedia standards. Saffron1x (talk · contribs), similarly has made no other edits outside pushing inclusion of "Dan Howitt ". The account (Saffron1x) exists for the sole or primary purpose of promoting this person in apparent violation of Conflict of interest guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is excluded. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for self-promotion" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to promote your self. If its this difficult add content, perhaps that content fails encyclopedic suitability for inclusion. If there are no objections from the trusted, high-volume etablished editors here I will be removing the entry entirely.--Hu12 (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This certainly does seem more and more like promotion. The fact they were so concerned about the spelling of his name is a clue. And the sources seem questionable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I merely cleaned up what seemed to be a better faith effort on Saffron's part than his/her previous entries. Assume good faith and all that. I didn't check the refs at that point, but yes, I suspect that Google hits is why it is so important to include the photographer's name in the caption. And the image description seems to indicate that the photographer and Saffron are the same person? Googling his name shows what looks like a concerted effort to get these folks' names in as many places on the Internet as possible. The Hood River News is a reliable source and there is nothing inherently wrong with using a screenshot (not all papers have good archives), but why use two different pages that screenshot the same article? I was thinking that if this speed climbing thing in general is at all notable, then if there are any good sources it seems like it should be mentioned. However one HRN article says that Howett is the only speed climber right now. That doesn't seem to lend weight to his notability either. I'd like to hear from Saffron. If s/he would openly declare any possible conflict of interest, maybe we can work from there, though I think s/he might be better off trying a different avenue than Wikipedia if s/he isn't interested in contributing more than this topic to the project. Katr67 (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Katr, I agree with everything you just said. -Pete (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pete. And for the record, Hu12, this trusted high-volume editor won't object if the content is removed. Katr67 (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If that guy Howitt is the only Mt. Hood "speed climber", then it would stand to reason he would own the record, yes? Kind of like Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards, who owned all the British ski-jumping records, because he was basically the only British ski jumper. Meanwhile, I'm thinking those guys from December of 2006 probably own the "speed descent" record, but so far they have avoided being interviewed about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the latter: I bet Brian Hall and Jerry Cooke didn't do a full descent and walked a fair distance of it. The record is more likely from the snowboarder who attempted Cooper Ridge, but fell down Eliot Glacier. —EncMstr (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

After going through the "google results" (a disturbing education of sorts^[9]), there appears to be a long line of aliases for Dan Howitt, posting over various websites and forums promoting himself and besmirching the characters of fellow climbers and related. Appears this is an attempt to use wikipedia to import offsite conflicts and further an adjenda. It has been removed. I'd suggest that Dan Howitt read the following, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world and Law Of Unintended Consequences--Hu12 (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remove Hu12's Libel and Vandalism above and please report this user's abuse to Wikipedia administration. Also, Hu12 of the "google results" you searched most are in support of Dan Howitt, with tons of his official summit photos on Rainier, Adams, Hood, Shasta, and listings of his timing officials. You strangely give weight to the abusive chat-site gossip and unsupported libel, and your own post above is of that nature. Chat-sites with this sort of conduct are sad. I'm reporting your libel and abuse to the wiki administration.--Saffron1x (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Warning_without_any_reason --Saffron1x (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia...attempts by strongly opinionated editors to dominate articles, inaccurate or sometimes non-existent sourcing for controversial assertions in articles, and edit wars and other types of nonconstructive conflict among editors.

Jolly Good. I especially like that subsection on "Unintended Consequences", a more neutral way of saying, "Creating a Monster." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I too support the continued removal of the speed climbing record. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no need to post the material in the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You have provided no explanation to support your removal nor your support for removal. Please see the below section on Hu12's judgment, basically: "Hu12's "impressions" were used to delete a simple record listing for Dan Howitt. Hu12 used a gossip chat-site thread (he links it above) to conclude negative PERSONAL things about Howitt, and uses this as the basis for deleting the climbing record listing about Howitt. Admins using chat-site gossip as legitimate information for actions in wiki articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.192.251 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) For the record, I made my decision based on my own research and I came to my own conclusions. Ignoring Hu12 for the moment, the inclusion of the climbing record seems to fail Wikipedia's notability criteria and may be a form of self-promotion and thus isn't encyclopedic. Note that several other editors have addressed these concerns, independently of Hu12. Rather than worry about perceived personal attacks, Saffron would be better off specifically addressing these concerns, perhaps by spending his/her time reading the bluelinked policy and guidelines, and contributing his/her knowledge in other areas of the encyclopedia in order to learn about how things work here, rather than making claims of admin abuse. Katr67 (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Proper reference to a story in a general interest newspaper or magazine, which identifies the record as a significant part of the history of Mount Hood, would be reason to include the record in the article. Anything short of that will just have us going around in circles. Given the information available so far, the deletion was appropriate.

As to libel, Saffron, if you intend to continue down that road, please take a look at WP:LIBEL and WP:LEGAL. I don't see anything approaching libel, but I suppose others might see it differently. Your best course of action is outlined on the dispute resolution page. -Pete (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Administrator_Hu12_apparent_abuse

Accounts

Saffron1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
{DanHowitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
77ty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
R44r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
71.193.192.251 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Frothh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
67.160.129.153 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (note the edits to Mount Whitney
Iger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Appto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Dan, has been permanatly blocked per blocking policies for harassment, persistant advertising and Sock puppetry --Hu12 (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I go away for a few hours and come back to find a soap opera. It's funny how some folks go from being reasonably polite to being royally steamed when they get caught breaking the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actualy quite sad.--Hu12 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Funny "peculiar", not funny "ha-ha". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Although the "libel" threat is kind of humorous. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"libel" comments were quite over-the-top . --Hu12 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It had everyone here shaking in their snowshoes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Height of Mount Hood

I noted that in the general info about Mt Hood it was stated that the mountain is 11,239 feet tall. However, the quick facts on the right side of the page lists the height to be 11,249 feet. Which is it? Also, other sources have the height recorded as different numbers. It would also be helpful to know the rate of change in the height of the mountain per year due to volcanic activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.58.88 (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The USGS says 11,239, and that's good enough for me. [10] Some others have different heights. I don't think its height has changed, it's just surveying mistakes, or just mistakes, period. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And some other seemingly authoritative source says 11,249. So it's time for the experts (if any) to jump in here and determine the facts of the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Check the citation: the 11249 foot figure is from the National Geodetic Survey. The NGS is the authorative source for the most accurate and latest elevation measurements: the NGS use the latest vertical datum, while the USGS uses the 1929 datum (datum = model for the shape of the earth). Also, the NGS is in charge of keeping the data up-to-date, while the USGS can be decades old. In summary, the 11249 value is the latest best value for the mountain, 11239 is out-of-fate. hike395 (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha. And that doesn't mean the mountain has grown 10 feet, it just means the survey is more accurate, right? P.S. Thanks for fixing. I wonder, though, if something should be said about it in the article, in case someone tries to re-"fix" it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to gather a height history. Two persons in Thomas J. Dryer's 1854 expedition calculated the height to be 18,361 feet. Two months later, a Mr. Belden claimed 19,400 upon which "pores oozed blood, eyes bled, and blood rushed from their ears." (Grauer p. 199) Early explorers estimated it 10,000 to 12,000 from the Columbia River. —EncMstr (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe a history of the perception of its height. Seems to me I read someplace that Lewis & Clark thought it was 18,000 feet also. They had probably been on the road a little too long. But it looks very high from near sea level on the Columbia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The History of the Lewis and Clark Expedition is detail of their diaries, and has frequent references to Mt. Hood, but none of them appear to give any height guesstimate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mount Hood: A Complete History, by Jack Grauer, 1975, has a quick rundown of the various height estimates, on p.291-292. After those fanciful expeditions' figures you mention, a Col. Williamson conducted a survey in 1867 that resulted in an estimate initially given as roughly 12,000, and his actual estimate was 11,225, which is pretty close. In 1939 Adm. L.C. Colbert's team came up with 11,245, which the author says was 8 feet less than a survey the same team had done in 1916. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, you've obviously got Grauer's book, so you know all this already. It's either too late at night or too early in the morning. :) One question: Is that book still in print? I think I got my copy on my last trip to Oregon in the early 1990s. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there was only one printing, though used copies are somewhat easy to obtain from resellers. The book contains Grauer's wish that someone from Mazamas takes it over and updates it from time to time. As far as I know, that hasn't been done. Oh man! I just found this. It says Grauer was at a book signing a few weeks ago. Darn! I'd have asked him if I'd known. —EncMstr (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm just impressed that he's still around. He's 80-something, at least, isn't he? If nothing else, you could write to him, if the address in the book is still good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the Height section to the article. Hike395, would you mind figuring out the date from the NGS citation and add to the table? —EncMstr (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how someone could "survey" the mountain in 1866 and come up with a number 8,000 feet higher than the real value. Maybe they bought their surveying gear from Toys R Us. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I had several civil engineering roommates in college: I think I remember—back in the day—many surveyors built their own equipment. —EncMstr (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the guy made a slight miscalibration. He probably got his start selling those joke rulers for fisherman. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount Hood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. I will be reviewing this article. As you say, it looks very good. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Bolding should not be used throughout the article according to MoS, but only in the introductory sentence. The other words you have bolded in the article should be in italics or quotes.

• This has been addressed. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• What is the point of this unsourced sentence in the lead: "The mountain is sometimes informally described as "dormant" ("asleep")." What does it add to the article? It does not appear in the Eruptive history.

• Fixed — --Lord₪Sunday 21:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• You do have Dacite linked twice in the same paragraph which is usually not O.K. although perhaps you can justify it.

• I have removed the second link. --Burntnickel (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why do you not have glacier wikilinked. (I realize it has a tag on it, but still...)

• Glaciers is linked in the second paragraph, or is this not what you are referring to? --Burntnickel (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I missed that and got distracted by snowfield. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The heading Landmarks: would not a heading like Facilities fit better? The listings under that heading do not seem to fit the definition of landmark.

• Fixed — --Lord₪Sunday 21:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The prominent Crater Rock just below the summit is believed to be the remnants of a dacite dome from then." Sentences like this ("is believed") are better avoided. Can you say who believed it rather than "is believed".

• Fixed — --Lord₪Sunday 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The section under Eruptive history is hard to follow. For example: "and a more recent episode ending shortly before the arrival of Lewis and Clark in 1805. The most recent minor eruptive event occurred in August 1907". The use of "recent" referring to separate incidents is so close together in the text. That whole section is difficult to follow. I wonder if it could perhaps be explained more with the text less dense with technical words. Perhaps breaking into a few paragraphs would help. Some of the words is quite close to the wording in the source.

• Fixed — --Lord₪Sunday 21:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The automatic formatting of dates is now deprecated according to MoS. I can remove them with a script if you like.

• Yes, please. --Lord₪Sunday 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraph containing "Reportedly, the Hogsback has shifted west." is uncited. Especially with the questionable "reportedly", one of those vague wordings that MoS hates, this needs to be clarified and cited.
• All references need publishers. For example, I notice the second one does not.

• Both done. --Lord₪Sunday 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Article passes GA.

Tecnoloy conflict?

In reading this page I noticed that the bottom note I placed after the info box Elevations section some time ago seem no longer to function properly. Also, I note that the elevation must be entered twice which seems wasteful. Has there been any discussion placing these maps inside the info box.I some nice wiki person could point this poor soul in the right direction, I'm sure this good deed will bring the wiki gods so they may dance on our heads. DRoll (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the reference which shows up as ^[1], right? It works for okay me, and clicking on the cite's URL shows a reasonable reference page.

What do you mean about entering the elevation twice? —EncMstr (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you edit the article page you will note that there is a reference to GNIS for the coordinates. Also note that the coordinates entered in the coord template do not match those on the html infobox. Sorry I was not as clear as I should have been. DRoll (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. I see 45°22′24.43″N 121°41′44.27″W at the top-right of the article and in the infobox. Examining the article's raw HTML, there are two classes which may or may not be enabled depending on your style sheet: (nested within class="geo-dec geo") <span class="latitude">45.3734528</span>, <span class="longitude">-121.6956306</span> under and (nested within class="geo-dms") <span class="latitude">45°22′24.43″N</span>, <span class="longitude">121°41′44.27″W</span>.

Maybe you were noticing that the infobox parameters had | latd= 45|latm= 22|lats= 24.43|latNS=N | longd= 121|longm= 41|longs= 44.27|longEW=W and | coordinates = {{coord|something}}? I removed the redundant scattering of coordinates. Is that better? —EncMstr (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I see why they are there now. I put them back so it wouldn't break how the locator map figures out where to put the dot. —EncMstr (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

First white men...

The first known white men to see Mt. Hood were the British, in 1792, who named the mountain for a colleague, as noted here [11] and in the Columbia River article. Lewis and Clark and their colleagues were the first known Americans to see the mountain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that. That's what my fuzzy memory seemed to recall but I'm getting over the flu and didn't have the energy to look it up. –droll [chat] 06:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's also covered in the "name" section. Whoever posted that bit about L & C didn't notice that (despite posting it in the paragraph right after that), unless he thought the British aren't white! The sentence is also missing a comma, which implies that they were the first who happened to see it just on that particular date. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Elevation

It is true that differing elevations have been given for Mount Hood. This is true of almost all mountains in the world. The policy of WikiProject Mountains is to report the elevation based on North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) although practice varies. While it is true that the true elevation of mountains may change over time (e.g. Mount Saint Helens), in general only the way the elevation is calculated changes. For example the Sea Level Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) was based on mean sea level which was assigned a value of zero. It became apparent that this method was inadequate and a new datum was accepted. NAVD 88 holds as fixed (zero) the local mean sea level height value a point near Rimouski, Quebec, Canada. So it can be said that, with the change in datum, the elevation of mountains did not change but the elevation from which they are measured did. For more information see NGS FAQs. –droll [chat] 21:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Format

I added pictures but screwed up the format. Can someone please help with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy8Kahn (talk • contribs) 06:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

With no edit summary, JoJoes123 (talk · contribs) restored a watermarked image to the infobox.[12] I don't think this image, File:Mount Hood from Tumala Mountain.jpg, is suitable for use in mainspace since it has "TheCascadeHiker" in large letters across the center of the image. Please see WP:WATERMARK for the policy on watermarks. I think the previous image, a Commons Quality Image, is a better choice. Please see Commons:File:Mount Hood reflected in Mirror Lake, Oregon.jpg. The WP:COI guideline may apply, too. JoJoes123 is identified as the uploader of the watermarked image.[13] What do other editors think? In the meantime, I'm restoring the Quality Image. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The image is sloppy and watermarked. Heck, it's even uglier. Don't know where the need to swap it out comes from. The reflected photo that is on there now is great. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree also. The Mirror Lake photo was a candidate for best photo in 2006 and is otherwise quite awesome. While the Tumula Mountain photo is fresh because it is a different angle than usual of Mount Hood, the watermark is a serious blemish. —EncMstr (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I put the watermark on the picture so nobody would steal it. There are watermarks for a reason, you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJoes123 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2015 February 10‎

JoJoes123, you do realize that by uploading your images to Commons and releasing them under the CC-BY-SA and GNU FDL licenses, you granted permission for anyone to use or change them however they want, right? Conifer (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What Conifer said. The whole point of Wikipedia is to share information, pictures, etc. All pictures are fair use or in public domain. Putting a watermark on your photo defeats the purpose of it being on Wikipedia in the first place. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Photo

I have uploaded a new photo, but this time there is no watermark. I also put it somewhere outside of the infobox. It is near the "name" section and shows Mt. Hood I the background with Timothy Lake in the foreground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJoes123 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

At this point I don't think that adding another landscape photo of the mountain is adding anything to the article except for clutter. If this was a photo that added something strikingly new to the article I would be for it, but this is just another scenic shot. And we already have two of those to speak nothing of the other multiple photos in the article jockeying for space. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)