# Talk:Mount Rainier

@Hike395: Hi, you inserted [[Glacier Bridge]] with this edit. Is Nisqually Glacier Bridge (Q113624165) the same thing? If so, I would like to use {{ill|Nisqually Glacier Bridge|qid=Q113624165|short=yes}}, which will produce Nisqually Glacier Bridge, in place of the red link. Peaceray (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The original source is now unavailable, so I cannot verify. In general, adding inline cross-wiki links is discouraged, so even if I could be sure, I would not recommend making that replacement. — hike395 (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

What if we put hot to pronounce xʷaq̓ʷ, təqʷubəʔ, təx̣ʷúma, təqʷúmen, and Tax̱úma? Efihkuvrf (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey everyone!
Another National Geographic article on the ice caves - There's a frozen labyrinth atop Mt. Rainier. What secrets does it hold? (requires a subscription...)
Not sure if more experienced editors can find it useful, but I do wonder if an article about the ice caves themselves would be a good idea. Five existing sources about the caves already on the Mt. Rainier article...
Happy editing!
OlympiaBuebird (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I doubt the caves are significant enough to merit their own article, but certainly can be described in the geographical setting section or their own subsection. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

When I lived in Olympia, everyone pronounced its name "rainier", like "more rainy", not "ray-NEER". Outside of the state I only heard "ray-NEER". This was in 2004, so local pronunciation may have shifted to match national assumptions. 152.7.255.203 (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Article: Rapid contemporary shrinking and loss of ice-capped summits in the western United States
For everyone's consideration, this article was recently published in Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research. This journal "seeks to advance understanding of the rapid environmental change occurring in cold regions through research into past, present, and future high-latitude and mountain regions".
Thus, the 2024 Rainier survey findings are no longer confined to a blog and have now been peer-reviewed.
Pinging @Graywalls and @DJ Cane for discussion. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Just because someone had one journal published doesn't give a carte blanche pass to use anything created by those authors as valid citations, especially materials form the past. I suggest that you open another discussion at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Until consensus there supports it, I am decidedly against the use of Gilbertson blog. Graywalls (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I think this is a positive step forward with this new data and I think the Methods described are adequately reliable. As I stated in previous discussions, I suspect Gilbertson's findings are accurate. I support including this material in the prose of the article while maintaining the official elevation in the lede and infobox for now. I don't think this material is substantial enough to be included in the lede itself. I'm interested to see how the National Park and USGS respond to this. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 13:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I would support adding "In 2024, Columbia Crest was measured at 14,389.2 ft (4,385.8 m), a decline of 6.4 m (20.8 ft) from the 1956 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) measurement." to the "Height of the Mountain" section. (I attempted with Special:Contributions/~2025-34425-78, prior to account creation).
The same source may be of interest to the glacier section, potentially after the "Using satellite data in 2022, researchers at Nichols College determined that both Pyramid and Van Trump glaciers had also ceased to exist with only fragments of ice remaining. A significant decline had been noted between 2015 and 2022.", since the journal article discusses the Columbia Crest Glacier melting and the associated increase in degree-days on the upper mountain. FastpackingTurtle (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if a reference to the 1956 measurement is appropriate as it is not the current data point used. Subsequent revisions were not done to see if the height of the mountain is changing due to climate change (or other reasons), but were done because improved technology allowed for more precise measurements. A comparison to the most recent official elevation should be made if the precise measurement is included in the article (something I am not too keen on because it uses a depreciated datum, presumably for increased shock factor). This is messy because of different agencies using different "official" values. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 13:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the norms of wikipedia being the best encyclopedia - namely well-sourced - rather than being correct or up-to-date (WP:NOTNEWS), and understanding the Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
The infobox is prickly, I don't see a reason to have the infobox mismatch the NPS Rainier website. We'd end up in the same situation but reversed, with NPS website driving traffic to millions of people each year. (some of which, will come to 'correct' wikipedia). As long as the NPS continues to amplify the 1950's data, it's the most authoritative for Rainer, and changing the infobox would be WP:UNDUE short of the mountain blowing up. My opinion is that a similar journal article might be WP:DUE on less notable peak's infobox, but a scientific journal article can't compete with the NPS Rainier homepage. [the above assumes that the infobox can only have a single height, but either way brevity seems important in an infobox.]
I think it's reasonable to omit the delta between the two measurements, to maintain the WP:NPOV. The "Height of the Mountain" section is incomplete without a mention of the journal article with the updated height or one of the secondary sources. It is WP:DUE that Columbia Crest melted in this section, and both the secondary source and the journal are reliable from a Wikipedia:Reliable sources perspective.
@Graywalls, does that seem like a reasonable compromise? [I am not familiar with the mechanism to lock the infobox, but I wouldn't be opposed to locking the infobox somehow if it receives drive-by updates that differs from the nps page more than once a week or so] FastpackingTurtle (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I guess the argument in favor of the infobox is that the 1950's survey is unreliable. "WP:AGE MATTERS" would apply to a melting glacier that's lost nearly half it's volume ... https://www.nps.gov/places/columbia-crest-glacier.htm, https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/687937. FastpackingTurtle (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't think a single peer-reviewed article and a handful of media articles based on it outweigh the hundreds (thousands?) of sources utilizing the official NPS or USGS figures. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 13:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
@KnowledgeIsPower9281 The new determination reports elevations with respect to the NGVD29, while the current cited figure is in NGVD88. What is the difference between the two datums near this location? fgnievinski (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello,
According to Gilbertson's write-up in his blog:
"Note that in this report I have reported all elevations in the NGVD29 vertical datum so that historical measurements can be fairly compared to more recent measurements. This is consistent with the LSAW reports from the 1988, 1998, and 2010 surveys where all data was converted to NGVD29. A vertical datum is how surveyors define a zero elevation, essentially mean sea level extended across land. The NGVD29 datum was created in 1929. An updated datum, NAVD88, was created in 1988. Elevations from one datum cannot be directly compared to elevations in a different datum. OPUS [Online Positioning User Service] gives raw output in NAVD88 datum and I used the NCAT tool [10] to convert to NGVD29.
For reference, the raw output from OPUS was:
Columbia Crest: orthometric height 4387.835m +/-0.028m (14,395.8ft +/-0.1ft) NAVD88 computed using Geoid18
SW Rim: orthometric height 4391.000m +/-0.032m (14,406.2ft +/-0.1ft) NAVD88 computed using Geoid18" (Gilbertson).
Meanwhile, the results with respect to the NGVD29 datum were:
"Columbia Crest: 14,389.2 ft +/- 0.1 ft
(lat/lon 46.852950, -121.760572)
SW Rim: 14,399.6 ft +/- 0.1ft
(lat/lon 46.851731, -121.760396)" (Gilbertson). KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
@KnowledgeIsPower9281 so the difference is a couple of meters (several feet). if the new determination is to be cited in Wikipedia, which datum should be adopted? I assume the newer one? fgnievinski (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
NGVD29 since that's what they use in the journal article. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Part of why I think this is appropriate for prose and not the infobox/lede is because he uses NGVD29 and not the modern standard. I recognize the usefulness here in comparing the elevation over time but NGVD29 is quite antiquated. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 20:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
@KnowledgeIsPower9281:, whatever datum is used in officially recognized height should be used. The one datum used in Gilbertson journal should not supersede the existing datum. Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Strong agree on this point. And if converting it to NGVD88 constitutes WP:ORIGINAL then exact figures from Gilbertson should be completely excluded, though I still hold that a peer-reviewed article on the subject meets notability guidelines for some form of mention in the prose in the relevant section. Note that this is a bit messy because the national park seems to use NGVD29 while USGS uses NGVD88. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 13:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Just started the RSN discussion here. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, would be nice to pull in outside opinions. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 13:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Where it currently says "Another commonly accepted measurement of the mountain is 14,411 ft (4,392 m) which comes from the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1988." I'd propose to correct it as follows:
"Another commonly accepted measurement of the mountain is 14,411 ft (4,392 m), also in the NGVD29, which was determined in a 1999 survey (originally based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, but converted to NGVD29 for comparison to previous values)."
fgnievinski (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
If there's a WP:RS you can cite for the reason for the change ("but converted to NGVD29 for comparison to previous values") I see no problem with this sentence. If it's an assumption, though, it should not be included and if it's from a Gilbertson source the inclusion is contingent how the RSN goes. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 18:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
It's stated in the POB article currently cited [10]: "Finally, we converted the NAVD 88 elevations to NAVD 29 [sic, NGVD 29] elevations for comparison to previous values." fgnievinski (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
@KnowledgeIsPower9281:, given the discussion at User_talk:KnowledgeIsPower9281#Eric_Gilbertson_photographs which talks about photos and permission by email, it seems like there's some sort of COI or relationship suggesting you two are in off-wiki communication. As of now, do you have a personal or professional relationship with him?  Graywalls (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the COI is well known and I can put it on my homepage again if needed. I am not being paid by Gilbertson but I keep up with his surveys/highpoints climbed via his blog/Instagram. He recently let me know via email that the surveys were being published in peer-reviewed journals and I figured I'd pass the information off to neutral editors.
Again, the mountain images were to improve those articles. I have agreed to not do any controversial COI edits pertaining to Gilbertson, and I stand by that. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
If you're partaking in discussion that involve advocacy for your associate/friend/whatever, that is a COI. It would be preferable that COI is disclosed conspicuously rather than nested somewhere in archives. Has there been any change in the nature of or extent of COI since the last time the COI matters were discussed? Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add the COI notice back to my homepage. The COI hasn't changed. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's worth revisiting the topic with the publication of https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15230430.2025.2572898#abstract. It may or may not be appropriate to change the main page elevation, but I added some context to the "Height of the mountain" section.
@Graywalls @DJ Cane, @Acroterion FastpackingTurtle (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC) — FastpackingTurtle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 

Please see and participate in the discussion above with regard to this subject. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 03:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Oops, I only saw the purple box, not the newer discussion above. FastpackingTurtle (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
There's been a surge of farm of brand new accounts in the last week making their very first few edits consisting of inserting Eric Gilbertson source. Although, I'd like to assume good faith, I feel that this is more than coincidence and possible coordination taking place outside of Wikipedia. Such pattern was also an issue with the Eric Gilbertson blog some time ago. @FastpackingTurtle:, is this your only account? Do you know Gilbertson personally or have you held a discussion with others regarding this source outside of Wikipedia? Graywalls (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
re: Is this your only account
Yes, this is my only account. I made the edit ~2025-34425-78, then was prompted to make the account, which I did. I am not affiliated with any other edit or discussion on wikipedia.
re: COI, Gilbertson
I have no COI regarding Gilbertson, climate change, or melting glaciers. I have read the wikipedia rules (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines) and won't add any primary-sourced information or anecdotes. FastpackingTurtle (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel like it's beyond coincidence that https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15230430.2025.2572898 keeps getting repeatedly added to various mountain pages in a short time span. They're being inserted by newly registered accounts or temp accounts with no or almost no edits besides shoehorning this source into it. If the pattern continues, it maybe necessary to seek the exclusion of that source. Graywalls (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

While there has certainly been evidence of people associated with Gilbertson editing this page on this subject, I don't think all such edits are this way. Mount Rainier is a major geographic feature visited by millions of people annually. It is not unreasonable that others could see Gilbertson's material and edit Mount Rainier in good faith. Most of these will probably be new or novice editors who should be educated about our standards.
I suspect we will have this problem for a while. We need to come to a consensus on what to do about Gilbertson's material and then put a notice on the top of this talk page outlining the final result until other entities (if any) publish similar findings.
We may also need to see about mild restrictions on editing the article as well as putting a notice visible when someone tries to edit it, pending completion of the initial consensus, if problems continue. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 22:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
I can say that at least one of the edits came from a place with an institutional COI. Can't specifically say which per privacy rules. Pushing of Gilbertson article to overwrite the established height has taken place to a handful of mountain articles in the last week or two by various temps and new accounts. This is why I say it's likely not coincidence and taking into consideration of prior coordinated editing such as Keithgilbertson (talk · contribs)and Eric Gilbertson (talk · contribs) who conveniently popped into Gilbertson related articles; and how criticism of Wikipedia was posted on Gilbertson blog at Countryhighpoints.com as discussion was taking place here.  Graywalls (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
There was an OutsideOnline article on November 12, 2025. It has ~500,000 paid subscribers, many of which are interested in mountains. FastpackingTurtle (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
While comments about Wikipedia on his blog are certainly tacky, I don't think that's a proper basis for exclusion if the data meets notability and reliable source guidelines. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 13:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
It's not a basis for exclusion, but the pattern is certainly a cause of concern for potential COI when brand new accounts are using brand new source to suddenly start overwriting lead and infobox data from existing established sources on various mountain articles. Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)