Talk:Mount Rushmore

Archives
Archive 1: Feb 2005–Oct 2006 Archive 2: Dec 2006–Oct 2009

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)

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)

Old image

Mount Rushmore c. 1905

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)