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 Cullen328 (talk | contribs) at 05:11, 13 September 2015 (→Reason for 1975 change?: dates). 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]
@Carl Henderson: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]
From what I can tell looking at the website of CQ Roll Call is that is their lobbying support services division that is separate from their news division (Congressional Quarterly, The Economist, Roll Call). The advertise those services as being "Nonpartisan insights and tools for those who lead, shape or follow public policy." I have no problem finding an additional source, though. (assuming the original content hasn't already been removed in subsequent changes). I will look for one later this afternoon. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure they advertise that. I would feel much better with different sources, thank you. If not for accuracy, then for longevity, so the next editor doesn't remove it down the line. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:21, 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, as the source does, that the president does not have Constitutional power to rename the mountain, but, as the source discusses, Constitutionally-enumerated powers are not the only ones which the president has — the executive branch also has various powers granted or delegated to it by Congress. As the source states, 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 (43 USC 364b) 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]

I have rewritten the section to accurately depict the source's discussion of the Constitutional background for the president's actions — which he says were taken by authority of a Congressional delegation of power through a public law. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest the date given as 2975 in the first line should read 1975?

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.130.249.2 (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this construction violate WP:SYNTH?

Currently the article contains the following sentences: "Ohio Congressman Mike Turner vowed to fight the change, commenting that "I’m certain [Obama] didn’t notify President McKinley’s descendants, who find this outrageous."[33] (Both of McKinley's daughters died in early childhood, leaving no descendants.[34])" The second sentence is sourced separately from the first, and I believe the two sentences, juxtaposed in that manner, implies critics of the Denali name change are ignorant. I think that this arguably violates WP:SYNTH and that either the second sentence should be removed—or preferably—a different quote chosen that better represents the views of critics of the Denali name change. It's also a bit of a cheap shot. All politicians say dumb things from time to time.Carl Henderson (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty borderline. I wouldn't say "synth" necessarily because no "statement C" is stated or implied. If anything, it would be excluded due to not being mentioned in reliable sources relating to this issue, or WP:WEIGHT. Perhaps it would be best to remove that criticism entirely. There are enough people complaining about this that one ignorant comment won't make or break the point we're trying to make in the paragraph. PraetorianFury (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I just removed it, then looked here. I'm pretty sure this is classic SYNTH, using one source to dispute another. it is also a little bit of a dig, but that's not why I removed it. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the Congressman's statement implies that McKinley has direct descendants, or, at the very least, family who have strong feelings on the issue. McKinley's closest living relatives are cousins five and six times removed. I, for one, am looking forward to their angry press conference. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should party affiliations be included?

The article does not have the party-state notation commonly used in discussing U.S. politicians. Is there a reason for this? I began to add a couple, like Bill Walker, Governor of Alaska (who is Republican) and the Ohio representatives who oppose the name change. But perhaps there is no consensus on whether this should be included. It is probably interesting to readers, because the split appears to have more to do with state than party. Alaskans, including Republicans, seem to support "Denali", while Ohioan politicians are against it, including some Democrats. So it is not a partisan matter. Roches (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very good point, which in Ohio seems primarily relevant to Democatic Representatives Betty Sutton and Tim Ryan, who are specifically associated with districts in the Northeast part of the state including or in close proximity to the McKinley historical locales of Niles, Poland, and Canton. (Ryan was born in Niles where McKinley was born, and currently represents its district.) it might just be easier and more expedient to point out the geographical affinity when discussing these two Ohio political figures, rather than labeling every politician mentioned in the article. But your bigger point is worth making, the dispute is non-partisan on a local level, in Alaska as well, and if we can find an article stating as much in connection to the Denali-McKinley controversy, all the better. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to be mostly an Alaska v Ohio issue, and does cross party lines. These sources may work:

Reason for 1975 change?

I kind of get how the change is controversial today, it appears to sort of boil down to 'do you like Obama'.

But the article is entirely silent on just why Alaska wanted to change the name in 1975. The Kyukon seem to number about 2,500 people, so it does not seem very likely they wield huge political influence. I imagine this was some kind of political game from the beginning, Alaska trying to make a point vis-a-vis the federal government? There is an unreferenced claim that "Mount McKinley was always commonly referred by its Koyukon Athabaskan name Denali, especially by Alaskans, mountaineers, and Alaska Natives" — even letting pass the clearly misplaced "always"{{year needed}}, this seems unlikely. We have just established that "Alaska Natives" have at least a dozen different names in a dozen languages, so the claim that everyone had "always" preferred the Koyukon name in particular seems far-fetched. As for [non-native] Alaskans, it would be nice to see some kind of reference as to the currency of the name pre-1975. Same for "mountaineers".

At least the opposition against the change is ostensibly motivated, seeing it was led by the representative of the district which includes McKinley's hometown. But I have to say the phrasing strikes me as far from neutral, "determined political maneuvering", "devised a new tactic" etc., whoever wrote this clearly saw the Ohio guy as the mustachioed villain. --dab (𒁳) 22:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Alaskan government has been requesting the name change since 1975. In 1980 they did what they could and renamed the national park around the mountain as Denali National Park. Unfortunately, they did not have the authority to rename the actual mountain as geographic features are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The fact that the national park surrounding the mountain has been called Denali for the last 35 years shows how Alaskans feel regarding the name. While I agree that the section regarding the Ohio Congressman needs some cleanup, he personally stopped the renaming of the mountain. Since the Board on Geographic Names has a policy to defer all judgement on requests when there is a pending resolution in Congress. So every year, like clockwork, for nearly 40 years Ralph Regula put forth a resolution in Congress to keep the name as McKinley. Since there was a pending resolution (even if it was never voted on) the Board's hands were tied by their own rules. Regula left Congress in 2009 and since there was no more resolutions being put forth the Board could finally act. They didn't, so the Secretary did. The idea that Obama renamed the mountain is factually incorrect. The Secretary of the Interior renamed the mountain. Obama just did not stop her. The only reason people think Obama did it was because the renaming was announced by White House staff. The only reason people see it as political (besides hating Obama) is because the renaming was done before his visit to Alaska. The section on the Ohio Congressman does need to be rewritten however it needs to mention that he personally blocked the effort for decades as that is factual. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected. Please excuse my mistake. The rest of my comment, however, still stands. The part regarding the Ohio congressman does need a little cleanup however it does need to mention that his actions were the reason the name change was delayed for 40 years. The Alaskan government was the one that requested the change. The elected representatives of Alaska, speaking on behalf of the Alaskan people, have been requesting this since 1975. It was Regula that blocked the Alaskan government's request. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann, Hudson Stuck was one of the leaders of the 1913 expedition that resulted in the undisputed first ascent of Denali. Stuck was a strong advocate of the name "Denali", which he explained quite eloquently in his 1918 book The Ascent of Denali, The 1913 Expedition that First Conquered Mt. McKinley. A native Alaskan, Walter Harper, was among the two climbers who reached the summit during that expedition. Bradford Washburn was the recognized mid-20th century expert on the mountain. who surveyed it in detail using aerial photography. He led the first ascent of the West Buttress route, which is now the most commonly climbed route by far. Washburn was also a strong advocate of the name "Denali" and was a strong influence on mountaineers to present times, since he lived to age 96, dying in 2007. His wife Barbara Washburn was the first woman to climb Denali in 1947. Publishers often insisted on Including "McKinley" in book titles, but actual climbers insisted on using this the name "Denali" whenever possible. Mountaineers risk their lives to climb extreme peaks like Denali and care deeply about what indigenous people living near the mountains believe about these peaks, including how they name them. This is not "political" among mountaineers, but is an important matter at the very core of our reasons for living and striving. People who care deeply about this mountain, including native Alaskans and climbers and early settlers agreed on the name "Denali" over 100 years ago, and the other Athabascan dialect variants are similar. Why call it a political issue, when Alaskans of all political persuasions are in broad agreement? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denali–Mount_McKinley_naming_dispute&oldid=680790784"