Talk:Denali

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)

No one said it did. 47.161.0.95 (talk) 16:32, 17 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)

Socialism is socially owned, not socially produced for free. 47.161.0.95 (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Another way of saying "nothing is for free".213.230.92.64 (talk) 11:00, 18 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)

An online poll by Alaska Public Media found that, among 600 respondents (who were all Alaskan residents), about 95% preferred Denali over Mount McKinley. Not all Republicans are Trump supporters, and the Republican-dominated Alaska legislature passed a joint resolution urging Trump to reverse course. GN22 (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Mt. McKinley is on federal land maintained by the federal government; if it has any official name, it is only that given to it by the Department of the Interior. The mountain is equally maintained not just by Alaskans but all American citizens, and the right to name it rests with the democratically elected president’s senate-confirmed appointee. The name of this article should reflect the commonly used name among mapping services, reliable sources, and the government that maintains the place. 2601:840:8080:6850:D435:498E:9DE:E0 (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be written from a WP:GLOBAL perspective. Which name the ~700,000 people in Alaska prefer is, to a good approximation, irrelevant for a mountain of national to international renown. Jbt89 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Alaska is a state that is subject to law of the national federal government. We fought a civil war over this exact thing.

Naming geographical as well as political bodies is one of the most basic tenets of national self determination. The 'global' perspective on the name of the mountain is Mt. McKinley because that is what the nation in which it exists calls it. This is just basic, unambiguous Westphalian doctrine and any country's refusal to recognize this would be a rather slippery slope geopolitically.

Jibolba (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources? GN22 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Constitution of the United States

Charter of the United Nations

And if you are so inclined

Nation state Jibolba (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn’t follow “Westphalian doctrine”, and while the official name given by the US government has some inherent relevance, Wikipedia:COMMONNAME will just about always trump it. 296cherry (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

That is actually not true at all. It really depends on which editors are doing the arguing on a given day. Many times at Wikipedia it is the official name that gets changed almost instantly, regardless of common name. Just not this time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Continuously harping about perceived inconsistency is irrelevant to this page. Wikipedia SHOULD follow policy; just because editors on some other page decided to ignore it doesn't mean we should as well. 296cherry (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

'Wikipedia doesn’t follow “Westphalian doctrine,"

You seem to be very unaware of what you're saying, but I want to let you know that it is one of the funniest things I have ever read on this website.

If that's the case then we got some serious work to do over at that Earth article!

Jibolba (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

"You seem to be very unaware of what you're saying" I'm perfectly aware of what I'm saying, I don't need you to speak for me. Yes, obviously most geography-related articles follow Westphalian ideology because that is the most common among sources. Wikipedia as a whole does not, however, and it doesn't follow any one particular worldview. 296cherry (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The most famous online encyclopedia, Wikipedia has an influence on what the common name is. If Wikipedia calls the mountain Denali, people will rather call it Denali. If the page's name is Mt McKinley, people will refer to it more as Mt McKinley. So in a way the name of the WP page decides itself what the common name is. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 07:01, 20 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)

I just found an old post from 2006 stating, : As the article now states, the name is officially "Denali" according to the Alaska Board of Geographic Names. It's just that the national board officially disagrees. So both are "official", you just have to pick your authorizing organization." - BT 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC) GN22 (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

And as has been discussed ad nauseam even if the official name had bearing on what this article should be titled (which apparently it doesn’t, unlike Kiowa which was/is not the common name of that mountain, and also undermined by the fact that the now repealed/replaced Obama DoI order was cited), the federal official name would supersede the Alaskan name. The mountain is on federal land in no way maintained, taxed, or governed by the State of Alaska. What the state of Alaska calls the mountain is no more relevant than what any other state calls it. 2601:840:8080:6850:40DA:D98D:F666:DD7F (talk) 00:48, 19 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)

There is a consensus, most comments here were in favor of using the name it had been known by since the late 1890s. But the few people who don’t like Trump refuse, coming up with contradictory and hypocritical excuses as to why it should be Denali. Excuses to cover their political opinions. 24.177.180.213 (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC’s are not majority votes but are discussions based on the merits of the arguments. We simply hadn’t seen the majority of sources state that the name of the mountain is Mount McKinley first. WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:GOODFAITH. I’m getting tired of this. GN22 (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This Google Trends shows that searches for "Denali" are way up compared to "Mount McKinley" over the past 7 days in the U.S. This shows the prevalence between "Denali" and "Mount McKinley" searches worldwide. In the U.S., it’s a clear 72-10 for Denali, and worldwide, it’s Denali 53-9. GN22 (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Shameful as it may be, Americans are far more interested in pick up trucks than they are geography. We are a famously parochial people.

If you add 'Trucks' to the list of terms you will see that its popularity follows 'Denali' in an almost parallel pattern. We have been over this. People searching 'Denali' are more often than not researching pickup trucks. Google 'GMC Denali sales by year'. It corresponds perfectly to the Google trends data.

I can only assume you are not American. This is such a non-question for the vast vast majority of Americans. 'Denali' is basically an in-joke at this point. Jibolba (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s clear that we have no consensus on the matter, and I still think we need to make a compromise: use both names in the title. GN22 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

But you need to stop changing all references of "name" to "designation." Those are POV edits. If you are going to minimize the official federal name then you also have to minimize the official state name. They are either all federal/state designations or all federal state/names. Only doing one change is not right and i keep summarizing that in my reverts. It's all or none in prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:03, 17 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)

WP:BIKESHED. Literally no one on earth should care whether some all-caps is used in a hidden comment. To edit war on this is WP:TROUT-worthy in the extreme (to everyone involved). Please find something meaningful to discuss. This page is for improving the article, not for editors taking weird pot-shots at each other in a personal squabble with no real-world consequences of any kind.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't edit war, neither did the other wikipedian. Edit warring is only considered after an editor violates WP:3RR. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC How is COMMONNAME deduced here?

This article does not follow WP:COMMONNAME. I would point people to the precedents set by the move request from the name Bangalore to Bengaluru in 2024: Here. Realistically, Bangalore is far more commonly used name both worldwide and in India. Regardless, that is an essentially anecdotal, subjective statement and there exists a WP standard for this reason. The Bengaluru moves adheres to the standard.

This article adhered to the standard when it changed to 'Denali' in 2015. It currently does not. It is factually true that the AP as well as Britannica are following the federal name change. This is not to mention that every map of the world in every textbook and atlas used in US schools from 1896 to 2015 used Mt. McKinley. I don't believe it is unreasonable to assume this to be proof of a status quo. The Obama name change was an obvious deviation from this well established status quo of more than a century – Wikipedia followed it still, as it was in accordance with COMMONNAME standards.

I would like to understand why that same standard is not being applied presently. We are either to say the COMMONNAME rules are in need of relitigation, or the article title must be changed to 'Mt. McKinley'. Jibolba (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a malformed RFC. RFCs must be neutral in tone, and ask a direct question for the participants to weigh in on. This is more of a call for debate with a specific desired result. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Granted, I will remove some of the more charged language.

However, I think the question is clear. Why is the COMMONNAME standard not being applied? What makes this an exception to the rules established (with great clarity) in the 2024 Bengaluru move as well as the 2015 Denali move? Jibolba (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I simply don't think we’ve had enough time to assess which way RfCs are breaking as there isn’t really too much coverage on the mountain. Alaskan news sources will say Denali, and it's what most of the people in the area call it. Also, the rules of Wikipedia aren’t set in stone, see WP:IGNOREALLRULES. Consensus is what matters in deciding whether to change the article title, and we had a recent RfC and no consensus came out of it. GN22 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there hasn't been much evidence one way or another, though this was also the case in 2015. Outside of Alaska, there was no public demand to rename the mountain.

In this case, does the 100+ years of calling it McKinley not place a pretty substantial burden of proof on 'Denali' being the common name? In the absence of said proof, why are we deferring to Denali? Jibolba (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Your question has been covered adequately in the voluminous discussions above. People do believe COMMONNAME is being applied, they just disagree with your interpretation of it. They do not believe there is an "exception" here. I don't think you should reword your statement, but I do agree with GN22 that you should simply withdraw this RFC as premature. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Let me say it another way.

We are about a month out from the executive order, and we have reached no consensus. This is perhaps due to the fact that the established process in determining COMMONNAME is difficult to follow in this context.

Why don't we try to establish some standard or set of criteria that would facilitate more productive discussion. Jibolba (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

"A month out from the executive order" = WP:RECENTISM, and you seem to be under the mistaken impression that US presidential exec. orders have anything to do with how WP and the reliable sources it is based on approach toponymy (which is not a correct assumption).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

You mean two months and two days out. GN22 (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen". Jibolba (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed this is a malformed RfC, being a ranty advocacy piece instead of neutrally asking the community a question that needs resolution after prior attempts to resolve it have failed. Also, this is the wrong process anyway; article titles are determined by WP:RM not WP:RFC (except when repeated RM and WP:MR cycles have failed to produce a consensus, and even then using RfC to get to a consensus on a title question has actually aroused some controversy, so should not be undertaken except as a very last resort). PS: We don't have any interest of any kind in what old sources preferred. COMMONNAME determinations are based on what recent sources are doing not what all sources back to the beginnings of publishing were doing. Otherwise we'd go move Romania to Rumania and Thailand to Siam and Ramesses II to Ramses II.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC); revised 18:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

My point is simply that there are a lot more people alive today born between the years 1896-2015 than there are 2015-2025. In America, most of the former went to public schools where they were taught elementary American geography including 'Mt. McKinley.

Unless, as we have tried and tried again, you have evidential proof of Denali being the common name, I find this fact to be at least some form of evidence as opposed to what we have now, which is nothing. Jibolba (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Pshah. This takes like 5 seconds to demonstrate [1]. PS: WP also really doesn't care that two particular American publishers have politically caved to a particular official's demands. Our article remains at Gulf of Mexico, too, and will continue there absent proof that nearly the entire English-language publishing world has switched to the "Gulf of America" neologism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. The Gulf of Mexico is not solely US sovereign territory – there would be no reason to change it. Mt. McKinley is US land. Jibolba (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

That's not how RS or COMMONNAME works. Your arguments don't make a lick of sense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you trying to argue that the Wikipedia common name standard takes into no account the sovereign rulers of a piece of land? It is entirely irrelevant?

Then I'm trying to figure out: what is the relevant info here? Jibolba (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Which part of reliable independent sources are you having trouble with? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Point me to them! Jibolba (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

So you're pointedly ignoring the lengthy discussions above just to pick a fight. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Every source that has been provided is either an op-ed or a report on the grumblings of some local Alaskan congressman. In no way does one regard this as evidence of a national consensus. The sample size is at most a thousandth of one percent of the US. This is not evidence. Jibolba (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

What do most people around the world who have heard of the mountain call it? This is the Google Trends comparison for Denali/Mount McKinley, and Denali clearly comes out on top. GN22 (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Procedurally Close. This does not follow the standard for an RFC. Attempting to force your preference by starting a malformed RFC teeters on disruptive. 296cherry (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

"Native"

I have replaced "Native American" with indigenous because the former is a US government term and the indigenous people at the time would not have viewed themselves as "Americans". Their "tribal" name could be used instead. There are other instances of "native" in the article but usage is not clear-cut so I have left them alone. For example, native language. Also, the children's television program apparently uses the term native Alaskan. The description of the first non-indigenous person is unclear because it also uses the term native Alaskan. Humpster (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

That's probably a mistake, since a strong proportion of Native Americans call themselves Native Americans and most reliable sources (including recent ones) also do. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy of language-"reform" or other agendas.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this article is part of English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. So with respect to names and terminology, while American language and perspective naturally apply, an international point of view can also be considered. Hence, the term "indigenous" which is recognized by the United Nations rather than Native Americans, just as "Gulf of Mexico" is not solely a US issue. Humpster (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this change and restored it. See for instance Banff_National_Park ("Prior to European contact, the area that is now Banff National Park was home to many Indigenous Peoples") and Mount Baker ("Indigenous peoples have known the mountain for thousands of years"). Alaska was not part of the US until 1867 as well. Calwatch (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

And I disagree and have changed it back to original wording. Heck eskimo is still in normal usage but Native American is probably the best fit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

"Native American" refers to the Americas, not the country USA. And it totally doesn't matter whether you call them indigenous, native American, Indian, tribal, Koyukon or something like that. How nice you don't have any other worries. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

That's simply not true - Native American is a term nearly exclusively used in the United States. In Canada, another English-speaking country, Indigenous/First Nations/Aboriginal is the preferred term. In the English speaking countries of the Carribean, generally the actual indigenous group's name is used as generally most islands had only one, primary indigenous linguistic/ethnic group. In Portuguese or Spanish speaking countries, there is no cognate for Native American, like americanos nativos, used at all. This is an exclusively U.S.-used term. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I thought "aboriginal" is only used for Native Australians. Whatever. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Counterpoint: "Native American" usually refers to Native Americans in the United States, just as "Americans" usually refers to US-ians and "America" to the US. And Elon Musk is not much of an African-American. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

If Native American really means "U.S. American" I would also oppose the term because they originally aren't Americans nor Canadians or any other modern country's. And some tribes are cross-border, such as the Tlingit from Southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia. I always used the term in the meaning of the continent, not a country. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

This Whole Talk Page Agrees

Practically everybody on this talk page agrees that we need to change the name. I will change it immediatly. Vanleos (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Says the 40-day-old account with 7 edits to its credit. How about giving this a rest? I'm rather tired of seeing it pollute my watchlist. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

How to change the title? Vanleos (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Go through an actual move request, there is not consensus, here or in the real world. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Britannica, Google Maps, Fox News, and about 1,000,000 other websites have adopted the change. Why not Wikipedia? Vanleos (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Denali/Archive_7#Requested_move_24_January_2025. Short version: people talked, no WP:CONSENSUS happened, and on this website that means no change. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on consensus; changes to pages, especially controversial changes, require the community to largely agree on the direction being proposed. Apart from that, Alaskans by and large have not accepted the McKinley name - Alaska Senators Murkowski and Sullivan are seeking to restore Denali as the name, the park its located in is still Denali park, Alaskan government websites continue to use Denali as the name, local news papers largely continue to use the Denali name and polls suggest most Alaskans oppose reverting to the McKinley name and support Denali. That is all to say, there is not even a shred of consensus that the McKinley name is widely accepted, least of all by the locals to the state where the mountain itself is located. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

So, when Obama changed the mountains name to Denali, Wikipedia obeyed him. When Trump changed it back, nobody did anything. Don't you think this is kind of hypocritical? Vanleos (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

This point drives me up a wall. You are aware that Alaska makes up less than 1% of US population? Nowhere in any of these local Alaska news sources is it argued that this is a nationwide consensus. Jibolba (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

So what if local Alaskan newspapers call it "Denali"? Less than 750,000 people live in Alaska. However, global news, that the whole world uses, such as Britannica, Google, and Fox News, call it Mount McKinley. Even the Associated Press has adopted the name, and they are the most anti-Trumpist news on the planet. Cristiano Tomas, are you trying to suggest that tiny Alaskan newspapers, that less than 750,000 people use, are more valuable then worldwide news, that the entire world uses for information? Vanleos (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, the name "Denali" is present elsewhere as well such as in the name of the Denali National Park and Preserve. I think I'll make an RM to Denali / Mount McKinley in April. The last RM launched in January (albeit to Mount McKinley, not the double name) and there's a convention of waiting three months between RMs. A double name would be a temporary solution or perhaps even a permanent one. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Fine. We can include both names in the article. 199.85.82.130 (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed! Vanleos (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. It’s clear that there is currently no consensus on whether to drop "Denali" for "Mount McKinley" as the article’s title. Using both names (which are official at separate levels of government, Alaska and federal respectively) as a compromise is the best solution. It appeases both sides, and both names for the mountain are in common use. GN22 (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The desire to change the recognize the Denali name of the mountain came from Alaska by Alaskans, as far back as 1975, when Alaska's own state geographic board officially recognized the name. The Interior Department's recognition of that name in 2015 came after literal decades of Alaskan governors/state legislatures/U.S. senators requesting the Federal government to do so. If you don't know the history of this subject, just say so. Cristiano Tomás (talk)

The guidelines have a three month timeout after a discussion closes, which would be just another two months away. By May we should see some non-renaming articles about the mountain related to tourism. Here are some articles in reliable sources which call it Denali: [2] [3] [4]

A search for Mt. McKinley on Google News, using sorted by date, shows no non-renaming articles referring to the mountain as Mt. McKinley. So there is that. Calwatch (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DFTT 296cherry (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)