Talk:Denali/Archive 1

Denali or McKinley?
Should the name of this article be changed to Denali, with a redirect put in from Mount McKinley? (which is the reverse of how it's set up now). Denali is the original Native American name, and the name of the National Park (although per the US Park Service site, they call it Mt. McKinley in Denali NP, which is silly). I just made a similar suggestion on the talk page of Krakatoa (the real name of the volcano was Krakatau). There doesn't seem to be a consistent wikipolicy on this, as many geographical features have multiple names. But, for example, Ayers Rock redirects to Uluru. But evidently they decided not to rename Victoria Falls Mosi-oa-Tunya (the local name). Binkymagnus 01:32, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)


 * The official name is McKinley, and the most commonly used. Sometimes you'll see changes to native names - these reflect official name changes, which happen periodically, but not to McKinley. The cynics suggest that the park was named "Denali" as a compromise that allowed McKinley to stay as it is (as the highest peak in the US, it appears in print a lot.) Stan 05:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The article's name should be McKinley(official) but should be refered to as Denali in the article because Wikipedia generally gives respect to the local populatin's view. Most Alaskans I've met refer to it as Denali not Mckinley. 12.220.94.199 02:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Alaskans use both names, it is not really a big deal. Hudson Stuck, leader of the original climbing party, thought it should be called Denali. But Denali, which means, "Big Mountain", is also the native name for Pioneer Peak, and probably 20 other mountains in Athabaskan Alaska. McKinley is still the official name, and I propose that the article should continue use the official name to avoid a POV issue. When the official name changes, we should change the article name to follow it. RPellessier | Talk 17:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Regarding the repeated changes of the sentence "Denali is the name preferred by the mountaineering community": if you can provide a reference to support the change to "Mount McKinley", please do so on this page and we can discuss it. Please do not simply keep re-changing the sentence without support. Also, if anyone else has a reference supporting the "Denali" usage, it would be good to put it in. --Spireguy 17:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edits changing McKinley to Denali: please give your rationale here, and if it is generally desired, we can re-open the name discussion. -- Spireguy 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As an individual who lives in this region I have issues with the bias in the citation. The use of 'denali' and the assumption that this is fully accepted as a name/name change is in need of a citation or removal. The 'official' naming of geographic features is the purview of the United States government, not individuals, organizations or states with in the union. If some one was willing to site ALL of the names used (many that are not listed and are from various tribal groups)then it could be understandable to include them. The legal/official name of the mountain is Mt. McKinley. Citations for this can be found by the going to the group that names all geographic features in this country. Since, via review of other wiki pages, it appears that a community standard of using national designations has been accepted, why should an acception be made for this particular geographic feture? -- PandaKahn1:55, 13 September 2007 (AST)


 * The article name is "Mount McKinley", which follows the federal official name. That is in line with Wikipedia guidelines, as I read them. However those guidelines very much do not say that common alternate names should be suppressed. In this case, the alternate name "Denali" has a very high standing, being an official name at the state level, and also a very widely used name (E.g. I can think of four mountaineering guides off the top of my head which use the name Denali, although I can also think of one that uses McKinley---do a search on amazon.com, for example.) The fact that the name is controversial is also in itself notable, and that is why it is addressed in the article.
 * Given all that, I'm not sure what PandaKahn's objection is; maybe PandaKahn can make clearer where the supposed bias toward "Denali" lies. -- Spireguy 22:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This topic is currently being reviewed by congress. HR 229 introduced this year by Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio: “Notwithstanding any other authority of law, the mountain located 63 degrees 04 minutes 12 seconds north, by 151 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds west shall continue to be named and referred to for all purposes as Mount McKinley.” This issue is far from dead the Department of Interior recently stated, “The U.S. Board of Geographic Names will not render a decision on a name or its application if the matter is also being considered by the Congress of the United States.” --Aaronjhall (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's role should be to use the most common usage, which is Denali. Using the federal official name of McKinley is promoting a fringe POV - that of the United States Federal Government - over and above the most common usage.  Except by a few Ohio congresscritters it is almost always called Denali.  The Wikipedia article should be named Denali. 71.176.182.170 (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mount McKinley" is quite common, and certainly not a fringe POV. Look at books, articles, scientific reports, etc. Both names are quite commonly used. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why have Mauna Loa in here?
The article gives some comparison to Mauna Loa and Everest. I am not sure if they have any relevance.
 * I'd say the comparison to Everest is relevant, although the notion of "height above base" is intrinsically slippery. Denali's massive rise above local terrain is one of its key features. --Spireguy 19:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization, additions
I just added a lot of content to this article, and reorganized it as well. Feel free to make comments about the new organization; in particular I'm not wedded to this particular ordering of the sections. --Spireguy 19:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we add a section on "Geology". I tried to add an empty one but I guess I don't know how. When I did so, the [edit] buttons all disappeared.

Possible POV in "Name Controversy" section
Is it just me, or is that section biased toward the Denali side? I've added the POV-check template to that section for review by more experienced Wikipedians. &mdash;smably 19:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that material (although I did put it in the "Name Controversy" section), but I don't think it's particularly biased. The truth is that this mountain, more than almost any other, does have a lot of native-name support, so it's important to mention that. I would drop the quotes around "McKinley" though. (Also see the "Denali or McKinley" thread above.) -- Spireguy 15:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe it is accurate. It just looked to me as if it were saying "everyone agrees that the name is Denali, but some crazy congressman keeps introducing legislation so it stays McKinley", instead of "many people believe it should be called Denali; but others, including Ralph Regula, disagree". (In other words, it seems to be trying to convince me that the name should be Denali, instead of dispassionately presenting the arguments of each side. If there really is a controversy, surely there's more than one side to it, even if there is a lot of support for the native name.) &mdash;smably 20:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The text and controversy are accurate. I would not say merely Congressman, but people from Ohio defend that naming. The Congressmen are merely their representatives. Maybe the rest of us should consider renaming Ohio to Nukansas or something. --eugene miya [climber] 20:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * First: above I should have said "quotes around "official"", not "McKinley", in case that confused anybody. Second: I can see the interpretation smably put on it, and perhaps simple changes of phrasing would make it clearer. But I agree with Eugene that the substance is accurate. Third: I would leave it as referring to the Congressman, not something like "the people of Ohio." He does represent them, but I don't know of a statewide referendum on this particular issue. -- Spireguy 19:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and did a little tweaking of the paragraph. I dropped the quotes around "official", and added a sentence about the name McKinley having some general support, not just Ralph. Seems pretty balanced to me now. -- Spireguy 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be cool to have actual references for the position of the "Indian-rights activists" referred to, and for the position of the "mountaineering community" - just going by the titles in the references, publishers awkwardly squeeze both names in, suggesting that neither name alone would be satisfactory to much of their audience. Stan 22:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks for the work, Spireguy. That section sounds a lot more neutral now, to my ears at least. I'd be happy to remove the POV template, assuming that no one else has a problem with the section. Anyone have any objections? If not, I'll get rid of the template tomorrow. &mdash;smably 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you were editing while I wanted to place one more edit. Basically, I think the tone of what you guys are proposing is fairly neutral. It's not an issue that we are going to resolve here, but I think you guys are basically fair.--eugene miya [climber] 23:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Added note, one source of naming in the US if you want a link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Board_on_Geographic_Names . --eugene miya [climber] 23:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the note about McKinley's never visiting the mountain. In addition to being unsourced, it's really not relevant. Many mountains are named for people who never visit them; in fact many are named for people who are deceased. So there is nothing special about McKinley's never having visited the mountain (especially since it was hard to travel to Alaska at the time, he had a pretty demanding job, and he died four years later). Hence including it in this section is somewhat POV, IMO. -- Spireguy 14:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never even heard of the mountain being referred to as "Mt Mckinly", Only as Denali, I believe the native title should have precedence. Oz

I believe that the section on name controversy is still maintains unnecessary point of view and give too much prominence to this question in the article. I do not believe there is much controversy in the mountain's name. Although the previous writer has never heard of the mountain referred to as McKinley, the mountain is widely known by that name, even among other mountaineers with whom I climbed. The unsourced information on Congressman Ralph Regula should either be properly cited or removed. I also question the sentence "As decades passed, many began to view this renaming as colonial and disrespectful." Do many people view Alaska's relationship with the United States as colonial and disrespectful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 18:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it's a stale conversation, and what I'm about to say is pure original research, but I have lived In Ohio and Alaska and it has been my observation that people in Alaska almost always refer to it as "Denali" and most people in Ohio think Alaska isn't even in the U.S. and don't know or care about the name of the mountain. I quickly discovered that in Alaska, calling it "Mt McKinley" will get you a sideways glance and a you will be branded as a tourist as surely as if you showed up in Anchorage in July expecting igloos and polar bears. Probably APRN would have more information, and I would search for "Denali" since the media in Alaska always call it that, as do the official brochures from the National Park Service. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed link
I removed the link to the www.wildlifechronicles.com site. It was spam of a particularly poor nature: the link itself was broken, and when I looked around the site, the only thing I could find was a photo of McKinley with a caption which gave its elevation as 14,495 feet. -- Spireguy 19:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted weather pictures table
I reverted the added table and additional picture, since the additional picture is almost exactly the same as the picture in the infobox, and the table didn't work (it extended awkwardly into the next section). I think the point about the mountain making its own weather is made just fine as it was, and doesn't require an additional picture for contrast. -- Spireguy 19:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect?
Shall we ask for a semi-protect here? The ratio of vandalism to useful edits is very high. -- Spireguy 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Latitude and pressure
I partially reverted the recent change to this paragraph because the newer version was significantly less clear. In the process I also deleted the "proximity to the jet stream" part, which had bothered me for some time. The only mention I saw of that in the cited sources refers to the jet stream affecting the mountain in the winter, which is not relevant to 99.99% of climbing attempts.

In fact the basic claim that the effective elevation (in terms of atmospheric pressure) is a few thousand feet higher, while repeated widely, is still dubious, to my mind. I have seen calculations that make the effect rather smaller. However the claim as stated in the article is plausible and sourced, so I won't change it. -- Spireguy 22:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the point is that the atmosphere is thinner in the vicinity of the mountain, so that altitude sickness is worse than it would be at a similar elevation in a different location. But yes, only climbers get altitude sickness, not mountains. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be but as stated the association solely with latitude is misleading at best. The reference to (http://7summits.com/denali/denali.php) is also not applicable. I am done with this. ARS


 * Here's the relevant section from the above link: "The difference in the barometric pressure at northern latitudes affects acclimatization on Denali and other high arctic mountains. Denali's latitude is 63° while the latitude of Everest is 27°. On a typical summit day in May, the Denali climber will be at the equivalent of 22,000' (6900M) when compared to climbing in the Himalayas in May. This phenomenon of lower barometric pressure at higher elevations is caused by the troposphere being thinner at the poles." So it's definitely relevant; the problem I have is that it's not a very reliable source.


 * As to the other comment, I now see ARS's claim, namely that the article implies that the risk of altitude illness is solely due to the latitude, and not also (and primarily) due to the altitude. I think that may warrant a change, although I have to say that since it is called "altitude illness" the implication is pretty clear as to what the primary risk factor is. I guess that it's possible that a reader may simply not realize that a 6,000m+ mountain is not very high in altitude. (It's good to remember that what is obvious to someone used to thinking about mountains is not necessarily obvious to the casual reader.) I'll see if I can make a change that doesn't overelaborate the obvious. -- Spireguy 14:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is actually true. However the source claiming it is caused by the troposphere being thinner at the poles is gross oversimplification; it is actually the pressure change with height that causes this due to colder, denser air in higher latitudes.
 * $$\rho = \frac {MP}{RT} \,$$            $$dP = - \rho \cdot g \cdot dh.$$
 * The density $$\rho$$ is high when (potential) temperature is low, and so pressure must drop rapidly with height in a cold air mass, thus less pressure and oxygen at a given height above sea level in that air mass. The NOAA NCEP mean operational plots for 2008 indicate the 400 hPa (~24,000 ft) geopotential height difference between Nepal and Alaska is about 8.2%, so the claim about Denali summit being equivalent to Mt Everest at 22,000 ft sounds correct. -Rolypolyman (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is Everest Ranked 1st?
Mickenley is taller than everest yet everest is ranked first?


 * McKinley has a greater rise above its base than Everest (although this is an inherently ill-defined concept), but it is not even close in elevation above sea level, as explained in the article. -- Spireguy 02:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I read somewhere that McKinley was the tallest mountain in the world that had a base at sea level. It also said the Himalayas (including Everest) were hust peaks on a high plateau. Still, the mountains are grouped by height above sea level. Press olive, win oil (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys are mincing words. Not climbers, eh? First, the big difference between Himalayan peaks is that the air is a lot thinner on their sea-level difference.  This is why early Everest expeditions and most today still use O2. Second, McKinley is far from the greatest base to summit difference.  That's a somewhat US, non-climber nationalist thing which propagated decades ago. Without water, that distinction goes to Nanga Parbat which most non-climbers and most Americans have never heard of (I'm guessing there's a pedia link because the Germans and climbers know this better) by about 6,000 feet and other peaks of less difference.  Everest sits on a plateau.  With water/oceans, people variously cite either Mauna Loa (for bulk) or Mauna Kea, Hawaii (the whole Island, Mauna Kea is sometimes claimed to be more of a parasite volcano).  Furtherest from the Center of the Earth is Chimborazo. 143.232.210.46 (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Most Chinese and Indians haven't heard of the above either. Big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.20.179 (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Peak location in Artic Ocean?
Is it just my view, or does the map of Alaska showing the location of the peak show Denali to be in the Artic Ocean? The map for some of the other tallest mountains have this same problem (see K2)? --Beingzero (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Both maps work fine for me, so I'm not sure what the problem might be. -- Spireguy (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Weather on Mt. McKinley
I deleted the -100F Hudson Stuck thermometer reference for a few reasons:

1)the original source citing it (the Natick labs report) indicated that it was almost certainly not credible because minimum-registering thermometers MUST be placed horizontally or else the index that records the min. temp will just slide down the tube and hit the thermometer bulb. This is what happened with Stuck's thermometer; it was found in an inclined position with the index in the bulb.  It usually requires only a slight deviation from horizontal for the index to slide down into the bulb.

2)for the same reason as #1, the NWS in Fairbanks has said that the -100F reading isn't to be believed.

It may be possible for the temp to hit -100F, although probably not likely. The lowest reading over the dozen or so years' of data recorded by the automated station around 19,000 ft was -75.5F, meaning that the summit was probably at about -81F. So a reading of -100F would be quite a few deviations away from what McKinley has normally recorded.

I also added the low temp (-75.5F), windchill (-118.1F), and July readings from the data now available on the McKinley weather page cited at the bottom under external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treant985 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

How did the naming come about?
Quote: ''The mountain did not get much press until William Dickey, a New Hampshire-born Seattleite, who had been digging for gold in the sands of the Susitna River, wrote, after his return to the lower states, an account in the New York Sun that appeared on January 24, 1897. He wrote “We named our great peak Mount McKinley, after William McKinley of Ohio, who had been nominated for the Presidency”. By most accounts, the naming was a pure political one; he had met many silver miners who zealously promoted Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan's ideal of a silver standard, inspiring him to retaliate by naming the mountain after a strong proponent of the gold standard.''

This suggests that the mountain was never officially or semi-officially (e. g. on maps) named McKinley, but that this was just some claim some guy made in a newspaper article, which then became common currency. But is it true? Maikel (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "Denali"
At the top, it says "the great one": "Mount McKinley or Denali ("The Great One") in Alaska is the highest mountain peak in North America, at a height of approximately 20,320 feet (6,194 m) above sea level.[1]"

However, move down a bit to "naming" and it changes to "the high one": "The local Koyukon Athabaskan name for the mountain, the name used by the Native Americans with access to the flanks of the mountain (living in the Yukon, Tanana and Kuskokwim basins), is Dinale or Denali ("the high one", English pronunciation: /dɨˈnɑːli/)"

"The high one" has a reference but I'm reluctant to change the first paragraph considering it's such a prominent page and that nobody has done so yet (meaning there may be a reason). -- A L K  (Talk) 00:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Timeline Neutrality
The 2010 entry on the timeline doesn't strike me as being neutral or factual. It mostly seems to someone's opinion without being verifiable. Maybe bordering on libelous? Halfaseesaw (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been removed. I'm not sure quite what to make of it, but it doesn't fit here. I checked the newspaper archive and found a very short notice concerning the individual, which indicates this is not a notable event.   Will Beback    talk    11:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Prominence statement
The introduction says: "Measured by prominence, it is the tallest mountain in the world whose key col is not the ocean."

I found this an immensely confusing statement, bordering on POV. ("Counting the tail as a leg, a dog has more limbs than any other mammal"!) It is of course true that it is the mountain with the largest prominence value such that the key col is not the ocean, but surely it would be simpler and more effective to say "Third most prominent peak in the world after Everest and Aconcagua." ...?

Imaginatorium (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe... I wouldn't go so far as to call it immensely confusing, but on the other hand it does sound a bit like CN Tower syndrome (the tallest free-standing structure in the Western hemisphere!!). Alexius  Horatius  09:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. The statement would be confusing to anyone not completely versed in the concept of prominence and the definition of key col (a confusing concept in itself). Indeed the statement is true and is an interesting notion worded this way, but I would prefer the suggestion given above — replacing it with "It is the third most prominent peak in world after Mount Everest and Aconcagua."


 * It occurred to me that the sentence could just be deleted, because the infobox indicates it is ranked third by prominence and links to List of peaks by prominence. It is good practice however, to include infomation in the text that is reflected in the infobox.--Racerx11 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * After some thought, I think it may be best to replace with: "Measured by topographic prominence, it is the third most prominent peak in world after Mount Everest and Aconcagua."


 * My first suggestion could be misinterpreted as "Mckinley is the third highest peak in the world". With the latter, the reader would be less likely to confuse prominence with elevation and it allows linking to both topographic prominence and List of peaks by prominence. I will make the change after some time unless someone wants to boldly make it now or we come up with a better solution. --Racerx11 (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Replaced the sentence with "Measured by topographic prominence, it is the third most prominent peak in world after Mount Everest and Aconcagua."--Racerx11 (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I failed to mention before that for the statement to be completely understood, we would have had to also explain why Everest's key col is not the ocean, which would require an understanding of why Everest by definition has no key col and its special case consideration with regards to its measure of prominence, which itself is ill-defined without noting its special case.--Racerx11 (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One final point. One could also make the argument that if Everest's prominence is by convention given as being equal to its elevation above sea level, then one could also say its de facto key col is the ocean after all. Anyway you look at it, it had to go. --Racerx11 (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I added an earlier version that statement, but missed this discussion.

The point of the statement was that Denali is one of the tallest mountains in the world. It's taller than Everest, though I'll have to review Aconcagua (WP does not cover it). Topographic prominence may be of theoretical interest to geographers, but I think a statement about geology is pertinent. Geologically, Everest isn't all that large a mountain, as much of its height is due to the Tibetan Plateau, and while that is at least geologically related and so relevant in a geological discussion, its prominence its a purely artificial construct. What would be a good way to address this from a geologic standpoint? Base to peak, Denali is taller than Everest, and I suspect maybe Aconcagua as well.

Hm, I can't find Aconcagua base-to-peak. If anyone has a ref, pls let me know. Actually, a ref for the tallest mtns base-to-peak would be useful. (Yes, I understand that is not always a straightforward question.) How many are there between Mauna Kea/Loa and Denali? — kwami (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is really a confusing aspect of mountains, that is, the difference between tallest and highest. When measured from sea level, Mt. Everest is the highest at around 29,000 feet. However, it is certainly not the tallest, measuring only 12,000 feet from base to summit. McKinley by far outranks everst in the "tallest" category, but it is dwarfed by Mauna Kea, in Hawaii, measuring 33,474 feet from base to summit. But if you measure height from the center of the Earth, rather than from sea level, then Mt Chimborazo takes this prize. Chimborazo is lower than Everest when measured from sea level but, because the Earth bulges at the equator, it is nearly 9000 feet farther away from the center of the Earth than Everest. This information can be found in many sources, such as National Geographic or Nature and books like The Handy Geography Answer Book or The Finest Peaks : Prominence and Other Mountain Measures. This last book gives the lists of both height and prominence you're looking for. Zaereth (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it appears to be almost entirely about prominence, and the other values mostly things that would interest a climber, such a spire values. I don't see any base-to-peak height for Aconcagua.
 * It sounds as though Aconcagua has the longest slope in the world. Does the west slope truly continue all the way to the trench? That would certainly be worth noting at the Aconcagua article.
 * Also, Rakaposhi might figure in this. We don't have any details in our article.
 * I must say, distance from the center of the Earth seems rather meaningless, since it has nothing to do with mountains: the Challenger Deep is probably "higher" than the Trans-Antarctic Mtns by that measure. AFAICT, Denali is the tallest as you look at it (since you can't see most of Mauna Kea-Loa), and that should be of some interest. — kwami (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is partially motivated by a comparison with other mtns in the Solar system. Nowhere else do we measure the height of a mountain compared to some zero-elevation convention (though of course altitudes are measured that way), and nowhere else is prominence of a peak defined as the difference between the highest and lowest elevations on a world. So when we compare the highest mountain on the Moon, or Olympus Mons on Mars, with Earth, which measure do we use? Tharsis vs. Tibetan Plateau would be valid, but not anything based on sea level. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's calle geocentric measurement and can be found in many sources also, including the book I mentioned above. I included it mainly to demonstrate that "which one is tallest" all depends on your definition. Prominence, however, is almost even more confusing. It seems more of a measure of which is most impressive. According to The Finest Peaks : Prominence and Other Mountain Measures, "Prominence is more of a measure of a mountains stature than it's elevation." Everest has no defined prominence, because there is no "saddle" connecting it to a higher mountain. You could say its prominence is infinite. Aconcagua is connected by a saddle to Everest, but it is below sea-level, so Aconcagua's prominence is equal to its elevation above sea-level. McKinley is connected to Aconcagua by a saddle that is above sea-level, so McKinley's prominence is equal to it's elevation minus the lowest point in that "saddle" connecting the two mountains. McKinley's elevation is 20,320 feet, but it's prominence is 20,236.


 * The next most prominent mountain, Kilimanjaro, is connected to McKinley by a saddle that is below sea-level, so it's prominence is equal to it's elevation. The next most prominent peak is Cristobal Colon, but it's connected to Aconcagua by a saddle that's above sea-level, so it's prominence is not equal to it's elevation. Prominence is a very useful measurement, but has it's drawbacks also; one of which is being rather complicated. Other measurements include "drop" (base to summit "tallness"), roughness, etc... I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a correction on something you stated. Mount Kilimanjaro is connected to Everest by a 10 m saddle at Suez Canal. So its prominence is 5885 m, 10 m less than its elevation or 5895 m. Just an fyi.--Racerx11 (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem w prominence IMO is that it has nothing to do with the mountain. Ask a child what they think what saying how big a mountain is means, and you'll get either peak altitude or the size of the mountain geologically: what it would be if you sliced it off at its base and stuck it on a plate. If you gave people a clay model of a mountain, that's what most of them would measure (though granted they would argue over where the base was). What does Lake Nicaragua have to do with Denali? (Rhetorical question.)
 * I'm not sure "drop" is the term I was looking for this. According to your ref, the various drop measures are a function of slope and height, not a synonym for base-to-peak height, and are specific to a face of the mountain. I'm looking for a list of the second value a child/non-climber would be interested in: we have peak altitude, so how tall would it be if you sliced it off at the base? — kwami (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops. I guess I must've misread that somewhere. Base to peak measurements have proven difficult to find. I located a couple about Everest (Chomolungma), but couldn't find such a measurement for McKinley (Denali) or any other mountains. This doesn't seem to be a very popular way of measuring, but it seems that it'd be useful. Zaereth (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * P. 9 of your book mentions that Denali is the tallest mtn on land, which is good, because I was starting to worry about Aconcagua. (I'd heard that elsewhere, but it's nice to get confirmation. These "mostest" claims often turn out to be spurious.) The height they give is the average of the N & S slopes we already have.


 * I wonder if the reason that measure is not popular is that all of the world's tallest peaks would be little dots in the ocean? That would be like altitude, with Aconcagua not even breaking the top 100, but in this case it would be Everest that does not break the top 100. Altitude might be popular if you climb the Himalayas, and prominence if you climb the Andes, but who wants to brag about scaling the highest point in Tahiti without oxygen? — kwami (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I was gone for a while. I thought we had a solution, but apparently the issue was not just about prominence. The current statement now mixes two different concepts.


 * Measured base-to-peak, it is the tallest mountain on land, and the third by topographic prominence, after Everest and Aconcagua.'


 * Base-to-peak measurements are objective and are difficult to determine for most mountains. If you want to say something about base-to-peak that's fine, but don't mix it with a statement about prominence. Topographic prominence is an objective measure of a mountian and one that can be determined accurately for any peak. Prominence = Elevation - Key col. Base-to-peak measurement and prominence are two different things. Placing the two in the same sentence confuses the distinction.


 * As for the statement itself "Measured base-to-peak, it is the tallest mountain on land..." I don't like this at all. "Tallest" is not defined and is subjective. The qualifier "on land" begs the question for a reader "Aren't all mountians on land? Are they talking about underwater mountains or what?"


 * I think we should either remove the sentence altogether or revert back to simply "Measured by topographic prominence, it is the third most prominent peak in world after Mount Everest and Aconcagua." At the very least we need to separate any statement about base-to-peak away from topographic prominence. Like I said, two different things.--Racerx11 (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, any statement about base-to-peak would need a reference, since it is not obvious to be true. "Base" is not defined and also difficult to determine. Are we certain that the hundreds of mountains with higher elevations than McKinley are not "taller"? Where are the "bases" for these mountains?--Racerx11 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that prominence is far different than "base to peak" measurements. That was my main point; prominence is more related to elevation, although it is not actual elevation. It's something important to climbers, when talking about mountains that are all in the same range. It is probably best imagined as ... say, if you're standing on top of McKinley and decide that you want to go over to Mt. Foraker; what would be the shortest route in terms of elevation loss. I agree with Kwami, though, that prominence becomes a bit esoteric when talking about mountains that are half-a-world away from each other. (ie: The prominence of Denali is its height minus the lowest high-point between it and Aconcagua.)


 * This is complete conjecture on my part, but base to peak measurements are probably not used as much because of the difficulty in defining exactly what the base-elevation is. It's easy to say what the highest point of the mountain is, but not near as easy to find the lowest point on a face. However, an approximate mean-elevation has been determined for at least McKinley and Everest. (Approx. 12,000 for Everst and 18,000 for McKinley.) This info is available on multiple websites, such as this or this. For more reliability, I found this book at the liabrary, but could only get a snippet on google books. It gives McKinley's base to peak measurement of 18,900 feet. I also found it in the book Mountains of America, in a National Geographic, and a Nature magazine, but can't find those on google books.


 * Personally, I would leave that out of the lede, placing it in the Geography section. I would probably change the sentence, "Measured base-to-peak, it is the tallest mountain on land, and the third by topographic prominence, after Everest and Aconcagua..." to something along the lines of, "With an elevation of 20,320 feet, Mt. McKinley is not even close to the highest mountains in the world but, with a topographical prominence of 20,236 feet, it is the third most prominent mountain, below Mt. Everest and Mt. Aconcagua. When measured from base to peak, it is the tallest mountain that is entirely above water."


 * I would leave the mention about it being the tallest mountain above water, as I have found this in other sources, such as The Rough Guide to the USA, Polar Regions, and American nature: our intriguing land and wildlife. Zaereth (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I like your suggestions. That would be better than what we have in the article now.--Racerx11 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that it's the highest peak in NA and the tallest above water in the world are the kinds of things that would interest the average reader, people who know little or nothing of mountains. I agree that we should make clear that it doesn't compare to the Himalayas in elevation, though the wording suggested here seems a bit pointy. The fact that it's third by prominence can only be of interest to climbers (if even to them) and to geographers, who probably know it already. If anything should be removed to the text, it should be that. — kwami (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Highest in North America" is no problem. "Tallest above water in the world" demands a lot of explanations and disclaimers. What is meant by "tallest"? Tallest by measure of base to peak. Ok, how do you define "base" for this peak and every other peak in the world? What about "above water"? The entire mountain needs to be above water, right? See what I mean? Don't get me wrong, with a ref we can include it, but it may look suspicious to editors and readers without the explanations. With the disclaimers, it may read too awkwardly and look like a fact that is being "forced" into the article.--Racerx11 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As for your estimation of who would be interested in prominence, we should not presume to know which part of an article is going be of more interest to a reader. A reader may very well find the prominence fact very interesting and choose to explore the concept further. This would be a good thing. That being said, since its prominence and rank are displayed in the infobox, I wouldn't be completely opposed to deleting the prominence statement. On the other hand, if its OK in the infobox then why not in the text. It is in fact good practice to include information in the text that is also reflected in the infobox (may have said this already above). --Racerx11 (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I'm just making suggestions here, throwing them out there to see what sticks. I think it all, if properly sourced, is useful and interesting information. My choice of wording above was not necessarily to indicate that mountains in the Himilayas are higher. It was mainly intetnded to indicate to the reader that prominence is somehow similar to elevation, but not exatly the same. Most will read right past it, but some will think, "Hmmm, so how is this "prominence" different from elevation?", and click on the links. I also think that the "tallest" statement is well-sourced, and should stay as well. We shouldn't provide any conjecture about the information in the article. These arguments have merit, but really require better sources. I think, for the time-being, we should stick with what we have, until something better comes along.


 * Most times, I tend to think that a lede should be brief, something that elementary school students will be able to fully grasp. The first paragraph or two will probably be the only thing they read, so I usually try to keep it very concise. For "fun-facts" (interesting stuff, comparisons, and things that do not directly define the subject), I usually try to work them into the body of the article. Often times, for complex subjects, I'll usually add an introduction section, written more at a high-school level. These tend to be a good place for really prominent fun-fact (no pun intended). The BFM article is an example of what this format looks like. However, these are just suggestions, and I'm always open to any input. Zaereth (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't proposing that we remove prominence. Just that if we feel we need to remove s.t., that would be my vote. As for base etc, that's why we go with sources rather than OR. There are several sources that agree that Denali is the tallest on land. They can work out the complications. — kwami (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Zaereth, well shoot, I looked at the article aagain and this is all covered in the next section below the lead "Geology and features". Was this just added or has it always been there? In any case we don't need this twice. Can we at least delete the tallest statement from the lead? Its covered fine below, probably were it belongs anyway.--Racerx11 (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead is for a summary of the text. The fact that Denali is the tallest mountain on land is the kind of basic fact you want in an introduction. People are interested in the "mostests": the tallest, highest, biggest, etc. Denali is only the highest peak in NAm, but it's the tallest on land in the world. The geology section is where we'd explain what we mean by "tallest", why we have to say "on land", etc. I'd say prominence is of lesser interest, though as Zaereth says, that would be second-guessing our readers.


 * That was me on second guessing our readers btw. I will let it stand as is for now, but just for the record on the tallest statement, I disagree. I just don't like it. Its too subjective and something so subjective should not be given such prominent {excuse pun) space in this article. Lets just hang back and see if anyone else objects. If no one else has a problem with it, then it stays, ok?--Racerx11 (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, I am still gonna seperate the statement "Measured base-to-peak, it is the tallest mountain on land, and the third by topographic prominence, after Everest and Aconcagua." The way it reads now it implies a relation between base-to-peak measure and prominence.--Racerx11 (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer them to be separate too. — kwami (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Edited the lead making each statement its own sentence. Hopefully you allow me at least this fix. Actually, like I said before, the prominence fact really doesn't have to be there. It is in the infobox, so I would rather it be deleted entirely than to put it back the way it was. It confused the concept of prominence.--Racerx11 (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Questionable prominence
The prominence of everest and aconagua are the same as their elevation, that doesn't make sense considering they never are at sea level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WanderingE1000 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the way prominence works when used on a global scale. See the section directly above this one for further explanation.Zaereth (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Content from now deleted comments page
This content was originally at Mount McKinley/comments As comments pages are now deprecated that page has been deleted. Its contents are reproduced here in their entirety. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

B class as it needs more info on geology. Does the mountain have any influence on indigenous peoples? The comparison to Everest seems to be an "America has to always be #1" angle. Top importance as one of the 7 summits. RedWolf 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Downgrading to C class as the article has a lot of unsourced information including the geology and climbing history. The lead section is also weak, only mentioning the elevation. RedWolf (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

East ascent
Dear Editors;

The "Timeline" section of the Wikipedia article about Mt. McKinley omits reference to the first ascent of the East side of the peak via the difficult Southeast Spur. This ascent is reported in an article by Boyd J.Everett, Jr. in the American Alpine Journal 13, no. 2, page 381, 1963, in an article by Christopher Wren in Look Magazine vol 26 no. 21,page 69, (October 9, 1962), in an article by Samuel C. Silverstein in the Mountain World 1962/63 pages 149-160, and constitutes a full chapter (Chapter 14, pages 179-186) of Fred Becky's book Mount McKinley. The prominence of the magazines, journals, and books in which this article was reported indicate the high level of alpinism demonstrated by the members of the team that made this first ascent. I believe this noteworthy first ascent of Mt. McKinley via its eastern side should be recognized in the "Timeline" section, along with the first ascents of the peak from the north, west, and south. Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Samuel C. Silverstein, M.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSilvers (talk • contribs) 03:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Elevation
The new, lower figure for McKinley's elevation has gotten a lot of press, but I don't think it is the "official" elevation of McKinley yet as far as the USGS is concerned. At least as of today, the USGS’s National Map website says with regard to McKinley’s elevation that “While the DEM produced from the raw IFSAR data shows a somewhat significant drop in elevation from the 1952 survey, the USGS takes no position in favor of either elevation.” So for us to say that the USGS has "accepted" the new figure is a little misleading. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Source Issue
The source was removed today by this user, because I linked to this Denali article at an article on [Tina Sjogren] yesterday, under the Controversy section. The user 97198 is clearly biased -- the user removed the source because of having bias for Tina Sjorgen. Again, the source has been allowed to stand at this Denali article since 2013. While blogs are typically not considered reliable sources, as is evident the report at the blog is reliable journalism.
 * At the bottom of this section of this article I provided a source (#30) that has been allowed to stand since late 2013.  It is this
 * I will in the meantime add another source where the report is linked to. Everestrecords (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * User MONGO has done unilateral edits without taking part in this discussion in the Talk page. I removed the blog source, and replaced it with a well established Everest historian's website, who published an article about speedclimbing records on Everest.  The source qualifies as reliable.  I will begin a dispute resolution request if the user MONGO persists.Everestrecords (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't anything to dispute since your additions and references are not reliable sources. Self published websites are not peer reviewed and are not reliable. I'll clean up the rest of the article tomorrow.--MONGO 05:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The source is from Collin Wallace, an Everest historian. This is the About section of his website   He has on his own accord published the article on Everest speedclimbing on his website Articles section .  It's the first article at the top.  This is a reliable source.  It is not "self published". Everestrecords (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a self published website.--MONGO 05:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.everest1953.co.uk/about-us.html http://www.everest1953.co.uk/articles.html and this in particular http://www.everest1953.co.uk/speed-climbing-records.html The source is well established and well respected. Also, many news sources are self published, such as Explorers Web, which is published by 1 person, Tina Sjorgen.Everestrecords (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please help. User Mongo MONGO has been staking me around wikipedia over the last day, on the 3 different articles I've been trying to add to.  Please help with asking he/she to discontinue stalking me.  Demonstrates inappropriate interest in what I'm doing.  Also, I'm using a source from England, Collin Wallace's Everest history and Everest news website.
 * Don't forget to tell the admins about how you consider me to be mentally ill, etc. as you posted at my user page.--MONGO 06:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is clearly an issue that should either be resolved between the editors, and if it can't, be taken to the dispute resolution process. I'm not going to get involved, but at first glance, it seems pretty obvious that the source being used here is not a reliable source and seems to have serious COI/POV problems given your apparent affiliation with the website. I'll close the helpme-tag. I'll leave the admin tag in place for an admin to deal with. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 07:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see neither "staking" nor "stalking" by MONGO. I do, however see edit-warring, persistent use of unreliable sources, grossly unacceptable personal attacks, and other disruptive editing from Everestrecords. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Quarter
Perhaps this should be mentioned? I am looking at a 2012 US 25 cent coin, which opposite some old dead guy has an engraving of this mountain, with inscriptions at the circumference of "Denali" at the top, "Alaska" around 8 o'clock, and "E Pluribus Unum" around 4 o'clock. Yes, it should be in the article. I'll look for an image. Huw Powell (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be mentioned in Denali National Park and Preserve instead? HueSatLum 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't see the fact that Mount McKinley appeared on the Denali National Park Quarter as being especially noteworthy. 137.54.17.183 (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Factual error on "base-to-peak rise"
The current article quotes a base-to-summit rise of 5500 meters and claims this is the largest in the world, citing an erroneous statement by Helman 2005. To get even 5000 meters, you have to go far enough out on the tundra (more than 25km from the North Summit) that you're hardly "on the mountain", but more importantly, Rakaposhi rises 5900 meters above the Hunza River in 11km horizontal. There is no question that this is bigger than Denali and the Rakaposhi article says as much. Would the primary authors of this page prefer the statement removed completely or toned down to "one of the biggest"? In the latter case, Helman cannot be cited without a caveat explaining that part of his statement is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JedKBrown (talk • contribs) 05:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:MONGO Before reverting my change, can we please discuss it here? Helman's book is not peer-reviewed either and it's very clear from any map that the claim is erroneous. Let's not perpetuate factually inaccurate information simply because it found its way into a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JedKBrown (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Helman's book is a published source....do you have a published source to support your claim? I don't know if Helman is right or not but I have seen the same figures in other published sources. We only write what we can based on reliable sources.--MONGO 01:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:MONGO, what is your favorite map? Because all modern maps, Google Earth, and satellite DEMs agree that the Hunza River 11 km north of Rakaposhi is at an elevation of 1890 meters (36°14'37" N, 74°29'25" E) while the summit is 7786 meters. I've stood there and ground-truthed it on my way further up the Hunza. If you'd prefer words instead of data, John Cleare, "The World Guide to Mountains and Mountaineering", 1979, p161: "Nearly 19,000ft (5,800m) above the Hunza River stands the bastion of Rakaposhi." This figure is about 100 m shy of reality, presumably due to old/inaccurate data. Are these sources sufficient to reinstate my change or otherwise correct the article? JedKBrown (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We use only written published sources. One example I found in a few seconds was this one which states twice that McKinley is the tallest above its base. You may be confusing base for something else. A gorge 11 km away may not geologically speaking be the base of a peak. We can work on rephrasing and I am not opposed to wording that McKinley is one of the tallest peaks in the world above its base but however we word it, that must be referenced to a reliable source. Allow me a few days to look for more definitive answers.--MONGO 07:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * can we find more than one written reference that supports the issue of Rakaposhi? I'll look some more because it would be nice to get this sorted out.--MONGO 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "There is no precise definition of surrounding base" (from Mountain). To get 5500 meters for Denali, you have to place the "base" out on the tundra beyond the foothills and 30 km from the summit.  This is a very generous definition and Nanga Parbat has a more continuous grade for 6400 m in less horizontal.  I used Rakaposhi instead of Nanga Parbat (both of which are the tallest in their vicinity) as a counter-point because it is a steeper grade and indisputably continuous from summit to river.  As for printed sources, it is very clear that the books repeating the misconception about Denali are not using the terms precisely and are not peer reviewed (and peer review can miss a lot).  As someone that grew up in Alaska, I've heard the statement repeated many times, but repeating it doesn't make it true.  We're proud of our big mountain, but these people and the authors in question are not quantitatively comparing it to the likes of Rakaposhi and Nanga Parbat.  In lieu of scholarly work with precise definitions, I think maps are the best source.  (I don't see how the veracity of maps are affected by printing on paper, but there are many printed maps, any of which will confirm my statements.)  I can look for other books that mention Rakaposhi or Nanga Parbat, but facts are not democratically elected and if Wikipedia is interested in facts, looking at a map will remove any doubt in this matter. JedKBrown (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Page 47 of Gritzner's book says "This spectacular peak rises 20320 feet (6194 meters) above the surrounding plains, which are near sea level. No mountain in the world can match its vertical rise from base to peak in such a close horizontal distance."  This is unambiguously erroneous because (a) the rivers even 50km away are at 500 meters, so quoting the full height of the mountain is imprecise, and (b) Nanga Parbat's 6400 meter rise is greater than the entire elevation of Mt McKinley in less than 25 km horizontal with no intermediate foothills.  I have emailed the author in hopes that he will acknowledge the errata.  I also attempted to write Helman some weeks ago, but he has not replied. JedKBrown (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with maps is that they are primary sources. The problem with writing the authors is that it is original research. Unfortunately we are bound by what the secondary sources say until a better source comes along. If writing the authors causes one of them to change their book (or to write a new book) then we'd have a good secondary-source, but we really need one to support the statement before we can start refuting other sources. Zaereth (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've done a bit of checking online, like with google books, but can only find sources about Denali being the tallest. The Guinness book says Rakaposhi has the "sheerest" vertical rise, but only addresses Hawaii as the tallest. (It does say that Denali can be seen from the farthest distance.) Your best bet may be to write a book of your own, make some money, refute these claims yourself, and then wait for someone to add it to Wikipedia. (Just sayin'.) Zaereth (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats what I am seeing too. I agree with Jed that McKinley is likely not the worlds tallest peak above its land base but whenever we write about superlatives such as that we must follow what the reliable sources say even if they are wrong....otherwise we engage in original research. I have no problem rewriting the passage as I have suggested which would have the caveat that McKinley is one of but that isn't even what the sources say. I confess that I use maps all the time when I wrote short stub articles about mountains and take great leeway as to incorporating what I see but those don't have superlative statements.--MONGO 13:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The secondary sources in question are demonstrably *unreliable* because they contradict the primary sources. WP:Using_maps_and_similar_sources_in_Wikipedia_articles says that it is appropriate to use maps "to source elevations, [...] or relative locations".  Vertical rise is a statement about relative elevations and the data is staring us in the face.  Can we either use the map to source a factual statement or simply remove the statement that is obviously false?  Perpetuating a known-false statement seems contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. JedKBrown (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand us slightly. The point is that while maps could be used to reference a specific point, we can't conjure up statements based just on what we see as that becomes a violation of a core policy which is no original research...this is especially the case when we make any superlative claim such as the ones proposed. It would be greatly preferable is we had written and published works that support and override what we currently have.--MONGO 11:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If we had a precise definition of "base", then we could measure on the map and at least say that Rakaposhi and Nanga Parbat have greater elevation difference, thus contradicting the claim. But there is no universal definition of "base" (as stated in Mountain), so even though we are allowed to use measurements from the map as sources, and even though the statement is false with almost any imaginable definition of "base", we helplessly repeat folk legends because some secondary source wrote it down?  Editors of other articles exercise discretion by choosing not to repeat fables and creationist propaganda as fact, though by the logic in this thread, the Creationists need only invent terms faster than the scientific literature can figure out what the terms mean and publish refutations.  Should Wikipedia contain every published claim that isn't directly refuted by a majority of secondary sources?  Does every printed document get a vote?  Here we have secondary sources that might otherwise appear reliable, but make claims that are obviously wrong.  Let's use discretion to avoid repeating them as fact.  If you refuse to cite a map for an amendment to "one of the biggest", please just remove the statement entirely so that the article can be factual. JedKBrown (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The first thing to understand is that we are not against you here. Sure, we can arbitrarily remove it ... just to have it reverted again. That could lead to a nice edit-war and possibly to some great drama here on the talk page. Even if we get consensus from everybody, the information is still out there and will eventually get added again, and the whole thing begins anew. What we're suggesting is a more-permanent solution. Google books isn't everything, and there are plenty of places to look where reliable information can be found, but it may require some legwork on your part. (We looked around, but as the person who wants to make the change, the burden is really on you to do so.) This is why a really good, reliable source is the most desirable. (Personally, I don't feel qualified to interpret raw topographical-data from maps and then try to verify what you are saying, and many of our readers will feel the same way. Most of us will want to read it as interpreted by a qualified reliable-source.)


 * What we are talking about is not a statement of fact, but a superlative. You are always on tricky ground when dealing with the suffix "-est." Whose to really say what is the best, highest, tallest, tastiest, etc..., and what standards did they use. It is really just a conclusion based upon raw, available data, but we Wikipedians can't make those conclusions ourselves. If what you say is correct (which I do not doubt it very well could be), then you would think someone has written about. If not, then as technology advances I'm sure they will write about it soon, because people love their superlatives. (My suggestion above to you was sincere, and not outside the realm of possibility.) Zaereth (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Using_maps_and_similar_sources_in_Wikipedia_articles says "It is quite in order to state the “Valley X is ‘U’ shaped with glacial moraine at its entrance”". This appears to grant that at least some editors have sufficient expertise to reach this conclusion without relying on secondary sources.  I want to use an equally simple observation (elevation at two nearby coordinates, given earlier in this thread) as a counter-example to the claim made by a secondary source.  I don't need to say that Rakaposhi or Nanga Parbat is the highest (to do that, you'd have to define the terms and look at a lot of maps, which I'll grant qualifies as original research).  I only want to justify removing the false statement.  If a hypothetical secondary source said "Zaereth lives in the highest elevation residential dwelling in the world", would it be incumbent on the editors to find two or more published sources claiming a different dwelling is highest, or would it be enough to identify cities that are higher?  As a mathematician and scientist, a counter-example is all that is required to refute a claim.  Since the counter-example can be verified with only a passing familiarity with maps (certainly within the scope of the WP guidelines above), I think it should be admissible as evidence to classify the printed source as unreliable.  I originally came here because a friend repeated the statement and when I pointed out counter-examples, he was embarrassed and wondered why the Wikipedia page was incorrect.  I've never gotten this much resistance to correcting a factual error on Wikipedia before.  I have my own science to do and cannot justify the time to write a book just to fix a simple factual error.  Finally, I'm optimistic that we can delete the statement without causing an edit war.  Surely there are more controversial pages on Wikipedia, to which a great body of published-but-unreliable material applies, yet the editors use discretion to keep the articles factual. JedKBrown (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying, but how many times are you prepared to explain it? I have a very reliable source that says the beaches of Ecuador are higher than Everest, simply because the Earth is not round but oblong shaped. It all depends on a point of reference.


 * My point is this: I know a losing battle when I see one and I'm trying to help you avoid that. Eventually you will grow tired of defending this point you have so eloquently made and the statement will get added again. Somebody, somewhere will read it and try to add it, I predict sooner than later. Unless you can provide a source I'm afraid you may be fighting it a long time, and battlefields are not what we want to turn this place into. If you can't change it immediately it is not the end of the world, but patience and a little elbow-grease will serve you well on this. Zaereth (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As a simple, immediate, and maintainable compromise that avoids outright factual errors, could we change the wording to "some authors [cite Helman] consider the base-to-peak rise to be the largest of any mountain situated entirely above sea level [this is disputed, see talk page]."? JedKBrown (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this whole discussion about "factual errors" in base to peak rise misses the point, because there are no facts, nor is there a definition of the subject being spoken about. If Guinness or anyone else wants to define "base-to-peak rise", we can report it, but we should report it along with their definition, or at least a reference. There could be multiple sources with differing definitions, and we could report them all. But we cannot define it ourselves, nor can we create a category where none exists. I don't think we even know Helman's definition. Merely citing data about the elevation gain over a certain distance (which doesn't even satisfy the intuitive notion of base-to-peak rise anyway, for which we would need a circumference at the lower elevation) doesn't create a noteworthy category "base-to-peak rise" for mountains. I think the best we can do here is to say something clearly factual like "Helman (2005) reports Denali to have the greatest base to peak rise of any terrestrial mountain, at 5500 meters," along with any other relevant contradictory *published* statements we can find. Automeris (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This source says that Rakaposhi is the only peak which drops uninterrupted for 6000m. http://www.summitpost.org/rakaposhi/173510 --Guajara3718 (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Images and Wikipedia books
I'd like to put together a Wikipedia book on Alaska which includes this article. However, I'm wondering if the 3D image is the cause behind all the problems I've had so far. First of all, I initially had problems adding the article to the book. Once I got past that and finished compiling articles, I tried rendering the book several times and failed each time. Over and over, it stalled while processing media files, then when finished gave the following error message:"Generation of the document file has failed. Status: Rendering process died with non zero code: 1"I haven't had the time yet to pick the book apart to find the exact culprit. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Eureka" and Kantishna
Recently, I changed Eureka, Alaska. For years, it redirected to Kantishna, Alaska, presumably due to mention of some obscure decision of the Board of Geographic Names. The problem is, most uses of "Eureka" were for the community northeast of Manley Hot Springs, which means that many articles contained erroneous wikilinks. Earlier this year, an editor changed the page to a stub about the latter Eureka, but it was reverted. I instead changed it to a disambiguation page. Here's the issue of relevance to this page: the editor who diffused the dab page changed the links on Walter Harper and Harry Karstens to point to the latter Eureka, when I assume that "Eureka" in this case actually refers to Kantishna (or, the inverse of the previous problem). Is there anyone who is familiar with the details of the 1913 expedition who could take a look and set things straight if need be? Any links I tried in the articles were dead, and I was never invited to the funeral. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comments
{{Substituted comment|length=1711|lastedit=20160507064405|comment=

2007 assessment
B class as it needs more info on geology. Does the mountain have any influence on indigenous peoples? The comparison to Everest seems to be an "America has to always be #1" angle. Top importance as one of the 7 summits. RedWolf 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

2010 assessment
Downgrading to C class as the article has a lot of unsourced information including the geology and climbing history. The lead section is also weak, only mentioning the elevation. RedWolf (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2013 assessment
Well, while some good progress has been made on this article I still cannot give this B class for a variety of reasons:
 * 1) Still a fair bit of unsourced statements. For example, the first two paragraphs in Geology do not have sources. All timeline statements should have citations, those w/o should be removed.
 * 2) Some argue against the use of long bulleted lists, e.g. Timeline. It can be quite difficult to convert this section into proper paragraphs though and while keeping it in bullet form would not stop me from giving it B class, it may not meet GA class requirements.
 * 3) Need section(s) on flora/fauna. Probably not strictly required for B class, but would expect to see this for GA.
 * 4) The significance/impact of Denali on the local people, spiritually or otherwise, should be included.
 * 5) The lead section is much better now but I think needs to be expanded a bit more to touch a bit on geology and perhaps on the frigid temperatures. I would probably let it pass as-is for B class if the other issues are addressed.

RedWolf (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)}} Substituted at 08:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)