# Talk:Mount Baker

Anyone know if you can still ski Baker? There was a movement to close it down.
The place is so popular (especially with snowboarders) that if it were to close, someone else would re-open the resort. There was the threat of an early end to the ski season in 2005 due to unusually light snowfall, but the weather from late March through mid-April was cool and precipitation-rich. The resort expects to stay open through April 24.

They're advertising season tickets for 2007-08 on their webpage. Brilang 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be suitable to change "hydrothermally altered rock" in the beginning of the Geology section to "metamorphic rock" ? --CraSH 03:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
while technically in the category metamorphesis, the term is very much more specific and also volcanic metamorphesis, rather than the more conventional heat and pressure.  (Yes, I know, this is an ancient comment, but I thought it deserved an answer). Ratagonia (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to turn this page into a disambig, so as to differentiate the two Mount Bakers -- this one in Washington, the other in Alberta (Mount Baker (Alberta), part of the Waputik Range).  This is per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains#Naming_conventions
Thoughts?
-- ghoti 17:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is much point in disambiguating until the Mount Baker (Alberta) article is written. Also, if one peak is much more likely to be the search target than the other, the approach taken by the Glacier Peak article may be better. In this case, Glacier Peak, New Zealand has been redlinked for months. A dab page for Glacier Peak would be annoying to the reader since it adds a step for someone looking for the one in Washington and is unhelpful to someone looking for the one in New Zealand. Disambiguation links are covered under the WP:DAB guidelines under disambiguation links. Thanks for bringing this up. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that Mount Baker (Alberta) is bluelinked, I think it is fine to dab; might still be good to use a disambiguation link in Mount Baker rather than a dab page as proposed above. My guess is that with 3 million people near Mount Baker (Seattle, WA area and Vancouver, BC), more people will be looking for the one in Washington, than the one in Alberta. (Full disclosure; I live in Seattle.) Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a third Mount Baker: 11km SE of Cranbrook BC: *Bivouac.com "Mount Baker" search
Bivouac.com entry for "third" Mt Baker.
Further comment is that it would seem that the Mount Baker on Puget Sound was named more than a century earlier than the one in the Rockies, so it's not just notoriety/visibility, it's seniority; 1792 naming for the Mount Baker near Vancouver and Bellingham, 1898 for the one in the Rockies.Skookum1 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the Mount Baker in Washington is the dominant meaning. The ol' Google test yields ---
"Mount Baker" Washington: 458,000 hits
"Mount Baker" Alberta: 37,300 hits
"Mount Baker" "British Columbia" 88,000 hits (some of these may be for the first peak)
"Mount Baker" Ruwenzori: 1,170 hits
So, leaving the Washington peak at Mount Baker follows the guidelines at WP:DAB hike395 05:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Washington's still dominant meaning, but its losing Google hits, and the BC one has gained some.
"Mount Baker" Washington: 362,000 hits
"Mount Baker" Alberta: 20,000 hits
"Mount Baker" "British Columbia": 123,000 hits (some of these may be for the first peak)
"Mount Baker" Ruwenzori: 1,140 hits
I know this doesn't change much but if the BC one has an article, I think it should have the () to distinguish it from the others. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 22:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have heard that it is possible and legal to snowmobile up to the top of Mt. Baker (Washington State).  I'm looking for validation that this is possible (and legal).  In addition, I'd like to hear from other that have done it (or been most of the way up).  Ideally, I'm looking for someone to take me -- or resources as to what people/vendors might be able to get me to the top of the mountain.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gonezo (talk • contribs) 21:32, 18 August 2006.

The summit, Grant Peak, is protected from motorized use since it is within Mount Baker Wilderness. However, this page is to discuss the article and issues related to its improvement, not to ask tourism questions. See WP:TALK for how to use talk pages. You might try http://wikitravel.org/en/Main_Page for travel information. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This must have been reviewed ages ago, it's shocking that a relatively short article with no inline-citations, and the photo layout problems of this one could get GA status. Murderbike (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I only rated the article GA because that's what the status was when I rated WikiProject Volcanoes. If you look through the history, you will see that it was GA before I rated it. I agree the article is too short and it's probably better if it were rated B or start class. Longer Cascade volcano articles include: Mount Meager and Mount Shasta which are rated B class. Black Tusk 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha, sorry to throw the blame your way. I'm gonna drop it down to Start Class, though I'm not a Mountain/Volcano expert, so maybe someone else could be better at it. But, I don't think that B-Class can be reached without AT LEAST having inline-cites. Murderbike (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh, so I'm not gonna reassess it, as there's a process for delisting GAs, and I don't have the time to deal with it right now. Murderbike (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is close to FA.  However, I have listed the things it needs to become FA.

References  Done
Additional Images (one or two)  Done
That's all.  Thanks. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that close to meeting the FA criteria yet. I don't know much about the subject, but the article doesn't feel comprehensive to me; for example, there's nothing about how or even whether the area is protected (except a link to Mount Baker Wilderness in the "See also" section). The lead section seems unbalanced, giving a lot of space to details of geography and little to the geology (which accounts for half the rest of the article). The link farm at the end should be cut back (see WP:EL). No doubt there are many other places where we're not following the style guidelines, too. -- Avenue (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I apologize.  I meant to state that this is what we should do and then we would review our changes.  Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine - I just didn't want people to be given false hope. The article seems to be shaping up well. -- Avenue (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Part 2-
Watch for Mos breaches  Done-seems good for now.
References (30-40)
Work on lead  Done
Once we accomplish these, we'll see what else we need. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I just added the 1860 eruption, and in the same source there's a comment about how Baker looked from the new colonial capital on its establishment; that angle of view is the well-known one from the BC side of the border; I'm from Mission and in the south-facing rooms in the high school there, which is on the upper part of town, there's this staggering view across the hills and farmland of Abbotsford; similarly from Abbotsford itself there are some really "dominant" views, also from Langley; the effect from New West or Maple Ridge ain't quite the same.  If there's anyone from the Valley, or who has a car and a camera and is willing to drive out, what I'd like to see in this article is a picture from that area; recommended locations somewhere on the upper part of Mission City, or at the Fraser River Heritage Park on the east side of town; or else from somewhere in central Abbostford, don't know where the best view sould be, ideally with Sumas Prairie in the foreground.  One of the photos here is more or less from the same angle, though I'm betting from the US side of the border, as it's taken from quite a bit closer; a view with the Fraser Valley farmlands in the foreground would go a long ways to illustrating the volcano's prxoimity to populated areas (even though it's the Nooskack and Bellingham that are more at risk....); anyone who's a hiker might want to hike up Iron Mountain or Mount Crickmer for the excellent views to be had up there; even a highway-side shot between Mission and Silverdale would do to show the "great white lady" angle better, but again it's the green-farmland/suburban setting that I'm thinking of; there's spots on the freeway that would do but you can't stop there. ;-) Skookum1 (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There's only a few indigenous contributors, probably more linguistics people than indigenous people in fact, out there in wikipedia but I'm going to throw this by a few people to try and find out what specific language that's from, and what its literal meaning is; and needless to say if it's the name in Lummi, then it's probably a different name in Nooksack and a different on again in Halkomelem or Lushootseed or Twana.  Also there's a fairly well known legend, not sure from which tribe, possibly shared between several, about Glacier and Baker at one time being closer together and they had a fight and Baker picked up her skirts adn marched northward (similar story about Adams or St Helens and Rainier or Hood, too, I think).  I've taken that to mean, possibly, an ancient memory of a time when there was another volcano active close to Glacier which stopped around the time Baker's eruptive activity begins.  The legend as I recall it says the mountains had a big fight, which suggests again that this may be a story of a few different mountains erupting at once; in which case it's a very ancient memory indeed.  This is all too much synthesis of an interpretation of the myth, but the myth itself shoudl be found and added to the page; I've seen it on-line I think, maybe I'll come across it again.  The Sto:lo Historical Atlas I think had a Halkomelem name for it on one of its maps, but I don't own a copy of that (any more - I sold my collection of BC history/geography books when I went "on the road"...).  Anyway all native language names should be added, and there should be a bit more "indigenous content" such as what's on Mount Garibaldi and Mount Cayley; hard to get, hard to cite - all the best stuff tends to be in tribal libraries and is unpublished or only source/quoted in academic publications.  I think some of hte archaeological sites in the region also ahve layers of volcanic deposits, or volcanic deposit-dating is used or noted.  Mining reports on areas around mountains often turn up bits of geology and history you won't find anywhere else, also (as I've found for various locations/ ranges in BC...)Skookum1 (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This book says that Koma Kulshan is Lummi for "Great White Watcher". I also read a Lummi (I think) legend once about Baker and his wife having a fight. I can't remember the details though, i'll try to find it. Murderbike (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Article says: "The mountain is often locally referred to as Koma Kulshan or simply Kulshan (Lummi, qwúʔmə, "white sentinel", i.e. "mountain", and kwəlshéːn, "puncture wound", i.e. "crater"),[10][11][12] though it is also less frequently known by the Indian names "Quck Sam-ik" (Nooksack: kw’eq sámit, "white mountain"),[13] "Kobah" (Skagit: qwúbəʔ, "white sentinel", i.e. "mountain"), and "Tukullum" or "Nahcullum" (in the language of the unidentified "Koma tribe").[14] Mount Rainier, called "Tacoma", effectively means "larger than Koma (Kulshan)".[15]"
Really?  I take exception to the "often locally referred to" part.  Without citation, I think most people in western washington refer to it as Mount Baker.  Perhaps there is a better way to word this... "is referred to in the local native language as..." or something like that. Ratagonia (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Didn't catch that, good you did - even "sometimes" is "over-bloat" about this kind of thing, like efforts to portray Sto:lo as the "right" name of the Fraser, or teh claim that "Salish Sea" is "a traditional name" etc.  Pretending something is the case in order to make it t he case.  See Newspeak and propaganda techniques.  Yes, fix it to accord with reality, and bedamned the POV sources....Skookum1 (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote "puffing out large volumes of smoke, which upon breaking, rolled down the snow-covered sides of the mountain, forming a pleasing efiect of light and shade." has a misspelling of "efiect" for "effect". While the text file source listing at www.archive.org for the quote has the same typographical error, examination of the actual book page image via Google books shows that "effect" is spelled correctly. Since the original source of the quote does not have the misspelling, I think its version should override the text file apparently created via digitization which introduced the error. However, I do not know if or how this deviation from spelling accuracy should be mentioned in the current article reference. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Good sleuthing, MD. Does not need discusion, just fix it. Ratagonia (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 i made this. we should add it on the article but i dont know where it should go. help me to find a place. CallMeAndrew (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I will add it to the article once you can source where you got that information (where it is located). Ceranthor 19:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
i searched "washington blank map" in google images. it came up. i thickened all the lines my self and added the triangle. the website it says its from is "geography.about.com" CallMeAndrew  Custom text here  —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC).

I've been trying to combine multiple references to the same paper (Scott03) by using a named reference, and folding a separate URL link into the reference (per WP:REFNAME), but User:Hannegan keeps reverting.
Hannegan: could you discuss your reversion here before we proceed? Other editors: what do you think?
—hike395 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is Hannegan. is this the way to make this contact with you? I am a volcanologist working at Mount Baker. Sorry about the references snafu. This is my first experience with wikipedia. I'm inporting many new references, that are posted online at the MBVRC website www.mbvrc.wwu.edu   I'll be done with this today [Tuesday]. When I'm finished, will try to be sure all the references are properly listed, as you have been doing them. Perhaps you can do this more easily than I can. If you notice things are still out of whack, perhaps you could tidy up? I plan to make new pages for Hannegan and Kulshan calderas and the two Baker summit area craters [I was involved in that research].
Sorry, new to this.
Hannegan (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hike 395- Hannegan again. I'm finding the coding for the multiple references I have inserted archane. This is my first experience with this sort of thing and will need to take some time to figure it out. I'm an old guy and not too savvy with this sort of coding. I find three refs that I have listed multiple times: Scott and others, 2003 (4x); Tucker and others 2007 (2x); Scott and Tucker, 2003 (3x). I plan to insert a photo eventually from inside the crater, will figure out how that works. Thanks for you patience, hike395.
Regards, Hannegan (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that you're done, I'll go back and fix the multiple references.
Thanks for contributing your expertise! We always need more expert help in geology. —hike395 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Hike395. Just getting the hang of all this. There will be a big USGS paper published on Baker later in the year, a summation of the Holocene history. Many references can then be updated to refer to that [it will be online]. Hannegan (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions Baker as the fourth tallest mountain in Washington State.  I would have said third tallest, and indeed, the list of tallest mountains in Washington gives it as such.  However, there are differing ways of measuring height, so I wanted to check before correcting it, in case the original editor was considering Little Tahoma to be higher (due to its low prominence I wouldn't count it).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.103.179 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 

How active is Mount Baker right now? Is it giving off a lot of gas? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 22:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there going to be any more expansion of the Current Activity section to include potential threats posed by Mt. Baker to the North Puget Sound area?--Gniniv (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed this claim from the introduction a while ago because it is incorrect. The USGS or some other source may state Baker as the northernmost volcano in the Cascade Range but there are volcanics related to Cascadia subduction north of Baker in the Canadian Cascades. As far as I'm aware of, the volcanics north of Baker are much older and were erupted when the Juan de Fuca Plate subducted at a shallower angle than it does today. The only volcano I know is Coquihalla Mountain in the Bedded Range but I bet there are other volcanics around there. BT (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "northernmost active volcano" or something like that? Coquihalla last erupted 21 million years ago according to its page. Personally I don't care one way or the other; just a thought. Baker is definitely active, or could be any time. I'm kinda hoping to see an ash plume from it in my lifetime. Pfly (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
That seems to fit. The Cascade volcanics in the Canadian portion of the range are mostly Miocene age so any volcanoes there are probably long extinct. BT (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have some doubt with this sentence in the introduction: After Mount Rainier, Mount Baker is the most heavily glaciated of the Cascade volcanoes; the volume of snow and ice on Mount Baker (0.43 cubic miles or 1.8 cubic kilometers) is greater than that of all the other Cascades volcanoes (except Rainier) combined. The USGS website does have this claim here, but they link Cascade volcanoes to their "Cascade Range Volcanoes and Volcanics" page. If Silverthrone is included as a Cascade Arc volcano, it would likely be the most glaciated. It's simple. If you look at Google Earth or some other satellite imagery and compare Silverthrone Caldera's glaciation with other Cascade Arc volcanoes, it has much more glaciation. By measuring a large glaciated spot roughly in the middle of the caldera with the "Show Ruler" tool, it covers an area of about 68 kilometers, which is way larger than 1.8 cublic kilometers. So Cascade volcanoes should obviously be changed to Cascade Range volcanoes to avoid this error/confusion. Volcanoguy 05:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the Silverthrone and the Pemberton Volcanic Belt really part of the Cascade Arc? I thought it was kind of iffy, because they're understudied. —hike395 (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That is what I ment by if. Silverthrone's affinity is unclear because it has been only minimally studied. But according to the Geological Survey of Canada website, it is still considered to be part of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt (northern extension of the Cascade Arc), although it also lies on the overlapping trend of the much older Pemberton Volcanic Belt, which formed as a result of subduction of the now-vanished Farallon Plate. From doing years of research and reading scientific documents about Silverthrone, its chemistry is much like Cascade Arc volcanoes. Rhyolites, dacites, andesites and basaltic andesites comprise the volcano (see the GSC link), as do other Cascade Arc volcanoes. Andesites, dacites and rhyolites are products of subduction zone magmatism according to this so Silverthrone must be a Cascadia subduction-related volcano. According to volcanologist Catherine Hickson, at issue is the current plate configuration and rate of subduction, but I don't have a reference for that claim. The tectonics at Silverthrone must be still active though because it has erupted in the past 1000 years and there have been earthquakes in the past 30 years. Volcanoguy 22:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
On a separate point, for that glaciated area, do you mean 68 square kilometers? If so, that would only need to be about 26.5 meters deep on average to exceed 1.8 km³ in volume, which is not very deep. But I think you may be massively understating things; I've found one news story saying that the Klinaklini Glacier alone has an area of 470 square kilometers. I haven't had much luck finding volumes, but one abstract says that the Klinaklini Glacier lost about 14 km³ between 1965 and 2006. --Avenue (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I just did an estimate to see how many kilometers around the glaciated area is. The Klinaklini Glacier is not at the caldera as far as I'm aware of; it is further east. Even if Silverthrone has less ice and snow than Baker or Rainier I still think it should be changed to Cascade Range volcanoes because that's what the USGS is referring to. Volcanoguy 22:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right about the Klinaklini Glacier. I don't see any harm in the wording change you're proposing, and it does seem more precise. --Avenue (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. Ratagonia (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
In area, Rainier's glaciation is about 56 kilometers. You could try searching Pashleth Glacier and Kingcome Glacier for their volume if you want as they are in fact inside the caldera. The 68 kilometer glaciated area at Silverthrone is part of the Ha-Iltzuk Icefield, which is the largest icefield in the Coast Mountains south of the Alaska Panhandle. Volcanoguy 18:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have in my posession a letter written by my father, Harvey Ellis Anderson, a native of Grayson County, Virginia in which he describes the ascent of Mount Baker by himself and two unidentified companions. My elder brother, John G. Anderson, has a picture of our father taken while standing on the slopes of Mount Baker with walking sticks in both hands.  He is dressed in a white dress shirt and derby hat with what appears to be his suit jacket tied around his waste by the sleeves. Two other men are with him.  Some of his description on the picture has been obscured but he states "wherever we are it is the 14th of August [1911], the hottest month of the year."
The Wikipedia article on Mount Baker lists its first accent as occurring on August 17, 1868 while under "Notable Ascents" the next ascent is recorded as August 1948.  Did Harvey and his companions precede Fred Beckey, Ralph, and Dick Widrig by 37 years? ROBERT DAVID ANDERSON (talk) 9 April 2016 (UTC) signature added when moved

I changed one of the captions in “Climbing History” from “Frazier” River to Fraser Rive and inadvertently messed things up. Can someone please rectify? Orthotox (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Baker. 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/20110428084211/http://www.bellingham.org/download/publications/Mt%20Baker%20Highway.pdf to http://www.bellingham.org/download/publications/Mt%20Baker%20Highway.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219153959/http://resources.wcog.org/projects/cot_plan.pdf to http://resources.wcog.org/projects/cot_plan.pdf
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) 16:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The article states that 15cubic km of rock fell in 1891, which seemed very improbable. Source says “approximately 15-20 million m3 of andesitic lava and poorly consolidated lava-flow breccia fell from the north side of Lava Divide”. This would add up to 0,015 cubic km. I don’t know the formatting for editing with metric + imperial, hope someone else can edit and fix article. 155.4.133.8 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This is ... wrong. Language Boi (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

What are you referring to specifically? PersusjCP (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)