Talk:Mount Hood

Second most frequently climbed mountain in the world

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

Someone justifiably added the citation needed tag to dis 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 da 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)

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 (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 (UTC)

• 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)