Talk:Denali

Mt. Mckinley

Guys the name is Mt. McKinley... "federally designated as", yes because that's what the name is. Refusing to change it as an act of "resistance" is extremely petty and is an example of WP: JUST.

Many would argue that Trump changing it was extremely petty. No maps already printed are going to change.HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

True... the president is no stranger to going even lower than his opposition. However no maps are going to change that were printed before 2015 either.... they all say McKinley. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think either point is relevant. Regardless of Trump's "pettiness", he has the power of executive order to rename federal land. Wikipedia editors do not. And "no maps printed already printed are going to change". Well of course they won't. What will the maps being printed NOW say? Google maps already made the change. And also, what did the ones before 2015 say? JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. It's not like the Gulf of Mexico which is recognized internationally since before America was founded as the Gulf of Mexico.

And we renamed it on wikipedia to Denali when it was federally changed to Denali, not when it was state recognized.

If another President after Trump renames it back to Denali, then we should change it back to Denali, but not before then. Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

"...he has the power of executive order to rename federal land." Sure, no one is disputing that. That doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to follow suit, though. We don't follow the whims of presidents, national governments, or any other "official" powers; instead, we follow our own guidelines and naming conventions. 296cherry (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

You mean we "often" follow our own guidelines and naming conventions. We didn't in 2015 when it was renamed to Denali. Other items came into play this go around. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Assuming policy was not followed in 2015 (debatable), why should we make the same mistake again? 296cherry (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say in my reply that we should make the same mistake, I just wanted to make sure that your statement of "we follow our own guidelines and naming conventions" was countered with the truth. We quite often do not follow common-name. A lot depends on the politics involved on what we actually do. The Clingmans Dome article changed to Kuwohi instantly. As did many other places. Utqiagvik is probably still more commonly known as Barrow, Alaska. We did wait to change Burma to Myanmar until it was more common (but still called Burma by US and other governments). But we changed Prince of Wales Museum to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya way too early and guess what... it's common name is Shahuji Chhatrapati Museum. Since we have no real guideline that is followed this will continue to happen because personal bias creeps in... and we are all likely guilty at some point. So it's not a mistake in practice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are exactly that: guidelines. They are not laws that must be dutifully followed, nor are they perfectly transferable to every situation; if they were, why would RFCs even exist? Why would there be any debate over article content if the guidelines were absolutely strict and without interpretation? WP:IAR exists for this exact reason. 296cherry (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

So if you're just ignoring all rules, what's the justification for not using the actual name of the mountain (Mt. McKinley)? Because that seems to fit under Wikipedia:JUST JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t say I was ignoring all the rules, I was using WP:IAR as proof that Wikipedia guidelines are flexible at times. And please read any of the numerous discussions held in the last few weeks to see the arguments for and against a name change. 296cherry (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Wiki propaganda encyclopedia has been hijack by wacky progressives. FACT the name is Mt. McKinley not Denali, and no amount of political activism by wiki will change that fact. PK070205 (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Denali is still used by many people, and is the official name in the Alaskan government. Both Denali and Mount McKinley are used and are official at different levels of government. GN22 (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The authority on the matter is the Secretary of the Interior, who has said it is Mount McKinley. It's blatant POV pushing to insist on a deadname for this article instead of deferring to who has the authority to rename it.

Maybe I should go spam the Mumbai article to rename it back to Bombay, I'm sure that will go over well. 2601:201:8C01:E2F0:4D1:B71D:45D2:C87B (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Mumbai is also the most common name for the city. Wikipedia article titles are based on the most common name, and, apparently, we can’t seem to figure out which one is most commonly used. See Talk:Denali/Archive 7#Requested move 24 January 2025 and WP:CNAME. GN22 (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

So - Wikipedia decides what the truth is? 198.251.52.192 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

It's Mount McKinley. This is the fact of the matter. It's been renamed, so the article has to change. There isn't more to it than that. Personofcanada (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Common sense is for renaming the page into Mount McKinley. Also, for the people claiming Trump was the petty one, he simply restored the original name... While the name Denali was imposed in 2015 Mattia332 (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The mountain’s original name is Denali. The article itself states that the native peoples who inhabit the area around the mountain have for centuries referred to the peak as Denali. The Mount McKinley name only came in 1896. GN22 (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

By that logic shouldn't we also use the native people's spelling of the name "Deenaalee", in fact shouldn't we use their alphabet as well? Or maybe since this is the English Wikipedia, we should just go with what the American government names it to be. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you will then lend your voice to renaming the WP page on Taxila to Takshashila which was the original Indian name first murdered by the Greeks, then by the British. 216.228.112.22 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The original name is irrelevant. Hundreds of other mountains and geographic features have indigenous names that we don’t use as the article title, because the encyclopedia article title should use the name used by most reliable sources.

All major mapping (USGS, Google, Apple) have updated to the common name since 1900 that had been changed from 2015-2025. This change is reflected from all major news sources; only those with conflicts of interest with the Trump administration (i.e. Al Jazeera) do not recognize the change as retaliation for American aid to Israel. Even the AP, who has been barred from the White House over the Gulf of America naming dispute, uses the common name of Mt. McKinley.

While there may have been a logical reason, if flimsy and counter to common application [Kuowhi; not the common name of Clingman’s Dome, was changed instantly], for the initial reluctance to move, there remains no good faith justification for the current article title that is consistent with the policies of the site. 2601:840:8080:6850:B8CD:E731:A9F8:C9EA (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

We need Denali being used as the name of the mountain in a majority of secondary sources (i.e. not government sources, but news articles and other websites) not related to Trump’s order to change the mountain’s federal designation back to Mount McKinley in order to have it as the title. GN22 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

really?? says who? Never heard of this litmus test of broad-scoping non-official sources to change the name of a federally-designated place. This sourcing also wasn't requested/demanded when it changed in 2015 to Denali. So this is disingenuous. 2603:6011:2300:CC:2873:6718:B3D0:254D (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Names of places on the English language Wikipedia are based on the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources, not on the (supposed) original name, the native name, the name on other languages (e.g. Koyukon), etc. Jbt89 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

"Only" came in 1896, eh? I'm pretty sure that if anything else from 1896 was mentioned, that it would be "antiquated," "out of date," "primitive" etc. But, whenever it suits YOUR side, of course, 1896 was yesterday. So glad that the Esquimaux have an ardent online advocate in you. 50.32.154.61 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The Koyukon Athabaskan Native Americans first began using "Denali" more than 10,000 years ago. 1896 was 129 years ago. GN22 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Where do you get that???? We don't even know what they were using 500 years ago let alone 10,000 years ago. The tribes around the area use multitudes of names today and likely used multitudes of different names every millennia, if they even had a name for it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

What I’m trying to say is that "Denali" is at least hundreds of years older than "Mount McKinley". GN22 (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

That is true. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Not quite. The correct spelling (by one Indian tribe among many) would be Deenaalee or Diinaalii as written in section "naming". Other tribes use even more different spelling or even names. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

No it's true it's at least a couple hundred years old. What is also true is there are like ten different names for the mountain (with different meanings) that are at least a couple hundred years old. Sort of like playing Bingo and Denali happened to fall out of the basket. They aren't better or worse that McKinley, just older. That's about all we can say. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

How did you survive before Obama changed the name back to Denali? Were you able to live a meaningful life? 50.32.154.61 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

"Mt mc" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mt mc has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 7 § Mt mc until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Name

Why was Mount McKinley so quick to change to Denali on this site when Obama changed it, but when Trump does the same type of thing, which is completely legal, everyone is suddenly against it? This needs to be changed ASAP. AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is dominated by liberals. They also changed Clingman's Dome's and Mount Evans' name immediately. It's part of the campaign to annihilate America's European heritage. It's only a question of time until liberals rename Mount Mitchell, Mt Whitney, Mt Rainier and any other European-sounding mountain and national park. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Glasfaser Wien - Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia being dominated by liberals is merely a truth fact. And many people here argued against the move to Mt McKinley because "the fascist Trump did it". And it's also true that those who favor Denali rather than Mt McKinley would also favor ancient Indian names we never learned at school for above-mentioned mountains. Yes, WP has been doomed since liberals rule it, i.e. possibly since its creation, as it claims climate change is manmade and other untruths. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Fun fact: The more right wing of the two major political parties in Australia is Liberal Party of Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

In the U.S. "liberal" is what elsewhere is referred to as leftist/left-wing, with "radical liberal" meaning far-left, while "conservative" is what is rightist/right-wing. Of course leftists are anything but libertarian. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

U.S. =/= the world. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, the idea of a free encyclopedia that interested people can contribute to if they like is a rather liberal idea, even socialist if you will. So it might attract people who like that idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This is absolutely untrue since when an editor unilaterally changed Barrow to Utqiagvik, Alaska it was reverted once discovered and it took two years for it to be changed to its official name, and months after every state government entity referred to it that way. Calwatch (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's been an exception. Exceptions confirm the rule. And I'm talking about mountains. The new name for Barrow should have been implemented by WP as well btw because that was made the official name, whether you like it or not. I refer to the city as Barrow myself, but its official name is the impronouncable one so it would have been correct for WP if it changed its name sooner. Same should be done to Mount McKinley now that it's the official name. But WP editors are hesitating because the re-rename was made by Trump and because it sounds European. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Here the state is clearly continuing to primarily refer to it as Denali, as they had before the official federal government change. There are old web pages which refer to Mt. McKinley, but just as many from that generation (pre-2012) which refer to it solely as Denali. The federal government made the change, which is fine, but not controlling. Non-change stories about the mountain haven't really popped up. All I have to ask is, what is the rush to making a change? Why not wait for the dust to settle? Calwatch (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Because both Denali and Mt McKinley are equally common names for the mountain, so we should pick the official one. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The local name, broadly preferred by Alaskans of all races, is Denali. It gives its name to the national park.

Obama's name change aligned the federal government's name to the commonly used local name. It was done for this reason -- so the Feds would call the mountain the same thing that Alaskans call it. At this point there was no dispute about the common name: the locals call it Denali, it's in Denali National Park, and now the Feds call it Denali also, so that's what Wikipedia should call it.

The recent federal name change was not made for any sort of good-faith clarifying reason like this. It wasn't done to reflect a newfound majority preference for calling it Mt McKinley by Alaskans. Instead it was made out of political pettiness by a guy with a vendetta against anything Obama did and who really likes McKinley since he really liked tariffs. This is wholly different than the preceding name change to Denali.

The "common name" for something isn't set by the pronouncements of politicians, especially if those pronouncements are made transparently for some reason other than making a common name official. It's set by the people who live there -- by the people who work at the park, who live in Alaska, who hike the mountain, who photograph it, who see it every day, and who actually have reasons to talk about the mountain other than as a bit of political point-scoring.

128.230.227.17 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Carlstak (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually no per policy. The name is set by all sources. One big one would be what is used and taught in all schools. I'd bet that when it changed to Denali most kids and adults had never heard of the name. They were all taught it is Mt. McKinley. What will be taught in schools in the coming year or so... I have no clue. But it's important. One thing it has going for it is it is easy to pronounce for the average American. Not like whatever it is they call Barrow Alaska now. It's why I still call it Barrow... because it's what I was taught for 50+ years and I can actually say it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, Alaska is a red state, 54.54% of Alaskans voted for Trump and a majority voted for Republicans into the House and Senate. So the question here is whether Trump said to have an intention or implied a will to change the mountain's name back prior to the election. If he did, a majority of Alaskans will be fine or won't mind about the change to McKinley since they elected him. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Denali/Mount McKinley

Honestly, I think we need to use both names in the title. It’s clear that there is no consensus on whether to drop "Denali" as the article’s title. Using both names (which are official at separate levels of government) as a compromise is the best solution. It appeases both sides, and both names for the mountain are in common use. GN22 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Somewhere in the archives this sort of Solomon solution was discussed and it doesn't work. Calwatch (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Right, it was proposed by me. But I have no idea why it "wouldn't work". Aoraki / Mount Cook works fine. Except that "Aoraki / Mount Cook" is the official name, while this mountain's official name is "Mount McKinley". Glasfaser Wien (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

This mountain’s official federal name is Mount McKinley, but it’s official Alaskan name is Denali. GN22 (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Is its name "Denali" by Alaskan law or some sort of governor's decree? If so, since when? It should be included in the "naming" section if it is as the section only writes about the presidential executive orders. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

"Denali" has been by Alaskan law since 1975. GN22 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. One more reason to use both names as the page title. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, Aoraki / Mount Cook is the official and common name for the mountain. If sources started calling the mountain Denali / Mount McKinley as a sort of compromise then that could be an acceptable title, but I don't think we could do it just yet. Turnagra (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Dual article titles are generally frowned upon. The most common name is what should be used for the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Right now it seems that we can’t agree on the most common name for the mountain. There was an RfC about a month ago that closed with no consensus. GN22 (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Notice capitalization

I believe that this edit was unnecessary. Is there a need to "yell" by turning on all caps in this section? Once, I turned on all caps, and it was reverted. Now, the opposite has happened. A fellow Wikipedian has challenged me. After all, do we need to remove all caps or keep the status quo? 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 03:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The status quo is restored pending YOUR desire to change longstanding text. This is not a difficult concept to understand, and it would behoove you to grasp it. Zaathras (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Your summary says: "Will be considered vandalism shortly."? How? Why? It's not vandalism. Know the definition of vandalism: Destruction of property, not changing text into a softer, more neutral tone that is much more neutral. Also, kindly use an appropriate edit summary. I never wanted to start a big deal. You're scaring me out. Please read WP:GETOVERIT. It's not a big deal to repeatedly revert, over, and over, again to keep your prefered changes. That's why I started this discussion, not reverting your reverts for a third time. If I were to want to keep mine, I would have reverted it again. I have only reverted twice, and you did 3 times. (Not calling it a violation of WP:3RR) First, you call me an "ambiguous person who doesn't know anything much about American presidents" at Warren G. Harding, and now you're attacking me by calling me a "vandal"? That's crazy and ironic, especially you are partially using all caps! I have not attacked you or anything, so why are calling it "vandalism"? I haven't violated WP:3RR. It will still be up to consensus and I will not be reverting my changes. On a side note, I did not violate WP:ONUS, I have never said I have "wanted" to dispute content. The non-all caps version is more neutral and softer in terms of tone. Thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 04:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Another side note: WP:DROPTHESTICK if you believe that a consensus is unnecessary. We can leave it be if necessary. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 04:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)