Talk:Mount San Antonio

message: Does anyone have any info on the group that regarded Baldy as one of the ten places, across the globe, that served as a contact point with ETs? I recall reading about them going up occasionally to hold alien reception ceremonies. I believe they were active in the 1980s, and early 1990s. It'd be interesting information for the article if we can find some sources. Thanks, -Willmcw 09:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I lived in Claremont from '95 to '99 and a few of these people hung-out in the Village. I spoke with one of them about this subject and, from what I could gather, he was insinuating that he and other descendants of the Druids lived in the area because the mountain was a source of some kind of new-age energy. As proof of this, he cited visitations to Mt. Baldy by UFOs and the location of a Zen Buddist center there. I think it was just a bunch of kooks. 71.194.222.230 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystical site 

message: WP's Saint Anthony is a disambiguation page with a long list of saints. It would be nice to know which the mountain was named for.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've added it based on this website, which quotes a reliable source. We should check the source directly and add a citation to once we've done that.   Will Beback  talk   22:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of name

message: User Srich32977 did a wholesale revert of various edits I made recently to the article, complaining on my user talk page that they were unsourced. This is unnecessarily aggressive and counterproductive, since some of the edits were clearly noncontroversial, e.g., the statement that the mountain lies within Angeles National Forest. It is not WP policy, and never has been, to revert all unsourced information. The civilized way to deal with this is to query on the talk page for a source, or perhaps mark the text with a tag saying that the source of the information needs to be cited. Since Srich32977's behavior is rude, destructive, and counter to all norms of behavior on WP, I'm re-reverting. Srich32977, if you have doubts about specific facts, please ask here rather than doing wholesale reverts.--75.83.76.23 (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: The Recreation section needs some material about the ski resort, preferably written by someone who knows something about downhill skiing (i.e., not me).--Fashionslide (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ski resort

message: The GNIS cite for the elevation of 10,046' is from an entry dated 1981-01-19 and the citation confirmsthe data is from 1981. It may also be a typo of 10,064. The peakbagger cite, used to cite the prominence, claims a NAVD88 elevation of 10,068', which (by definition) would have to be from 1988 or (probably much) later. The topo map on that page also shows an elevation of 10,064', which agrees with the main elevation on the page (the equivalent in the NGVD29 datum, if I understand the site's notes correctly). It also matches the current aeronautical sectional chart. I suggest we go with the 10,068' NAVD88 elevation and cite it to peakbagger. A little digging can probably find a more "official" primary source, like the more recent NGS data or topo maps. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, the USGS GNIS reports the elevation as 10,046', not 10,064' as the article currently reads. I spent a lot of time in Sept 2019 trying to verify the PeakBagger elevation of 10,068 (attributed to NAVD88) but failed. On the same Peakbagger page it also gives the elevation as 10,064. Until an authoritative, verifiable source is found that says otherwise, I think Wikipedia should stick with 10,046' since the GNIS elevation is the official elevation that can be traced directly to the USGS.--Mox La Push (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

text: A 2018 USGS source, The National Map gives the elevation of the main peak as 10,066' and the west peak as 9,996'. I have revised the article accordingly. I also removed some of the redundant mentions of the elevation so the article will be easier to edit if the elevation(s) has to be changed again.--Mox La Push (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

text: It might make sense to add an explanatory note somewhere about the various elevation discrepancies.--Mox La Push (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation 

message: On the advice of Clarityfiend, we have incorporated the description and history of the ski hut in this page rather than having it as a separate entry.Room for one more (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of Sierra Club hut