Talk:Denali/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

'previously known as' or 'also known as'

There is a difference between "named" and "known as". The mountain was previously 'named' Mount McKinley, but to write 'it was previously known as Mount McKinley' implies it is no longer known as Mount McKinley to anyone, which is incorrect. Old habits die hard and many people will continue to use the term they have used throughout their lives. There is a store in my town that is still known by the name it had fifteen years ago, although it has changed ownership and its name twice since then. Apuldram (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I am starting another discussion in the hopes that all the edit warriors will knock it off and participate. Hopefully, by summoning an admin, one will appear and put a lock on the article.
This whole thing seems rather ridiculous to me. I don't see any logical motive to push the words "formerly" or "previously" so persistently, except as an attempt to alter the language itself (as if any dictionary , encyclopedia, president or king has ever had the power to accomplish this). The two words aren't fooling anybody, and in my opinion, just makes us all look ridiculous, because a general audience are typically not idiots and will be able to see the motives as clearly as I.
"Formerly known as" is an adverb, meaning "once named in the past." This clearly implies that it's no longer the name, and that appears blatantly disingenuous on our part. "Previously known as" has an identical definition, and, thus, and identical implication. "Also known as" or "alias" are the only choices that are neutral and don't make it seem like we are attempting to persuade people to use only one. However, both "formerly" and "alias" are used almost exclusively for people. It's not our job to ensure the demise of "McKinley" any more than it is to change the alloy wheel article to include steel. (Because after all, steel is an alloy too, isn't it?) That job belongs to society and society alone. Zaereth (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
As pleased as I am the name has been changed back, I have to agree with both of the above comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
While 'people' may still refer to it by that name, I doubt reliable sources will. Especially the kinds of reliable sources used for geography, rivers, mountains, etc. So 'people' may refer to the mountain as whatever they like, the fact is that it is "formally known as", and will no longer be referred to any other name but the current one by any of the sources that count. Which should also include this encyclopedia. Dave Dial (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm an agreement with Dave Dial; the mountain is no longer named McKinley and saying such is factually accurate. Calidum 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
We cannot base arguments on what sources will print. I don't know about you, but my crystal ball just isn't that clear on the subject. The mountain has more than one name, and that is already reflected in hundreds upon hundreds of sources. We never called it "formerly" Denali, nor do we call Everest "formerly" Chomolungma. I am thrilled that the official name has changed, and that is demonstrated plenty by having it be the title of the article, but to say that McKinley is an anachronism based on what will be written is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Zaereth (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Heck it's also known as Densmore's Mountain. We shouldn't have said "formerly known as Denali" either... it's got many many names even among the native Alaskans. They certainly don't all call it Denali. When it was McKinley on every map it still had many other titles, but only one that was official by the USA. Today is no different except which one the USA goes by. For all I know the Russians still informally call it Bolshaya Gora. "Also known as" works the best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The article has been fully protected for 3 days in light of the ongoing content dispute, as requested on RFPP. Please poke me if you need me to make a change to the protection policy.--Slon02 (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
There are ZERO current reliable sources that call this mountain "Densmore's Mountain" and only a tiny number that ever did. So that argument carries very little weight. As for any imagined "informal" use of "Bolshaya Gora", me and my buddies can call anything whatever we want informally, but that is of no use here. This unreferenced hypothetical is worthless in this discussion. Is there a single solitary reliable English language source in the last 100 years that uses "Bolshaya Gora" as the primary name for this mountain? I think not. The same is true for the many other Native Alaskan names for the peak. Yes, they are noted as alternative names but is there a single reliable English source in the last 100 years using any those other Native Alaskan names as the primary name? No. Any Native Alaskan groups advocating for another name? No.
Many past reliable sources called the mountain "Mount McKinley" as the primary name before the recent name change. Is there a single reliable English language source devoting significant coverage to the mountain published since the name change that uses "Mount McKinley" as the primary name? No, I do not think so. It is a done deal. The current name is "Denali" and the most common former name was "Mount McKinley". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
(smile) I like your "let's discuss it" post-sig. I guess it should say "what I believe is a done deal." Now I assume that most brand new sources will have Denali as it's current/primary name... that makes sense. Some/many will also have Mt. McKinley as an also known as (like Britannica, or simply "Denali(Mt. McKinley)" as National Geographic will be doing. National Geographic tells us Denali actually has 47 official variant names and that they will keep Mt. McKinley on all new maps. The mountain has many names. Denali is now the official US version (not sure about Ohio), and Mt McKinley is the most common of the unofficial names. Pretty straight forward. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
That NatGeo article explains it pretty well and the Britannica article is good precedent for the naming convention "also known as". The mountain has many names, but Denali is the official name and Mt. McKinley is the most common variant name. It is straightforward. Unless we want to be confusing like Aoraki / Mount Cook, which, of course, might bring a whole host of arguments about name placement... clpo13(talk) 08:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
That is an Incorrect implication regarding the National Geographic Society. They immediately changed their map database to show Denali as the preferred, official, primary name. They properly retained Mount McKinley as the most common other name. After an official renaming, we base our encyclopedia (not map) coverage primarily on the usage by reliable sources published after the re-naming. No current reliable sources use "Mount McKinley" as the primary current English language name. Of course, "Mount McKinley" must be mentioned prominently and discussed with due weight. However, implying that it is in any sense the "current" name is just plain wrong. That usage is in the past. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Not quite. They properly retained Mount McKinley as the most common alternate name, among many. I don't know why this is so hard. We didn't say formerly known as Denali did we? Denali was an alternate usage as well as a historical name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
A thing does not stop being known by a name because it now has a different name. Why is this so hard to understand? So long as there are people alive that knew it as Mt. McKinley, that name usage will not be solely in the past. And here are two reliable sources showing that its usage is common enough to warrant mention without referring to it as a bygone, unused name. clpo13(talk) 08:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
To add to what I said above, with regards to the NatGeo article, they did indeed change the name to Denali. But they kept Mt. McKinley in parentheses for the same reason they put Denali in parentheses in the 1980s: because it's a commonly used alternate name. No "formerly known as" or "Mt. McKinley until 2015" or anything. Just "Denali (Mt. McKinley)". clpo13(talk) 09:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
From my perspective, "formerly known as" is synonymous with "historically known as," and we are just not here to manufacture history. I am very familiar with the policies, but I will never be caught wikilawyering and rarely obfuscate discussions with a bunch of WP:ACRONYMS. I prefer to discuss the spirits behind the policies. From a functional standpoint, both "formerly" and "previously" are incorrect, because this implies that it is improper to call them that anymore, and that is what leaves a bad taste in my mouth, which tastes like synthesis. "Formerly," specifically, is found almost exclusively for person proper-names (ie: The Artist formerly known as Prince.) From a grammatical standpoint, they are incorrect because it turns the temporal perspective of the writing into present perspective, which is wrong for an encyclopedia, because the present is fleeting. Instead, perfect (timeless) perspective should be used, which consists of either "also known as," "alias," or "officially called between such and such of dates." Zaereth (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard elsewhere is clear: use "also." It is simple and correct. I don't understand Cullen328's point: I agree that Denali is the "current" name, and that's why the article was correctly moved to "Denali" and Denali is listed first. "Formerly known as" is something different and stronger: it implies that nobody refers to it as that anymore, like the examples given earlier on the talk page (Idle Wild Airport vs. JFK, etc.). Again, the likes of Mumbai are instructive: its current name is indisputably Mumbai. It is also indisputable that there exist some people who still call / refer to it as Bombay. So... use "also known as," followed by alternate names. Any further details can be discussed in the naming section.

It's been pointed out already, but imagine an encylopedia published in the 1960s was writing this article, before Alaska changed the official state name. Would it be correct to say "formerly known as Denali" then? I would argue no. Such encyclopedias should have said "also known as Denali." SnowFire (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

As a side comment, part of the reason I'm strongly in favor of the neutral "also" comes from experience with articles in a far more toxic zone: petty nationalisms and multi-lingual regions. If for some reason you *wanted* to enrage people, I encourage you go to these articles and say "formerly known as" for other language versions of the topic. Is it A Coruña (Galician), La Coruña (Castilian), Corunna (Anglicized), or "The Groyne" (WTF)? Biel/Bienne? And so on. Just stick with also if there's even a hint of controversy, IMHO. SnowFire (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"'Denali /dɪˈnɑːli/ (also known as Mt. McKinley, its former official name) is the highest mountain peak in North America, with a summit elevation of 20,310 feet (6,190.5 m) above sea level."

Appropriately footnoted, could an opening sentence like that satisfy both sides? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a little long, but it does work for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I also have no objection to Vesuvius Dogg's wording. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I like Vesuvius Dogg's compromise. It satisfies the point I raised and, I hope, answers the point that the name is no longer Mount McKinley. Apuldram (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Or at least it answers the point that the name is no longer "officially" Mount McKinley. The Mountain still has a whole heap of still-used unofficial common names of which Mount McKinley is the most prominent. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection either. It's still present perspective, but someone will eventually come along and realize that it's outdated long after this controversy has ended so, if it ends the edit warring, I'm all for it. Zaereth (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Well sure, there are a lot of wikipedia articles that will need updating in 20 years. All we can do is stick with the now and work on things in the future when they happen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not what I mean. I was referring to writing style, not future events. Either way, doesn't matter in the here and now. (For clarification, however, "formerly" or "former" is a time-perspective dependent adverb, similar to "today" or "tomorrow." If I write in the article, "Four weeks ago the name was officially changed," the writing becomes present perspective, which quickly begins to look odd the further we move into the future.) Zaereth (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe this is actually important enough to merit this much discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How long before someone will switch "also known as Mount McKinley, its former official name", to "formerly known as Mount McKinley"? Mindraker2 (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that was faster than expected, but it looks like Professor JR just fixed the temporal problem by adding dates to the proposed text. This gives a time-dimension to the word "former" so I hope no one objects. Zaereth (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
See, that wasn't the consensus. And it's already been changed. Mindraker2 (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that in the opening sentence of the article, listing the two names that see widespread use (Denali and Mount McKinley) is important, but should be done with as few words as possible: "Mount McKinley (also known as Denali), is the highest peak...". The relative importance of the names is covered very well in the Naming section, and the main points are conveyed later in the lede. The naming history just isn't the most important thing and doesn't need to be conveyed in any detail in the first sentence; we just want readers who know the name by either but not both of the names to know they're in the right article. I'll boldly add a little bit more detail about the history to the lede, but not in the opening sentence. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2015

12.221.241.146 (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)copy right law first happened in 1414

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2015

Request removing the line "Prior to this, most Alaskans already referred to the mountain as Denali.[6]" as there is no evidence to support this claim and the source provided is only a quote that makes this claim rather than any kind of evidence. Booktorium (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done. You've presented nothing to dispute a sourced claim. Calidum 15:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Propose moratorium

Consensus per policy was no moratorium. (non-admin closure)Onel5969 TT me 12:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have seen endless discussions about the 'Denali' vs 'Mt McKinley' naming dispute. How long must Shall we postpone such discussions? George Ho (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Amended for more neutrality. George Ho (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Admin Slon02 is monitoring the page and wants to be sure things have settled down. Have the editors involved agreed to the consensus language? No more snowball fights? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have been monitoring the page and the discussion. Full protection should expire in about 12 hours, after which it seems as though there's been a rough consensus to have the article still named Denali, but to use the wording "also known as Mt. McKinley, its former official name". Further changes should only be made after discussion on this talk page, and if additional action will be necessary to prevent resumed edit warring, then that would be on the table.--Slon02 (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Assuming this RfC is about the sentence in the lede, I strongly favour Denali, formerly known as Mount McKinley. With no offense meant, I think the objections are silly. Sure, some RS (especially those published before the renaming) may use McKinley, and old habits die hard, but so what: the current official name is Denali and that's what matters. Some might still refer to the mountain as McKinley out of sheer force of habit, but that is not relevant. In the same way, Pluto is no longer a planet and its article should not say it is, even if many people still think it's a planet, and even if it's still a planet in the US state of Illinois. The expression "formerly known as" shows up all the time as well. A cursory search for example shows this headline news today: "LSU to beat the team formerly known as the Hurons, 52-6". Can we seriously believe that whoever wrote that article also verified that literally nobody in the world thinks of that team as 'The Hurons'? Just use 'Denali, formerly known as Mount McKinley' - I don't see any good reason not to. Banedon (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
This Rfc is not about the lead sentence Banedon, it is about the Denali vs Mt. McKinley article name, so the rest of your statements are not relevant here. George Ho, while I agree it is a tiresome discussion/arguments between editors, even if Wikipedia allowed moratoriums of discussions, (which they don't), what would you propose to do to someone who came along wanting to discuss it during this time anyway? Send them to bed without dinner as punishment? As another editor suggested I think it would be better to make a subpage for the discussion though, and ask people not to create brand new sections in that subsection just to discuss the same things. Itanaman Dakar (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
You are mistaken, Banedon. I was asking for moratorium (i.e. delays and postponements) on discussions relating to this matter, lead or article title dispute. --George Ho (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand. What else is there to discuss? Banedon (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you want three-month, one-year, or longer moratorium? As in, no such discussions for whatever time length you pick. George Ho (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
While I favor the current wording being as neutrally worded as we can come up with, it is absolutely against the wikipedia way to try and ban any discussions, even if it's only for a day. We can perhaps put all lead discussion on a subpage so as not to clutter this talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd say also formerly known as McKinley. It's not as if the thing wasn't called Denali before the formal rename, hence GMC Denali. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - summoned by bot. I dont see any need to have a ban on discussions. The title of the document is Denali and there would be need to be a consensus to change it. For interest, see Uluru. Flat Out (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose moratorium. Do the WP:COMMONSENSE thing: Use "Denali, formerly known as Mount McKinley". I'm old enough and apparently uncool enough that I had no idea these were the same thing and that McKinley had been renamed [back to the native name of] Denali. I can't be alone in that minor ignorance, so encyclopedic interests are served by having both names in the lead. It's standard operating procedure for alternative names that redirect to the current page title.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, please read the comment above by George Ho, who started this section, "This Rfc is not about the lead sentence, it is about the Denali vs Mt. McKinley article name". Apuldram (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Handling of the name

(Important: I have no beef with, or an educated opinion on, the renaming per se.)

I have been reading a number of pages on mountains and mountain climbing today. The way that the naming issue has been handled is extremely awkward, bordering on the idiotic, with endless repetitions of Denali and some variation of "previously known as". Individual "Denalis" without clarification occur to and are potentially misleading.

Fact: The mountain is internationally and historically known as Mount McKinley.

Fact: The vast majority of non-US readers will not be aware of the very recent renaming. (This includes myself, until today.) Considering the lacking general knowledge of the average American, I suspect that the same applies to a large proportion of them too.

"Denali" might be a better name and/or the current official name, but considering the above, it appears far more sensible to me to have either kept other articles unchanged until such a time that the name change was more widely known (how long this would be is hard to tell in advance, but just several months is not enough). If a change absolutely has to be made earlier, it would be better to use either "Denali (Mount McKinley)" or "Denali/Mount McKinley" until a sole "Denali" was warranted with an eye on the typical reader.

If in doubt, a left-over "Mount McKinley" will not confuse or hinder readers, while a premature "Denali" often will.

Side-issue: "previously known as" is misleading, unlike "previously named" or "also known as". Prince is still known as "Prince" to most people. Despite his own ill-advised renaming attempts, this might even be the most commonly used name. If "Bruce Jenner" is mentioned, basically everyone (who knows of this person at all) will know who is intended. Certainly, this is still the name to be found in most sports books and result lists. "Known" is not an indication of the official name, but of what name or names (including nick-names and similar) someone or something is known to others. The city of New York is not now, nor has it ever been, named "the big apple", but it is most certainly known by that phrase. 213.196.223.94 (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What we have now, arrived at by consensus, works just fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The editors who believe that the official view rules, may well consider that in all events 1917–2015, the mountain was officially Mt McKinley, and in those cases it should perhaps be referred to as such. It would appear as if Denali has been back-fitted into some of those events. Official designations however, especially when controversial, do not override their context. Wikipedia doesn't lend credence to external authorities to my knowledge, whether they be governments or not, but to references. If opinion b is clearly supported by many, then wikipedia reflects both a and b for the sake of neutrality. And wikipedia's adherence to a world-wide view, may mean that Ohioans have a say in this mountain's name, in the same way that Everest is imposed on Sagarmāthā. JMK (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
That point is already covered, in the article's first sentence, which was arrived at by consensus. Apuldram (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Precise metric elevation

Continuing the discussion at Talk:Denali/Archive 2#Precise metric elevation, a new article has been published: "Surveying at 20,000 Feet" by Mary Jo Wagner in The American Surveyor, November 2015 (pp. 10–19). The article gives several quotes from one of the leaders of the expedition that placed GPS receivers on the summit, Blaine Horner. The team hammered a 1-m range pole 86 cm into the snow pack about 50 cm from what appeared to be, by looking at the snow, the summit, and installed a GPS receiver on the top of the pole. Then they placed a second range pole 2.5 m to the southeast and leveled it so the tops of the two poles were level and installed another GPS receiver on the top of the second pole. Then they used a steel avalanche probe to estimate the snow pack depth, "a value never before measured." Two values are given near the receivers, 394 cm near the first receiver and 415 cm near the second receiver. The article does not come right out and give a value for the elevation of the highest rock elevation on Denali. Also, "Horner cannot state with 100 percent certainty that he hit rock." [pp. 14–15]

The organizations involved, CompassData, University of Alaska Fairbanks, National Geodetic Survey, and the United States Geological Survey "determined a final above-sea-level height for Denali of 20,301 ft (NAVD88), just 10 feet lower than the 1950's survey. The new, top-of-snow elevation was officially recognized and published by the USGS in September..." The various solution methods agreed with each other within 3 cm. Remarkably, the article does not state the elevation in meters, although all the other distances in the article are stated first in feet or inches and then the SI equivalent is given in parentheses. [pp. 18–19].

So it seems the biggest uncertainty is because of what the survey represents, the top of the snow. I think most readers would expect the elevation to represent the highest rock or soil, not snow. Furthermore, one would expect this to change at least seasonally, if not from day to day. So I don't believe it is appropriate to state an elevation with a precision of better than 1 foot or 1 meter. Also, the fact that this is to the top of the snow should be mentioned. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to make rock or soil head the new elevation standard, we have to substantially change the elevation of Mont Blanc and several other summits which are covered by permanent ice several tens of metres thick. We also have to reduce the elevation of the South Pole to below zero. Viewfinder (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Change related to this page

See Talk:List of extreme points of the United States § Denali for discussion of a related change. I mention it here, not to incite an edit war, but in hopes of inviting some WP:AGF-type collaboration. YBG (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Prominence is original research

To find a difference the prominence, two elevations above sea level must be subtracted. If reliable sources provide both elevations with reference to the same datum, such as North American Vertical Datum of 1988, it is a simple calculation that falls under the WP:CALC exception to the no original research policy. Since no reliable source has been provided for both the summit and the base elevation referred to the same datum it is original research by User:Buaidh. I have reverted the original research. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

In this edit User:Buaidh claims the prominence of Denali is "20,146 ft (6141 m)" and cites Peak Bagger as the source. But that source does not contain 6141 m, instead, the source claims the prominence is 6140 m. The source does give the prominence as 20,146 ft. It is not obvious from the source whether the US customary or the SI measurement is regarded as the authoritative measurement, and which is regarded by the source as a unit conversion. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This edit creates an apparent contradiction. As I understand it, the prominence for the highest peak on a land mass is defined as the elevation of the peak minus the elevation of the lowest pass on the land mass; in the case of the Americas, it would be the lowest pass across the continental divide. The edit in question implies that the elevation of the lowest pass across the continental divide is that found by the Nicaragua Canal Commission, 134 feet above sea level, in 1899. If that is subtracted from the elevation of the peak stated in the article, 20,310 feet, the result is 20,176 feet. Put the prominence stated in the article, which is taken from the Peak Bagger source, is 20,146 feet. Either we should accept Peak Bagger as a source and not try to explain their calculation (such an explanation would be original research) or we should reject the source and remove the prominence from the article. Accepting Peak Bagger but adding unexplained contradictory information is not acceptable.

The edit in question was [1] reverted by User:YBG Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the current state is just fine.
  • |prominence=20,146 ft (6140 m) in WP's infobox as of my edit linked above
  • Clean Prominence: 20,146 ft/6140 m in Peak Bagger as of just now.
So it seems to me that the two are in perfect agreement. My edit above removed a source that can be used to derive Peak Bagger's calculation, which would in fact be OR. YBG (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to end edit warring over the name

I have added some hidden comments to the lead and infobox, and created an edit notice for this page. These measures should make it clear to anyone wishing to just unilateraly change the name that they should not do so, and that they should propose any such changes here first. If they ignore all that, please make sure to direct them to the talk page and archives when you revert them (a talk page message is preferable to just doing it in an edit summary) so that they cannot claim they did not know about the existing hard-won consensus for the current name and wording. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it can be useful. I have been on top of that mountain twice and everyone around the mountain say "Denali". In the climbing community the mountain is called "Denali".--Silvio1973 (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hence the reason this article is named Denali. But it is also commonly called Mt. McKinley, so that is also mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Claims of wide spread use of 'Denali' prior to official legislation

The source provided does not have any evidence to back up the stated claim. I have heard this claim quite often yet I've never seen any evidence to back this up, only conjecture and anecdotes. Booktorium (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The source says this: "Today most Alaskans refer to Mount McKinley as Denali." Of course, this was prior to the official name change, so our article does correctly reflect the source. The book Michelin Must Sees Alaska says "Denali is the name you'll hear most often in Alaska for this most massive of all mountains; Alaskans of all heritages prefer it by far." This news article says, "Alaskans have long called the 20,320-foot mountain Denali." In 2015, the LA Times said, 'According to official U.S. maps, the mountain known to climbers as well as most Alaskans as Denali is officially Mt. McKinley." That was just from a quick search. Having been born and raised in Alaska, I find these statements to be accurate. Zaereth (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Changes to USGS Reference Links

At the USGS, we just recently changed our site and many of the news articles now have new URLs. I was notified that References 1 and 10 in this Denali page are no longer valid.

Reference 1 should go to: https://www.usgs.gov/news/new-elevation-nation%E2%80%99s-highest-peak

Reference 10 should go to: https://www.usgs.gov/news/old-name-officially-returns-nations-highest-peak

There may be other articles affected which I'm not familiar with. Sorry for the inconvenience but we wanted to be sure those links are updated for this article.

Thank you. Scott Horvath, Bureau Social Media Lead, USGS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.11.43.157 (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have made the requested changes. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Denali is not the tallest in terms of base-to-peak elevation difference

'Geology and features' section states that Denali is largest in terms of elevation difference: "Measured from base to peak at some 18,000 ft (5,500 m), it is also the largest of any mountain entirely above sea level". While Denali is very impressive there are bigger mountains in Himalayas/Karakorum ranges. Giants like Dhaulagiri, Rakaposhi, Annapurna or Nanga Parbat are true candidates for this title. For example Rakaposhi lies in Hunza river bend and rises nearly 6000 meters in only 12 km of horizontal distance. Dhaulagiri and Annapurna also rise 5500-6000 meters over 10-12 km. Obviously Denali never rises that steeply (max. 4600-4800 meters over 10-12 km and 5200 meters over 20 km) and the question is how long horizontal distance is allowed here? If we compare longer distance Asian giants are even more impressive. Annapurna rises 6850 meters over Nepal plains in just 20 kilometers, Nanga Parbat and Manaslu rise 7000 meters in 22-25 km. What is more, peaks like Dhaulagiri and Rakaposhi truly dominate their surroundings in all directions (i.e. vertical relief of 5000-5300 meters in 20 km averaged over all directions - comparable to Denali's maximum vertical relief over that distance). Obviously there are many other mountains in that region with huge vertical rise over surrounding terrain which I didn't mention so far (i.e. Haramosh, Annapurna II, Ngadi Chuli or Gyala Peri) so comparing Denali to Everest for example (which rises from high, glaciated area) doesn't make much sense. --1123581321 (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

When discussing mountain heights for a general audience, it's customary to first mention the elevation of the summit above sea level. Base to summit vertical distance can also be discussed, but elevation above sea level is generally the first thing mentioned. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The article states that Denali is largest in terms of base-peak elevation difference. It's wrong and I brought up the arguments regarding it (I've done some research using GoogleEarth as well as my own software). This information should be removed as largest Himalaya/Karakorum mountains (especially those relatively close to river valleys) are unmatched in terms of vertical relief. --1123581321 (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Some of the terms in the article have highly technical definitions. Please supply an exact quote that will allow other editors to identify the exact spot in the article that you have an issue with. Please use the search feature within your browser to verify that the quote you supply will allow other editors to find the exact spot by doing a browser search. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
1123581321 might be right, but a reliable source that is cited in the article supports the article, stating

At 63 degrees north, Denali, in addition to being the highest peak in the northern arctic latitudes, has the highest base-to-summit elevation of any mountain on Earth, rising 18,000 feet from its base. Everest, by contrast, is only a 12,000-foot-climb from the glaciers at its base. [Nova online]

In case 1123581321 is unfamiliar with Nova, it is the premier science series on the US Public Broadcasting Service, and has been broadcast for 44 seasons. If the user wishes to challenge the claim, a Reliable source should be supplied, especially since the base elevation does not have as obvious a definition as the summit elevation or sea level. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that vertical relief rankings are almost non-existent over the internet. David Metzler introduced Reduced Spire Measure (http://www.peaklist.org/spire/lists/ more complicated formula) to assess peak "impressiveness" (Nanga Parbat, Dhaulagiri and Rakaposhi are top3 not surprisingly) but term "base to peak" height is more subjective. Should we take into account only one direction in which elevation gain is the largest or average of all possible directions? How long horizontal distance is allowed? (i.e. if we allow 50 km then some asian giants would rise > 8000 meters over this distance). However, based on measurements (Google Earth and Aster GDEM data) it's clear that Denali loses to Rakaposhi and Dhaulagiri in all of mentioned cathegories (no matter if it's largest or averaged vertical relief and no matter if maximum horizontal distance is 10, 15 or 20 km). Everybody can check it on GoogleEarth. In addition I have my software which uses elevation data from ASTER GDEM and I can provide some data/charts generated by it. No subjective statements like "this is the tallest mountain on earth" can beat data generated by computer programs. --1123581321 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOR. We shouldn't do our own calculations. We should get a result from a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Somebody said that Denali is tallest in the world without proving it (just a subjective statement) and it's cited on wiki. However, to contradict this statement one need a lot of effort. It should be completely opposite - such subjective statement shouldn't appear at wiki at all without proving it (and giving precise criteria). No calculations? Ok, sources are available: GoogleEarth program and ASTER GDEM elevation data (http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/) - but one needs to check it by himself (the latter source require some software to process it). This data is much more reliable than any statement. In addition here (http://www.summitpost.org/page/173510) is also information about Rakaposhi uninterrupted vertical drop of 6000 meters. --1123581321 (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The main focus of the Nova online story wasn't whether Denali had the greatest difference between base and summit elevation, and even reliable sources don't always thoroughly research things they just mention as an aside. If you want to delete the statement in the article, I won't object.
That said, it is only Wikipedia editors who must back up what they add with reliable sources (and only routine calculations are allowed for Wikipedia editors). Reliable sources of course are not part of Wikipedia, and are not subject to any Wikipedia policy, including WP:NOR. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I removed one sentence about it from the introduction and changed 'Geology and features' section a bit. Instead of stating that it's the largest I changed it to 'among the largest' - this more general statement is true. I also mentioned examples of taller mountains (Rakapohi, Dhaulagiri and Nanga Parbat) with some references (not sure if a topographic map can be a source - third reference). Optionally I can remove this whole fragment (base-to-peak elevation, Everest etc) but the section would be very short then.. --1123581321 (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The change seems OK to me, thanks. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Denali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Highest relative to base

This edit summary contained two incorrect claims. Vertical rise relative to base can exceed prominence if the rise is not on all sides, and the sources given are not mere forum posts. Rakaposhi has a summit that is more than 5800m higher than its base on its north, south and west sides, albeit it is connected to the High Asia plateau on its east side. Viewfinder (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The prominence is often shorter than the vertical rise. If you think about the prominence of the mountains in a single mountain chain, the vertical rise would be measured from the top to the base, but the prominence is measured from the top of the highest mountain to the lowest point on the ridges that connect the chain, which are usually higher than the base. Global prominence works along the same rules. The prominence of Denali is determined by the lowest point on highest ridge between it and that mountain in South America (can't remember its name, but it starts with an "A".) Zaereth (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Russian name

The article states that Большая Гора is the translation of Denali. That would be Высокая. Большая Гора corresponds rather to the Dena'ina name, Dghelay Ka'a, or its Ahtna cognate. phma (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A late reply, but I would think what the Russian name is would be whatever the Russians actually called it during the Russian America period, otherwise it’s not relevant. Whether either of these is in fact what they would have called it, I have no idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

2nd-Grade level writing in intro lede

The year is 2018 and the English Wikipedia article for the tallest point in the USA seriously has such an shittily written, child-level introduction lede? Random links, uncapitalized first words in sentence, gratuitous spaces, and nonsensical drivel about the elevation before summarizing other important factors? The article introduction sounds like it was written by some <redacted>. This is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and the greatest lapse of unprofessionalism I have ever seen here in any article. And an article as high-profile as Denali? This seems unbelievable. Am I in the Twilight Zone? Please fix.

172.58.217.43 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Seriously ... "Denali rises about 18,000 feet (5,500 meters) from its base, which is a greater vertical rise than Everest's 12,000-foot rise (3,700 meters) from its base at 17,000 feet (5,200 meters),(source livescience.com.) although not the tallest if measured this way, it comes in second behind Mauna Kea. if you exclude mountains that start underwater like Mauna Kea then Denali would be the tallest" - what a laughing-stock! It might as well go on to say, "denali is a pretty cool mounting if u think abt it. it is rly high and also it is very prominent. thank u 4 reading abt this mountain".

172.58.217.43 (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • You might want to not make ethnic slurs if you want people to listen to you, I have removed the one you made for you. Also, WP:SOFIXIT if it bothers you so much. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Beeblebrox for expending your energy deleting my "ethnic slur" in the talk page while doing nothing about the existence of the following in the first part of human civilization's 2018 Wikipedia article for the tallest mountain in the most powerful nation on Earth: "from its base at 17,000 feet (5,200 meters),(source livescience.com.) although not the tallest if measured this way, it comes in second behind Mauna Kea. if you exclude mountains that start underwater like Mauna Kea then Denali would be the tallest . With a...." LOL! I will leave it to someone else to fix since I have no history writing this article nor advanced knowledge of the topic. It is just unbelievable that this has been left here and someone needed to call it out. 75.68.35.78 (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Now we know what type of person you are, IP editor 75.68.35.78. You are the type who makes ethnic slurs but will not do the work to help improve an article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The current lede is the result of weeks and weeks of edit warring that occurred after the official name-change. Few of us who went through that want to repeat the process, so we leave it as consensus stood. No one here is bound by some duty to fix this article, but we do have a duty to maintain civility. Beeblebrox is right, instead of wasting time, energy, and space complaining about it, fix it. Zaereth (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys, just fixed it. Feel free to improve if you can make it better. How come you all sat here and whined about me indicating it was written like some <ethnic slur redacted again> rather than going and fixing it yourself? WP:SOFIXIT if my "ethnic slur" bothered you so much. Lighten up. Thanks. Happy the article looks professional again and God bless Wikipedia. 75.68.35.78 (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I just walked into this discussion after seeing various individual edits come across my watchlist, so therefore I did not see what this so-called ethnic slur "controversy" was all about. As "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" is rampant around here, I'm sure no one is likely to tell me, either. I am seeing the usual tired old routine involving the same old admin clique showing up somewhere to blindly stand up for each other, however, so I felt that some common sense may be in order. As Zaereth alludes to, the lead section contains multiple hidden comments in big, bold text roughly to the effect of "PLEASE DO NOT ALTER THE NAME OR CHANGE THIS SECTION WITHOUT A PREVIOUS CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE". It would appear to me that this IP was capable of reading those comments and came to the talk page in compliance with that. Considering that, what exactly is your problem? Like I said, as I didn't see whatever this ethnic slur was, it's not of concern to me unless you're willing to say more about it. Blindly responding to the IP with SOFIXIT is highly disingenuous given the circumstances I've described. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Surely we can agree that randomly insulting a particular ethnic group is not a valid way to approach a discussion of content? Beeblebrox (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denali/Archive_5&oldid=1077783016"