Jump to content

Talk:Kuwohi

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

Highest Point

[edit]

The article states that Clingman's Dome is the highest point in Tenn, in the GSMNP, and along the AT. It is also the highest point in the U.S. east of the Mississippi River. Barryclinton (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a very very recent measurement of which I'm unaware, Mount Mitchell is the highest east of the Miss. River. Bms4880 (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clingmans dome is the third highest peak east of the Mississippi river after Mount Mitchell and Mount Craig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.226.143 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The gallery is out of hand in my opinion. See Photo galleries. Some one could move the gallery to Commons --DRoll (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

How do I go about adding photos to the gallery. I have some recent photos from the top of the observation deck that I feel would look nice in the gallery section. --Magik Mayne (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The gallery is already a mess, and I'm not certain it doesn't violate WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Bms4880 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

short form

[edit]

The mountain group is normally referred to by the full title, "The Great Smoky Mountains," or "The Smokies," for short, as in the second paragraph of "Access." Ragityman (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I don't know if the Gallery is still "out-of-hand". I have made some corrections to the captions.

  • IMO, the cloudy day picture, previously erroneously captioned as showing a "A particularly "smoky" day ...", offers nothing notable specific to Clingmans Dome, and could be removed. In this photo, the mountains and any VOC "smoke" are largely obscured by normal low cumulus clouds (apparently mistaken as "smoke"). Other images actually portraying the "smoke" are provided in the Great Smoky Mountains article. I might have a clear photo of the smoke from the dome that I can upload later, but it was taken during the recent fires and the actual smoke plumes from fires might be misinterpreted.
  • The observation tower trail pictures were erroneously mislabeled "Clingmans Dome". The "dome" is the mountain itself, not the Observation Tower.
  • The observation tower architecture is notable as a registered Historic Place, so the concrete ramp and tower pictures might be kept, only so much as they record the tower and ramp -- the general foot trail photographs are less notable, but the trailhead photo does show (incidentally) the unusual access the lower trail provides to the outcrop of the metaconglomerate of the Copperhill Formation.
  • I think the hikers are actually past the start of the steep grade, maybe a third up.

IveGoneAway (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True elevation 6660 ft?

[edit]

Is the actual elevation of CD 6660 feet? I was poking around altitude.nu and put the pin down on a part of the mountain that registered 6660 feet. Also, this old North Carolina book lists the altitude as 6660 ft.

Guessing there may be some reasons it is not officially listed as 6660 feet (if it is in fact the true elevation). One is the 666 part of the number. Then, guessing the builders of the tower wanted it to be in both states, so they didn't put it at the actual peak, which is well into NC. Although, it looks like the tower is entirely in NC anyhow. The base of the tower's looping sidewalk appears to be partly in TN. A park ranger told me the "pedestal" of the tower is in TN, but I'm not so sure.

One thing for sure: The NPS is secretive about all of this and there is no USGS marker at the peak (or that's what they say). There is a relatively unimportant marker next to the parking lot.

https://books.google.com/books?id=4z8TAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=elevation+of+clingmans+dome+6660+feet?&source=bl&ots=qgKEj2QnhC&sig=w1KvUYvTHUTd0ga3hi7URpxqG3E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ0drvmNrVAhVKLyYKHcRiA_UQ6AEIRDAE#v=onepage&q=elevation%20of%20clingmans%20dome%206660%20feet%3F&f=false

http://altitude.nu/

BillVol (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tower is north of the peak to preserve the site and to gain grade for the lower ramp. The USGS 2016 7.5 minute topo suggests more than 6600 but maybe less than 6640. USGS pubs have it at 6643. This NPS pub lists it at 6660. My guess is that the 6660 is an old datum. Go find out for sure, knock yourself out. IveGoneAway (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC) 01:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that info. Where did you learn the reasoning for putting the tower where it is? Also, do you know in which state the tower and ramp are situated? BillVol (talk)
You forgot to date your comment. Remember four tildes. Not three. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clingmans dome

[edit]

When do they close clingmans dome for the season? 2601:843:C202:2AC0:7559:F037:CE1A:129B (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming - confederate

[edit]

Clingman did become a confederate general several years after this mountain was named for him. But his background does not seem to have been part of the debate over the name change recently. Articles mention native heritage, the trail of tears, native boarding schools, etc. The only mention of Clingman himself I found was that he did not live in the area and had no descendants to be offended by the name change. Rmhermen (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee name - syllabary

[edit]

There appears to be two equally valid ways to spell Kuwohi in Cherokee, ᎫᏬᎯ & ᎫᏩᎯ. Should the article reflect that? Dosbears (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language articles

[edit]

I am requesting anyone who knows the above languages (except German and Simple English they’ve already done it) to update the articles to match the new name. I have moved the title in Simple English, French, and Latin Wikipedia; the latter two still need the text within the article to be updated; and I can’t because my understanding of French and Latin is very limited (barely userbox level 1 at best); I had to use Google Translate just to provide an edit summary on both of those. I have also left talk page messages on a couple other Wikipedias (again using Google Translate) to request moves. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve left messages on multiple wikis. Someone is going to update the text on the Italian Wikipedia. Have yet to get replies on some of the other ones. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve also at least attempted to update the entry on the French Wikipedia. Hopefully I did it correctly; but I think it would be wise if someone who knows French goes and proofreads it just to make sure. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve also just gotten in contact with someone who welcomed me on the Portuguese Wikipedia; I’ve brought up the Kuwohi issue with that editor. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 06:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have now changed it on the Portuguese and Norwegian Wikipedias. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I was able to find the Spanish Wikipedia’s version of the village pump; and got someone to rename the article to the new Kuwohi name. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 15:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also tentatively contacted an administrator on the Polish Wikipedia for help on there; I have not heard back yet. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 15:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got someone on Danish Wikipedia to update the title; but the information within the article still uses the old name; and apparently the person (who is an administrator over there) wasn’t too happy that I directly talk page messaged him about it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Polish Wikipedia has also been updated. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attention EVERYONE WHO KNOWS SPANISH: we need to find sources specifically in Spanish. Because I didn’t know this but they require the sources to be in Spanish over there; they don’t allow (for our purposes) foreign language sources.

I probably made Spanish Wikipedia mad because I posted my reply in English; but I don’t know Spanish (no habla español), so I don’t think I would be able to find those sources. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

[edit]

what is the correct cherokee pronunciation and can an English pronunciation guide be included at the top? 24.209.136.142 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee pronunciation will vary between different communities and especially between speakers of the Eastern and Western dialects, and both Kuwahi and Kuwohi are correct and interchangeable depending on the speaker. The root word is "kuwa" and the terminal vowl is typically dropped in speech (and Cherokee is foremost a spoken language rather than written), so adding the "-hi" suffix (locative) can alter the pronunciation further. Both would be understood. Pyrocatch (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 February 2025

[edit]

Kuwohi → Clingmans Dome – Article was moved, without any discussion I am able to find, in late 2024 following an official renaming by the US government. This was a clear violation of Wikipedia's longstanting policy of using WP:COMMONNAMES rather than WP:OFFICIALNAMES as WP:TITLES. Perhaps Kuwohi will become the common name in time, perhaps it won't, but at the present time there is no evidence Kuwohi has supplanted Clingmans Dome in common use. The move was premature. Jbt89 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'll have to do more research before !voting, but from what I can find after searching for both names on DuckDuckGo is that neither name (Kuwohi or Clingman's Dome) makes the news enough for there to be an obvious common name. One specific mountain in Tennessee isn't exactly the sort of subject that's going to be talked about enough for a clear common name to be possible. All of the news articles from the last 3 years are about either the recent rename or the movement that advocated for said rename. The only non-rename-related article I found when searching for "Kuwohi" was this weather report that used Kuwohi, and the only post-rename non-rename-related article I found when searching "Clingman's Dome" was this news article which also calls it Kuwohi. If there is a common name, and I'm not so sure there is, then post-rename sources indicate that it's probably Kuwohi, not Clingman's Dome. It seems like the premise of this move discussion is wrong.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I do concur that Google Trends shows the old name being more popular; however, there’s likely a couple of simple reasons for this.

1. People sometimes forget what the new name is, so they type in the the old one.

2. Many sources may have forgotten ti update their data; or more likely, people are reading older stories that still use the name.

3. If someone has a paper map of the Smokies like I do. It ain’t going to immediately update on paper. People will often keep using paper hiking and road maps for years. I still use a road atlas from five years ago for instance. Anyone who uses paper maps that were originally published before September 2024 are going to see the old name.

Especially given the third factor, give it about a year and I just about guarantee that search terms for Kuwohi will increase significantly. If it doesn’t by this time next year, then I MIGHT consider supporting in a subsequent RM. But for now, my mind is made up, I’m strongly opposed and nothing that anyone can say is going to change it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I still use atlases that are at least 10 to 15 years old. Many people (especially in Appalachia) don’t get a new atlas/roadmap/hiking map until either the old map is worn/broken or until so much time has passed that it’s (in their eyes) too outdated to continue use. And often that time can be many many years. I have a 3D map of the Smokies that has the old Clingmans Dome name; and I ain’t going to replace it just because it was renamed, in part because it’s expensive to replace. Many people likely have the same attitude. Thus, the old name continues being searched for because that’s the name written down. I almost guarantee if you go on say for example Facebook (I know that’s not a reliable source in general, but it may be able to establish a common name) many people, especially those of Cherokee decent, are probably using the new name. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the policy regarding place names. I’ve just posted this to village pump, waiting to see what they say. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Village pump answer shuts down the rationale for this move:
WP:NAMECHANGES says and I quote: If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well (emphasis in the original).
I have multiple sources that started using the new name immediately. Pinging EVERYONE involved in this discussion because they need to read this: @Chicdat, @Derpytoucan, @Fyunck(click), @Jbt89, @Vanilla Wizard. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we should retain "Kuwohi" because it is the "official name", and it's the name that WP:RS use, then we should rename "Denali" to Mount McKinley, because the latter is the official name and it's the name used by RS like the Associated Press. I'm really sorry, but you just cannot have this both ways. Derpytoucan (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. Either we rename articles immediately after official renamings, every time, or we wait for the name to definitively come into common usage, every time. Jbt89 (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. If this RM fails, you should open another RM → Mount McKinley at Talk:Denali and cite this discussion (as well as the failed RM at Talk:Fort Liberty). An encyclopaedia is no place for a double standard. We can't have this both ways while pretending to follow NPOV. Derpytoucan (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Give it about a year and I just about guarantee that search terms for Kuwohi will increase significantly Textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL. The name was changed last year and "Clingman's Dome" remains the by far common name. If that's the criteria we use to name things, we should change this article back to "Clingman's Dome" UNTIL Kuwohi takes over. Again, you cannot have this both ways. Derpytoucan (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all @Derpytoucan, I’ve warned you already about not assuming good faith. Second of all, my justification is NOT WP:CRYSTAL like you said, I have a separate policy backing me. Third, see Executive Order 14172, yes, he did unilaterally rename Denali. Fourth, the Denali–Mount McKinley issue is a contentious case that falls outside the scope of that section; a section of the policy that by the way, also says that you need to obtain consensus in those kinds of cases. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly suspect that "Mount McKinley" will become the COMMONNAME within the next few years. Let's move Denali then. Derpytoucan (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying there’s valid reasons why people could be searching the old name more often. It’s NOT a crystal ball issue. Mount McMinley/Denali has nothing to do with Kuwohi. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Oppose. I'd never heard of this mountain before seeing in mentioned at the village pump discussion. I've had a look at all the sources published in 2025 that a Google News search finds which are not about the renaming, one uses only "Kuwohi"[3], one uses only "Clingmans Dome" [4], and three use both.[5], [6], [7] the first and third of the sources that use both clearly indicate that they consider "Kuwohi" to be the present-day name and include the old one only for context. Google Scholar found only one hit from 2025, and that mentioned this mountain only in the context of the renaming, and so is not useful. This, combined with the evidence presented above convinces me that. if there is common name in 2025, it is "Kuwohi". I'll also pre-emptively respond that the name of any other mountain and/or our article about it is WP:OTHERSTUFF and not relevant to this discussion, but in the case of Denali/Mount McKinley I have not looked at the evidence and so I offer no opinion on that issue at the present time. Thryduulf (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Then just wondering... your searches make it sound like there is no real common name. And the argument is that someone moved this without discussion, with their only rationale being it's the official name, and without Kuwohi being the common name, which it may not be even now. Shouldn't you support the move back before the error was made? It was made clear at Denali that the official name has no bearing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said earlier; Denali is a much different case, and had it not been for Trump unilaterally renaming Denali; we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion here right now. Sometimes it takes time to fully adjust to a new name; but with the use of Kuwohi rapidly supplanting Clingmans Dome (at least in the media), I have no reason to believe that if Kuwohi isn’t the common name now, that it isn’t rapidly moving towards that really soon. (And Derpytoucan can throw his CRYSTAL at me all he wants, but many sources are using the name Kuwohi in the here now) Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 08:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's barely different at all, and this move was done against policy per the wording of the one who moved it. Plus this question was not directed towards you as you should have been able to tell by the replyto beginning. You had your !ivote so you don't need to keep replying to everyone eleses. Put more stuff in a summary section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I ain’t even going to reply to any more of this. I know what this is turning into and I want no part in it. I nearly got blocked on Commons a few months ago for being involved in a multi-way argument over there. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The big difference is that with Denali; it was Trump unilaterally renaming it; with everyone else opposed to it. With Kuwohi, there were at least two hearings before council-like boards that voted on the matter; after the Cherokees held a referendum; and the name change was supported by pretty much everyone. Now do you see why this is a completely different scenario? Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 08:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This has absolutely nothing to do with article titles and WP:COMMONNAME. Also, many RS are using McKinley, and you voted against renaming that particular article. Derpytoucan (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that’s where you’re wrong @Derpytoucan, I actually !voted weak support the moving of Denali in the RM, explicitly because reliable sources were referring to it as McKinley. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chill with the personal attacks. That editor wasn't even in this comment chain. Jbt89 (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't really a personal attack, but I am concerned about his obvious CRYSTALBALLing, which he is just hand waving aside.
    To his credit, he didn't use this logic, but about a dozen other editors on Talk:Mount McKinley !voted to oppose the move based on WP:CRYSTAL. Again, if CRYSTALBALL is a reason to retain the "old" name, then that should apply here too especially since the name change happened a year ago and "Clingman's Dome" remains the COMMONNAME (most commonly searched by far, RS apparently use both). I really don't understand why this has to be controversial or contentious, it is so basic. Derpytoucan (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not the one I was suggesting was out of line for preemptively accusing an editor who wasn't even the comment chain at the time of misapplying WP:CRYSTAL Jbt89 (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware of that. I'm saying I don't think it was a personal attack against me. I think the nonchalant handwaving of an obvious CRYSTALBALL argument is a lot more concerning. Derpytoucan (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fyunck(click) As I explicitly noted, Denali/Mount McKinley is completely irrelevant to the name of this article. Based on the evidence presented, I'm not sure that there is a common name but if there is one it definitely isn't Clingmans Dome so while the article might have been moved prematurely it would be wrong to move it back. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that "Clingman's Dome" is the COMMONNAME. RS use both, my Google Trends data (not sure if you've seen it) shows that Clingman's is the most commonly used by far, in spite of the name change happening a year ago.

    McKinley is very relevant in that it's an identical case and it set the precedent that only the COMMONNAME matters when it comes to an article's title, of an official name change. Anyway, regardless of which precedent to follow, one of these articles has the "wrong" title and we have to figure out which. If it isn't McKinley, it's Kuwohi. Derpytoucan (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Final comment, and abstaining from any further comment after this – Let me just say this one final thing. I respect all of your opinions. And I understand that I have no more power to influence this RM than anyone else. I have my opinion about it; you have yours. If it gets moved; I’ll probably open another RM in a few months if it’s firmly established that the name Kuwohi is used more frequently. But for right now, I’m doing what I probably should have done last night; I’m going to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, I’d suggest anyone whose already !voted, who doesn’t plan to change their vote; to do the same (that statement is NOT directed at anyone in particular, just to any involved person who doesn’t plan to make changes to their !vote). I’m making that recommendation because we all know how heated these discussions have been getting lately. Derpytoucan just got a weeklong block at ANI for bludgeoning the process and being uncivil. I don’t want to be blocked, and I imagine no one else does too. Which is why I am making this comment to let everyone know that I am going to stay out of this discussion henceforth. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say, IF this gets moved back to Clingmans Dome. If I see at ANY point the trends data for Kuwohi get to being the majority of the search terms (meaning more often searched than the old name); and stay that way for a few weeks; I’m opening another move discussion. Also, for folks using the Google Trends, don’t query the terms “Clingman’s” or “Clingmans” because that term is ambiguous and may refer to more than just the mountain. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness, good to know the onslaught that is coming. And nice to see you made it over 24 hours before commenting after your "final comment". We'll start the timer again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware that 5P4 had been suspended. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the “final comment” moniker because it was getting very heated and I did not want to be a feudin’ on here, I made that extra comment since I had 24 hours to calm down; and to let everyone know my intentions to open a new RM as soon as it becomes readily apparent that Kuwohi is the true common name by your standards. Btw, my strong oppose remains as valid as it ever was; and I continue to reiterate my opposition. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kuwohi&oldid=1274743144"