The elevation was changed in this article on Sept. 9 2024, but is not based on an official measurement. I'd propose that elevations of mountains in the United States should use the USGS as the official measurement. Additional measurements could be added, but should not replace the USGS measurement until any new measurements are adopted by the USGS. 2601:601:602:50A0:5272:B05:CE0:FBB5 (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these findings were published in a blog post and not even peer reviewed. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The blog post even says "[Note these results are not official unless approved by Rainier National Park]". The edit should be reverted. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 14:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that he would say that the National Park Service determines elevation, I would think it is actually a function of US Geological Survey (USGS). Don't infoboxes always use USGS heights? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, I'm just pointing out that even the source offered says they shouldn't be used as the official elevation. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 17:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the 2024 survey elevation back into the infobox, but below the official elevation with notes explaining both heights. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having two elevations listed is confusing to the general reader and in my opinion having one guy who formerly worked for the Signal Corps back up the claim doesn't add much validity to it. Peer review typically involves replication of the hypothesis by multiple subject matter experts followed by publication in an academic journal. I'm not sure why the rush to get this number out matters beyond padding Gilbertson's resume, NOAA and USGS are currently involved with developing a new datum for use within the entire United States. I think we should wait to change elevation numbers in the infobox until that project is finished in the next couple years. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 14:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KnowledgeIsPower9281:, your attempt at footnotes didn't work; I've fixed them, but in the future, please check that what you do to an article displays properly. Although I fixed the edit, I agree with DJ Cane. Schazjmd (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe the best thing to do would be to keep a footnote on the official elevation, but mention Gilbertson's survey elevation in the footnote since the official elevation is likely outdated information at this point. Columbia Crest is most likely no longer the highest point of the volcano, with the Southwest Rim now being the probable highest point. This information pertains to climbers who want to reach the current highest elevation of the volcano, even if the survey is unofficial. I do agree that the official one should be kept until the new findings become official. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a footnote mentioning Gilbertson's survey is an appropriate compromise though I don't think it needs to be particularly detailed. The body of the article is the appropriate location for details.

I suspect the survey does bring up important changes on the volcano. I don't question the need for updated data nor do I think the survey is wildly inaccurate (which is why I didn't remove it wholesale in my edits), we just need to make sure we are using the best data in line with community standards for what we consider to be reliable sources which includes not giving undue weight to unofficial sources. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 17:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The following comment was left on this talk page in a new section. I am adding it here so that participating editors get notified.

Hello everyone, I'm the Park Geologist at Mount Rainier. Someone recently changed the height of the mountain on the wiki entry from 14,410 (official height) to 14,399.6 (a single survey done by Eric Gilbertson that is not peer reviewed or official in any way). Can we get that changed back to 14,410 for now until we have a chance to review Eric's work, his raw data, and have NOAA's Geodetic Survey weigh in on the official height? Again, the work by Gilbertson is NOT official and should to be represented as official until we all can weigh in on it. Thanks! - Scott Beason (scott_beason - at - nps.gov)

DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 20:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: As there has been no dissent and this has been open for several days now, I have reverted the infobox elevation and citation back to the old value. I have also removed the Height subsection and moved relevant portions of the prose into the Subsidiary peaks subsection. I kept the new data as it appears to have some weight, but reworded it to show that it is new research that isn't official or peer reviewed. I kept existing citations for that section.
  • The revert seems to have also undone a number of useful edits made after the height change and need to be patched back in. I do think that mentioning the new height data is worth doing so in the text just to prevent further edit warring and arguments. SounderBruce 03:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adding new height data from a blog with nothing else to verify it just to end this argument doesn't seem worth it to me. Until and unless the data is verified, I'm against the new data. Also, WP:BLOGS is against the new data since it is from a blog. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all, just FYI, the research has now been fully peer-reviewed and published in a journal here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15230430.2025.2572898 ~2025-33601-76 (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Full citation:

    • Gilbertson, Eric; Abatzoglou, John T.; Stanchak, Kathryn E.; Hotaling, Scott (2025). "Rapid contemporary shrinking and loss of ice-capped summits in the western United States". Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research. 57 (1) 2572898. doi:10.1080/15230430.2025.2572898 (inactive 14 November 2025). ISSN 1523-0430. Retrieved 2025-11-14.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2025 (link)

    Peaceray (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You may be interested to know we are discussing this topic in a section below (Talk: Mount Rainier#Article published in the journal of Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research). You are welcome to participate in the ongoing discussion. I will close this discussion so there is no confusion. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 21:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gilbertson here. I did the recent Rainier surveys and I’ve heard there’s been some misinformation floating around on Wikipedia about this. I wanted to clear up any confusion. I usually trust Wikipedia as a source of factual, unbiased information, but this article appears to fall short of that standard.

-As Scott Beason mentioned, the park is currently reviewing my measurements and is still keeping its long-standing value of 14,410ft currently. This was the number from the 1956 USGS survey.

- My 2024 measurements were based on multiple ground surveys conducted in August and September of this year and corroborated with independent Lidar surveys from 2007 and 2022. Lidar data for Rainier is publicly available at https://lidarportal.dnr.wa.gov/ and can be analyzed by anyone using QGIS, a free software package that can be downloaded at qgis.org

-My methodology and measurements were peer-reviewed by Larry Signani and he says the results are sound and confirm the melting of Columbia Crest (see Seattle Times article interview with Larry Signani found here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/mount-rainier-is-shrinking-and-now-has-a-new-summit/)

-The number currently used on wikipedia, 14,411ft, was also determined by Larry Signani as part of the earlier surveys. He was the geodesist from the Land Surveyors Association of Washington (LSAW) Rainier surveys of 1988, 1998, and 2010. You will find his name as the author of the second article currently cited on Wikipedia for the 14,411ft number (“The Height of Accuracy” Point of Beginning). I will note it is a double standard to cite his result from those years but not from 2024.

-The other source currently cited for the 14,411ft elevation is from The News Tribune. This same newspaper has now recognized the height of Rainier as that of my measurement, 14,399.6ft. See https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article293659974.html

-Peakbagger uses the 2024 measurement of Rainier, 14,399.6ft (NGVD29). (https://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=2296) Peakbagger is the most trusted source of peak elevations around the world. Wikipedia cites peakbagger for the 14,411ft number, but Peakbagger actually uses 14,399.6ft (rounded to 14,400ft to the nearest ft).

Thus three of the four sources Wikipedia is currently citing for the elevation of Rainier (Larry Signani, The News Tribune, Peakbagger) are now actually using the value I measured (14,399.6ft). The fourth source, opentopomap.org, is listing 4392m, which is 14,409.45 ft and not even consistent with the 14,411ft number currently listed on Wikipedia.

-Wikipedia should be careful which datum it is using. The 14,411ft number is NGVD29, not NAVD88 as is currently written on Wikipedia. The NAVD88 number for that survey was 14,417ft. The park number 14,410ft is in NGVD29, so I recommend using that datum for all elevations on this page to be consistent with the park.

-Rainier National Park never formally recognized the 1988, 1998, or 2010 LSAW surveys of Rainier (14,411.1ft, 14,411.0ft, and 14,411.0ft respectively) and has always kept the number from the 1956 USGS survey (14,410ft). Surveyors and mountaineers in Washington use the LSAW results, though.

-I recommend, if Wikipedia wants to get this article as accurate as possible, that it first mentions the officially-recognized park height of 14,410ft. Then it should also mention the numbers from the 1988, 1998, 2010, and 2024 ground surveys. This way readers will be aware of the most recent ground measurements and also aware of what is recognized by the park. Wikipedia should also be explicit and accurate about which datum it is using. This might not be a big deal on the east coast of the US (where the datums are only different by a few inches), but on Rainier they are different by around 6ft. Eric Gilbertson (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peakbagger seems bloggy and shouldn't be used as it's bloated with Amazon affiliate links, data based on user submissions and such. The data should be referenced to whatever values used in reliable geology related books from reliable publishers (Authorhouse for example doesn't count as such) and websites like countryhighpoints.com have no business being cited anywhere on entire Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_362#Is_Peakbagger.com_a_reliable_source? There's discussion there about Peakbagger and there's no definitive consensus. Some information maybe reliable, but at its core, hard data seems to be crowdsourced and the data accuracy is at the mercy of the contributor. The GPS reading could have been taken by a child sitting on his dad's shoulder and that would throw it off by 5-6'. Database based on publicly submitted data can not be trusted as a source for encyclopedia writing. Graywalls (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly described my measurement methodology in my report that can be found in the link below. Please do not misrepresent the methodology of the 2024 measurements.

https://www.countryhighpoints.com/mt-rainier-elevation-survey/

The measurements and methodology have been peer reviewed by the leading experts in the field of measuring the height of Rainier. See previous citations of source. I have also provided my raw measurement RINEX files in the measurements section of my report linked above. Any surveyor can process them and see for themselves.

Peakbagger editorial staff is composed of experts in the field. Results are reviewed by staff before being published on the site.

I welcome fact-based scientific discussion on the points I have brought up in my message above. If you do not dispute any of these facts, then I encourage other Wikipedia editors to weigh in. Then I encourage wikipedia to adopt these changes to make the article factually correct and unbiased.

I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's "argument from authority page", which states "Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority"

See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Use_in_science Eric Gilbertson (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Gilbertson:, that discussion (about peakblogger) should take place on RSN. Start a new discussion. Even if the provided data was "reviewed", it is based on user-submitted value. As of last discussion, there was no consensus that it's a reliable source. Graywalls (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have asked other editors to weigh in so I shall do so...

I agree 100% with Graywalls that there is no place on Wikipedia for the data that you are trying to add. That is regardless of your methodology.

At the end of the day, individuals cannot simply travel around making field observations and then attempt to install them on Wikipedia as though they were reliably sourced published facts. That is regardless of whether they place those observations on a crowd-sourced website beforehand.

I'm not sure why you and your associates have recently started to try to do this but I would suggest that you stop doing so with immediate effect and advise your associates to do likewise. Axad12 (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the editors for making the changes recommended above. The article is now more accurate and complies with the wishes of the park.

One minor typo is that the 14,411ft number in note 2 is actually in NGVD29, not NAVD88. The reference for this is “The Height of Accuracy,” which is already the reference used in the note. If you scroll down to the “Computations and Conversions” section the author explains how the measured values were converted to NGVD29 for fair comparison to previous values. As I mentioned before, the choice of datum is actually very significant for Rainier.

If Wikipedia editors prefer to use NAVD88 for elevations, I’m happy to provide references for the appropriate tool to use for this conversion for elevations on Rainier. However, I advise using NGVD29 for all elevations to be consistent with the park’s wishes and consistent with historical precedent for how these measurements have been reported. Eric Gilbertson (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After the discussions over the past few days, what is the general Wikipedia consensus on Rainier's elevation? I believe that the current revision of the page should not be the final outcome of this discussion as it is incorrect and outdated. I also added a banner to the top of the page indicating this subject is currently being heavily edited and discussed. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable local sources out there now that cover Eric's survey such as Tacoma News Tribune and Seattle Times.

Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be holding onto incorrect values. As with many peaks, like Mount Everest, the recorded elevation changes over time as new surveys reveal more accurate findings. 14,411' at Columbia Crest is now wrong and outdated. Readers of Wikipedia should know that the new survey indicates the Southwest Rim is the new summit of the volcano, at 14,399.6 feet. Especially since Rainier is a "major mountain", this is all the more reason that the most up-to-date measurements should be reflected in the article, especially since Eric's survey has more independent secondary coverage at this point..

Until Eric's survey eventually becomes the widely accepted measurement of Rainier, I still believe the other measurements (14,410 and 14,411) should remain in the article but with less emphasis and being clearly mentioned as the official or widely accepted value. As Eric mentioned, a history of surveys on Rainier should have its own section.

I think it should be worded like this: while 14,410 feet is the officially accepted height of the mountain by Mount Rainier National Park, with 14,411 feet also being a commonly accepted measurement, recent surveys, verified by Larry Signani, have determined the Columbia Crest has melted down by ~22 feet, which would make the new summit of Rainier the Southwest Rim at 14,399.6 feet. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion remains unchanged - Gilbertson's findings can be discussed in the body with an official source in the infobox. Gilbertson's personal website should not be used as a reference. If Gilbertson wants to publish his work in a peer reviewed academic journal, it would hold more weight here. Checking himself against an industry expert as he has done is good and signals good-faith research, but that isn't what we typically mean when we say "peer review."

Until then, we should lean toward official sources (I prefer the 14,410 value). It doesn't matter a whole lot anyway seeing as once the new national datum is out we'll use that. I don't expect Gilbertson's value to become widely accepted or official because of the timing of the new datum, though I do expect the new datum to bring the mountain's official height closer to 14,400. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 13:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the 14,411 mark should not be in the infobox nor in the lead and that it should be switched out with 14,410, since 14,410 is mentioned as the official value recognized by the National Park. Then, a footnote on 14,410 in the body and lead can mention Eric's survey, with more information in the body of the article. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely oppose the mention of Eric's survey anywhere, but most definitely not in lede per WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE Graywalls (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a bias against Eric's work. His survey has plenty of secondary coverage from reliable sources and warrants a mention (though I understand not in the lead). I don't get why you are so insistently against his work. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take the discussion about the appropriateness of using him as a source to WP:RSN. Once it's started, I'll share the discussion to various WikiProjects (such as geology, maps, mountains, etc) I believe to be of relevance. Graywalls (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if a major secondary source like New York Post, Seattle News Tribune, Newsweek, or Seattle Times consider him a reliable source on this topic, then Wikipedia should as well. You seem to not be taking his work seriously when his survey is clearly getting a lot of media attention. It's not like his blog is the only source on his survey! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, for someone's personal website even be usable, they have to meet WP:EXPERTSPS, meaning that their work has been cited numerous times by scholars in journals relevant to their area of expertise. For example, the personal website of a astrophysicist may qualify as such in his area of expertise, provided that the said professor's work in this field has been cited numerous times by other scholars. What academic journals is Gilbertsons' published in and how often have they been cited by geologists in other scholarly work? Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the opposing editor should be the one who goes through this effort. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 14:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DJ Cane:, not sure what you're trying to say? By default, WP:SPS and WP:BLOG are considered unreliable source. Are you suggesting that those opposing a particular blog/personal website should carry the burden to go through the effort to question it? Graywalls (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expressing, as @KnowledgeIsPower9281 has, that there are secondary sources which are generally accepted as reliable reporting on this. I view these as appropriate for use as references in the body of an article given the prose provides proper context. KnowledgeIsPower9281 has already conceded that Country Highpoints should not be directly referenced. There is no need to beat a dead horse on that subject. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 15:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to including the Gilbertson data. WP:NOTNEWS. the coverage just came days ago. I suggest we just leave it with official values and wait for things to be finalized before including anything about it. Graywalls (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls, I have added back height of the mountain section which includes this information. Before removing it, note that there are no refs to his blog. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a lot of his data has been out for weeks now. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KnowledgeIsPower9281 I reverted these edits because we should wait for more editors to weigh in before re-inserting Gilbertson's findings into the article. Please refrain from these sorts of edits until consensus is reached. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 17:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this. Was a bit impulsive. If the consensus is to add them back I'll just revert back to that version, though I still think we should have a height of the mountain section even without the Gilbertson survey. Did you support the 14410 over 14411 measurement? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support 14410 but I'm not motivated to make any changes myself until this is figured out. Note that if consensus comes out in favor of Gilbertson's findings, these should not be reinserted via the revert/restore feature. Using that can cause loss of intermediate edits that are not related to this discussion. In such an event it would be better to either copy/paste that portion from an old version or reword it to bring in line with the consensus decision. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 17:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and that's what I just did. I re-added the height of the mountain section without the Gilbertson findings which explains where the 14410 and 14411 measurements come from. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, are editors okay that the note on official elevation mentions the survey with Newsweek as the cited secondary source? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]