Talk:Mount Rushmore/Archive 2

Old image

I uploaded an image of Mount Rushmore from before it was carved into the modern monument. I'd like to add it to the article, but since it's already overloaded with images, I'm unsure as to the appropriate protocol in this situation. All the photos here currently seem appropriate, but we're still missing the "before" pic that I think is very important. I don't want to remove any other image, nor do I want to just toss it in there causing potentially major layout problems (whether right-side or left). If anyone more adept at this than me can do so, please add the image where appropriate.--Tim Thomason 23:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I came to the article to find, and did not. I've now added it. Thanks! ProhibitOnions ^(T) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

area?

The figure sited at the end of the first paragraph is not making sense to me. "The entire memorial covers 1,278.45 acres" Over a thousand acres? This cannot possibly be right. Perhaps it refers not to the memorial itself, but to national park that contains it? The page cited for that line has many statistical figures, but this ~1,200 acres figure is not on it anywhere. Gopher42 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Hills National Forest is 1,251,898 acres (almost a thousand times bigger). Numerous sources online (including NPS) cite the 1,278.45 figure. It seems like a lot, but it could easily be covered if they were measuring the distance over the mountain (it is a mountain afterall, quite a lot of square footage!) or more likely the surrounding "National Memorial" that was set aside and contains much more than Mount Rushmore for views of it and whatnot.--Tim Thomason 05:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in a national park - it is a National Memorial and covers 1,278.45 acres. Nothing to do with the size of the sculpture but the size of the park. Rmhermen (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venues?

Hi, The last sentence of this article reads, 'The North by Northwest appearance has itself been parodied in several venues.' To me, 'venues' means places or a building where something happens. There are no references to the venues concerned or what 'venues' means in context. Was a parody film made and shown in a few theatres? If someone could elucidate and correct that would be good Mondegreen de plume (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might look through the history and see if there once was a list which was eventually deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How not to write a sentence

This article starts with: "Mount Rushmore National Memorial, near Keystone, South Dakota, is a monumental granite sculpture by Gutzon Borglum (1867–1941), located within the United States Presidential Memorial that represents the first 150 years of the history of the United States of America with 60-foot (18 m) sculptures of the heads of former United States presidents (left to right): George Washington (1732–1799), Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919), and Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865).[1]" Perhaps someone with some modest skill as a writer should attempt to turn this junk into a proper sentence or three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.172 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, they shouldn't be referred to as "former" presidents. That phrase usually is reserved for living ex-presidents. Sca (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original intended carvings

Why no mention of which 4 people were originally supposed to be? It's mentioned on the video at the site, why not here? I think Sitting Bull was one of them. --208.38.59.162 (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the guidance of WP:TALK. Do you have a WP:RS? --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dean Franklin - 06.04.03 Mount Rushmore Monument (by-sa)-3 new.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Dean Franklin - 06.04.03 Mount Rushmore Monument (by-sa)-3 new.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 3, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-03-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 23:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Mount Rushmore National Memorial is a sculpture carved into the granite face of Mount Rushmore near Keystone, South Dakota, United States. Sculpted by Danish-American Gutzon Borglum and his son, Lincoln Borglum, it features 60-foot (18 m) sculptures of the heads of former United States presidents (in order from left to right) George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.Photo: Dean Franklin

Archive – More featured pictures...

Construction

The article reads "After securing federal funding, construction on the memorial began in 1927, and the presidents' faces were completed between 1934 and 1939. Upon Gutzon Borglum's death in March 1941, his son Lincoln Borglum took over construction. Although the initial concept called for each president to be depicted from head to waist, lack of funding forced construction to end in late October 1941." This makes no sense. is was apparently completed between 1934 and 1939 (according to the article). it then later states (the article) that Gutzon died in 1941 and then his son took over and the carving was finished in October 1941. I am utterly confused. what are the actual dates? Nobletripe (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the last face was completed in 1939 (although one sources says head). As the original intention was to depict the figures down to the waist, I presume that the work up to 1941 was on the shoulders (and, maybe, the hair). Perhaps a reliable source clarifying that can be found. -- Donald Albury 11:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

extra word

when it says "Although the initial concept called for each president to be depicted from head to waist, lack of funding forced construction to end in late October 1941." leave out the word "in". The word is not necessery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.111.63 (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entablature poorly mentioned

The Entablature is rather poorly mentioned, in passing. It probably should be moved to the Construction article, along with more details on the redesign which happened due to Jefferson being moved. Plenty of info here: http://www.nps.gov/moru/planyourvisit/upload/history%20of%20the%20US.pdf -- SEWilco (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request for File:Lincoln TLS scan data.jpg

Just a heads up: I've nominated File:Lincoln TLS scan data.jpg (source) for deletion on Commons because it seems that it is not actually available under a Commons-compatible license. If I've missed something somewhere, please don't hesitate to chime in →→ here ←←. --El Grafo (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debate about adding Ronald Reagan to Mt. Rushmore.

Wikipedia is usually thorough and complete in it's treatment of a topic; hence, I was disappointed that the debate as to whether or not to add a carving of Ronald Reagan to the mountain was not included in the article. I remember that being a significant topic of discussion shortly after Reagan's death; it was wrapped up by the Park Service saying that the granite in the mountain would not be able to support another carving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petercha (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

President Trump is also missing from the tableau. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. Alialiac (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stained carvings photo

The article is missing any context for the photo showing what appears to be the sculpture with ink running some of the faces. Was this an act of vandalism or a photo manipulation? I refer to the image next to the controversy section. 136.159.160.5 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The effect is simply water running down the faces. This happens particularly from snow and ice melting, and also in 2016 when the carvings were power-washed. StarHOG (Talk) 16:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information

Ivan Houser, father of John Sherrill Houser, was assistant sculptor to Gutzon Borglum in the early years of carving; he began working with Borglum shortly after the inception of the monument and was with Borglum for a total of seven years. When Houser left Gutzon to devote his talents to his own work, Gutzon's son, Lincoln, took over as Assistant- sculptor to his father.

91.110.227.212 (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That information does not belong in the lede. It may be appropriate in the History section. -- Donald Albury 11:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original name of the sculpture is the "Shrine of Democracy." http://www.nww2m.com/2011/10/mount-rushmore-shrine-of-democracy/ It is mentioned nowhere in the Wikipedia entries for South Dakota or for Mount Rushmore; the latter our name for the geological formation. BubbleDine (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it was its "original name" in fact, I couldn't find any reference to it being even a second name, but it is certainly referred to as the shrine of democracy in several places, including the national park service. I'll try to find a place for it in the article. StarHOG (Talk) 14:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

citation disconnect from context

I am trying to make sense of a passage and the use of a citation for a passage reading, "for the latest indigenous occupants.[20]" I was going to capitalize indigenous to be consistent and because it refers to a people not a plant or animal, but decided to read more from the web page citation. I see two problems with this as written: 1. "for" is not backed up; I don't see a verifiable argument that was the case. 2. Beyond that, the citation given does not, to my read, clearly identify the Kiowas as the latest indigenous occupants. From the cited source: "Sometime in the mid.eighteenth [sic] century, the Kiowas and culturally a.liated [sic] Plains Apaches migrated from the Yellowstone River region southeastward toward the Black Hills and befriended the Crows. Between 1775 and 1805 the Kiowas and Plains Apaches were pushed farther south of the Black Hills by Lakotas and Cheyennes." The work on the monument began in 1927. Given the narrative and facts elsewhere on the page, it appears the relevant Indigenous occupants were still the Lakota. I'm holding off on additional revision with hopes for discussion on this matter. Thank you. --PaulThePony (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand "indigenous" is consistently capitalized in this article, but other than keeping it consistent, why is this done? The indigenous peoples of the Americas article does not capitalize "indigenous", except as a capitalized first word in the article title. Specific groups of indigenous people have their names capitalized there, as does "Native American", but not the seemingly general adjective "indigenous". Is the term by itself considered to be a noun (as suggested in your "refers to a people" comment), and capitalized for that reason? If so, what sources use it as a noun? —ADavidB 00:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted the edit that had nonsensically changed "symbolizing 'the triumph of modern society and democracy' for the latest land occupants" to "symbolizing 'the triumph of modern society and democracy' for the latest indigenous occupants". In the "latest land occupants" version, the occupants are obviously the white people, who triumphed under the four presidents. That view of the monument as a symbol of triumph is then contrasted in the rest of the paragraph with the viewpoint of the indigenous people. — Birdfern (talk • contribs) 22:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked further back through the history, and I see that "the latest land occupants" referred to the Lakota when the phrase was added. It took on the opposite meaning when it was moved into the wrong sentence by this edit on July 4:

Mount Rushmore was constructed with the intention of symbolizing "the triumph of modern society and democracy". However, for the latest land occupants, the Lakota Sioux, the monument embodies a story of "struggle and desecration".

became

"Mount Rushmore was constructed with the intention of symbolizing "the triumph of modern society and democracy", for the latest land occupants. However, for the Lakota Sioux the monument embodies a story of "struggle and desecration"."

I'll let someone else move it back to the right sentence. Birdfern (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the source for "the triumph of modern society and democracy" was. It wasn't the given cite "Patriarchy Fixed in Stone" (you can read the entire article on Boime's website). As for the "latest occupants," this edit by the IP address first split the original sentence into two, claiming to simplify a long sentence, and then–with the next two edits–moved "the latest occupants" into the first sentence (nothing in the cite for the sentence to support the wording). According to PBS, the cite for the newly created second sentence: "The Paha Sapa (“Black Hills” in Lakota) were—and still are—a sacred landscape for the Lakota. The Sioux were late-comers to the area, having arrived in the Hills at the end of the eighteenth century, migrating from the woodlands of Minnesota and driving out the Arikara, Kiowas, and Crows, who—in turn—had displaced earlier groups: the Shoshones, Poncas, Cheyennes, Arapahoes, and others." I frankly don't see how the intent of the three edits could have been the improvement of the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Mount Rushmore detail view (100MP).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the file to another on commons by a different photographer. StarHOG (Talk) 20:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Six Grandfathers"

It appears that "the internet knows" that "the Sioux name" of Mt. Rushmore was "Six Grandfathers". But it turns out to be difficult to find a decent source for this which would provide us with a date (when was the name recorded) and the actual (Sioux language) form of the name.

Now, it appears (also without decent reference, e.g. not in McLaughlin 1916), that the "six grandfathers" are a concept in Sioux mythology,[1] so that the mountain would have been named after these mythological grandfathers. It furthermore appears that Black Elk considered himself (?) the "sixth grandfather", and our article claims that he travelled across this site (again, no year, no reference), so it seems plausible that the "Six Grandfathers" thing is some kind urban legend or journalistic artefact related to Black Elk. I wouldn't know, of course, because nobody bothered to cite their sources. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is six grandfathers, not four— which is yet another argument in favor of adding Trump and Reagan to the mountain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.106.139 (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's ugly to use the indigenous name to try to justify even more vandalism to their mountain. David (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Since the monument is built on unceded Lakota land, I think it's important to give the mountain's real name (Six Grandfathers) at the very beginning. StarHOG rightly pointed out that my edit was redundant because the real name appears later in the intro as well. Would there be any objection to my restoring my mention of the name in the opening, then deleting the later mention? It's our usual pattern on Wikipedia to give local names in parentheses at the opening of an article, and since this is still a Lakota mountain (according to the treaty the US signed in 1868, as well as traditionally), we should provide their name in the opening, just like we would for a mountain in Switzerland. David (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun, I looked at the list of the top 7 highest mountains in the world, and the articles almost all handling historic or local names differently. Some list the local name immediately after the article name (as David suggests), some list alternate names in the intro but further down, and some have a "Name" or "Naming" section. This article also has a "name" section below "history". It goes into detail about local names and historic names and how the current name was settled on. I prefer this method because it is much more detailed. Further, This article is different then most "mountain" articles in that it is the page for the monument, not really the mountain itself. By placing more detailed information about the mountain name in the first sentence, IMO, places undue weight on the importance of that naming. Certainly the Lakota name is NOT the name they have given the 4 faces, correct? No, it is the name they gave the mountain, which is secondary to the primary subject of this article. I think the name information should be moved down into the naming section. StarHOG (Talk) 13:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article, as mentioned in the hatnote, is about both the mountain and the sculpture. I've boldfaced the original name, as it had been boldfaced. The placement of the original name describes the mountain and not the sculpture, so information on the sculpture isn't changed by mentioning the original name. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

South Dakota quarter, reverse side, 2006.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed

I have edited a couple of things in the past. Tonight (2022/01/11) I made a hash of the "Mt Rushmore' page. I found a citation for the official naming of the Mt Rushmore in 1930 and edited in the link. I don't know how to remove the " citation needed " tag or how to add a superscript number tag and a corresponding number and description in the references.

Willybefrantic (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Willybefrantic[reply]

→ Help:Referencing for beginners. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 06:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you can leave the link here and someone can add it for you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 06:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willybefrantic Thanks — Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Statues" categories

I count 5 categories with "Statues" in the name. These are sculptures of presidents, sure, but not statues... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Mount Rushmore detail view (100MP).jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for February 20, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-02-20. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The human genome is the complete set of nucleic acid sequences for humans, encoded as DNA within the 23 chromosome pairs in cell nuclei and in small DNA molecules found within mitochondria. This includes both protein-coding DNA sequences and various types of DNA that does not encode proteins. This schematic representation of the human diploid karyotype shows the organization of the human genome into chromosomes, as well as annotated bands and sub-bands as seen on G banding. The diagram shows both the female (XX) and male (XY) versions of the 23rd chromosome pair. Chromosomal changes during the cell cycle are displayed at the top center. The human mitochondrial genome is shown to scale at the bottom left.

Diagram credit: Mikael Häggström

Recently featured:

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Mount Rushmore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-tc.pbs.org/nationalparks/media/pdfs/untold_stories_mount_rushmore.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909061644/http://www.keystonechamber.com/kahs/characters.html to http://www.keystonechamber.com/kahs/characters.html
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rushmore/peopleevents/e_stonemtn.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/archive/moru/park_history/carving_hist/carving_history.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/archive/moru/park_history/carving_hist/workers.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/archive/moru/park_history/carving_hist/hall_of_records.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanparknetwork.com/parkinfo/ru/flora/index.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/archive/moru/pphtml/subnaturalfeatures25.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/archive/moru/pphtml/subnaturalfeatures32.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/archive/moru/pphtml/subenvironmentalfactors13.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/archive/moru/travel_info/weather_hist.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No privilege to use the tool, and not sure the status of all the links to the archive portion of the nps source. I did notice reference 26 (Carving History) no longer works. A current replacement seems to be: https://www.nps.gov/moru/learn/historyculture/carving-history.htm but it may not have all relevant information for the 6 references in the page. Wigbold (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The sculptor and tribal representatives settled on Mount Rushmore"

I added a {{clarify}} tag after this sentence in the intro as it just appears out of nowhere without any context. The part about "tribal representatives" is especially confusing, as the article doesn't mention anything about Native Americans being involved in the decision (and it seems very unlikely they would have been). There's also no mention in the lead of other locations that were considered, so stating that Mount Rushmore was "settled on" doesn't make sense here. The way it currently reads, it seems like maybe there was a sentence or paragraph before this that got deleted at some point. It seems very disjointed. Nosferattus (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add any more geological history?

Why was there a big exposed hunk of granite towering over the landscape? Was it previously the core of a volcano, and the non-core eroded away? Thanks! Habanero-tan (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split This Page?

This page is a confusing mish-mash of information about Mount Rushmore (the actual mountain) and the monument that was carved into the mountain (the Mount Rushmore National Memorial). Would anyone object to splitting the two topics, which are separate and distinct, into their own pages with those names?

Examples:

- Mount Rushmore has its own geology and natural history. The history of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial starts with its ideation by humans.

- The discussion about the "Six Grandfathers" has nothing to do with the Memorial, and everything to do with the mountain.

- The process of generating support and funding for the memorial has little to do with the underlying mountain and its geology, flora and fauna, etc.

Similarly Separate Pages:

- The Eiffel Tower has its own page even though it was built on land in Paris, France.

- The Statue of Liberty has its own page separate from Liberty Island, on which it sits

There are other examples, but the point is the same: the Memorial is something that was carved into the mountain, but that doesn't make their existence the same. Wikipedia should correctly reflect these differences, IMHO.

Thoughts? Copiri (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't watch over or tend this page, but I saw your message. I think your proposal is a good one and the reasoning in support of it is sound. – Athaenara ✉ 06:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No relation to this page either, but came across it on the 'birthday' of the monument. The reasoning of a split seems sound, and cross-linking each page to the other makes a lot of sense. Wigbold (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this is the unusual case of the artwork being such an integrated part of the mountain that the common name of both the sculpture and mountain are co-mingled. This isn't like Paris or Liberty Island, which contain individual sculptures, as in this case the famous sculptured mountain is itself the artwork. I'd object to splitting for those and other reasons. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, one could also argue from the opposite perspective: that the Mount Rushmore National Memorial encompasses much more than the mountain itself (it also includes the visitor center, etc.), while the mountain is just the rock, of which part (not all) has been carved into a sculpture. Either way the outcome is the same, though... the Venn diagram of the two overlap, but are not equal.

What are your other reasons? 187.212.190.110 (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with splitting Mount Rushmore (the mountain) from Mount Rushmore National Memorial (the monument located at the mountain). Levivich (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as it is. Splitting would be completely uncalled for. Mt Rushmore is almost completely synonymous with the sculpture, both of which are physically one in the same. The greater bulk of the article is devoted to the sculpture. When the term Mt. Rushmore is used, it always invokes the idea of the sculpture. If there was no sculpture the mountain would be an unknown piece of rock, with no visiting center, and would not merit its own article, per: WP:Notability If there was a separate article for the mountain a given reader would likely wonder why there was no coverage of the sculpture. Many mountains have a history of mining, etc, but that by itself doesn't make a given mountain notable. Mt. Rushmore is world famous for one reason only -- the sculpture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another consideration: As most of us know, Wikipedia listings often come up first or near the top in a google search. After typing in Mt. Rushmore, the Google listing has the WP article for Mt. Rushmore listed, with no separate listing for Mount Rushmore National Memorial. Anyone doing a search for Mt. Rushmore will be inquiring about the sculpture. If there were a separate article for Mt. Rushmore, apart from that of the sculpture, the article for Mt. Rushmore would still come up first, but it would not contain its coverage of the sculpture. Aside from notability concerns about a separate article for the mountain only, this would invoke DUEWEIGHT issues if a separate article for the mountain comes up, with no listing for the sculpture, which, again, is the only thing that gives this otherwise average piece of rock its notability. The article is complete as it gives a brief geological and pre-sculpture history before going into coverage about why this mountain is so famous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies heading

Could we come up with a more descriptive heading? All of the content in that section is about the Native Americans' relationship to the monument, including the final paragraph which isn't part of any controversy: In 2004, Gerard Baker was appointed superintendent of the park, the first and so far only Native American in that role. I imagine an editor put it there for lack of a better place and because of the Native American association. Schazjmd (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRITS, it should just be done away with, and the content redistributed to the chronological history section. (I was planning to do this at some point.) Levivich (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funny; didn't even see this before making my edit; I've reverted so we can discuss first. And yeah, per Levivich, I'd support redistributing it to the history section, since it is indissociable with the moneument's history. DFlhb (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DFlhb, I thought your edit was an improvement over the (previous/now current again) version. Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support integrating the dispute with the history. I had considered integrating it when I was going over the article a few weeks ago. Schazjmd, I think the paragraph you mention about Baker should just be deleted. If Baker did something notable since 2004, we could mention that, but the fact that the park service hired him twenty years ago is definitely not due.

In comparison, I think the Mount Rushmore Fireworks Celebration 2020 (which DFlhb removed here) could be DUE, since that is an event notable enough to have its own article, and that event influenced the emergence of Land Back in the US (although this significance could certainly have been clearer). Certainly more significant than hiring of Baker! Larataguera (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe; but even that article looks a little like WP:TRUMPNOT to me. DFlhb (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely to meet notability guidelines. The park service's hiring of this person in 2004 certainly doesn't. Larataguera (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll definitely disagree on that last point! :) It had significant symbolic importance, but it also went beyond that. He remained superintendent for 6 years; build an American Indian 'heritage village' at the site[2], which we should mention here. His various efforts to create Native exhibits have been praised. According to a Native American news outlet, Baker's exhibits were "extremely popular with visitors", and local Native Americans considered them "one of the best things that ever happened at [Rushmore]". Baker's career at NPS was pretty long,[3], and the Sierra Club's magazine described it as "illustrious". He received good coverage by Hemispheres Mag, and was featured in three episodes of the PBS doco "The National Parks, America's Best Idea" during his tenure at Rushmore. According to some site, he was described by a historian as "a person of great significance in the history of the American West", though I can't find a better source on that. Most of these sites are minor (none seems outright unreliable) but they do paint a pretty favourable picture. DFlhb (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A University of Colorado at Boulder historian once said, “Gerard Baker is a person of great significance in the history of the American West.”^[4] I have the greatest respect for the University of Colorado Boulder history department and I think Baker is a significant-enough aspect of modern Mount Rushmore to be mentioned in a sentence in the body of this Wikipedia article, but I don't think they should start carving his portrait just yet. Levivich (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Then we need to say why this person was significant enough to be in the article. Right now it's totally unclear ...And I guess someone should write an article on Gerard Baker if he's not to be immortalized in stone... Larataguera (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"First Native American Superintendent of Mt. Rushmore Nat'l Park" is the probably the primary significance. He's also certainly had accomplishments in that role (building the heritage village, being a popular ambassador and sort of a "bridge" between Native and white cultures), so yes I agree, Baker's significance could be expanded. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Gerard Baker (National Park Service). Please feel free to improve! Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! DFlhb (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks Schazjmd! BTW, I agree with you that DFlhb's changes to the section heading and the added background were better than this version. So if no one has time to integrate this section into the history (or if we're waiting for more opinions?) then I vote for returning to that in the meantime. Larataguera (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shrine of Democracy as ALTNAME

Should this edit Special:Diff/1146394431 be reinstated? Levivich (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. "Shrine of Democracy" is a well-known name for Mount Rushmore, and is what the statue's sculptor called his creation. There are literally scores of sources for the name as an alternate name. Your edit not only lessens it, but mocks it, so the best "neutral" option would be to leave it in the first sentence as a major alternate name and then further down in the lead (not the first paragraph), possibly in the last paragraph which is now dedicated to the controversies, add the 'Shrine of Hypocricy' voiced by Russell Means. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Shrine of Democracy" is a legitimate WP:ALTNAME, per my edit summary here. The edit suggested by Levivich isn't perfect, but I share concerns that "shrine of democracy" shouldn't be so explicitly favoured over "shrine of hypocrisy" (even to the present exclusion of the latter label) per NPOV. (And the present sources for "shrine of democracy" are indeed junk, although I'm aware that better ones probably do exist).Larataguera (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the same (good) sources in the body that source "Shrine of Hypocrisy" also source "Shrine of Democracy" (which, it's true, can be easily sourced, and is a quasi-official tagline). But I agree it's not an ALTNAME; people don't say "I'm going to visit the Shrine of Democracy", as you said in your edit summary. It's like a tagline, not a substitute name or alternative name. And neither is "Shrine of Hypocrisy" (which is far ore widespread than just Russel Means BTW). Neither should be in the "altname slot"; both should be mentioned in the lead (somewhere, not necessarily where I put it), and they should be mentioned together. Levivich (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though I'd move your inserted paragraph (contrasting the two names) to the beginning of the last lead paragraph, the one on the dispute. DFlhb (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about an artwork as well as the site where the sculpture exists in situ. The first mention, boldfaced at the start, refers to the sculpture. Then, as artworks pages do, the name given to the artwork by the artist is used as a prominent alternate name, especially one that is often used by others. Shrine of Democracy, italicized as the original name of the piece, fully qualifies as an first-sentence alternate name. Yes, Shrine of Hypocrisy is a sourced alternate nickname, one that mocks the statue while delivering a clear short message in an editorial nickname, as good nicknames tend to be. But it is a nickname which doesn't have comparable due weight to be boldfaced or included in the same lead sentence or paragraph as the original name of Borglums's masterpiece, the Shrine of Democracy. How about a good Wikipedia consensus solution:

Do as some editors suggest and mention both variations in the first sentence of the last lead paragraph, which focuses on the controversy, and, at the same time, continue using the sculptor's name for the statue in the lead sentence. Six Grandfathers also qualifies for the opening paragraph, as a long-time original name of the mountains. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Artwork" is one POV. We need to present all significant POVs. Other POVs include "desecration of holy site" and "shrine to white supremacy". Neither of those is mocking Mount Rushmore; rather, they're describing what it is, from their POV. And anyway, those are all descriptions of Mount Rushmore National Memorial. Mount Rushmore is a mountain. (While we're at it, we should change the bold name in the first sentence to just Mount Rushmore instead of Mount Rushmore National Memorial.) Levivich (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? This is a sculpture we're talking about, an artwork. Not a point-of-view that it's an artwork ("Dear, that natural rock formation, am I crazy or if you look at it at just the right angle does it remind you of some of those people on coins?"). If the artwork did not exist in situ on this mountain then the mountain would not be notable. Does the mountain next to it have its own page, or the one a mile away? No, Wikipedia does not have a page about every existing hill (not for lack of trying by Lugnuts). I get the desecration part, if it were just being created it would be sculpted elsewhere. But "shrine to white supremacy"? Is this where people live in their heads nowadays? It's a sculpture of two of the country's major founders, of a guy who held the nation together and ended slavery, and of the man who set the standard for progressivism in the United States. The totally applicable alternate title Shrine of Democracy was used by the sculptor who created it, and commonly used since by government caretakers and many others (it's even the title of a major book on the subject). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Black Elk Peak has its own page. Levivich (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Elk Peak is notable for several reasons (highest elevation in South Dakota, the connection with Black Elk's spiritual growth, etc.) while Rushmore became notable because of the sculpture. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Rushmore is the 2nd highest, and it would be notable as Six Grandfathers even if there was no sculpture. (The sculpture is obviously notable as well.) Levivich (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else besides Randy object? Levivich (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also against it, believing the Shrine of Democracy/Hypocricy controversy is not due that much placement in the article. —ADavidB 21:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn:, thanks for this clarification about the naming. I'm still not sure I approve of "Shrine of Democracy" as an alternate name, but it's easier for me to understand this as a name for the sculpture. (Like Mona Lisa is the name of a painting.) I will modify the lead to make it clearer that this name applies to the sculpture as a piece of art, and put "Shrine to Hypocrisy" in the last paragraph as you suggested here. Maybe this is not perfect, but perhaps it's clearer than what we have. Can you provide a reference w/ page number and quote verifying that this is the title Borglum gave his sculpture? (The current sources do not say this). Larataguera (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Larataguera. In a web search for "Shine of Democracy Borglum", here is the first one that came up. As the name of the sculpture (it's interesting that many people never consider that Mount Rushmore and the Statue of Liberty are extraordinary artworks, or are even aware that they are artworks) it's a first mention original name. At this point, per comments above, using the Shrine of Hypocrisy quote in the lead may seem undue, as it is an editorial-pun nickname. If it is used then probably a mention of Russell Means seems fair, if he originated the comment. Thanks for putting attention on this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original name in infobox

I noticed that Poketama added the original name (Tunkasila Sakpe) to the infobox. Then Randy Kryn reverted it, Freoh added it again, and Randy reverted it again. I think it belongs in the infobox. I also think this relates to my reversion (here) on the short description to keep mention of the mountain there. (Randy was correct the SD was too long, and I shortened it.)

Randy, in the above proposal to split the article, you !voted that the article should not be split. That would mean the mountain is part of the scope of the article. I assume you don't believe the mountain is notable without the sculpture. I would disagree, because the mountain has a long and well documented history before the sculpture. (Results from Google search terms can get a little arbitrary, but I find about equal mention of Borglum and the Sioux in books about Mount Rushmore.) The history of the mountain is clearly salient in the literature, and it should be equally salient in this article, including the infobox. Larataguera (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are serious about a split, I admit my mistake, although would still favor this as one article. If split, then the titles Six Grandfathers, Tunkasila Sakpe, or Mount Rushmore (mountain) seem feasible options (Mount Rushmore as a title should remain with the artwork and memorial). If not split, yes, the sub-title of the infobox should contain the original name of the artwork (the name used by government on a coin, a stamp, and in South Dakota official usage: Shrine of Democracy) as well as a sub-title use of the Native American name. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have added back Shrine of Democracy and Tȟuŋkášila Šákpe, so that should cover the titles under discussion. And darn if there aren't a huge eagle with folded wings and resting its head on its breast to Washington's right (the body going behind Washington and coming out to the side of him) and a large owl with folded wings to Lincoln's left in this picture. Never noticed that before. Was wondering if the mountain had room for two more "grandfathers" to fit the Native American name, and spotted the eagle and the owl. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that compromise is alright for now. I'm not promoting a split. I generally prefer one article over two when possible, because it's less work. I was just pointing to the discussion where you (and others) said this article covered both the mountain and the sculpture. Larataguera (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd agree that one article is better than a split. The page should continue to be mainly about the artwork and the national memorial, but also notice that the lead contains a great deal about the mountain and the land controversy, so a good balance may already be present (and using the three titles in the infobox header seems to add to that balance). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add the date when it was completed to the info box.

It doesn’t say which date the monument was completed in the info box. It does say it later in the article but it would be more convenient if it was in the info box. 2607:FB91:1409:D843:B9E2:E7CE:3D5F:7643 (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The legacy that has been left behind for us to respect & follow.

The statement of "& follow." is biased, improper of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gormedino (talk • contribs) 09:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specified text is not found in this article. —ADavidB 01:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]