Talk:Denali

Quarter

Perhaps this should be mentioned? I am looking at a 2012 US 25 cent coin, which opposite some old dead guy has an engraving of this mountain, with inscriptions at the circumference of "Denali" at the top, "Alaska" around 8 o'clock, and "E Pluribus Unum" around 4 o'clock. Yes, it should be in the article. I'll look for an image. Huw Powell (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be mentioned in Denali National Park and Preserve instead? HueSatLum 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see the fact that Mount McKinley appeared on the Denali National Park Quarter as being especially noteworthy. 137.54.17.183 (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

East ascent

Dear Editors;

The "Timeline" section of the Wikipedia article about Mt. McKinley omits reference to the first ascent of the East side of the peak via the difficult Southeast Spur. This ascent is reported in an article by Boyd J.Everett, Jr. in the American Alpine Journal 13, no. 2, page 381, 1963, in an article by Christopher Wren in Look Magazine vol 26 no. 21,page 69, (October 9, 1962), in an article by Samuel C. Silverstein in the Mountain World 1962/63 pages 149-160, and constitutes a full chapter (Chapter 14, pages 179-186) of Fred Becky's book Mount McKinley. The prominence of the magazines, journals, and books in which this article was reported indicate the high level of alpinism demonstrated by the members of the team that made this first ascent. I believe this noteworthy first ascent of Mt. McKinley via its eastern side should be recognized in the "Timeline" section, along with the first ascents of the peak from the north, west, and south. Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Samuel C. Silverstein, M.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSilvers (talk • contribs) 03:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Elevation

The new, lower figure for McKinley's elevation has gotten a lot of press, but I don't think it is the "official" elevation of McKinley yet as far as the USGS is concerned. At least as of today, the USGS’s National Map website says with regard to McKinley’s elevation that “While the DEM produced from the raw IFSAR data shows a somewhat significant drop in elevation from the 1952 survey, the USGS takes no position in favor of either elevation.” So for us to say that the USGS has "accepted" the new figure is a little misleading. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Source Issue

• At the bottom of this section of this article [1] I provided a source (#30) that has been allowed to stand since late 2013. It is this [2]

The source was removed today by this user [3], because I linked to this Denali article at an article on [Tina Sjogren] yesterday, under the Controversy section. The user 97198 [4] is clearly biased -- the user removed the source because of having bias for Tina Sjorgen. Again, the source has been allowed to stand at this Denali article since 2013. While blogs are typically not considered reliable sources, as is evident the report at the blog is reliable journalism.

• I will in the meantime add another source[5] where the report is linked to. Everestrecords (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• • User MONGO has done unilateral edits without taking part in this discussion in the Talk page. I removed the blog source, and replaced it with a well established Everest historian's website, who published an article about speedclimbing records on Everest. The source qualifies as reliable. I will begin a dispute resolution request if the user MONGO persists.Everestrecords (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

    • There isn't anything to dispute since your additions and references are not reliable sources. Self published websites are not peer reviewed and are not reliable. I'll clean up the rest of the article tomorrow.--MONGO 05:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

    • The source is from Collin Wallace, an Everest historian. This is the About section of his website [6] He has on his own accord published the article on Everest speedclimbing on his website Articles section [7]. It's the first article at the top. This is a reliable source. It is not "self published". Everestrecords (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a self published website.--MONGO 05:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please help. User Mongo MONGO has been staking me around wikipedia over the last day, on the 3 different articles I've been trying to add to. Please help with asking he/she to discontinue stalking me. Demonstrates inappropriate interest in what I'm doing. Also, I'm using a source from England, Collin Wallace's Everest history and Everest news website.

http://www.everest1953.co.uk/about-us.html http://www.everest1953.co.uk/articles.html and this in particular http://www.everest1953.co.uk/speed-climbing-records.html The source is well established and well respected. Also, many news sources are self published, such as Explorers Web, which is published by 1 person, Tina Sjorgen.Everestrecords (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget to tell the admins about how you consider me to be mentally ill, etc. as you posted at my user page.--MONGO 06:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly an issue that should either be resolved between the editors, and if it can't, be taken to the dispute resolution process. I'm not going to get involved, but at first glance, it seems pretty obvious that the source being used here is not a reliable source and seems to have serious COI/POV problems given your apparent affiliation with the website. I'll close the helpme-tag. I'll leave the admin tag in place for an admin to deal with. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 07:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I see neither "staking" nor "stalking" by MONGO. I do, however see edit-warring, persistent use of unreliable sources, grossly unacceptable personal attacks, and other disruptive editing from Everestrecords. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Factual error on "base-to-peak rise"

The current article quotes a base-to-summit rise of 5500 meters and claims this is the largest in the world, citing an erroneous statement by Helman 2005. To get even 5000 meters, you have to go far enough out on the tundra (more than 25km from the North Summit) that you're hardly "on the mountain", but more importantly, Rakaposhi rises 5900 meters above the Hunza River in 11km horizontal. There is no question that this is bigger than Denali and the Rakaposhi article says as much. Would the primary authors of this page prefer the statement removed completely or toned down to "one of the biggest"? In the latter case, Helman cannot be cited without a caveat explaining that part of his statement is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JedKBrown (talk • contribs) 05:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:MONGO Before reverting my change, can we please discuss it here? Helman's book is not peer-reviewed either and it's very clear from any map that the claim is erroneous. Let's not perpetuate factually inaccurate information simply because it found its way into a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JedKBrown (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Helman's book is a published source....do you have a published source to support your claim? I don't know if Helman is right or not but I have seen the same figures in other published sources. We only write what we can based on reliable sources.--MONGO 01:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:MONGO, what is your favorite map? Because all modern maps, Google Earth, and satellite DEMs agree that the Hunza River 11 km north of Rakaposhi is at an elevation of 1890 meters (36°14'37" N, 74°29'25" E) while the summit is 7786 meters. I've stood there and ground-truthed it on my way further up the Hunza. If you'd prefer words instead of data, John Cleare, "The World Guide to Mountains and Mountaineering", 1979, p161: "Nearly 19,000ft (5,800m) above the Hunza River stands the bastion of Rakaposhi." This figure is about 100 m shy of reality, presumably due to old/inaccurate data. Are these sources sufficient to reinstate my change or otherwise correct the article? JedKBrown (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

We use only written published sources. One example I found in a few seconds was this one which states twice that McKinley is the tallest above its base. You may be confusing base for something else. A gorge 11 km away may not geologically speaking be the base of a peak. We can work on rephrasing and I am not opposed to wording that McKinley is one of the tallest peaks in the world above its base but however we word it, that must be referenced to a reliable source. Allow me a few days to look for more definitive answers.--MONGO 07:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@JedKBrown: can we find more than one written reference that supports the issue of Rakaposhi? I'll look some more because it would be nice to get this sorted out.--MONGO 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@MONGO: "There is no precise definition of surrounding base" (from Mountain). To get 5500 meters for Denali, you have to place the "base" out on the tundra beyond the foothills and 30 km from the summit. This is a very generous definition and Nanga Parbat has a more continuous grade for 6400 m in less horizontal. I used Rakaposhi instead of Nanga Parbat (both of which are the tallest in their vicinity) as a counter-point because it is a steeper grade and indisputably continuous from summit to river. As for printed sources, it is very clear that the books repeating the misconception about Denali are not using the terms precisely and are not peer reviewed (and peer review can miss a lot). As someone that grew up in Alaska, I've heard the statement repeated many times, but repeating it doesn't make it true. We're proud of our big mountain, but these people and the authors in question are not quantitatively comparing it to the likes of Rakaposhi and Nanga Parbat. In lieu of scholarly work with precise definitions, I think maps are the best source. (I don't see how the veracity of maps are affected by printing on paper, but there are many printed maps, any of which will confirm my statements.) I can look for other books that mention Rakaposhi or Nanga Parbat, but facts are not democratically elected and if Wikipedia is interested in facts, looking at a map will remove any doubt in this matter. JedKBrown (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@MONGO: Page 47 of Gritzner's book says "This spectacular peak rises 20320 feet (6194 meters) above the surrounding plains, which are near sea level. No mountain in the world can match its vertical rise from base to peak in such a close horizontal distance." This is unambiguously erroneous because (a) the rivers even 50km away are at 500 meters, so quoting the full height of the mountain is imprecise, and (b) Nanga Parbat's 6400 meter rise is greater than the entire elevation of Mt McKinley in less than 25 km horizontal with no intermediate foothills. I have emailed the author in hopes that he will acknowledge the errata. I also attempted to write Helman some weeks ago, but he has not replied. JedKBrown (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem with maps is that they are primary sources. The problem with writing the authors is that it is original research. Unfortunately we are bound by what the secondary sources say until a better source comes along. If writing the authors causes one of them to change their book (or to write a new book) then we'd have a good secondary-source, but we really need one to support the statement before we can start refuting other sources. Zaereth (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done a bit of checking online, like with google books, but can only find sources about Denali being the tallest. The Guinness book says Rakaposhi has the "sheerest" vertical rise, but only addresses Hawaii as the tallest. (It does say that Denali can be seen from the farthest distance.) Your best bet may be to write a book of your own, make some money, refute these claims yourself, and then wait for someone to add it to Wikipedia. (Just sayin'.) Zaereth (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thats what I am seeing too. I agree with Jed that McKinley is likely not the worlds tallest peak above its land base but whenever we write about superlatives such as that we must follow what the reliable sources say even if they are wrong....otherwise we engage in original research. I have no problem rewriting the passage as I have suggested which would have the caveat that McKinley is one of but that isn't even what the sources say. I confess that I use maps all the time when I wrote short stub articles about mountains and take great leeway as to incorporating what I see but those don't have superlative statements.--MONGO 13:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The secondary sources in question are demonstrably *unreliable* because they contradict the primary sources. WP:Using_maps_and_similar_sources_in_Wikipedia_articles says that it is appropriate to use maps "to source elevations, [...] or relative locations". Vertical rise is a statement about relative elevations and the data is staring us in the face. Can we either use the map to source a factual statement or simply remove the statement that is obviously false? Perpetuating a known-false statement seems contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. JedKBrown (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand us slightly. The point is that while maps could be used to reference a specific point, we can't conjure up statements based just on what we see as that becomes a violation of a core policy which is no original research...this is especially the case when we make any superlative claim such as the ones proposed. It would be greatly preferable is we had written and published works that support and override what we currently have.--MONGO 11:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If we had a precise definition of "base", then we could measure on the map and at least say that Rakaposhi and Nanga Parbat have greater elevation difference, thus contradicting the claim. But there is no universal definition of "base" (as stated in Mountain), so even though we are allowed to use measurements from the map as sources, and even though the statement is false with almost any imaginable definition of "base", we helplessly repeat folk legends because some secondary source wrote it down? Editors of other articles exercise discretion by choosing not to repeat fables and creationist propaganda as fact, though by the logic in this thread, the Creationists need only invent terms faster than the scientific literature can figure out what the terms mean and publish refutations. Should Wikipedia contain every published claim that isn't directly refuted by a majority of secondary sources? Does every printed document get a vote? Here we have secondary sources that might otherwise appear reliable, but make claims that are obviously wrong. Let's use discretion to avoid repeating them as fact. If you refuse to cite a map for an amendment to "one of the biggest", please just remove the statement entirely so that the article can be factual. JedKBrown (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The first thing to understand is that we are not against you here. Sure, we can arbitrarily remove it ... just to have it reverted again. That could lead to a nice edit-war and possibly to some great drama here on the talk page. Even if we get consensus from everybody, the information is still out there and will eventually get added again, and the whole thing begins anew. What we're suggesting is a more-permanent solution. Google books isn't everything, and there are plenty of places to look where reliable information can be found, but it may require some legwork on your part. (We looked around, but as the person who wants to make the change, the burden is really on you to do so.) This is why a really good, reliable source is the most desirable. (Personally, I don't feel qualified to interpret raw topographical-data from maps and then try to verify what you are saying, and many of our readers will feel the same way. Most of us will want to read it as interpreted by a qualified reliable-source.)

What we are talking about is not a statement of fact, but a superlative. You are always on tricky ground when dealing with the suffix "-est." Whose to really say what is the best, highest, tallest, tastiest, etc..., and what standards did they use. It is really just a conclusion based upon raw, available data, but we Wikipedians can't make those conclusions ourselves. If what you say is correct (which I do not doubt it very well could be), then you would think someone has written about. If not, then as technology advances I'm sure they will write about it soon, because people love their superlatives. (My suggestion above to you was sincere, and not outside the realm of possibility.) Zaereth (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Using_maps_and_similar_sources_in_Wikipedia_articles says "It is quite in order to state the “Valley X is ‘U’ shaped with glacial moraine at its entrance”". This appears to grant that at least some editors have sufficient expertise to reach this conclusion without relying on secondary sources. I want to use an equally simple observation (elevation at two nearby coordinates, given earlier in this thread) as a counter-example to the claim made by a secondary source. I don't need to say that Rakaposhi or Nanga Parbat is the highest (to do that, you'd have to define the terms and look at a lot of maps, which I'll grant qualifies as original research). I only want to justify removing the false statement. If a hypothetical secondary source said "Zaereth lives in the highest elevation residential dwelling in the world", would it be incumbent on the editors to find two or more published sources claiming a different dwelling is highest, or would it be enough to identify cities that are higher? As a mathematician and scientist, a counter-example is all that is required to refute a claim. Since the counter-example can be verified with only a passing familiarity with maps (certainly within the scope of the WP guidelines above), I think it should be admissible as evidence to classify the printed source as unreliable. I originally came here because a friend repeated the statement and when I pointed out counter-examples, he was embarrassed and wondered why the Wikipedia page was incorrect. I've never gotten this much resistance to correcting a factual error on Wikipedia before. I have my own science to do and cannot justify the time to write a book just to fix a simple factual error. Finally, I'm optimistic that we can delete the statement without causing an edit war. Surely there are more controversial pages on Wikipedia, to which a great body of published-but-unreliable material applies, yet the editors use discretion to keep the articles factual. JedKBrown (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but how many times are you prepared to explain it? I have a very reliable source that says the beaches of Ecuador are higher than Everest, simply because the Earth is not round but oblong shaped. It all depends on a point of reference.

My point is this: I know a losing battle when I see one and I'm trying to help you avoid that. Eventually you will grow tired of defending this point you have so eloquently made and the statement will get added again. Somebody, somewhere will read it and try to add it, I predict sooner than later. Unless you can provide a source I'm afraid you may be fighting it a long time, and battlefields are not what we want to turn this place into. If you can't change it immediately it is not the end of the world, but patience and a little elbow-grease will serve you well on this. Zaereth (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As a simple, immediate, and maintainable compromise that avoids outright factual errors, could we change the wording to "some authors ^{[cite Helman]} consider the base-to-peak rise to be the largest of any mountain situated entirely above sea level ^{[this is disputed, see talk page]}."? JedKBrown (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this whole discussion about "factual errors" in base to peak rise misses the point, because there are no facts, nor is there a definition of the subject being spoken about. If Guinness or anyone else wants to define "base-to-peak rise", we can report it, but we should report it along with their definition, or at least a reference. There could be multiple sources with differing definitions, and we could report them all. But we cannot define it ourselves, nor can we create a category where none exists. I don't think we even know Helman's definition. Merely citing data about the elevation gain over a certain distance (which doesn't even satisfy the intuitive notion of base-to-peak rise anyway, for which we would need a circumference at the lower elevation) doesn't create a noteworthy category "base-to-peak rise" for mountains. I think the best we can do here is to say something clearly factual like "Helman (2005) reports Denali to have the greatest base to peak rise of any terrestrial mountain, at 5500 meters," along with any other relevant contradictory *published* statements we can find. Automeris (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This source says that Rakaposhi is the only peak which drops uninterrupted for 6000m. http://www.summitpost.org/rakaposhi/173510 --Guajara3718 (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Eureka" and Kantishna

Recently, I changed Eureka, Alaska. For years, it redirected to Kantishna, Alaska, presumably due to mention of some obscure decision of the Board of Geographic Names. The problem is, most uses of "Eureka" were for the community northeast of Manley Hot Springs, which means that many articles contained erroneous wikilinks. Earlier this year, an editor changed the page to a stub about the latter Eureka, but it was reverted. I instead changed it to a disambiguation page. Here's the issue of relevance to this page: the editor who diffused the dab page changed the links on Walter Harper and Harry Karstens to point to the latter Eureka, when I assume that "Eureka" in this case actually refers to Kantishna (or, the inverse of the previous problem). Is there anyone who is familiar with the details of the 1913 expedition who could take a look and set things straight if need be? Any links I tried in the articles were dead, and I was never invited to the funeral. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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: [8] 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.

former known as, or also known as

An editor changed it twice from Denali, formerly known as Mount McKinley, to Denali, also known as Mount McKinley. The official name is now Denali, it known as that, not also known as something else. No reliable source is going to refer to it by its old name now. So it should be "formerly" known, not "also" known as. Dream Focus 00:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with formerly because the lead sentence is talking about it's official name. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

See Kusilvak Census Area, Alaska (Kusilvak Census Area, formerly known as Wade Hampton Census Area). --Kmoksy (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Semantics aside, the entry should be listed as The Mountain Formally Known as . – ArugulaArugula (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources for "Mount McKinley" or "Mt. McKinley" from 2015 include:

• NBC
• CNN
• Los Angeles Times
• The Telegraph
• New York Times

--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, everyone, every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the mainland is still calling it Mount McKinley. Use common sense. Also known as. Mindraker2 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

All of those articles are from "before" Obama renamed the mountain today. So that's not "still calling it" Mount McKinley, that's calling it by its official name. I doubt any new sources will call it "Mt. McKinley". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu's statement. Mentioning what it was called before the official name change doesn't prove your point. And the LA Times link is from February and is about the battle to change its name. Dream Focus 00:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the common name? If you query all English speakers globally, how many will recognize "Mt. McKinley" and how many will recognize "Denali"? Is WP supposed to provide a neutral point of view, or take its marching orders from the government? If a random politician wins office and arranges for the mountain to be "officially" renamed "Trumpali", do we then ignore common usage in favor of that? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"Formerly" explain things fine. To say "also known as" makes it sound official, which it is not. Anyone searching for the old name get redirected to the new. I don't think they'll be any confusion over what we are talking about here. Dream Focus 01:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I believe that having this place named after McKinley is a ridiculous historical accident, but I don't think that WP should be straying from "what is" to "what ought to be". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a strong opinion on this, but perhaps something along the lines of "Denali (also known as Mount McKinley from 1917 to 2015) is the highest..." might be an acceptable alternative that would be less likely to generate ongoing discussions identical to this one. :-) Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Just use "also," which is succinct, true, and doesn't draw undue attention to the naming nonsense away from the mountain itself. There are two names that have indisputably been used for the mountain; the exacts of official titles and the like can be discussed in the section dedicated to it. Per my edit summary before, look at the likes of Mumbai or Willis Tower - they both use "also known as" in their ledes. Simple and accurate. (I suppose it would be okay to say that it's "officially known as Denali", but that would imply it's NOT casually known as Denali, which would be incorrect. So... just move on. Spend 1 word rather than a sentence.) SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. There are plenty of people who hadn't ever heard of the name Denali and haven't learned that the mountain has been renamed. Dustin (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• The current version is fine. Denali, officially known as Mount McKinley from 1917 until 2015 Dream Focus 03:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• That has the reverse issue - it implies that it was 'only' officially known as such and not popularly known. "Also" has no implications and no judgments. SnowFire (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I can put a bullet here, too. What difference does that make? Mindraker2 (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"Officially known as Mount McKinley from 1917 until 2015" sounds like the best option. "Formerly known as Mount McKinley" sounds a bit off because it's likely to be "known as" Mount McKinley by a lot of people for some time. "Known as Mount McKinley from 1917 until 1915" is also off, as it was "known as" Mount McKinley by at least some folks well before 1917.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, "officially known as Mt. McKinley from 1917-2015" does seem like a good compromise. Subtly denotes that Denali has been and is the common name, that officially it was McKinley for 98 years, and avoids the also/former dispute nicely. I'd support this as well. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the earlier arguments in this thread suggest a belief that a "reliable source" is defined as one source which is in lockstep with the next source. Part of the principle behind reflecting multiple reliable sources is that particular sources sometimes get it wrong. As it pertains to this issue, I agree that "Mount McKinley" is not going to disappear from usage overnight, except in certain "official" circles. This resembles more a Wikipedian attempt to nudge things in that direction (see related comments below) than an attempt to properly reflect its name. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 16:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Except that evidence seems to suggest that the most common name referring to the mountain was Denali even before the renaming. If anything WP:COMMONNAMES wasn't being followed in favor of continuing to locate the article at Mt. McKinley, and with an official change that disparity in favor of the original Denali name is just going to grow. This official change has just spurred Wikipedia in a direction is should have already gone per its own guidelines. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No such evidence has been presented. In fact there's strong evidence to the contrary, which I'll post below in a new section. VictorD7 (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In the end, all of this discussion is moot until the U.S. Congress officially renames Mt. McKinley to Denali. It is legally still Mount McKinley until Congress passes an Act renaming the peak. Thank you, Mr. Obama, for overstepping your Constitutional powers, yet again. Rhino8989 (talk)

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.

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.

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)

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 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)

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"? 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," [9]. 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. [10], [11]), 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)

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)

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)

Proposal to restore last consensus name while name discussion occurs.

Denali → Mount McKinley – As the above sections lay out, Wikipedia article titles are determined by the WP:COMMONNAME policy, not the "official" name (especially when different branches of government disagree with each other on what that even is). That means the name most commonly used by established, reliable English language sources and the one most recognizable to readers around the world. The question is what the sources currently call the subject, not what we speculate they might call it in the future, and certainly not what we personally prefer it be called.

Since "Denali" is a national park and car line and "McKinley" was a president, simple google searches have proved inconclusive. However, book searches are more likely to bring up established, reliable sources and less extraneous noise. A google book search of mount mckinley (without quotes) shows 2,080 results. A quick sample scan of the first couple of pages show the hits are indeed books about the mountain, and they do virtually all contain "McKinley". A search for mount denali (again, without quotes; "Mount" isn't in the official name but adding it without quotes helps bring up hits about the mountain without requiring the presence of "Mount") only yields 1,450, and interestingly most of the results on the first two pages include "Mt. McKinley" in some form in the title. Several, including the top result, only use "McKinley" and not "Denali". A search of denali without mount yields 3,150 hits, but a huge majority of hits, 14 of 20 on the first two pages by my quick count, are using "Denali" to refer to the national park, and one of the other 6 is a kid's book about a wolf named "Denali". In fact "McKinley" pops up at least as often to refer to the mountain on the first two pages of this search as "Denali" does.

That authors mostly use a stand alone "Mount McKinley" to refer to the mountain, and when they do use "Denali" it's usually also accompanied with a "Mount McKinley", indicates that they assume general readers know what "Mount McKinley" is but may not be familiar with "Denali". As the continent's largest peak "Mount McKinley" is a household word around the country and the world in a way that most specific mountain names aren't, which means the peculiar local preferences hold even less sway in usage determinations than they usually do. A key factor in WP:COMMONNAME policy is recognizability.

The Encyclopedia Britannica, of course, titles its article "Mount McKinley", underscoring that the common reliable source name was and is that. That may or may not change in the future, but it hasn't yet, and we are bound by sources, not a politician's press release.

This isn't the end of the discussion, but given this preliminary evidence that "Mount McKinley" is the primary common name, the fact that it was the last consensus title of the article, and the fact that the discussion supporting a move above was opened and closed on the same day with only 4 respondents and ignored naming policy while focusing only on the alleged "official" name, I propose restoring the previous article name while this discussion continues until a real consensus based in policy to move it is reached. Hopefully even the move supporters will agree to this as a show of good faith to recognize the current lack of consensus and avoid an edit war. If evidence and arguments are presented adequately showing "Denali" is the common name I will happily support a move there, but until then let's restore "McKinley" and do this the right way. Even if a respondent adds arguments for "Denali" he or she can start by stating "support" to (temporarily) restore "McKinley" while the discussion plays out. A new round of opinion taking can take place after more evidence and arguments are presented. VictorD7 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Support - For reasons given, though, again, I'll happily support a move to "Denali" if adequate policy based evidence establishing that as the common name is presented. VictorD7 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, given that WP:COMMONNAMES does state that the common names should take into account the name change and what the common name is after such a change. It seems logical to wait before moving it back since the actual name, which is now Denali (there does not appear to be any ambiguity at the federal level beyond a couple of blustering Ohio politicians, and no ambiguity at the state level (and hasn't been any for 4 decades)), is more than likely going to shake out as the common name in short order assuming it isn't already since most sources are already moving to the new name if created in the last 2 days. And at present we do not have any conclusive evidence one way or the other beyond sources claiming that Denali is the common name in the home jurisdiction (Alaska) and among a large community focused on mountains (mountaineers) and was not per the Federal government until yesterday.Gateman1997 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I just linked to thousands of sources showing otherwise. VictorD7 (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose even taking any WP:COMMONNAME argument aside, you want us to move the page so that it might be moved right back? No, this is silly procedure that's not worth the effort. Just open the RM discussion and we'll centralize all the pro/con arguments and then we'll abide by the consensus of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is required for a move like the one you made and such consensus clearly doesn't exist. The rationale for (at least temporarily) restoring "McKinley" is that it was undisputedly the last consensus title. I'll add that so far the only pertinent evidence on the common name is presented in my op, and shows that Mount McKinley is the primary common name, so as it stands now policy dictates the non consensus move be reverted. VictorD7 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear, I didn't "make" the move. A RM discussion did take place, though I agree it wasn't the best one I've been part of. That's why I've been suggesting that you open a new RM. There's no bias in favor of either name based on whatever the name is during a move discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually you made the move only 47 minutes after the request was first posted, when there were only 3 respondents. You did move it to the wrong page, which prompted even a move supporter to call you "impatient". So your concession that the discussion "wasn't the best one" you've been part of is hopefully a gross understatement. And no, if a discussion fails to result in a consensus the article remains at the status quo, which is Mount McKinley according to the last consensus. Otherwise you would have forced through a change without consensus. That's why it's important to restore the name while the discussion continues. VictorD7 (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I made "a" move, but not "the" move, and I was indeed incorrect in doing it. Seems pretty clear from reading this talk page that consensus favors Denali, which I suppose is why you're stalling on opening that RM request until you can reestablish the page where you think it belongs, so as to better fight its move. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is you rushed to move the page after only 47 minutes, before that discussion even closed and with very little participation, and the notion that it's clear there's already a talk page consensus supporting the move here is laughable. This discussion has just started, and I haven't even posted community notices yet. I figured the same few already involved posters who rammed this premature move through under false pretenses would probably decline to revert, but I figured I'd give you a chance in good faith (no "stalling"). Again, I don't really have strong feelings about the mountain's name one way or the other, which is good from a neutrality standpoint but also explains why I wasn't planning on investing a great deal of time in this. If after a few days this discussion doesn't attract enough attention from editors to revert the policy violating change, then I may or may not initiate a formal RFC to draw a broader swath of (hopefully less biased) editors in. VictorD7 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want me to address that point, I made the move when I did without checking to see if there was a RM discussion underway because I thought the move was so common sense that a RM wasn't necessary. Clearly I misjudged that. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Denali is widely used in recent titles of academic books about the mountain, it has been the official State of Alaska name since 1975, and is supported by Alaska's congressional delegation. It is the ancient and historic name of the native peoples around the mountain. No need for lengthy debate. Denali it will be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: It was my movereq, and while frankly I was surprised to see it acted on so quickly (would that all of my WikiProjects were given the same attention), I do think it was the right move. Perpetually angry Obama-haters aside, I don't think there's much "controversy" here. I have lived in Alaska, where Denali is actually, you know, located -- and no one there calls it "Mount McKinley". This change brings the name into line with that on-the-ground reality. It is now official; the COMMON argument is not convincing, in my view; let's all live with it, no matter how much some of us may dislike our president. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Everything you just said could more appropriately be reversed, especially given the inappropriate Obama "love" given in the move edit summary. Ohio alone trumps Alaska, and Wikipedia usage is dictated by the entire English speaking world, not your local preferences, so your personal former residence is irrelevant. Clearly everyone is not going to shut up and "live with it". You would have been better served going about this the right way. VictorD7 (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Begging your pardon, but I started a movereq discussion, provided sources and a rationale, and awaited the outcome. I'm pretty sure that's exactly "the right way" to go about it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I was referring to your dismissive "Obama-haters" comments here. And no, supporting a move that occurred after only 47 minutes of discussion before more than 3 respondents had participated is not going about this the right way. That discussion didn't touch on actual Wikipedia naming policy, but operated entirely under the erroneous premise that articles use "official" names as titles. One move supporter just posted a bit of anti-American trolling, clearly an invalid rationale. VictorD7 (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Others have already explained why this name is best. Dream Focus 22:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The move was completly improper and should be reverted immediately. A controversial move discussion is supposed to be open for at least a week. This move discussion was closed in less than 2 hours. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

•Oppose changing page name back to McKinley. It can at times be helpful to attempt to quantify "most common" on the basis of search results, but not here: "McKinley" is no longer the mountain's name. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's first responsibility is to present information that is current and correct. The mountain's name has reverted officially to the traditional name Denali, even if some people used to "McKinley" will continue to call it that informally. The official name will be used in textbooks, academic works, journalism and signage as we move forward. The application of a MOS guideline should never cause an article to state or imply information that is incorrect. Naming the page "McKinley" would imply that the mountain's "real" or preferred name is McKinley. Redirects assure that users looking for the former name will arrive at the correct destination. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think the title of the article should be, the move should not have taken place until at least 7 days of discussion had taken place. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia WP:COMMONNAME isn't a "helpful" suggestion, it's policy. The "correct" common name is clearly Mount McKinley given the evidence presented so far. Speculation about what sources may say in the future is irrelevant here, except as something to keep an eye on. When the sources actually do mostly change, then and only then should the page be moved. Redirects did and can assure that those looking for the "official" name of Denali will be taken to the Mount McKinley page, just as those looking for "United States of America", "Stefani Germanotta", or the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", are taken to the United States, Lady Gaga, and United Kingdom pages respectively. VictorD7 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

True, but by that rationale, as one example, shouldn't Bruce Jenner have remained at that name rather than be almost immediately moved when she changed her name as the old name was still the clear more used name? It is understandable that there may be more sources out there using the now former name of the mountain, but that doesn't negate the fact that the old name is just that... the old name. The new name has and will continue to quickly supplant it as that is the new reality of the situation just as Caitlyn Jenner is now that person's reality. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't followed the Bruce Jenner debate, and I will say that living people are treated differently than prominent place names, but if that move was similarly rammed through based on political concerns rather than Wikipedia policy I would have criticized that too, especially if the move was made with less than an hour of discussion and only a few editors participating. For what it's worth I suspect millions of people will continue to call it Mount McKinley for decades at least, though neither my nor your speculation about the future is relevant here. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason this discussion isn't a requested move?--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've asked that question several times myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

^^^ This is not a Request to Move because Kudzu1 moved the Mount McKinley page before the proper time-frame had passed and appropriate discussion had taken place.

• Support This move is based on a press conference and a small minority of persons wanting a peak to have a different name. The grand consensus throughout the country and the globe is that the name IS CURRENTLY Mount McKinley. This is regardless of why it was named that way. The 'Mount McKinley' name was placed as an Act of Congress, not some regulatory committee without the authority to grant such names. Effectively, Mr. Obama's move to have the peak renamed is illegal within U.S. Law. Aside from the legalities, once again, the peak is CURRENTLY considered Mount McKinley by the world, not just one state or group of people.

Also, this move had no basis in WP policy, whatsoever— it even broke WP policy in moving the page. The correct thing to do to fix the error is to move the page BACK immediately and resubmit the Request to Move to 'Denali'. That's the proper, appropriate way to handle this situation based on WP policy. Rhino8989 (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

While it is quite likely the move was done too quickly and in doing so broke Wikipedia policy, what's done is done. And every minute we're here discussing the justification for the move grows. I'd point out that major mapping applications that Wikipedia geofinders link to such as Googlemaps and BING Maps are now referring to it as Denali. Even if we move it back in the next day for the policy violation, we're just going to be moving it back to Denali a few days after that. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Moving it soon was an honest mistake, but most people are overwhelming for the current name, so the outcome would've been the same. Dream Focus 23:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

At least you acknowledge the move was a mistake. I'll add that Wikipedia is not a simple vote count democracy; policy and argument weight matter to determining consensus. Invalid rationales (e.g. "new official name"; "down with the oppressors!") are properly disregarded. Furthermore, there are multiple editors even on this page who oppose the move, and undoubtedly many more who are not yet involved in this discussion who do. I've already answered the RM question above, and Rhino is correct in stating that the proper course of action would be to revert the move and initiate a RM to "Denali", one that lasts the standard 7 days and is closed with consensus assessment before action. Barring that, it appears a move review might be more appropriate than a RM back to "McKinley". I'll probably try to contact the closer as instructed before initiating one. VictorD7 (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not an argument against "most common" as a general principle. Trajan is, for instance, the best article title on the principle of "most common", not his full Latin nomenclature, which would be useless geekery. But when a modern place name changes, it's the responsibility of the encyclopedia to provide its users with accurate, up-to-date information. WP:COMMONNAME recognizes this, as noted above by Cúchullain. For a time some people will continue to use the former name informally: Peking/Beijing; Burma/Myanmar. In a science article, we wouldn't present information contrary to the current state of scientific knowledge just because an outdated or disproved theory was "most common", as indicated by a greater quantity of sources. The policy further specifies that Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Gateman 1997 points out above that major mapping applications that Wikipedia geofinders link to such as Googlemaps and BING Maps are now referring to it as Denali. That's an excellent indication of why geographical nomenclature should be contemporary, accurate, and encyclopedic rather than sentimental. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Oppose Denali is the correct name, and will become increasingly more used over time. Mount McKinley is the old name. To all those saying the policy is a must, well take a look at WP:5P5 The fact of the matter is, Mt. McKinley doesn't exist anymore. WikIan (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't move the page. I started the previous movereq discussion. Please try to keep up. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Note: There does not need to be consensus to restore the last name for which there was consensus. The fact that someone moved it out-of-process should not circumvent the need to gain consensus for the renaming of the article. There is clearly no consensus to move it from the long-established name, "Mount McKinley", to the name "Denali." Playing politics with article naming is completely unacceptable, but that is what appears to be happening right now. The original name (established through long consensus) should be restored, and the person who moved it out-of-process reprimanded for their actions. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 23:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  There was no consensus for the name Mount McKinley except when it was the official name. That is no longer the case. And it is clear the majority of people favor using the official legitimate name for it. Dream Focus 00:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose You can call me biased, though, because I think it's about time. I have to laugh at all the political hoof-stomping and the TLDR arguments put forth against. (I have to wonder how much has anything to do with the mountain of if it is just because Obama's name is attached.) I really like how insulting and hostile people are toward Alaskans, especially the one that said "Ohio trumps Alaska." That had me rolling in the aisles. What's really funny is that, here in Alaska, nobody is talking about it nor seems to care. We call it by the name it has had for thousands of years (not just 40) and couldn't care less if a majority of the world chooses to be wrong. Zaereth (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You presented no valid rationales for opposing the restoration to the last consensus version, and I've seen no insults or hostility directed toward Alaskans (the "trump" line was in the context of directly referring to population size). Reading does help, even if it seems a little long compared to what you're used to. VictorD7 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nor do I intend to. "Compared to what I'm used to?" Perhaps you don't see your tone as insulting, but I thought I point out, in my own sort of way, it's not doing you any favors either. Zaereth (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Its name is Denali [in Koyukon: Deenaalee baʼoozaʼ]. McKinley died [in Koyukon: McKinley doltłonh]. --Kmoksy (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Denali is the common name.173.49.46.51 (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've initiated a move review. VictorD7 (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have procedurally closed the move review. WP:MRV is not an applicable forum for contesting bold page moves and directs users to contest such actions with a formal requested move on the article talk page. Swarm ♠ 05:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• The close itself should have been overturned, as the closer himself requested, so your closure of the review was inappropriate. And are you seriously suggesting that the only way to contest a bold move is to gain consensus through an RM? That would mean that the move, which didn't have consensus, is the new status quo and can't be undone if the RM fails to gain consensus. Preposterous. VictorD7 (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Support I'm not sure why on earth we should disregard common practice of leaving it at the consensus name while a discussion is ongoing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This needs to go through an actual requested move discussion, without a "fait accompli" name change complicating things. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Muboshgu. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - and I'm heartened to see that I agree with Winkelvi on something :) This is pretty clear-cut; the federal government has changed the name of a geographic feature. The argument based on WP:COMMONNAME is, at first glance, interesting, but the mountain has been commonly and widely known as Denali for thousands of years, long before anyone showed up to stick a president's name on it for the purposes of political grandstanding. The state of Alaska and Alaskans have recognized this for decades, with both Democrats and Republicans committed to making it happen; only petty home-state "favorite son" politicking prevented the change from becoming official. Wikipedia should properly recognize the official change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Current name is precise enough. This is an affirmation of the original move vote. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment -Why is nearly every editor here clearly disregarding WP:COMMONNAME? Has anyone even bothered to read it. We are only proposing the article get moved back during the discussion time. When consensus is reached, we should go from there. How can everyone simply through the guidelines out the window?

Also: Let me make this clear I do NOT move the page. I simply closed what seemed to be an uncontroversial discussion as someone who didn't participate in the discussion, which is following the guidelines as there is no time suggestion for uncontroversial discussions. I closed the discussion because there was NO opposition at the time and the article had ALREADY been moved. Thanks, WikIan -(talk) 05:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• There is no possible reason to bother moving it back just to move it again after a set time period. People have overwhelmingly supported Denali as the name to keep. Dream Focus 05:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• There hasn't even been a real discussion yet. Since a lot more people oppose the move today than yesterday, there's no reason to assume what the final result of such a discussion would be, and that's not a legitimate reason for violating policy anyway. VictorD7 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• The WP:COMMONNAME argument fails because the "common" use of Mt. McKinley in reliable sources was largely due to its status as the official designated geographic name of the mountain. Now that the name has been officially changed (and political grandstanding aside, will never be changed back), reliable sources have already switched to Denali - as many sources, particularly Alaskan ones, already had done in recognition of the longstanding views of local residents and the longstanding cultural heritage of the original name. There is no compelling reason here to use the temporarily "common" name over the name which has been applied for thousands of years and is now official. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your assumptions and future predictions aren't relevant (nor are your time traveling anecdotes about what local tribes called it "thousands" of years ago), and you didn't produce evidence of reliable sources switching en masse (it'd be tough after one day), but I appreciate your concession that Mount McKinley has been the common name. VictorD7 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• VictorD7, the highest quality sources for the name of a mountain are full length books about the mountain. Please take a look at the list that I have added below, which shows that book authors have used "Denali" predominently in the last 40 years, and 100% of the time in the 21st century. If I have missed any recent books about "Mount McKinley", please point them out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose – I believe it does nothing but spread confusion when an article's title bounces back and forth while people try to reach consensus on what the title ought to be "temporarily" while they have the "real" consensus-building process about the eventual, more permanent title. I say this from experience watching, but not participating in (even afraid to participate in), several past contentious article title changes. The change to "Denali" was bolder than some editors would have liked. Fine, and that's a lesson learned for Wikipedia to build a better guidance policy for future name changes (which I believe we sorely need). But it's not an argument for being bolder than other editors (like me) would like and changing the title yet again based on rash arguments about a WP:COMMONNAME that can't exist right now because reliable sources are in flux, or a "last consensus" that can't be reliably interpreted because it's tied to circumstances and resembles the color grue. Metadox (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia should not try to influence political decisions. If at some time in the future the courts reverse the decision announced by the country's President following a recommendation by the Senate, it would be an argument for a move back to Mount McKinley. Until then, no. Encyclopaedia Britannica changed promptly to Denali. Apuldram (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The BGN is the authority on U.S. geographic names. WP:WIAN also recommends Britannica as a "disinterested, authoritative reference work." Both sites have already retitled their entries "Denali." ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 11:29, 1 September 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)

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

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)