Talk:Mount Rushmore

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)