Talk:Denali/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Requested move 30 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. WikIan (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Mount McKinley/Mount Denali → Denali – President Obama has announced a formal name change for the mountain: [1] Sally Jewell has already used her authority to change the name, according to the White House. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support – My only reservation might be to wait any time between now and the formal name change (it hasn't occurred yet, has it?). Dustin (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The name change apparently takes effect with immediate force: Alaska Dispatch News -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - now that it's official. Neutrality^talk 21:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• support — it's only a matter of time before it will be ubiquitous, and the name was common previously among climbers. 70.199.67.77 (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I've heard it called Mount McKinley, and I've heard it called Denali, but Mount Denali? Where'd that come from? Dustin (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems someone was impatient for a page move, and unable to move the page over "Denali", moved it to "Mount Denali". Dustin (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Down with the oppressor. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support My bad on the page move. I didn't realize the name was "Denali" and not "Mount Denali". MD is a reasonable redirect anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2015

"The Koyukon Athabaskan people who inhabit the area around the mountain referred to the peak as Dinale or Denali"

>> "The Koyukon Athabaskan people who inhabit the area around the mountain refer to the peak as Dinale or Denali"

Past tense is inappropriate here. 97.117.168.240 (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop Playing the Blame Game and Reach Consensus

Closing unhelpful discussion - objection to closure noted -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Who is responsible for moving the page to Mount Denali? Muboshgu was the one who moved the page. Let's reach consensus here. Unfortunately, I cannot move it back and we should get an admin to do so. I support moving it to Denali, however, when a discussion is started. WikIan (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC) What is your point? Is there some specific reason you're calling me out here? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Yes, technically speaking you violated WP:COMMONNAME with the move before a discussion had reached consensus. WikIan (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC) And pointing this out is real helpful, especially considering that I addressed it above. I'm closing this waste of talk page space. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC) This and the other 'discussions' should be closed. The move was proper, and the name has been changed. Let's not let some partisan bickering get in the way. It's done, time to move on. Dave Dial (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC) I just reviewed all the above discussions regarding this matter. I am uninvolved in all of them. Quite frankly, I do not see a proper consensus in any of the discussions. And any editor should be allowed to state his objections to a move or other change if a legitimate consensus hasn't already been achieved. However, I must say that I'm a bit perplexed by WikIan's objection, considering the fact that he appears to be the one who who (prematurely) closed the initial move discussion. I was very surprised to discover that the move discussion lasted only 54 minutes, with only four participants, before consensus was declared and the article was moved. Clearly, that was inappropriate. Another discussion lasted only about six hours. A significant change like this should allow much more time and input. Per WP:TP and WP:RFC, a discussion about any major change which is likely to be contentious should last a week at a minimum, and even up to a month (or longer). There's no rush. While I may agree with the move to "Denali", my only concern is that the process for making the decision is fair and follows all relevant policies and guidelines. The bottom line is that there is no legitimate reason to close this thread. If editors disagree with the original poster, then this discussion will go nowhere. But if they agree, then their voices should be heard. Censoring an editor's right to state his sincere, on-topic objection by collapsing a discussion is simply inappropriate. Lootbrewed (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Uninvolved administrator note There has been an edit war over the closure of this section as unhelpful that has already resulted in the block of one editor. Let me take a moment to remind everyone, that any uninvolved editor may close a discussion and unilaterally overturning such a closure is an act of disruption and edit warring. The correct procedure, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, is to start a discussion requesting a closure review at WP:ANI to determine whether the close should be overturned. I would strongly advise against such a discussion as unnecessary drama as this section does not seem to serve any particular purpose. Whether or not the move was in poor form, being performed prior to an 'official' declaration of community consensus is arguable, but ultimately irrelevant. While process is important, Wikipedia is not to be impeded by stringent procedural concerns or bureaucratic technicalities, per the fifth pillar. Fundamentally this is still a matter to be decided by consensus, and based on the above discussion, consensus is quite clearly coming in to support the move. Therefore moving it back would be in contradiction of a clear consensus on the talk page, and this section serves no purpose but to attack an editor's actions, which in itself is inappropriate. While I recommend Winkelvi take note of the objection to the closure, he is welcome to reinstate his closure of this discussion, as it was performed appropriately (as is any uninvolved editor in good standing). Beyond that, any challenges to the closure, if necessary, should be handled per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Anyone who continues this edit war by inappropriately closing this discussion while involved, or unilaterally overturning an appropriate closure, will be blocked, as page protection would impede the actual consensus-seeking discussion. Regards, Swarm ♠ 04:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Swarm, would it be appropriate or inappropriate to include this note from you in the closure? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Yeah include this subsection. Swarm ♠ 04:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Official US Government announcement on name change

At the time of my writing this I couldn't see any reference to the Secretary of the Interior's Order #3337. It was Sally Jewel who on Aug 28 issued the renaming order, not Obama on Aug 30th. Maybe someone with better editing skills than I can straighten up the main page. You can find the DOI order here: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/press-release/Denali%20Name%20Change.pdf 2601:580:4101:4BCA:68C1:FC56:BF5E:96 (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015

correct name is Mt. McKinley....not Denali It can't be changed by President. 71.196.69.176 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: It can be changed by the executive branch, and it has. See above for discussion on the matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The legal mechanism for the name change

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the legal mechanism used to change the name of the mountain to Denali. The authority for the name change rests with the Secretary of the Interior, if the United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN) does not act within a reasonable time-frame on a request to change the name of a geographic feature.

Governor Jay Hammond, on behalf of the Alaskan Legislature, put in an request to change the name to Denali in 1975. BGN has a policy of not acting on such a request if there is legislation pending, so Congressman Ralph Regula, of Ohio made it an annual ritual put legislation in play, thereby delaying the BGN's decision for 40 years.

With a 40 year delay, Sally Jewell, our current Secretary of the Interior, invoked her authority to act on Governor Hammond's request from 1975. This is chronicled (and cited) at the Wikipedia page for the Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute.

I respectfully suggest that President Obama's authority (or lack thereof) to name mountains is not relevant to this discussion, as the change was not made under his authority. Name Omitted (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That's what the article currently says; it attributes the name change to the Obama administration and to the Secretary of the Interior. It is only the Congressmen griping about the change who attribute it to Obama, and the article neutrally describes their (mis)characterization of the legal process. (I suspect, once this is no longer a current event, that the Congressional griping about this change will drop out of the article, but we might as well keep it for now if only because editors will inevitably reinstate the material if it's removed.) What change do you suggest? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I was unclear, my bad. I was referring more to the discussion on this talk page, not the article itself which you correctly point out has all of the information I brought up. While getting caught up with the discussion on the talk page, I saw an argument going back to the President's authority (and potential renaming by a future president) peppered throughout the discussion, and that is what I was referring to. Since it appeared to me that some of the people discussing the article had not understood the implications of that section, I thought I would try and rephrase it for the talk page. Name Omitted (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• The reference says The White House announced on Sunday that President Obama has restored the name Denali to North America’s tallest peak, ushering out the controversial era of Mt. McKinley. and Obama has directed Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell to use her authority to rename the mountain Denali, according to the White House. [2] Dream Focus 01:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's common naming policy should be followed

Was this article just moved in response to a press release about Obama changing the name before his Alaska trip? If so, that violates policy. WP:COMMONNAME states that articles should be titled after the most commonly used name for the subject in reliable English language sources, and not necessarily the "official" name (which can vary from organization to organization anyway). That's why editors argue the US page should remain at "United States" instead of "United States of America", despite the latter being the country's official name. It's also why the article about Stefani Germanotta is titled "Lady Gaga".

I don't know what the most common name for the mountain is, but, not being a local Alaskan tribal member, everyone I encounter calls it "Mount McKinley", so it's at least something that should be investigated and decided on those terms, not the unilateral whims of a president that may or may not be undone by the next president (do we change it back if it is?). Maybe the "official" name change will ultimately lead to a change in what most sources call it, but that doesn't happen overnight. Policy dictates we go by the sources, not "official" decrees and certainly not our own personal preferences.

Has there been any discussion or analysis of the most used common name in sources before on this page? VictorD7 (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• One could argue that "Denali" has always been the common name, since that's what the locals have always called it, long before it was named after McKinley. In this case, I think it is officially the "common name" starting today, as I don't imagine any of these sources are going to continue to defiantly name it after McKinley. Even the Ohio interests that fought the name change have backed off in recent months. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hmmm, "what the locals have always called it" isn't a universal statement. There is plenty of usage of "Mount McKinley" (as well as "Denali") in Alaska for entities both related and unrelated to the mountain. It's a popular business name. My bank is called Mount McKinley (Mutual Savings) Bank, a major business in Interior Alaska which has used that name since it was established in 1965. They told me that they've discussed this issue and whether it would weight on a possible name change. Of course, the impact of a name change on a business which has built a brand is a different deal than this, especially since it hasn't been conclusively decided whether it amounts to solid policy or a cheap political ploy. (lo and behold, there's a source which mentions this very aspect of the debate).

There's also the matter of institutional memory. For decades, not only was the mountain known by McKinley, but so was the park. There are also place names such as McKinley Park and McKinley Village which enjoy common usage. Saying that we should only be concerned about "now" (shades of Flip Wilson and "The Church of What's Happening Now!") is tantamount to saying that there's no difference between a common name and an official name. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• No, what matters in a primary title discussion is the name most commonly used by English language sources and recognizable to readers everywhere, not what locals call it (which often differs from the broader, common name) or what the "official" name is. I imagine millions of people and countless sources will continue to call it Mount McKinley, but what matters is what's primarily used in sources now, not future speculation. Were you the one who moved the article? If so, does this mean you didn't base the move on an analysis of usage in accordance with naming policy? VictorD7 (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• The move discussion is above, and you can see it didn't go too in depth. You could make the same argument that we should, for instance, move Chelsea Manning back to "Bradley Manning". If a full analysis of naming policy really would back McKinley over Denali, then I say WP:IAR. Obama righted this great wrong for us. If you want to open a new move discussion based on naming policy, go right ahead. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• That discussion was opened and closed on the same day with only 4 respondents. Furthermore, the few who did participate didn't appear to understand Wikipedia policy, since there was no policy discussion whatsoever and only a mention of when the name change would be "official". The essay you linked to warns against using Wikipedia to "right" "wrongs", and Obama can't right this alleged "wrong" for you. Only the preponderance of source usage can. That, combined with your signature in the move edit saying "#ThanksObama", shows your action here is about advocacy, which also violates policy and undermines any WP:IAR argument. "Ignore all rules" involves occasionally disregarding technicalities in remaining faithful to Wikipedia's spirit, while POV pushing runs counter to that spirit. I don't have a dog in this fight and only stumbled onto this page an hour or two ago, though editors like me are ideally the ones to make (or not make) changes like this one, as opposed to ones with blindingly strong personal biases involved. I don't care much what we call the mountain, but it is vital to consistently apply naming policy and not simply toss it out the window when someone's personal pet interest is involved.

To address the first sentence of this paragraph: Some years back, Howard Stern wrote a rant about Yoko Ono. In it, he describes how the anniversary commemoration of John Lennon's murder held at Central Park is attended by "the same two or three retards who show up every year". That pretty much sums up how many editors appear to feel about how consensus should be determined around here. My favorite are the accusations of canvassing every time I invite someone to a discussion because they may have insight on the topic, not because they spend all their time commenting on every discussion possible like they're commenting on Facebook or something. Anyway, the "consensus" on this article, determined by far fewer people than are participating in the overall discussion, is being used as a precedent in the accompanying CFD ("Based on the talk page of Denali, the rename in the article space was carefully thought out and the category place should blindly follow."). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• And I did start a naming discussion with this section. I suppose someone could initiate an RFC to broaden involvement, but I wasn't sure if a responsible policy discussion/analysis had already taken place or not, so I figured I'd clarify that and inform the page of the pertinent policy first if they didn't know. My hope was that if the move was made under fallacious premises, which it appears it was, and it was made in good faith ignorance, the involved editor(s) would self revert or at least begin a sourcing analysis. This being Wikipedia, perhaps that was insanely optimistic. If nothing else though at least this section now stands for others to read in the future and possibly take action. VictorD7 (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think so, and I don't think it's easily guessable. While several commenters here have expressed that most people they know call it Mt. McKinley, in other discussion groups I've seen many people saying they thought the name already had been changed back, since everyone they know already calls it Denali. This view has been been common from people who live in Alaska and people in the outdoors/climbing community. I did a quick Google Trends check of "Denali" versus "McKinley" which showed them at about equal numbers (except for a huge spike for "McKinley" in July 2010) but a lot of confounding from the GMC vehicle, the president, and other places named after the president. So I don't think the WP:COMMONNAME case exists right now for one name or the other, and would have to be made. I also think it's reasonable to expect some amount of change in the names reliable sources use in the near future. Given the problems of the past, I don't think WP:COMMONNAME is sufficient, when the outside world is deciding whether the name of a place or person "really has" changed or not, to settle the debates between editors who want Wikipedia to reflect that change earlier and those who want it to do so later or not at all. Metadox (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Lady's and gentlemen, the fact remains that this is an executive order and can be easily undone by a future president. As such many will continue to call it by its federally recognized name, signed by statue through congress. Let us leave both and see what happens in the coming year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:100:1150:AC08:D066:9EBC:B446 (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• One can't argue that Denali is the most common name since it's not the most common name used. 176.71.42.152 (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• You lot are making a mountain out of a molehill. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• This move makes absolutely no sense. "Denali" is most certainly not its common name in the English-speaking world. The name "change" (and it will almost certainly be immediately undone once a different president is in office) is likely temporary, and will not affect what the English-speaking world calls the mountain. Wikipedia immediately changing the name of this article based on a press release from Pres. Obama reflects very poorly on the encyclopedia, and lends credence to those who attack our project for being skewed liberal. It needs to be undone straightaway. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 13:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• You really think a President Hillary would undo this? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• While never totally conclusive, I'd just like to point out that a search of Denali on Google for example brings up 21 million results (minus references to the automobile of the same name), Mount McKinley brings up a mere 5.6 million. Would seem to support the notion that "Denali" IS the common name and should be used per WP:COMMONNAMES. This is simply a case of officials finally catching up with reality. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Bingo. Thanks for researching those numbers. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• My search of "Denali" was diluted by numerous news and social media hits related to this issue. Even so, many hits were for Denali Alaskan Federal Credit Union (which Google may steer me towards because I live in Alaska), Denali National Park and Preserve, the GMC Denali, etc., and not necessarily related to the mountain. The hit count isn't skewed in any way by "Mount McKinley" being a less ambiguous search term than "Denali"?o RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• To be fair any search of "Mt. McKinley" is equally diluted right now with social media and news hits as well. And any search for just "McKinley" is of course skewed by the President himself and anything named after him other than the mountain. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not only is that research not conclusive, it's actually completely wrong. A much more accurate reflection of standard naming conventions is to search for "Mt Denali" versus "Mt McKinley", with the quotes included. This results in 1.03 million hits for "Mt McKinley" and only 31,300 for "Mt Denali." So let's not pretend you've made some sort of case that Denali satisfies naming conventions. In my view, it does not, and it's not particularly close. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• As I learned yesterday, nobody calls this "Mt. Denali" or "Mount Denali" (aside from those 31k hits, I guess). It's just "Denali", which makes your response wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Except no one is calling it "Mt. Denali". The name being applied by the US Government, and the name applied by Alaskans and the Alaska State Government for the last 40 years, is "Denali", not "Mt. Denali." So the comparison is correct. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• That was one of the first things I did before posting yesterday, but a simple google search is inconclusive because "Denali" is also the name of the national park and most of the hits that popped up were related to that, the GMC car line, or the recent burst of stories about Obama changing the name in a pr stunt before his trip (those stories also, of course use "McKinley"). Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so a very recent, single news story skewing search results shouldn't dictate action here even if those stories didn't all also mention "Mt. McKinley", which they do. Of course on the other side McKinley was a president, so a real source analysis won't be able to rely on google search counts. It will entail digging up a decent sample of established reliable sources and seeing what they're more likely to call the mountain. VictorD7 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• This issue is not completely uncomplicated, but Alaska has requested that Denali be the official federal name (matching their name) for 40 years, see Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute, and according to the largest Alaskan newspaper, it has "long been known to Alaskans as Denali," [3]. Republicans in Alaska support the name change, so there's no risk of it changing back.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME states that in the event of a name change, more weight should be given to sources that came out after the change than before. Though it's only been one day, it appears the sources clearly favor "Denali".--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nope. The stories covering Obama's action mention both names, and wouldn't be the type of established, non recentist sources we should rely on anyway. It's silly to think one day is enough to time to gauge the impact of the change in reliable sourcing anyway. VictorD7 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• So open a new move discussion so we can hash this out in a more productive way than this back-and-forth that isn't going anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, it really does say to give greater weight to sources published after the change.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• While it doesn't necessarily matter what the federal government calls it at any particular time, there are stories about Ohio politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) being "outraged" (e.g. [4], [5]), and given the unilateral nature of Obama's act there's no way to state with certainty that the "official" name won't be restored to Mt. McKinley at some point. In fact it could conceivably even be turned over by lawsuit, since the mountain was named McKinley by an act of U.S. Congress, and the elected legislature is still at least theoretically relevant to what was once a nation of laws. VictorD7 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I support the move to "Denali". Take a look at the references that were in the article before the name change. Roughly half use the name Denali. Most books written about the mountain in recent decades use Denali in their titles. Alaskan natives use Denali. Alaskan residents prefer Denali. Alaskan politicians of all parties support Denali. Prominent mountaineers who made historic ascents of the mountain including Hudson Stuck and Bradford Washburn called it Denali. The American Alpine Club calls it Denali. The only fervent support for the McKinley name is among Ohio Republican politicians. This is not a political stunt by Obama. This is the culmination of an intense effort by Alaskans and their friends and allies that goes back 40 years, long supported by conservative politicians like Don Young whose politics are the opposite of Obama's. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Also worthy of note is that Denali has been the State of Alaska's official name for the mountain since 1975. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• No, as I lay out in the new discussion below, book authors overwhelmingly refer to the mountain as "McKinley", as does Britannica. VictorD7 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• However, greater weight is given to sources published after the announcement.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Since it's only been a day, there are no useful reliable sources "published after the announcement", just a bunch of news stories covering Obama's act that use both names. VictorD7 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Check it out, VictorD7: Staid, stolid Encyclopaedia Brittannica has already changed to "Denali" without all this wailing and gnashing of teeth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Now we have Brittanica changing to Denali. When can we drop this silly debate and accept reality? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why are you spamming this all over the page, Cullen? Other editors already mentioned this yesterday. Did you just now notice it? I'm not sure what "opposition" you're talking about. Did you read my op? I just wanted a real discussion actually looking at source evidence and policy, and I already praised you for helping get one going earlier lower on this page, so I'm not sure why you're suddenly wailing and gnashing teeth back up here in this section. On substance, it's a good, legitimate point to bring up. It's not decisive by itself of course, but worth noting. VictorD7 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Question

Was the mountain officially renamed Denali or Mt. Denali? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Denali. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ethnography

(1) The area in and around Denali comprises part of the aboriginal homeland of five Northern Athabascan Indian groups (Alaskan Athabaskans)— Dena’ina, Koyukon, Lower Tanana (Nenana-Toklat and Wood River bands of the Tanana Athabaskans), Upper Kuskokwim, and Western Ahtna (Cantwell/Denali Band of Tsaay Hwt’aene). The affiliation of five Native groups with one national park is unique and illustrates the rich and diverse cultural heritage of the Denali area.SOURCE Terry Haynes and William Simeone, Historic and Contemporary Ethnographic Landscapes of Denali National Park

(2) The Koyukon Athapaskan, who can trace their presence in the northwest interior of Alaska 1,500 years back, explain the presence of Denali in their corpus of stories called the “Distant Time:” The Raven (in Koyukon dotsonʼ se), incarnated as a young man, had paddled his canoe across a great body of water to ask a woman to marry him. She refused to be his wife, so he made her sink into the mud and disappear; and then he began paddling back home. The woman’s mother kept two brown bears, and in her anger she told them to drown the young man. They dug furiously at the lake’s edge, making huge waves everywhere on the water. But Raven calmed a narrow path before him and paddled on. Eventually he became exhausted, so he threw a harpoon that struck the crest of a wave. At that moment he fainted from the intensity of his concentration, and when he awoke a forested land had become a small mountain. Then it had glanced off, eventually striking a huge wave that solidified into another mountain—the one now called Deenaalee, or Mount McKinley. SOURCE Ryan, John Charles (2013), Stories of Snow and Fire: The Importance of Narrative to a Critically Pluralistic Environmental Aesthetic. Humanities, 2: 99–118. [from Richard Nelson. Make Prayers to the Raven: A Koyukon View of the Northern Forest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983, 34.].

(3) RIDDLE: Wait, I see something: The stars are rotting on my sides. ANSWER: Deenaalee, or Mount McKinley. SOURCE Jetté, Julius (1990), Koyukon Riddles. In A Republic of Rivers: Three Centuries of Nature Writing from Alaska and the Yukon. Edited by John A. Murray. Oxford University Press, Inc.

--Kmoksy (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(Originally I added this to the "Legal mechanism for name change" section, but it is a request for more quotations from Athabaskans about the name change, so it can go here as well.) It is suggested that the descendants of President McKinley may be outraged, although he does not apparently have any direct descendants. There wasn't any clear statement of approval by Athabaskans. At the end of the paragraph about Athabaskan names, I put a quotation I could easily find. It's from Will Mayo, from a former president of the Tanana Chiefs Conference, and it describes how the importance of the mountain differs among the people who live there, but everyone is pleased with the recognition. There should be more in the article about how indigenous Alaskans and other locals view the name change. The story is an AP story and is covered in multiple papers; it just happens I found the right quotation in a Knoxville paper. Please add more or replace it with a more applicable quote. Roches (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Book titles show that Denali is the accepted current usage, not McKinley

I made a good faith search for books specifically about the mountain in question. I may have missed a few. I excluded books about the national park, the region, the wildlife of the national park, and so on. I listed them by date of publication.

Here are my conclusions: The name "Denali" has been used in book titles for nearly a century. As time has passed, "Denali" has become more common in book titles, and "McKinley" less common. All books published in the 21st century use only Denali in their titles. It has been over 20 years since a book about the mountain has used only "McKinley" to the exclusion of "Denali" in its title. All books about the mountain published in the last 40 years use "Denali" in the title or subtitle, except one.

• Denali's Howl: The Deadliest Climbing Disaster on America's Wildest Peak, 2014

• To The Top of Denali: Climbing Adventures on North America's Highest Peak, 2013

• Denali Diary: Clean Climbing on North America's Highest Mountain, 2008

• Climb Denali: A Reflective Journey, 2004

• Denali: A Literary Anthology, 2000

• Denali Climbing Guide, 1998

• Denali's West Buttress: A Climber's Guide to Mount McKinley's Classic Route, 1997

• In the Shadow of Denali: Life and Death on Alaska's Mt. McKinley, 1994

• Mount McKinley: Icy Crown of North America, 1993

• Mount McKinley: The Conquest of Denali, 1991

• Surviving Denali: A Study of Accidents on Mount McKinley, 1903-1990, published 1991

• A Tourist Guide to Mount McKinley: The Story of "Denali"--"The Great One": Mile-By-Mile Through the Park Over Mount McKinley Park Highway (Formerly the Denali Highway): The Record of McKinley Climbs, 1976

• Minus 148: The Winter Ascent of Mt. McKinley, 1969

• McKinley: the Pioneer Climbs, 1967

• The Ascent of Denali (Mount McKinley): A Narrative of the First Complete Ascent of the Highest Peak in North America, 1918

• Mount McKinley, Its Bearing on the Polar Controversy: A Brief Review of Attempts -- Successful and Otherwise -- to Reach the Top of the Continent and a Few Logical Deductions Therefrom, 1914

• The Conquest of Mount McKinley: The Story of Three Expeditions Through the Alaskan Wilderness to Mount McKinley, North America's Highest and Most Inaccessible Mountain, 1913

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, August 31, 2015 (UTC) signature added by Name Omitted (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• While it might have been good faith, it was not quite right:

• The Conquest of Mount Mckinley 2015

• Searching for Fannie Quigley: A Wilderness Life in the Shadow of Mount McKinley 2007

• The Wolves of Mount McKinley 2011

• Mount McKinley and Mountain Climbers' Proofs 2009

• The Accidental Adventurer: Memoirs of the First Woman to Climb Mount McKinley 2001

• The Ascent of Denali (Mount McKinley) 2010

• The Dishonorable Dr. Cook: Debunking the Notorious Mount McKinley Hoax 2001

• Hitchhiking Up Mount McKinley 2004

probably more..... Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Fyunck, you have original publication dates wrong on the first and sixth book you listed, both of which already appear on my list. They are reprints of 100 year old books by Belmore Browne and Hudson Stuck about the first ascent. Similarly with the Mountain Climber's Proofs title, which was published in 1914. The second book is the memoir of a woman who lived near the mountain, not a book about the mountain. She died in 1944. The wolf book is about the wildlife of the region, not about the mountain.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Fyunck(click). Accidental Adventurer is not a book about the mountain. It is an autobiography of a woman who climbed the mountain in 1947, and uses the 1947 terminology. The Hitchhiking book is also not about the mountain. It is a collection of essays about climbing. The Dr. Cook book is a historical account of events in 1906, using the terminology of the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• If it's referring to the mountain it still counts in a usage discussion whether the book is primarily "about" the mountain or not. I guess it's worth noting if a book is a reprint, though it's still usage. VictorD7 (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Although I don't have time at the moment to assess and list sources, a motivated editor would be able to find many sources stating that "Denali is the preferred name" or or something to that effect, and far fewer, if any, making a similar claim for McKinley. The relevant guideline is WP:WIAN, which emphasizes quality of sources over mere quantity, and encourages the finding of sources that verify usage rather than counting search engine hits, which can be misleading (see WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Search engine issues). Cynwolfe (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• According to WP:WIAN, we should be following atlases, published encyclopedias, and gazetteers, not book titles. These kind of references will almost certainly follow BGN. So we can cut out the middle man by going to BGN directly. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Actually that section mentions using book and even news searches too. VictorD7 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• You mean where it recommends "standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question"? That's not quite the same thing. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, I was talking about further down where it mentions google book searches. Then, a little more down, there's this: "The United States Board on Geographic Names determines official Federal nomenclature for the United States. Most often, actual American usage follows it, even in such points as the omission of apostrophes, as in St. Marys River. However, if colloquial usage does differ, we should prefer actual American usage to the official name." VictorD7 (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would interpret this to mean that we should follow the references works, even if the BGN does it some other way. Aside from the issue of references that need to be updated, I can't think of any context in which this would be the case. However, I assume that it does come up now and then. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• It says "colloquial", so it's referring to the totality of reference works, books, news articles (also explicitly mentioned), etc.. VictorD7 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah but your list only includes four books from the 21st Century (five if we count the year 2000), and all are geared toward a climbing audience. As has been pointed out, climbers (who represent a very tiny percentage of the English speaking language population relevant for our purposes) primarily use "Denali". Your list also includes several "McKinley" uses from the 1990s, which wasn't that long ago. Fyunck's list added several 21st Century books that use "McKinley". I haven't yet had time to go through and examine the book results in more detail, but I appreciate the contributions of both of you to the discussion. As I said above, this is the type of discussion editors here should have had here from the beginning before the move. VictorD7 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Fyunck's list included three public domain books published a century ago as current publications. That is false. They are "print on demand" copies of very old books. Similarly, historical books about events of 1906 and 1947 use old terminology. It is not at all surprising that current books written entirely about large mountains will have climbers like me as their main target audience. Who else is interested in the intricate details of a mountain? I have yet to see a reliable source about this mountain published in the 21st century - book, lengthy magazine or newspaper article, or journal article - that prefers McKinley over Denali. Of course, they mention the former official name. But the consistent preference of writers serious about the topic is Denali. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Again, I've done little more than glance at both your lists, but his Hitchhiking up Mount McKinley appears to be a collection of essays published in 2004. Whether they're all "about" that particular mountain or not is beside the point that the title references the mountain and not something else. Addition - here's another 21st Century book (2013), Minus 148 Degrees: First Winter Ascent of Mount McKinley, and in the couple of minutes I've had time to look I've, of course, noticed numerous instances of "Mount McKinley" being used in publications outside of the title. At the very least it's certainly still a very common name. VictorD7 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• The great classic Minus 148 was published in 1969. That is a republication of a 46 year old book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• According to WorldCat, Hitchhiking up Mount McKinley is an unpublished thesis for a Master of Fine Arts degree. The essay titles make it clear that it is satirical and not a serious work on the mountain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Look, I have no doubt at all that Mt McKinley is by far the most common name for the mountain. It's been used for 100 years, it's what is taught in schools, it's what we have seen in newsprint and the evening news. Before a week ago, I'd have had to think real hard to recall that Denali was the same peak. I'm not a mtn. climber and I've only been to Alaska once in my life. I'd hazard a guess that if a week ago you had asked 100 random people on the street they'd know where mt McKinley is and wouldn't have a clue about Denali. If the only thing we cared about here at wikipedia was common name it would stay at McKinley hands down. But it's not all we care about. Legitimate gov't sources have officially renamed it, and it sounds like the locals use Denali. Of course pretty much every travel guide like "TripAdvisor", "Fodors", "Alaska.org" will still say McKinley for awhile, so travelers will still be bombarded by the old name. I really haven't decided yet in looking at wikipedia's rules and guidelines whether it should change or not. I was only attracted to this discussion because I do tend to follow rules and it should stay at McKinley unless/until consensus here decides otherwise. It should be moved back to Mt McKinley until we come to an agreement. That's the proper way to do things. Barring using the proper protocol, it must be moved back if no consensus is reached. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Fyunck(click), it is a coincidence that you should mention Fodor's, because their entry supports Denali as the name:

Officially known as Mt. McKinley, this 20,320-foot massif of ice, snow, and rock is most commonly referred to by its Native name, Denali, or "the High One."

Interesting, huh? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• That full passage I saw said, "The keystone of the park is Mt. McKinley. More commonly called by its Athabascan name, Denali, meaning "the High One," or often referred to by Alaskans simply as "the Mountain," the peak measures in at 20,320 feet, the highest point on the continent." Other passages include:

"$$$$Talkeetna Alaskan Lodge. This luxury hotel has excellent views of Mt McKinley."

"Talkeetna: lies at the end of a spur road near mile 99 of the Parks Highway. Mountaineers congregate here to begin their assults on Mt McKinley in Denali National Park."

"A Privileged Communion: Between 1903 and 1912 eight expeditions walked the slopes of 20, 320 foot Mt. McKinley."

The Fodors guide is loaded with these passages. So yes, interesting that you only mentioned the one that fit you argument. Look, I can certainly be convinced that the wiki article should be located at Denali...I'm open minded and fair. I will never be convinced that Denali is even remotely as common as Mt McKinley. I don't think it's even close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I chose that particular passage, Fyunck(click), solely because it speaks directly to common usage: "is most commonly referred to by its Native name, Denali" and for no other reason. Of course it supports my opinion. Who brings forward legitimate points contrary to their own opinion? But I see no such legitimate opposing points other than unreferenced assertions. If someone brings forward a recent reliable source describing common usage the opposite way, I will be happy to read it, consider it, and engage with it. I concede that you can find massive numbers of recent usage using McKinley. Many of these are casual, passing mentions that do not involve pondering which of two names to use. They do not involve significant, in depth coverage of the mountain, its history, its distinctive features, or the longstanding issue about its proper name. Some reporter from the lower 48 is driving around Fairbanks and says, "We were lucky that the cloud cover lifted for a few minutes and we could see Mt. McKinley in the distance". That is not significant coverage. Yes, you can find a massive number of passing mentions that default to the old official name. But I challenge you to bring forward serious, recent, in depth coverage that discusses the mountain in detail without preferring Denali as its name over McKinley. Maybe if you search in depth, you will find a source or two. But I predict that they will be overwhelmed by the pro-Denali sources. At least, that is my honest opinion after studying the sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Who brings forward legitimate points contrary to their own opinion?" When groups are legitimately trying to work with others to find the correct placement of an article, I see it all the time. Heck we took turns in the great "universe" debate listing the capitalization of universe/Universe. We wanted to make sure we had all the facts at our disposal to make an informed decision. You look at Fodors and tell us it uses Denali. Ok fine. I do a quick check and Fodors seems to use McKinley far more than Denali. It makes your positions look weaker and untrustworthy if you tell us one thing and others find something different. Also that "commonly referred to" line is talking about local inhabitants, not people living in Kansas. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just an observation based on what transpired above, but it appears a consensus was reached that the current location is where it belongs even if the way it got there may not have been proper. I mean we could move it back to McKinley, and re-run the move request, but it would seem a pointless exercise since the end result would apparently be the same. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure a full RfC/RM would change it to Denali. There are many who pretty much stake their lives on wikipedia's "common name." Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• In this case, I don't think even Wikipedia's interesting clique of MOS/COMMONNAME "characters" would be able to form a consensus. Which would make a refreshing change. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal: "Bolshaya Gora" as the name for this Wikipedia page!

Perhaps everyone arguing endlessly here over the page name for "Denali", and so jingoistically worried about the sensibilities and feelings of the poor folks and politicians from Ohio (?!), would settle down and get a life if we just reverted to the first imperial colonization name imposed upon the peak -- the Russian name for it: Bolshaya Gora (Russian: Большая Гора, bolshaya = Russian for "big"; gora = Russian for "mountain"). The Russians' imperial name (1804-1867) has at least as good a claim and standing by Wikipedia standards as the United States' imperialistic name of "Mt. McKinley" (1917-2015). Do any of those of you who are so hot on this topic in favor of the "Mt. McKinley" name, know anything at all about Pres. McKinley, or care at all, even just a little bit, about the wishes and prerogatives of the indigenous Koyukon Athabaskan people, who for many centuries have inhabited the area of Alaska around the mountain, long before any Russian, or Ohioan ever set foot anywhere near there? --- Professor JR (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Combating alleged "imperialism" isn't a valid rationale in this discussion. I'll add that it's debatable at best whether those feverishly worrying about taking down a non-existent American "empire", and removing names like William McKinley, Andrew Jackson, and Thomas Jefferson from landmarks and institutions actually have much of a life. VictorD7 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that the original comment is tongue in cheek. I do not see evidence that the 40 year campaign to change the official name to Denali was motivated by "anti-imperialism", especially since conservative Alaska Republicans backed it strongly. There has also been no disrespect or criticism of William McKinley that I am aware of, but simply the factual observation that he never visited Alaska or expressed any interest in the mountain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you. I'm gratified to know that at least one other editor picked up on a bit of intended subtlety and hyperbole here, and the allusion to Swift's A Modest Proposal. And, of course, no one was commenting one way or another on Wm. McKinley, nor said anything at all about Andrew Jackson(?!) or Thomas Jefferson(?!) -- nor, for that matter about the merits or morality of imperialism -- but was merely referencing the fact that the transitory and historically fleeting designations of the peak as "Bolshaya Gora", and as "Mt. McKinley", both originated from outsider, colonialist sources. Perhaps a nod to Shakespeare's ("A rose by any other name. . .") and one to Gertrude Stein's ("A rose is a rose is a rose.") are apropos here. Thanks again. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing subtle about your op. Everyone got it. I just gave you a little jazz back. As for Jefferson/Jackson, look up recent movements involving the $20 bill, Jefferson-Jackson dinners, etc.. Taking mean old dead white male Americans off of things has become a trendy obsession for some. And to Cullen328, no one said all or even most name change supporters had that motivation, but I guess you missed the "Down with the oppressor" guy in the RM (and subsequent discussions above). BTW, how many times do you think George Washington visited the state of Washington? VictorD7 (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

George Washington never visited the State of Washington because he died in 1799 and that area did not become indisputably U.S. territory until 1848. Interestingly, though, he visited every state in the union at that time, during his presidency, when travel was agonizingly slow.

When the northern part of the Oregon territory was split off, there was a debate between "Columbia" and "Washington". There is no such current debate. It is resolved and accepted. Imagine instead that for the past 40 years, Washington governors, state legislatures and Congressional delegations had tried to change the name of the state, and the federal government finally agreed. Don't you agree that in such a case, VictorD7, the article would be moved to the new name immediately? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I was just making a point about how irrelevant McKinley visiting or not visiting a place was to the nation honoring someone by naming it after him, especially a US president (not just an Ohioan). As you say, Washington state didn't even exist when Washington was alive, which is what I was getting at. As for your hypothetical, it would depend on the circumstances. I think colloquial/official name splits are more common with smaller place names (like mountains) than with states though; then there's the issue of branches of the federal government being at odds with each other (e.g. congressionally passed law versus executive action). VictorD7 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ironically, I was out in the middle of nowhere, having a good time in a place with an absolutely incredible view of the article subject during all this. But seriously folks, the main objection this whole time (for newcomers to this topic) has been that GNIS calls it "McKinley". Thankfully (to this Alaskan (originally from Ohio) anyway) that is no longer the case. It's called Denali. It's over. Let it be. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I see, for whatever it's worth, that even Jon Stewart's Daily Show weighed in on the issue of the mountain's name change from McKinley to Denali on their July 2, 2015 broadcast: Daily Show "correspondent" Jordan Klepper is flown to the summit, where he plants a flag reading: "Don't be a dick; change the name." (video Retrieved 2015-09-04) --- Professor JR (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

More on the naming issue

Moved from Talk:Denali National Park and Preserve#Name of mountain, as it pertains more to the current discussions here than to the park itself. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The name of the mountain is Mt. McKinley. There are no ands, ifs, or buts about it. It doesn't matter what the Park Service thinks, or what Obama wants, or what the locals call it. The name is Mt. McKinley. Calling it "Denali" is a political act, it is erroneous, it brings Wikipedia into disrepute, and it turns off readers. Leaving it as Denali is not supported by anything but local custom, and there are many place names around the country that have disputes like that. Abbondanza7777 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nice to see the Obama lackeys at Wikipedia are at the forefront of corrupting the information within a few hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.24.187 (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I left the following at another bully board. Copying it here, as I feel it's also relevant to this discussion:

  Over the years, names have changed and/or boundaries have changed, and some of our most active Wikipedians have a million excuses why they can't be bothered to help when such occurs, resulting in factual inaccuracies which linger for years.  Contrast this with the highly coordinated and Johnny-on-the-spot effort to replace "Wade Hampton Census Area" with "Kusilvak Census Area", which in that case occurred on Wikipedia before it was recognized by the Census Bureau, now followed by this.  I understand that the power of this website has given rise to people who believe it's more appropriate to use Wikipedia to influence the world rather than merely reflect it, but making Wikipedia a party to the current political effort to eradicate names because they are of "dead white guys" doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence in someone such as myself who isn't here for that.

  RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know how "highly coordinated" replacing Wade Hampton with Kusilvak was, considering I did virtually all of it myself, following the lead of multiple reputable sources, because I had a free hour or so to spend the time doing it and I knew what I was doing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• What "highly coordinated?" It was a mess. It was cut/paste moved, then another user moved the title to "Mount Denali," whatever that is. I moved it to Denali, which is at least one of the common names and cleaned up some of the mess, figuring that a move from the obviously wrong Mount Denali to Denali was less contentious than moving it back to McKinley. Having worked on a number of Alaska-related topics, it is apparent that most current references have been calling it Denali for years, and at best there is no clear-cut common name to choose between Denali and Mount McKinley. The executive action changes the Geographic Names Information System entry from Mount McKinley to Denali. Wikipedia has long regarded GNIS as the main point of reference for geographic naming, with thousands of articles using GNIS as the primary reference. In the absence of an obvious common-use preference for McKinley, and in view of its rejection by Alaskans, it seems to me that there is no particular controversy in going with GNIS as usual. Acroterion (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• The President of the United States of America has no Constitutional authority whatsoever to decide the name of a mountain. The mountain is on federal land. Congress has the power to name mountains, not the President. Their power comes from Article IV, Section 3, giving Congress the authority to "make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the territory and other Property belonging to the United States." Obama's only authority in this matter is to either sign or veto a Congressional bill. He has zero authority to arbitrarily change the name of a mountain. 07:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.164.249 (talk)

• That's simply, patently and obviously false, and you have demonstrated that you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Congress indeed has that power you enumerate — and they have used that power to enact a law which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to do exactly what she did.

43 USC 364b: The Board, subject to the approval of the Secretary, shall formulate principles, policies, and procedures to be followed with reference to both domestic and foreign geographic names; and shall decide the standard names and their orthography for official use. ... Action may be taken by the Secretary in any matter wherein the Board does not act within a reasonable time. The state of Alaska petitioned the Board of Geographic Names more than 40 years ago to change the name, and the board has not taken action on the request. 40 years is clearly and obviously not a "reasonable time" for the board to act. So Sally Jewell took action to approve the state's request, as authorized by Congress in federal law. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's hilariously ironic for you to complain about "political acts" when the article clearly states that the name Mt. McKinley was given as a form of political support for then-presidential candidate William McKinley. Azure94 (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing political about changing the name to what Alaska and Alaskans have been calling it for 40 years, what their federal representatives (of ALL political affiliations) have been calling for it to be recognized as at the Federal level for 40 years, and what it is called by most of the mountaineering community for even longer, and to what has been the common name for a long time now. The McKinley naming in the first place, and the Ohio congressional delegation's continued attempt to block any recognition of its true name has been the only real political move in all of this. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Like I said above, if you don't like the way it was done (and I grant this page was moved way faster than normally happens here), open a new move discussion to undo it. We can have a longer, more drawn out discussion to establish an unquestioned consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• What kind of nonsense is this, that someone breaks the rules to change something, then the party that wants the rules followed must go through a lengthy, time-consuming process to have the status quo restored? Restore the status quo and YOU start a new move discussion. What a patently ridiculous argument you are making, so the one who commits the initial improper act gets to benefit from it? Restore the status quo ante, and learn to follow the rules.Abbondanza7777 (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• There is nothing "hilariously ironic" about wanting a place called its actual, legal name. It is somewhat anti-intellectual for someone to want a supposedly accurate website to have purposeful inaccuracies. Well, anti-intellectual and inaccurate. The original purpose of the name is completely irrelevant, it is what it is, calling things by whatever someone in authority personally desires when nothing legally has changed is mind-blowing in its lack of foundation. Donald Trump, for one, already has said on his Twitter account that he would rename the mountain to Mount McKinley IF the name is changed. It is difficult to believe that anyone who cares about accuracy could oppose calling the highest mountain its actual name, that is just bizarre. Abbondanza7777 (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why the name was changed nefarious reasons or not is irreverent. The question is does Obama or the government agency he orders to do it have the authority to name the mountain or do they not?. The reasoning would be in the renaming controversy paragraph.Edkollin (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's still Mt. McKinley in my books. Renaming it was just a stupid idea, don't really see a reason for it. At it was pointless to do so, considering that it will be renamed again once Obama is out. Norum 21:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Considering Alaska's congressional delegation has been calling for this change for half a century, and that the name now matches what the state has listed it as for 40 years, it seems highly unlikely this will be overturned even after Obama's presidency. Remember this wasn't just Obama unilaterally doing this, this was a bipartisan effort on behalf of the state of Alaska and would have happened 40 years ago if not for Congressman Regula of Ohio. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not that the "official" name really matters, but Ohio has far more population and political importance than Alaska. It's safe to say there's more bipartisan outrage than support for this move. VictorD7 (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see any Ohio Democrats opposed to this (Sherrod Brown supports the name change). What does Ohio's population or political importance have to do with this, aside from their dragging their feet in recognizing reality? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• In my above section I already linked to an article quoting Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan blasting the move. I only mentioned Ohio because of the emphasis on Alaskan preferences, which are also irrelevant (pointing out the "Alaskan" argument fails even on its own terms). Wikipedia naming policy is controlled by English language usage, not local preferences, and certainly not your cherry-picked version of "reality". VictorD7 (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ohio certainly has more people than Alaska, but I doubt that there is more reference to the mountain in question in Ohio than in Alaska. Just as McKinley himself had no connection to either Alaska or the mountain, Ohio today has no connection to the mountain and thus no reason to talk about it except when politicians are manufacturing outrage about their favored son. So Alaskan usage is more relevant just because there's much more of it.

And per WP:WIAN, the "official" name is one of the important criteria if no source says "X is the name used most often for this entity". There are plenty of sources that say that Denali is the most commonly-used name in Alaska; I haven't seen a source that says that Mount McKinley is or was the most commonly-used name outside of Alaska. Given that we have loads of reliable sources that say Denali is the most commonly-used name where the mountain is and are left with original research counting of sources elsewhere, Denali should have been the common name all along; Denali is definitely the common name now that it is also the official name. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 02:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"Common name" is a Wikipedia term of art. It is defined by our guidelines, not by our sources. Following our guideline is not "original research." The sources do indeed sources say that Alaskans have called the mountain Denali for some time. But they also call it "Mount McKinley." Here is a story is Alaska's top newspaper from just a few weeks ago. I could easily come up with hundreds of similar articles. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive

• I don't believe you will find anyone arguing that Alaskan publications did not use the official name of the mountain when reporting of a Federal press release that talked about actions taken by a Federal agency. Name Omitted (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

As the highest peak in North America, "Mount McKinley" has been a household word among Americans and to some extent people around the world for generations, not just Alaskans, and is typically learned in grade school. Countless sources using "Mount McKinley" have been provided here, and, as Constitutional Republic pointed out, analyzing reliable source weight to determine common usage is not OR, it's why we're called "editors". VictorD7 (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@ConstitutionalRepublic: @VictorD7: I was quoting from our guideline and using "common name" in the Wikipedia term of art sense: "A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following sources may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name." Yes, original research is OK to determine the common name, but when there are reliable sources that explicitly make the judgement we are trying to make, WP:WIAN says explicitly that following the explicit statements in reliable sources is preferable to the original research approach of counting usage in reliable source ourselves. And there are also countless sources that say Denali and a compelling case that the article name should have been Denali before the US government officially changed the name. And I dispute the unsourced assertion that "Mount McKinley is a household name." I'm from Massachusetts, and Denali is the name I know best for the mountain (though I'm only very vaguely aware of its existence), so I can make an equally strong counter-unsourced-assertion. ;) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not called "original research" in the policy sense in this context, but I'm glad you now apparently agree with us that an explicit "X is the name most often used for this entity" isn't required for editors to assess primacy of usage in reliable sources, which is what's been happening below in some of the discussions. I've certainly seen no sources claiming that "Denali is the name most often used" for English speakers outside of Alaska, as that would clearly be false. VictorD7 (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@VictorD7: You're misrepresenting my comment; I don't agree. When an explicit "X is the name most often used for this entity" does exist (and WP:FRINGE etc don't apply; it doesn't here) and an explicit "Y is the name most often used for this entity" doesn't exist, the guideline is very clear that we should go with X. The policy doesn't call it original research, but that's the best term I know of to describe counting sources ourselves (again, original research is acceptable in this context if it's the only good option). And please reread the last paragraph of my 02:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC) comment. Is anything in that paragraph debatable? In particular, are there any sources that say that Mount McKinley is the most-commonly used name outside of Alaska or in the English-speaking world in general? I don't agree that it would "clearly be false" that "Denali" is most-used outside Alaska per the source-counting below anyway. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear precisely where you disagree with me, but I'm guessing it involves your earlier statement about sources supposedly saying it's the most common name in Alaska, which is so far from decisive that it's almost irrelevant to measuring primacy of usage in the entire English speaking world, and/or your earlier erroneous implication that we should simply go with the official name in the absence of an explicit source statement saying "X is more commonly used." Nothing you quoted earlier supports that contention. The explicit statement line merely said that's an acceptable shortcut to determining the common name, and even then it would only serve as such if there wasn't significant evidence calling the source's claim into doubt (possibly including explicit contrary statements in other sources). That said, I'm pretty sure there are sources stating that "McKinley" is the more commonly used name across the country and the world, though I haven't bothered to look for specific examples of that. I've participated some in the source usage discussion itself below but my primary concern here has been with the process. VictorD7 (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the sentence "you now apparently agree with us that an explicit "X is the name most often used for this entity" isn't required for editors to assess primacy of usage in reliable sources" as applied to a case where there is an explicit source (many, in fact). Re process, I think that this discussion might benefit from an explicit new RfC on the merits (not on the process of whether it should be moved back) if only editors would stick to the RfC instead of opening new thread after new thread. If doing so, starting a discussion to agree upon a simple question to ask in the RfC would be a helpful first step. Maybe waiting for the source research to get a little further before starting the RfC would help the RfC discussion be somewhat factual and policy-based. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've seen no source claim that "Denali" is the most commonly used word for the mountain among English language speakers. If you're just referring to it being common among locals, again, that's not the pertinent scope here. VictorD7 (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Minor correction to climbing history

Once edit protection expires on this article, would some kind soul adjust the following text to use 1913 as the year of first ascent (as is made clear two paragraphs later)?

Until the first ascent in 1915 1913, their claims were disbelieved, in part due to false claims they had climbed both summits.

Thanks. Rupert Clayton (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I've assumed this was uncontroversial; any problems let me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Precise metric elevation

The summit elevation of Denali is 6190.5 meters NAVD 88. The summit prominence is 6140.5 meters and the summit isolation is 7450.24 kilometers.

Today I received the following communication from Vicki Childers, Ph.D., Chief, Observations and Analysis Division, NOAA/National Geodetic Survey (N/NGS4):

Summit elevation of Denali

The new height of 20,310 feet is measured in US Survey Feet. The orthometric height of Denali is 6190.5 meters above NAVD 88, or more succinctly put, the NAVD 88 orthometric height of Denali is 6190.5 m, or 20,310 US Survey Feet.

Thanks,
Vicki

Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

6190 m is the number currently in the article, so that's consistent with the number you quote (and, more importantly, the cited source). Do you have a source we can use for the prominence? It's not in the cited article, and this note isn't something we can cite. Any edits will currently require an administrator or just waiting it out, thanks to the full protection due to an edit war. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There is currently no published citation for the metric elevation of Denali. The National Geodetic Survey will eventually publish a datasheet for the Denali summit with the elevation in meters. 6190.5 meters equals 20,309.99875 US survey feet or 20,310.03937 International feet. Due to the slight discrepancy between the US survey foot and the International foot, the National Geodetic Survey now uses SI meters for all official elevations. Ms. Childers can provide a reference. Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

When they publish the data we can use it. Until then it's original research. I see no need to rush the issue. Zaereth (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I cannot think of a more authoritative source.  Buaidh  21:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither can I. However, the fact remains that it is an unpublished source that is difficult, at present, for others to verify. If we can get a published reference, that would be different. (Of course, I'm never in a hurry anyway.) Zaereth (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe you'd quibble about 0.381 millimeters of elevation.  Buaidh  21:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That statement is double-edged. Merely anticipating the quibbling to come. If others feel it's ok, I'm not going to argue. Zaereth (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The 20,310 feet (6,190 m) number is properly cited and currently used in the article. The 3 ppm difference between the survey foot and the international foot (going by foot (unit)) doesn't change the numbers at this precision/uncertainty. This is properly cited and consistent with both the cited source and the email, so I don't see what the issue is. We have numbers to five significant figures; considering differences beyond the 5th significant figure is not just unnecessary, it's wrong. Buaidh cites a different number for the topographic prominence for which I can't find a citation. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Peakbagger.com cites the key col as Rivas, Nicaragua at 50 m. 6190.5 m - 50 m = 6140.5 m = 20,146 feet. Yours aye,  Buaidh  00:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Citation cleanup edit request

In the infobox, please replace the following citations:

<ref name=ADN>[http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=4312&from=rss_home USGS]</ref><ref name=ADN>{{cite press release | url=http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=4312&from=rss_home | source=USGS | title= New Elevation for Nation’s Highest Peak | author=Mark Newell | date=September 2, 2015}}</ref>

<ref>[http://www.peaklist.org/WWlists/WorldTop50.html Peaklist]</ref> <ref>{{cite web | title= 50 Most Prominent Peaks on Earth | url=http://www.peaklist.org/WWlists/WorldTop50.html | date=December 10, 2007 | accessdate=2015-03-04 | work=Peaklist}}</ref> —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)