Talk:Mount Rainier National Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

National Historic Landmark protection[edit]

I removed a line about the NHL designation protecting plants and animals. The natural elements of Mt. Rainier are already protected by merits of it being in a National Park. For that matter, I think the "parkitecture" (and landscape parkitecture) is also already protected as historic structures/landscapes. My guess is that the NHL designation (in this case) is really more about recognition rather than protection. At the very least, I am pretty sure the NHL status does not impact the preservation of wild natural resources. — Eoghanacht talk 15:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I thought the NHL status was only for the Inn (the main lodge) at Paradise? SchmuckyTheCat 23:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The park is also rich in cultural resources and was designated a National Historic Landmark District as an outstanding example of early park planning and NPS rustic architecture. [[1]] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This photo is of a peak just east of Chinook Pass.[edit]

Chinook Pass is on the east border of Mount Rainier National Park, therefore any peek described as just east of Chinook Pass would be outside the national park (see Green Trails Maps, Mount Rainier East, WA- NO 270, 1:50,500, 2001 and Stanley Maps, Mt. Rainier National Park - Centennial Edition SM50099, 1:30,000, 2002, ISBN 0966220943). Patleahy 04:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the border at Chinook Pass runs east-west, with the pass going north and south. That could be Naches Peak, which is on the park border. --Carnildo 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Naches Peak is south east of Chinook Pass, not just east. Since the peek is unnamed in the article we don't know what it its and therefore it does not add anything to the article. Patleahy 04:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I corrected the location of the peak in Image:Fieldscape.jpg; it is Point 6271' from Washington Route 410 east of Chinook Pass looking south.[2] It is located in William O. Douglas Wilderness. I've added it to that article (which was previously not illustrated) and removed it from this article. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Road repair deadline[edit]

I've been hearing that there is a deadline as to when the roads in Mount Rainier, particularly in the areas flooded out from the recent storm, must be fully finished. I was told that mid-March would be the deadline given that some species of owl's nesting season begins around this time, and maintenance crews want to protect this supposedly endangered species. If roads aren't fully fixed by this time, then they push the repairs out to August. JustN5:12 23:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction of the Carbon River road to Ipsut Creek campground is suspended from March 15 to August 6 to protect the Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, and Bull Trout. It's probably the least important road in the park, so there's no great problem there. --Carnildo 00:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speed Ascent Records[edit]

I'm adding a {{fact}} tag to the paragraph about the speed ascent records because there appears to be some disagreement about the facts and there are no supporting citations.

Regardless of what the facts are, I think the paragraph about the speed ascent records should be moved to Mount Rainier as it is about the mountain and not the national park. Any thoughts?

-- Patleahy 23:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. Thanks.
I'm also putting a citation for the current official record. The other record-claim the user tried to get in there while deleting the original material are just that, claims, and not official. Jim Whittaker's (who also was the first US citizen to summit Everest in 1959) and Howitt's are truly official and the only of their kind. It speaks for itself.
I can add a start and summit photo taken by his timing officials on Rainier, how do I add a photo?
I did further research and see there are a few people who obsessively search his name on the Internet and subject the issue and official record holder to tabloid abuse and malice, many chat sites and unfortunatly here. Readers have it they are friends of the unofficial record holder and are scrambling hard to protect him against an impressive complaint that undermined even his unofficial claim, it was shown quite fradulent as judged also by author of "Speed Climbing" Bill Wright [[3]] [email removed]
-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jane.freeser (talkcontribs) 03:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
I moved the paragraph to Mount Rainier#Ascent records. -- Patleahy 19:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I answered the question about citing an image at User talk:Jane.freeser#Citing an image. -- Patleahy 20:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


i changed the elevation for reasons described in Talk:Mount Rainier. if you disagree, i propose we discuss it there, rather than here. --barneca (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge Longmire, Paradise and Sunrise[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose the following articles be mearged into this one:

Instead of a number of stubs about parts of the park which are very unlikely to get beyond stubs any time soon what about creating one excellent article about the park? -- Patleahy 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge of Paradise I'd say that Paradise isn't a stub and has enough information to be a stand-alone article. Katr67 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Marge Longmire and Sunrise, keep Paradise separate: same reasoning as Katr67. I think you can summarize Paradise, Washington and Paradise Inn, make the summaries be sections in this article, and use {{main}} to point back to these more detailed articles. I'm really looking forward to more info in this article! Compared to Yosemite National Park, this is quite short. hike395 15:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: I proposed this and now I'm having second thoughts. Since its leaning towards keeping one I ask could the others become as detailed as Paradise. I know that there is a long history at Longmire since the man him self started building hotels and hot spring spas there and there was a lot of mining near Cougar Rock at one stage. What about Sunrise, is there a possibility of more information about that place? -- Patleahy 16:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Support I proposed this and then cast doubt about my own support so here is my vote. -- Patleahy 05:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original proposal: Although now, with Patleahy's conversion, no one else agrees, I might as well add my own 2 cents. I'd agree with the original proposal, for the following reasons:
  • All three locations are intricately related to the National Park. They have little (not zero, I hasten to add, but limited) history outside of their relation to the park. Their significance comes overwhelmingly from being important locations in the Park.
  • If I read the article right, everything built at Paradise was done after the National Park was established. Not sure about the Inn at Longmire; anyone know? I also don't know, but suspect, the same is true of Sunrise. Maybe this is the same as my first point; there was probably something at all three locations before it became a Park, but not that much.
  • One cohesive, well-written midsize article is better than four stub-size or small articles. Reduces redundancy, and gives a better overall view, IMHO.
  • Mount Rainier National Park is not too big to accept the information from the three articles.
  • Frankly, I'd support merging Paradise Inn in too, although that wasn't proposed.
  • If the resulting article does ever get too big, or if one section expands drastically, there is nothing preventing breaking it off into a separate article in the future, when it's more appropriate.
  • *sigh* All this talk about the mountain makes me homesick. Wish I were back there. --barneca (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
barneca, you have convinced me my gut instinct was correct, we should make one excellent article from these articles. I think at the moment the consensus is to merge Longmire and Sunrise and leave Paradise but we see what others have to say.
"If I read the article right, everything built at Paradise was done after the National Park was established. Not sure about the Inn at Longmire; anyone know? I also don't know, but suspect, the same is true of Sunrise. Maybe this is the same as my first point; there was probably something at all three locations before it became a Park, but not that much."
I don’t think there were permanent structures at Paradise before the road was opened to cars in 1915. There were "hotel camps" earlier than that.
The present day inn was the annex of an inn built in 1917. The main part of the inn was burnt to the ground in 1926. The present day inn was substantially remodeled in 1936. The general store next door is from 1911. James Longmire built the first bathhouses and cabins at the mineral springs in 1889 and a year later opened the first hotel in the area which bears his name. He built a wagon trail to the resort in 1893. I'll get this info cited and into the article.
"Frankly, I'd support merging Paradise Inn in too, although that wasn't proposed."
I was going to suggest Paradise Inn, Mowich Lake and Sourdough Mountains but I decided to leave it just to propose areas in the park and not a building, lake or peek in order not to complicate the discussion.
-- Patleahy 05:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I was going to suggest merging Paradise Inn with Paradise, but often NRHP buildings merit their own articles, so I couldn't decide. Katr67 17:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion: I believe there is support here to merge Longmire and Sunrise but not Paradise. This can easily be revisited as the articles are revised. -- Patleahy 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Longmire split out: need general history[edit]

The history of Longmire had grown nicely: I thought it should be the basis of a good Longmire article, so I split it back out to Longmire, keeping the more general information here.

I think what this article needs is a park-wide history (after the Native American subsection). Catton's 1996 on-line book [4]could be a great resource for this: I don't have time to go through and write a good section. Anyone else want to give it a try? hike395 09:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Henry M. Jackson Visitor Center[edit]

Mount Rainier National Park is a very short article and could benefit from the visitor center material being moved here (and copied to Paradise, Washington. It could be split out again when it is sufficiently expanded. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

However, the Jackson Visitor Center is being replaced, and within a year may become an item of more historical interest than relevant to the article. (I started a bit more discussion on the article there, but glad to continue in either place.) Natevw (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the merge tag. Its been there for ten months with no action. I anyone feels this merge should be done you can add it back in and reopen the discussion. -- Patleahy (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth oldest?[edit]

How is Mount Rainier the fifth-oldest park? - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 20:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • In general, the history section requires expansion, including a discussion of how Mount Rainier became a National Park and the political fight surrounding that move. Racepacket (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I just added a subsection about the creation of the park, although not with much about the political fight--just a bit of general context. One thing I couldn't quite figure out was whether Muir's 1888 ascent was the 5th or 6th on record. The National Parks book says it was the 6th, but most of the climbing chronology websites seem to list it as the 5th. It's apparently not clear whether the summit was reached on a few early attempts. Fred Beckey merely says that the 1888 climb was "the fourth ascent of the Gibraltar route", which doesn't exactly resolve it. Pfly (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think stating Rainier as the 5th National Park is a bit misleading. Yellowstone was the 1st in 1872, but then Mackinac National Park was created in 1875, two years later, General Grant, Sequoia, and Yosemite were all created at the same time in 1890, but then Mackinac was returned to the state of Michigan in 1895, so for five years there were actually five National Parks. When Rainier was added in 1899, the number came back to five parks, but I wouldn't say it was the fifth park, it was the sixth. You can find this information on the NPS site, as well as Wikipedias own List of of areas in the NPS system.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:36, 2014 November 22‎

Information icon Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Walter. I had an account years ago, but the passwords been lost and is apparently not recoverable. I found that when I made changes, even small ones and cited the reasons, there were people that seem invested in the way it was written and would reverse them. Thus, I choose to make suggestions on the talk page, and if an editor would like to incorporate my suggestions they are welcome to... or not to as they please. In this case, I can say that Mount Rainier National Park was actually the 6th national park created by an act of congress. Since Mackinac National Park had been disbanded at the time of its creation, you could say it was the 5th of the five parks designated at the time. I don't think it would be right to call it the 5th oldest either, since technically General Grant was re-designated as part of Kings Canyon National Park, and ceased to exist as a park in its own right at that time. Based on that, one could say its actually the 4th oldest park, after Yellowstone, Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks.