Talk:Mount Rushmore

Cora Babbitt Johnson and early opponents

We should include newer research on opposition to the monument. There's a new Honors thesis published by Georgia Southern University on early environmentalist opposition to Mount Rushmore. According to the Wikipedia list of reliable resources, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." I'd argue that, being an Honors Thesis, it 'can be considered as rigorous as a Master's Thesis if it meets those same criteria. At least, this should be judged on a case by case basis and maybe tagged with "better source needed." However, if you read it, it's clear that it has significant scholarly influence and academic merit. With no other available source for such an important aspect of Mount Rushmore's history, it should be included. Borg Axoim (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you support its "significant scholarly influence" by identifying where and how often it has been cited by other academics? Schazjmd (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Are those the parameters for "scholarly influence"? I figured that the phrase could include clear and verifiable examples of academic rigor. It's extremely new (I only read it last week), so maybe it would be best to give it some more time. My concern is that the information is clearly worth including based on relevance to Mount Rushmore, but because it's new research, there isn't anything else on the specific topic of early environmentalist opponents. Borg Axoim (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Borg Axoim, being cited would be one way to demonstrate scholarly influence. Just being a good paper ("academic rigor") doesn't make it a reliable source for wikipedia, nor does a single college paper that apparently covers something no other sources have covered have any WP:DUE weight. Schazjmd (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd I see what you mean. I'll read more on the topic and try to find additional sources. I'm sure the thesis references something that can be beneficial. Would it be possible to scrape some of the author's primary sources or link to the Cora Johnson wiki page? Borg Axoim (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Borg Axoim, wikipedia articles can never be used as sources, although the sources in those article can be used in other articles. I think checking the sources cited in the thesis is a good start. Schazjmd (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd The author mentioned Fite's book, and after I read some of it, it seems that Fite also mentioned Johnson. I assume that's a much more reliable source, so I've added the info to the page. Thanks for your guidance! Borg Axoim (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Just adding a note that I've continued this topic below. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Opening image

(moved from Randy Kryn's talk page)

The longer-distance image being proposed as the lead infobox image. R.K.

The long-time page image showing the statue in a well-detailed presentation. R.K.

Another closeup found during this discussion (by Yann), less cloudy. R.K.

Hi, IMO replacing a featured picture by this poor quality version is vandalism. Do not do that. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Yann. The long-time image used doesn't seem at all poor quality (File:Mountrushmore.jpg) but is a much clearer image of the statue than the one you profer (File:Mount Rushmore detail view (100MP).jpg). Please take it to the article talk page, which is where this discussion should go. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. File:Mountrushmore.jpg is the worst possible choice. Even if one wants a different framing that File:Mount Rushmore detail view (100MP).jpg which is a high quality and resolution, and a featured picture, there are better choice. File:Mount Rushmore detail view (100MP).jpg was chosen as a FP when it was used in the article, and it shouldn't be removed, unless a better quality is offered. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Not understanding why you don't like this image and call it poor quality. The image has been used on the page for quite a long time, and highlights details of the statue. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't make sense. How can you compare a 600 × 450 pixels, 56 KB, and poor quality color file with a 2,128 × 8,246 pixels, and 51.22 MB featured picture? Please be reasonable. Yann (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm comparing the two images as they present on the page, and have added them to the top of this discussion for comparison. The closer image of the statue, with shadowed nuances, seems to present the sculpture in a much clearer view. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, even you propose a different framing, this image is of very bad quality. File:Mount Rushmore Closeup 2017.jpg, which is already shown in the article, is much better. Yann (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That does seem better, or less cloudy, and unlike the distance-photo it shows details of the sculpture such as the cracks in the rocks, etc. (which are actually better seen in the cloudy picture). Would you object to this image as the lead (as a focus on the sculpture) as a compromise, although I still favor the "cloudy" detailed photo. Thanks. I'll remove the requested assistance. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have asked for more opinions on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Mount Rushmore. Yann (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. And I'll cover the visual arts and sculpture WikiProjects. Looking at the three photos above the cloudy image still seems to stand out as the most detailed and expressive of the artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

My issue with File:Mountrushmore.jpg, other than the low resolution, is that the contrast is way too high, leading to loss of detail in the shadows. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I like the current longer distance image (File:Mount Rushmore detail view (100MP).jpg). Showing the area around the sculptures helps to show their context within the surrounding mountain better, which I think is beneficial for an infobox image. Mount Rushmore is just as much a mountain as it is a sculptural monument, after all. There are already other closer images further down in the article to show the sculptures in more detail, so it is not an issue that not as much detail is seen in the infobox image. GranCavallo (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Controversy downplayed

I just clarified the highly notable controversy which had been rather downplayed. Edited for 30+ minutes.

The edits are now "pending" for review - why? The page isn't locked, and the information is taken directly from the existing page and existing sources.

What's going on? I hope that Native American history and this legally unresolved (since 1980) federal law case isn't being censored "pending" "review". 49.126.101.222 (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Please note that "pending revision" does not appear to be part of the Wiki project. 49.126.101.222 (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Due to persistent vandalism, direct edits to this article are limited to registered accounts that have been "autoconfirmed". The pending status was based on this, not the particular changes you made. However, another editor considered your edits as undue, and has reverted them. —ADavidB 06:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

...'undue'? As in 'undo', or as in not necessary?

And, might we ask for your opinion of burying notable information in an ongoing controversy ?

Since the federal court ruled in favor of the Lakota Sioux in 1980, is the US government's ruling also 'undue' - in that editor's personal opinion? It's confusing since the lines of logical demarcation are gerrymandered. 49.126.35.101 (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Kia ora, I am unsure what you mean by 'undue'. The link says "articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints". I think that a dispute between the indigenous landowners and later colonists over land ownership is significant, and there should be a sentence in the lead paragraphs acknowledging this. The legal case acknowledges the ownership. This information should sit above any information about tourism. I note that the editor who reverted the edit is currently causing some issues in other topics with their approach to editing, so may not be in the best space to make a call on reversions. Land rights and acknowledgment of first peoples is significant and I am disturbed that there seems to be no US editors standing up for this. Goldenbaybutcher (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that there's already an article - Seizure of the Black Hills - on the Black Hills land dispute and most of that topic is not specific to Mount Rushmore. The Lakota and many other Native Americans do have specific issues with what they see as the desecration of the Six Grandfathers mountain, though it's worth pointing out that that issue didn't emerge until about 1971, as part of the modern Native civil rights movement. That controversy does belong in this article, albeit, with due weight given to the topic in relation to all of the other relevant topics about this area. For what it's worth, I do think the 1971 AIM occupation should get some mention in the "History" section. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Claims about early native opposition and Cora Babbitt Johnson, redux

I've replaced the following block of text from one of the paragraphs on the planning of the memorial:

The Lakota and other local indigenous communities objected to the overall plan as constituting desecration of their sacred lands, and to the racist and sometimes violent anti-indigenous policies of the four presidents depicted. For the Lakota and other tribes, the monument "came to epitomize the loss of their sacred lands and the injustices they've suffered under the U.S. government."

I've replace the above text block with the following:

Although many Lakota and other Native Americans would come to oppose the Mount Rushmore statues as a desecration of their sacred land during the modern era of Native American civil rights movement, they did not openly protest the monument during at the time of its planning and construction. Indeed, Black Elk would visit the site during its construction in 1936.

In short, there is no good evidence that there was any stated opposition from the Lakota to the Mount Rushmore sculptures during the time when the memorial was planned and carved, nor anything prior to the modern (early 1970s onward) era of the Native American civil rights movement. There was a larger court case on the Pine Ridge Lakota's land claims on the Black Hills at that time, however, none of that case was specific to the Mount Rushmore project. I've looked in vain in secondary scholarly works and even primary news articles for any evidence of Native opposition during that time and have found nothing. On the other hand, in Ostler's book, there's a very clear statement that there was no open opposition to the project on the part of the Lakota during that era, and that book is a solid scholarly source on the history of the Black Hills land dispute.

As for PBS and Eos, those are news sources, and while those might be generally considered reliable sources, they are essentially tertiary sources and not as reliable on historical questions as scholarly books or journal articles that represent solid WP:Secondary sources on a topic. (Even though Eos carries a DOI number and is published by a professional body, it is not a peer-reviewed journal, but rather a newsletter.) While I do not wish to source-lawyer away a solid piece of historical research, it's pretty clear that these articles aren't solid pieces of research and pay fast-and-loose with anachronistically conflating contemporary Native opposition to the Mount Rushmore sculptures with those groups attitudes at the time.

Also on the topic of early opposition to the Mount Rushmore project, that brings up the topic of Cora Babbitt Johnson once again. When I do a Google Scholar search for work about her, it stands out how few good sources there are. Basically, it's almost entirely student research papers, including one PhD-level dissertation, none of which are quoted in any later scholarly writing. The only published sources that I could find on Cora Johnson were brief mentions in a very few books, Rex Alan Smith (1985) The Carving of Mount Rushmore and John Taliaferro (2002) Great White Fathers: The Story of the Obsessive Quest to Create Mount Rushmore, and maybe two other sources. I do see there's a Wikipedia article on her, largely based on a single Master's Thesis about her. By most objective standards, she's a figure of limited notability, and I'm surprised that those authors who have done graduate-level work about her never followed up with a book or at least a journal article. In any event, while I do think that there are historical figures who are unjustly overlooked and Cora Johnson might even be one of them, it's not the proper role of Wikipedia to re-establish historical notability - that's the role of secondary scholarship, which Wikipedia merely reflects.

Nonetheless, it would be good to have a paragraph or so on early opposition to the Mount Rushmore project, as can be gleaned from the above-mentioned books and perhaps a few other sources. Smith's Carving of Mount Rushmore mentions local "environmentalists" who opposed the project of whom Cora Johnson was merely the most vocal, and that the opposition was enough to potentially stall the project in its early stages. This is worth including.

Peter G Werner (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Relevance of Borglum's KKK affiliation?

I'm considering a change to this passage that might be controversial, so I wanted to get commentary on it first:

Borglum, who had involved himself with the Ku Klux Klan, one of the Stone Mountain memorial's funders, had been having disagreements with the Stone Mountain Memorial Association, and on September 24, 1924, travelled to South Dakota to meet Robinson.

I'm wondering about the relevance of the clause "who had involved himself with the Ku Klux Klan". Borglum's involvement (and possibly membership in) with the KKK for several years is an issue that's relevant to the Gutzon Borglum article (if anything, I'd expand the treatment there to include more sources) and to the article on Stone Mountain, but his Klan involvement was something that played no role in support or opposition to the Mount Rushmore project. Borglum's falling out with the Stone Mountain Association and their accusations against him as being unreliable did play some part in opposition to the Mount Rushmore project, but the entire issue of his Klan affiliation or Stone Mountain as a Klan project was simply a non-issue with regard to then-contemporary views about the memorials.

On the other hand, I know that Borglum's often-racist views and Klan affiliation is quite important in modern and revisionist evaluations of the Mount Rushmore memorial and would be appropriate in a section on that topic. I don't want to seem like I'm trying to whitewash Borglum's historical reputation, but the sentence in question seems like a mere swipe and not appropriate to the topic of the section in which it appears. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph on the Mount Rushmore (Six Grandfathers) Wikipedia article I personally believe highlights why mentioning his affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan is important to highlight.

"The carving was the idea of Doane Robinson, South Dakota's state historian. Robinson originally wanted the sculpture to feature American West heroes, such as Lewis and Clark, their expedition guide Sacagawea, Oglala Lakota chief Red Cloud, Buffalo Bill Cody, and Oglala Lakota chief Crazy Horse. Borglum chose the four presidents instead."

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand why a someone who affiliates himself with a hateful group wouldn't go with the original plan of having important Native Americans men and woman depicted within the carving, and rather opting to go with four American men; furthermore, paired with the fact that the land was taken illegally from the Sioux Tribe. I haven't seen anyone insinuating that Mount Rushmore is solely the outcome of a project by the KKK, but the mention of his affiliation is very important to this article and to understand why certain, poor choices were made. To say that racist ideologies and affiliations didn't affect the support for the carving of the statues I think is a misguided statement, as inherently Mount Rushmore was built off of racism, xenophobia, and genocide towards the Indigenous Peoples of the area, as the land was stolen and a sacred location was desecrated with no disregard. Meatball45 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

All of which is an expressly ideological and WP:POV reason. That's not a good argument for including that statement where it's located. That might be an argument for discussing that issue under "Legacy" if an outside and notable source making that argument can be found, though. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)