Jump to content

Talk:Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs) at 07:56, 1 September 2015 (→Section removed - poor reading of the source). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


About that title...

Why is this page called "Denali naming dispute" as opposed to "Mt. McKinley naming dispute"?

Or we could call it "Denali/Densmore's Peak/Doleika/Mt. McKinley/Tenada/Traleika/Tschigmit naming dispute"... <smile>

This could be as much fun as the Gdansk/Danzig naming dispute! --76.245.60.10 (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Denali is the more popular name among climbers and visitors to the Park. The only ones who call it McKinley are people who have only read about it in a book and have never been there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.202.200.132 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first comment. To be honest, if there is truly a dispute, to be fair, this article should be titled 'Denali/McKinley Naming Dispute.' I see nothing wrong in properly naming it after the actual dispute. And frankly, no, the majority of people - even some mountaineers - call it McKinley. So let's keep the article neutral (ala Wiki standards) and change the name of the article. 24.29.30.173 (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Because Denali is the more popular name among climbers and visitors to the Park. The only ones who call it McKinley are people who have only read about it in a book and have never been there." Nonsense. I've been there. I live nearby, and I call it McKinley. 158.145.224.112 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 07 October 2014

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: move the page to Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denali naming dispute → Denali/Mount McKinley naming dispute – As this is an article about a naming dispute, it would probably be best to include both names in the title in order to avoid taking sides. I would move this page myself, but I don't have that power as an anonymous editor, and don't particularly feel like making an account just for this. Additionally, as this is an article about a naming dispute, I have reason to believe that such a move could be considered controversial. 69.45.35.62 (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • I suppose it makes a certain sort of sense to mention both names but I don't see any pressing need to change it. Not sure what specific policy section would compel it one way or the other. I have to admit that as an Alaskan I do personally find it difficult to approach this with an unbiased perspective because I have very strong opinions on the underlying dispute. (I'm originally from Ohio, and believe me, nobody there knows or cares about this except that one congressman, but it is important to thousands and thousands of Alaskans, who always, always, call it Denali) So, I don't oppose moving it, but I also don't see any harm in leaving it as is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I'm not sure I see a pressing need to change it either, and it seems like it would create an even longer, more awkward title. The dispute is over the fact that people want to name it Denali as opposed to the status quo, so I don't really see a bias in the current title. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support (with dashes) makes sense, especially considering that we use the BGN name Mount McKinley at present; some people might only know of one of the two names. Ready to be convinced by anyone who cares… —innotata 05:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be "Mount McKinley naming dispute." The BGN and Merriam-Webster both give the name as "Mount McKinley." On Highbeam for last two years, I get 8 news stories for "Mount Denali," 195 for "Mount McKinley." What basis is there for us to call the mountain anything other than "Mount McKinley"? Claimsworth (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you have not actually read this article? If you had you you would find the basis for calling it what it was called before some yahoo randomly renamed it after a politician, and what all Alaskans unfailingly call it at all times. More to the point, we aren't discussing what to call the mountain itself, we are discussing what to call the article on the dispute about its name. Also, "Mount Denali" is not a good search term. It's just plain "Denali". Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called Alaska Board of Geographic Names that supposedly renamed this mountian is a mighty obscure organization, that's for sure. It gets zero news stories on Highbeam. It doesn't even have its own website or Wikipedia article. Other states have only geographic names advisors that advise the BGN. They don't claim the authority to rename geographic features. No, "Denali" is not a good search term. It returns mostly stories about Denali National Park, Denali Highway, Denali Media Holdings, etc. etc. Alaskans certainly use the term "Mount McKinley." See Juneau Empire, Alaska Dispatch, or Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Update: The Alaska board no longer exists and the state is not currently claiming that it has the authority to rename anything: "USBGN is the final word on choice, spelling and official use of the place names in the U.S."[1] Claimsworth (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You still seem to be missing the point, we are not discussing the name of the mountain itself. The topic of this article is the naming dispute. Numbers from search results of the individual names for the mountain are of limited utility in coming to a decision here. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
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.

Guidance from Iran and Iraq?

Shatt al-Arab is also Avrand Rud. There's a dispute in naming for that river. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Officially renamed in 1917?

The article says the Mountain was officially renamed in 1917. It keeps being quoted in the media without any real reference and I'm wondering if anyone has any citation for this. There's a citation link mid article but the bill named the park "Mount McKinley National Park" and doesn't reference the mountain at all only park boundaries. It seems to have been used in official capacity prior, as early as 1898 from what I can find, Dept of Interior, US Geological Survey Map: http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/55646/Alaska+1898+Gold+and+Coal+Fields+Map+24x29/Alaska+1898+Gold+and+Coal+Fields+Map/Alaska/ Also, there's a NY Times article saying one of the First people to summit the Mountain was appealing to the national board of place names to have the name changed from McKinley to Denali, and it predates 1917: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F0DE7DD163DE633A25754C1A9619C946296D6CF

From 1975 to 2015?

The article's lead sentence "From 1975 to 2015 there was a dispute over the name of a mountain in Alaska, the centerpiece of Denali National Park and Preserve" strikes me as somewhat POV in that is assumes that the 28 August 2015 executive order will end the dispute. The Order may well put the dispute to rest, but we won't know for some years. I propose the following alternate lead:

"In 1975 a dispute over the name of a Alaska mountain arose when the Alaska Legislature asked the US government to officially change the mountain's name from "Mount McKinley" to "Mount Denali". That mountain, the centerpiece of Denali National Park and Preserve, is the highest in North America. Forty years later, in August 2015, the Department of the Interior granted Alaska's request."

I'm going to be bold and substitute it, but I will not be upset if someone has a better way of putting it. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up going with slightly different language to incorporate Muboshgu's work. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring John Boehner Quote

I think PraetorianFury is confusing "Roll Call" with another source. "Roll Call" is published by The Economist Group, along with "The Economist", and "Congressional Quarterly". As for the blog format, according to WP:RS, "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."

I am replacing the John Boehner with a bit more context, specifically in order not to give a POV that the 2015 name change is uncontroversial. Additionally, I believe that the opinion of the Speaker of the House on a matter of public concern—especially when it is at odds with the Executive Branch—is inherently notable.

Conversely, I don't think restoring the Regula "thinks he is a dictator" quote would gain anything, even though it's published in a presumed reliable source. It's inflammatory and Regula is no longer active in public life. Carl Henderson (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to restore it to the way I wrote it. Too much now of Boehner's praise of McKinley, why were the Sullivan approval and Regula "dictator" remark taken out? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Boehner's quote needed more context. I don't know why those Sullivan and Regula quotes were taken out. That was someone else's edit. I the removal missed the Sullivan remark. That should have gone back in. Thanks for catching it. As for Regula, I just thought it was over the top, and I didn't think had any good reason to revert the edit. Carl Henderson (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the "about" page from the Roll Call source: "CQ Roll Call provides essential intelligence and grassroots advocacy resources to take action." Grassroots and advocacy are both big warning signs when considering the reliability of sources, and the fact that it's also in a blog format does not inspire confidence. I don't have any problem with the material as is, but if you could find another source, that would resolve my concerns. PraetorianFury (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section removed - poor reading of the source

I have removed the below text from the article:

Meanwhile, Constitutional experts question the move, claiming the President of the United States of America has no Constitutional authority to decide the name of a mountain. First, they cite the fact the mountain is on federal land. Second, they recognize Congress has the power to name mountains, not the President. Third, they claim the power of Congress 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." They conclude that since the name McKinely was incorporated into federal statute, Obama's only authority in this matter is to either sign or veto a Congressional bill, and that he has no authority to arbitrarily change the name of a mountain, just as he has no authority to arbitrarily change any other federal law.

Reading the original source (Does the President Have the Constitutional Power to Rename a Mountain?), the above text is a fundamental misreading of it. It is correct to say that the president does not have Constitutional power to rename the mountain, but Constitutionally-enumerated powers are not the only ones which the president has — the executive branch also has powers granted or delegated to it by Congress. As the original source concludes, So the President's authority must come from Congress. And indeed there is something called the U.S. Board on Geographic Names that (according to its website) was "established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government." So I assume the Board has delegated authority to decide on the name, and the President has directed the Board to make this decision. This is, indeed, close to the legal mechanism by which the decision was made — a law enacted by Congress permits the Secretary of the Interior to take action on geographic names under certain circumstances, and the Secretary has done so.

Nowhere in the source is found the claim that "Obama's only authority in this matter is to sign or veto a Congressional bill." Such an improper and false reading of the original source cannot be permitted to stand in a Wikipedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denali–Mount_McKinley_naming_dispute&oldid=678891740"