Talk:Pacific Crest Trail

PCT Deaths

A bleak topic, but I felt it was important to add. Not sure if it should be under Notable hikers or its own section. Trellar (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the deaths section should likely be removed, very few Wiki pages covering hiking trails have such a section, it seems rather unusual for there to be a "notable deaths" section. I don't see that it adds any value, nobody researching the PCT cares about fatalities or injuries, after all. Damotclese (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

difficulty=Easy to Strenuous

The tag difficulty=Easy to Strenuous probably meant that parts are easy, parts are difficult. Damotclese (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Might be good to discuss karelsabbe.com proposed change

There have been a number of proposed updates concerning the fastest through time during this year, and it's difficult to know with any "official" certainty whether records have been exceeded or not, it seems that blogs and wishful thinking is applied as much as suggested updates using magazines and other sources which suggest someone has exceeded the faster through time.

It would be helpful to discuss proposed changes here first so that editors are not reverting possible legitimate citations and references. It does look like this year there are a number of contenders who might very well have exceeded records, to get those people and their times recognized, discussion here would be helpful

Revision as of 01:07, 23 September 2016 (edit) 2a02:1812:172b:5300:645f:45a8:5e99:e34b (talk) (I added a few references. In the end, the only tracking information available is the athlete's, just as for any previous record. This attempt is extremely well documented. I think the article is balanced by mentioning the debate on the record.)

Latest revision as of 06:01, 23 September 2016 (edit) (undo) (thank) Hike395 (talk | contribs) (→‎Notable hikers: statement that it is "well accepted" not supported by reliable sources, and is contradicted by trailrunner magazine)

As he followed all the official alternates and his total mileage even exceeded the standard karelsabbe.com, his record is now widely accepted as being the current FKT (Fastest Known Time) for the PCT.

The comment about "widely accepted" not being a suitable reference or citation is a good one, log book records along the trail should help to confirm, and until there is a legitimate review of the records with photocopies, perhaps, of the log entries, I think we should hold off a bit -- unless an editor wants to word the proposed change to note that the record breaking is as yet unconfirmed.Damotclese (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hiking records

Heather "Anish" Anderson is not the first woman to complete the Triple Crown of Hiking, I believe she is the first woman to complete the Triple Crown of Hiking in a Calendar year, a much more impressive feat. This means she did all three trails back to back in period between January and December in a given year.

I think incorporating speed and other kinds of records is a bad idea. Such endeavors should not receive acclaim or notoriety. If someone wants to blaze from Mexico to Canada at warp factor 9, that is their prerogative. But the PCT is not generally recognized as a race course; it is wilderness, a natural environment full of wonderful scenery, textures, scents, and sounds.

The slowly advancing "race" for youngest person to have completed the PCT means what: Increasing pressure to get a toddler to walk thousand of miles? Same goes for oldest person, the one who died of exhaustion at age 103 just as they reached the US-Canadian border?

Should the film article mention the people who have seen the most movies in one viewing session? Should the eye article mention the world champion of not blinking?

Instead, this article would be better advanced by enumerating the groups doing the most to analyze, develop, and maintain the trail. Or more details, segment by segment, about the pitch, terrain, wildlife, and climate. There are many more details about the trail itself which could/should be added. Let's try not to encourage the occasional misdirected person who ambles along on it. —EncMstr (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

:) I have to agree with EncMstr (talk) about the PCT not being a race track, however a great many hikers and other people are very interested in records, so the information should be included in the article. This is an encyclopedia, after all, and speed times and other relevant numeric and demographic information is useful and informative.

Sectional hikers who take years to complete the trail from end to end probably do enjoy the experience more than those who attempt to "get through it" rather than those who become part of it, but I think from reading the fast-timers' blogs and magazine articles, going fast is still a very rewarding experience, it's a personal challenge for themselves, for their bodies, they exceed their own envelopes and comfort zones which adds to the environmental experience. Damotclese (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of material about Ryback possibly hitchhiking

Boardergirl432 has twice removed the material talking about Ryback possibly hitchhiking part of the PCT, claiming "no citation, all speculation and opinion, no facts" and "deleted an untrue statement and fake news article". The material was supported by citations to Smithsonian Magazine and the PCT Guidebook by Wilderness Press. On User talk:Boardergirl432, she said that the material violated WP:NPOV. The material seemed to be NPOV to me, because it did not make a statement about whether Ryback did or did hitchhike, but simply stated that his claim of thru-hiking was disputed.

@Damotclese, EncMstr, and Wsiegmund: What do other editors think? Did that material obey WP:BLP? —hike395 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I watched those edit removals by User talk:Boardergirl432 and also wondered why he or she did that since the references and citations were legitimate and the reporting of facts is what Wikipedia is about, it's not a violation of WP:NPOV or even impacts WP:BLP in any degree. I'll go look at the specific text that was removed and see if it should be reinstated. We may need to ask User talk:Boardergirl432 to explain his or her reasons for removal since the text at first glace met all Wikipedia expectations, I'll go see. Damotclese (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The text that was removed is the following:

However, Ryback's claim is disputed. When the guidebook publisher, Wilderness Press, stated that Ryback had used motor transport in places along the PCT, Ryback sued for $3 million but withdrew the suit after Wilderness Press revealed statements from the people who claim to have picked up the young hiker along highways parallel to the 2,600-mile trail. Ryback is in Smithsonian's top 9 list of people Cheating Their Way to Fame though it notes that The claims that Ryback “cheated” are still doubted by some.

The citation offered is a valid one and also the information provided is informative and valuable, it should not have been removed, it does not violate any salient WP guide for editors, the text needs to be reinstated. People perform Google searches for information like this, the whole point of Wikipedia is to provide references and background such as this, the text should not have been removed. If nobody else restores the text, I will do so tomorrow. Damotclese (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Also I see that (Special:Contributions/Boardergirl432) is a WP:SPA which is a violation of Wikipedia rules, that account should likely be terminated for violating WP:SPA Damotclese (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Damotclese, EncMstr, Wsiegmund, and Hike395: Can someone just direct me to the correct person or page or talk where I can actually defend my statements and edits? Yes, I am new, but Wikipedia clearly states to not pick on newcomers. I edit the PCT page because I am an expert on it and the history of it, I am not biased but when I see a mistake I will correct it. If I was an expert on Notable Figure Skaters I would edit that page if I saw a mistake. Anywho, just let me know where to leave my comments so this can be taken care of, I am being Pinged on 3 “talks”. Boardergirl432 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)boardergirl432

@Boardergirl432:: This is the correct place to present rationale for your edits. See the talk page guidelines. Note that we operate by consensus, not authority, not "lawyering", and not by voting. This organization is likely strange at first for all newcomers—we were all new once as well. The basis of the decision making process is hinted at in The Five Pillars. While you may well be an expert on this topic, the best you can do (for this discussion) is provide links to verifiable and reliable sources which are neutral.

The text you removed clearly states both sides of the controversy. To delete the original text, show there is doubt that the Smithsonian is correct or that Wilderness Press acted inappropriately (for example). There may be other factors not presented which also have an impact. Demonstrate your expertise to help us reach a proper consensus that the article is as true as it can be. —EncMstr (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@EncMstr: Perfect! Thank you thank you!! I will compile all my notes/sources/factors/etc. and post my complete rationale here tomorrow. Follow up question: I see the Smithsonian article link, but both you and Damotclese refer to Wilderness Press as a source and I have searched for a link or citation and there is none provided anywhere. That is a big concern that all of the Wilderness Press statements are not backed up from any source I can find. While I compile my rationale in the mean time can you please refer me to where I can find the Wilderness Press links/articles/etc? Thank you again and I look forward to working through this with you all @Damotclese, EncMstr, Wsiegmund, and Hike395:Boardergirl432 (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)boardergirl432

@Boardergirl432: Alastair Bland's Smithsonian Magazine article is the source of the Wilderness Press statement. It states "When the guidebook publisher, Wilderness Press, stated in print that Ryback had used motor transport in places along the PCT, Ryback sued for $3 million—but he withdrew the suit after Wilderness Press revealed statements from the very people who had supposedly picked up the young hiker along highways parallel to the 2,600-mile trail. The claims that Ryback “cheated” are still doubted by some" —hike395 (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Damotclese, EncMstr, Wsiegmund, and Hike395: Yes I see that but even the link/cite in his article that refers to these rumors is broken and leads nowhere (I’ve contacted the Smithsonian about that this week as well, am waiting for a reply). It seems he could have literally made that up or it could be hearsay because the Wilderness Press website and archives does not have anything about it. There are so many articles by the utmost respected publications that have not done their due diligence in fact checking (it happens quite often and especially in cases of who is the first/fastest/best/etc) so even though the name “Smithsonian” is behind it, doesn’t mean the author took proper steps to ensure accuracy. Food for thought. If we are basing a lot of this on Wilderness Press and it’s such an important source I think it’s crucial we are able to verify. Boardergirl432 (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)boardergirl432

We base articles on reliable sources. Given that all sources potentially are inaccurate, I think “Smithsonian” is at least as good as the average. It would be helpful if additional sources could be found since this item is disputed by an editor, but even if that is not possible, the “Smithsonian” content must be included, in some form, in the article to satisfy WP:NPOV. The exception would be if it were retracted or so broadly disputed by reliable sources to be unlikely to be accurate. The dropping of the lawsuit by Ryback is uninformative regarding the hitchhiking allegation. Because of free speech protection in the United States, it is very difficult to recover legal fees, much less damages, from alleged libel. He would have had to prove that Wilderness acted in bad faith, a very high bar.Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The text will be reinstated and the WP:SPA account will need to be be discussed elsewhere. Damotclese (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Damotclese, EncMstr, Wsiegmund, and Hike395: I haven't even given my rationale yet, that was simply a question to help me determine what I need to provide. As you, @Damotclese: mentioned earlier "We may need to ask User talk:Boardergirl432 to explain his or her reasons for removal since the text at first glace met all Wikipedia expectations, I'll go see." I am working on my rationale as fast as I can if you can just please be patient. In regards to the WP:SPA here is a direct quote from that exact page "Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time." Also "If you wish to continue working as a SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly with regard to sources. Be willing to buy or borrow books and articles on your chosen subject. Search thoroughly for information on-line. Make notes reminding you from where your information comes, carefully check its reliability and neutrality. Reproduce it in the form of citations. The community's main concern is that edits by single-purpose accounts stand at odds with Wikipedia's neutrality and advocacy policies." I am taking my time in my rationale as to make sure I follow all of these mentioned neutrality and reliability policies (and at the same time learning those policies since I am NEW). I am feeling quite "bitten" and rushed in this talk and I would really appreciate some patience and understanding. I can assure you I am acting in good faith and would hope everyone would show respect rather than hostility toward me. Boardergirl432 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)boardergirl432

@Boardergirl432: Please don't feel picked on. While Damotclese is focusing (perhaps too harshly) on one aspect of your editing history, the Ryback tidbit has been contentious in the past. See this, this, and this. Please try to convince me that Ryback's achievement need not have doubt.

In support of Damotclese's opinion, it is common for longtime editors to feel exhausted/overwhelmed by the commercial world's persistent attempts to introduce advertisements and favorably biased coverage of their interests in Wikipedia. We all get a little cranky about such cretinspeople from time to time. After you finish your current task, maybe you could help improve another interesting article—preferably a topic in which you are not an expert. —EncMstr (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand someone's desire to protect a friend on Wikipedia, however the extant article is and was accurate insofar as the erroneously removed text. WP:SPAs are routinely created for such purposes, however the reference provided is solid, there is no controversy about the accuracy of the text which was removed. Editors should remember that more information backed by testable, falsifiable references and citations is what Wikipedia is about -- well, that and a few other things. Damotclese (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User hike395 you need to reinstate that text, I don't see that it is Damo's task to reinstate it but I agree with Damo completely, the text was removed without serious cause. Also the Boardergirl432 account needs to be banned for violating Single Purpose Account guidelines.

TrainsOnTime isn't your group responsible for about 110 miles of the PCT? Maybe you should chime in on this and give your opinion on why the removed text needs to be restored. Since you work on the PCT seems like you have a dog in this race, Damo and I don't other than being colleagues. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey! What? :) BB you were working somewhere in Mongolia the last I heard, not on the PCT. You never answer your phone or emails yet Wiki emailed me saying you invoked my good name here. :) I know you're not allowed to use private emails or phones where you are but that made me laugh. :) Damo at least answers his emails, albeit slowly, slowly.

I looked this over, hike395 found the problem initially so he should fix it, yeah. Also our group works as unpaid employees of the USFS and that 110 miles of trails is spread out across some 20 or 30 trails, we're responsible for the sections from Mount Hawkins through Windy Gao, through Little Jimmy Trail Camp and on to Baden-Powell, with some responsibility in the Mount Waterman Designated Wilderness which has a PCT fragment where the PCT crosses Angeles Crest Highway 2. I think overall the PCT mileage that we're responsible for is about 5 miles in total, and even then the USFS does not list a 2N in our inventory for that PCT section since the other trails overlap PCT with their own 2Ns.

Damotclese Just because someone uses a single purpose account doesn't mean they're spamming, but it does look like Boardergirl432 has unclean hands with a motive here. The text that was removed, it looks to me, is well-references, you don't get much better than the Smithsonian, but the accurate commentary about cheating is embarrassing so I could see why a friend or family member -- not to mention the person himself -- would want the text removed from this article. If it was me who was caught cheating, I wouldn't want Wikipedia mentioning the fact either, I suppose. (Or maybe in the Talk page I would defend my cheating, maybe, if I were an idiot -- which I am, admitted with pride!) TrainsOnTime (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. I remove a lot of SPA accounts after blatant vandalism, but occasionally there is an SPA that is legitimate. If hike395 does not reinstate the removed text by the end of this evening I will do so.

Thanks, everybody! Wikipedia editors are awesome. :) Damotclese (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Good summary, BiologistBabe. Restoration of the deleted text does not preclude revisiting this issue should more and/or better sources become available. But in their absence, it should be restored. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Trail deaths

I attempted to remove the Deaths section from the article, but was reverted by ScrapIronIV.

My reasoning: all hiking trails are hazardous. There are about 40 hiking deaths/year in the United States.[1] A long-enough trail will accumulate a number of fatalities: none of the deaths listed (beyond the first) are notable. The whole section should be deleted, according to WP:NOTNEWS. —hike395 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here, as it is part of the history of the trail, and is inherently notable to the trail itself. It would not be appropriate for a general article on hiking, but is absolutely appropriate for this article. Scr★pIron^IV 13:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Edits and Suggested Edits by Scott Wilkinson of the PCTA

Hi Fellow PCT Editors:

I'm the director of communications and marketing for the Pacific Crest Trail Association. Today (May 5, 2018) I made some edits to the PCT page as follows:

1. I clarified the statement on the exact length of the trail; we (the PCTA) use 2,650 miles as the "official" length of the trail. While we readily acknowledge that this is not a precise number, it's also a fact that the precise mileage varies from year to year due to fire closures, reroutes, and trail realignments (most recently the Sierra Buttes realignment). One could argue that there is an "original" or "ideal" path of the trail and measure that, but in practice this argument doesn't work well, as the trail is somewhat dynamic and changes from year to year.

Hi, Scott. Thanks for contributing to this article and making your affiliation known (you're following the practice recommended at our conflict of interest guideline). You may wish to read our guideline on reliable sources. Your edit was reverted because you had sourced it to yourself, which potentially violates our guideline on original research. If you can add a reference to a guidebook from a reputable publisher or to a U.S. Government web site, that would be ideal. For example, you could add A reference to the PCTA website itself would probably be acceptable, also, although less preferred. —hike395 (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

2. I added brief mentions of Catherine Montgomery as being the earliest known person to suggest a trail from Mexico to Canada. This was not to suggest that Montgomery is the "founder" of the PCT, but rather to clarify that Clinton C. Clarke cannot be undisputably called the founder of the trail (it depends on what your definition of "founder" is). The reality is that there were many people instrumental in the creation of the trail (Theodore Solomons and Warren Rogers being two others who were influential in the trail's origins.)

Again, this was removed because there you didn't supply a source. I would suggest citing and add the page number. —hike395 (talk)

3. Because I believe it's important information and relevant to the PCT entry, I added a new section about the management of the trail. I was very careful to maintain a neutral point of view and state only the facts, and avoided promoting the PCTA in any way.

I agree that a management section would be a helpful addition to the article. If you could find a reliable source for the material, then I think it would stick. —hike395 (talk)

4. I also clarified an edit about the (future) Tejon Ranch relocation of the trail. I did this to avoid any interpretation by readers that this relocation is either happening now or could happen soon. In fact, it's a long-term project that will take many years to come to fruition.

Wikipedia avoids speculation about future events, because they are difficult to verify. I suspect this should be left out of the article. —hike395 (talk)

---

SUGGESTION: I believe the section on thru-hiking the PCT should be removed from this entry, as I don't believe it is directly relevant to the trail. While it's fundamentally okay, there are a few statements that aren't well-supported (such as the bit about "traditional" versus "ultralight" hikers---this is somewhat murky as all hikers fall somewhere along a spectrum between the two). I also think removal of this section is fine due to the presence of another article on thru-hiking. (By the way, the spelling "thru-hike" may not be grammatically correct, but I think it's fine to use because it is, in fact, the most common way of spelling this phrase. We use it exclusively in the PCTA, and one could argue that it should be included in dictionaries as a standard spelling.)

SUGGESTION: I agree with the editor who suggested that the "Deaths" section be removed. It isn't directly relevant to an article about the trail, and as pointed out elsewhere, people die on all long-distance trails (and other trails don't have "death sections.") Furthermore, the list isn't completed or up-to-date, and including a section like this places an additional burden on editors of having to maintain it.

I'm glad you agree with this. I shall remove the section (again), but we can discuss further if necessary. —hike395 (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

---

February 21, 2019 COMMENT REGARDING UPDATES: In response to edits I tried to make last year (which were reasonably reverted because I was sourcing these edits to myself), Hike395 stated that "A reference to the PCTA website itself would probably be acceptable, also, although less preferred." I'd like to suggest that the PCTA (and our website and materials we pubish) is, in fact, the most reliable source of information about the PCT on the web. We're the primary steward of the trail, and we work in partnership with federal agencies such as the USFS, BLM, and NPS. Most guidebooks for the PCT, as well as U.S. Government websites, source much of their information from us. I don't say any of this to promote the PCTA, but simply to establish the fact that our knowledge of the trail is extremely reliable (and generally more current than any other agency or organization).

As an aside, I'll do some looking around in Wikipedia to see if other nonprofit trail orgs are cited as reliable sources. If not, they should be. (For example, no organization or agency knows more about the Pacific Northwest Trail than the Pacific Northwest Trail Association; the same could be said for many other national trails.)

I admit I'm not fluent at Wikipedia's editing policy. And if the point of sourcing external references is simply to have *other* references (than the organization an editor represents), I understand. (Though I'd still add that the act of adding other references doesn't in itself make those other references any more reliable.)

Thanks! Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadepine (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Oldest thru hiker

I thought the oldest thru hiker designation was finally determined when 'Al' thru hiked the trail starting at age 80 and 287 days. As his son, I am ineligible to re-edit this article, but do attest I walked every continuous footstep with him. If anyone wants to break the record, they will need to begin hiking after they turn 80 years 287 days old and complete the entire trail by the end of the calendar year. Apparently, there is still a question on if 'Al' hiked the trail for his third time in 2018 according to the comments that undid the text that claimed he is the oldest. Al did hike the entire trail. He has my witness, Many 100's of other hikers saw him on the trail, and lots of photographic evidence. His is the age to top to become the oldest hiker. Clearned (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, eyewitness accounts are not accepted as evidence in Wikipedia. Information in Wikipedia has to be verfiable and come from reliable sources. If you can find a newspaper article about the oldest thru-hiker, then we can re-add it to the article. —hike395 (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Trail Hazards

Does someone need to expand listing of trail hazards in greater detail as in "Appalachian Trail" article (specific insects, wildlife, etc.)? Victorsteelballs (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Timothy Olson's new (probable) FKT?

Presumably someone will add a bit about Timothy Olson's latest FKT when it is confirmed. Joebeone (Talk) 18:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pct-logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Climate change

This article might benefit from a new section, or at least a couple of paragraphs, on the effects of climate change.

From the New York Times, 31-Aug-2022:

"Heat, Water, Fire: How Climate Change Is Transforming the Pacific Crest Trail. The already grueling 2,600-mile hike now includes the added challenges of global warming, which can mean a lack of shade and exposure to smoke and fire."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/travel/climate-change-pacific-crest-trail.html

Omc (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)