Talk:King Buppan Peak: Difference between revisions

It is worth noting that the sources used for this entry are from information published over 100 years ago, including the third source, which refers directly to a work by the Luxembourgish ethnographer Eduard Conzemius in 1922. The current location of this peak within Panama is unknown (Google Maps is also unhelpful in this regard). It is presumably within the Ngäbe-Buglé Comarca under a new name, or perhaps the peak has remained unnamed. Keep in mind that the name is merely a historical reference and has no current use within Panama. Taichi (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article’s information is inaccurate and relies solely on a single reference, as the height is inconsistent across the various sources cited by the main editor, clinging to an almost appropriation of the encyclopedic article.

This 1927 publication states the peak’s height as 867.5 m, this 1976 reference states it as 759 m, yet another reference of 1998 states it as 758 m, and the current GeoNames database lists it as 754 m (which is the height referenced for Cerro Mudugndoe), data validated by Panamanian cartographic authorities.

It makes no sense for the article to maintain the height and description from such an outdated reference. Could it be that the main editor avoids using updated data because that would imply that the real data refers to the current Mudugndoe and not to the old King Buppan from 100 years ago? Taichi (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Taichi: I support updating the elevation to reflect the most reliable modern measurements (generally between 754–758 m). However, I want to clarify that the assumption “that the main editor avoids using updated data because that would imply that the real data refers to the current Mudugndoe and not to the old King Buppan” is not appropriate. None of the references being discussed are “from 100 years ago,” and we should avoid framing any of them as “the real data.” Each source contributes to the historical and scholarly understanding of the elevation, and all should be evaluated on their reliability, not dismissed based on assumed motives or age. Nhtpaf (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you’re denying the GeoNames data (which, as we see in the database history, was recorded by the National Institute of Statistics and Census of Panama, INEC) that maintains a measurement of 754 meters, and you’re clinging to a non-standardized measurement. This bias (not only anti-Panamanian but also anti-database bias) doesn’t reflect well on you; personally, I think you should back down at this point. Taichi (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that “the current GeoNames database lists it as 754 m” is misleading to say the least. It says “ca. 754 m” i.e., around 754 m. Please see the meaning of the word Circa.

So the statement in the lead that the peak rises “approximately 2,487 feet (758 m)” is considered neutral; almost in the middle of the varying elevations given for the peak. And as I said before, each “source contributes to the historical and scholarly understanding of the elevation, and all should be evaluated on their reliability, not dismissed based on assumed motives or age.” Nhtpaf (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King Buppan Peak → Cerro Mudugndoe – According to the article’s description, the references don’t clearly show a map or visual aid for its location; however, a map from 1889 helps pinpoint the peak’s exact position.
Observing nearby geographical features and analyzing them through GeoNames, the peak in question is now called Cerro Mudugndoe, with an altitude of 754 meters. No other peaks in the area reach this height, so there is 100% certainty that it is the ancient King Buppan, but with a Ngäbe name, the indigenous group currently residing in the area. The name appears in Panamanian legal documents (Law 33 of 2012, page 40 of the PDF in “3. Corregimiento San Pedrito (Jiküi)”. Taichi (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added a physical sector map prepared by the Geographic Institute of Panama, which confirms tmy last comment In fact, if you look at the coast above, there’s a point called Punta Quinbopan (which would be the old King Buppan Bluff), confirming that it matches the textual description in the documents from 100 years ago, which state that this peak can be seen from the coast. Taichi (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that there is Punta Quinbopan on the map, and there is also Quimpanpan (both of which are corruptions of King Buppan), showing that the name still holds significance to the local communities, and this significance is documented by the state of Panama. This adds weight to the recognisability of the name King Buppan. Nhtpaf (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nhtpaf: Without resorting to forum posturing, let me clarify that my intention is not to eradicate the term; historically, it has earned its place. However, as I mentioned in the discussion about the Gulf of Mosquitos, you’re assuming we’re in 1825 or 1850, not 2025, and that the main title of the post should be the Miskito name.

Unfortunately, the territory where the peak is located today is not Miskito territory; it belongs to Panama, specifically the Ngäbe-Buglé Comarca. They, by virtue of their possessory and cultural rights, can name geographical points, towns, rivers, and administrative areas as they see fit, adhering to their indigenous norms.

We cannot simply look the other way and pretend it’s still Miskito territory when there is ample evidence that they neither inhabit that area nor have they been there in the last 150 years. The Ngäbe people call it that, the Panamanian authorities call it that, which is why it’s called Mudugndoe in cartographic databases. It’s not something I just made up, nor something I created yesterday; it has legal and cultural foundations within the Ngäbe ethnic group that have supported it for decades. Taichi (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. OP’s rationale seems to include a fair bit of WP:OR. 162 etc. (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You’re saying that the GeoNames database and the Panama National Geographic Institute database of the country that hosts the point in question are false? If there are current or recent maps (perhaps from the late 20th century) that might show the name King Buppan, I could support you, but there is no reference for 100 years. I reiterate that the name changed at some point, and to claim to use an archaic name without any database support would indeed be WP:OR. Taichi (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per the actual, sourced name of the peak. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. FromCzech (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This Ngram shows that the name King Buppan is significantly more common than the proposed alternative. Per WP:CRITERIA, particularly points 1 and 2, it is both the most recognisable term and the only used name in English, with Pico del Rey Buppan as its Spanish equivalent. I suggest that the name Mudugndoe be added in the Infobox under other name. Nhtpaf (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We are dealing with the current name of the mountain here, not the historical one. FromCzech (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And I’ve shown that the name King Buppan is still significant today. Two recent sources (from 2010 and 2021) talk about the peak in question, particularly the origin and meaning of the name and its significance to aboriginal communities.

  Also, @Taichi’s statement that “there is no reference for 100 years” is clearly not true: Sailing Directions, (Enroute), Caribbean Sea, Publication 148, 1998 was published only 27 years ago. Nhtpaf (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There’s a factor being overlooked, and I think you’re noticing it yourself: there are no references to this point in 21st-century documentation, and there’s a simple reason for that: the references you’re showing didn’t include the Ngäbe-Buglé comarca back then. The region was created in 1997, taking territories that previously belonged to Bocas del Toro and Chiriquí. But in the process of creating the region, a new organization of the territories within it was established, renaming much of what was in Spanish and English with Ngäbe place names, as a form of cultural reclaiming.

  Certainly, King Buppan was a name far from Ngäbe, and the rivalry between this indigenous group and the Miskito was quite palpable, so they considered renaming it as—and I’m inclined to speculate openly—a way of undoing all the damage the Miskito had caused against the Ngäbe (or Guaymí) centuries before.

  The traumatic legacy of the Miskito people is evident even in the Guaymí threat that parents still use to discipline their children: “If you don’t behave, the musiki (Miskito in Guaymí) will take you away.”

  That is why the current Ngäbe name of the hill became notable and official in Panama since 2000. Taichi (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  English sources overwhelmingly use King Buppan, recent references still exist, and speculative interpretations (which your entire recent comment is) about renaming motivations violate WP:OR—therefore the historically and still presently attested English name should remain the article title, with Mudugndoe appropriately listed in the Infobox under other names as the present official Ngäbe-Buglé designation. Nhtpaf (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I mentioned earlier, and I’ll say it again here: you’re already adopting a POV warrior stance. No current cartographic database, national or international, refers to it as such as King Buppan; you’re clinging to your own convenience by twisting the Wikipedia policies. What you’re saying even discriminates against the local use of the term (both by the Ngäbe people and by Panamanian authorities). What an irony! Two centuries ago, the Miskito people invaded Ngäbe territory, and today someone is pushing a narrative against the feelings of that indigenous group for the very same reason! Taichi (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Taichi: I think there has been a misunderstanding. I have never argued that the name Mudugndoe should be ignored—quite the opposite. I have consistently supported including it in the Infobox under other names. See my previous comments.

  Where our views diverge is on the article’s title. Wikipedia titles are determined by usage in reliable sources, including historical sources that remain in use today. King Buppan continues to appear in English-language literature, including late-20th and 21st-century publications, which contradicts your claim that it disappeared for over a century. That means it still meets WP:COMMONNAME, and retaining the familiar English term as the title while listing Mudugndoe in the Infobox is entirely consistent with this policy.

  But I will not go down any rabbit hole about who “invaded” who, because that’s not up for discussion. And your speculative accusations that “today someone is pushing a narrative against the feelings of that indigenous group for the very same reason!” aren’t helpful or constructive to the actual discussion; it falls under WP:NOTFORUM.

  Finaly, I’ll quote myself: “Per WP:CRITERIA, particularly points 1 and 2, [King Buppan] is both the most recognisable term and the only used name in English, with Pico del Rey Buppan as its Spanish equivalent. I suggest that the name Mudugndoe be added in the Infobox under other name.” Nhtpaf (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]