This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Mount Rushmore is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. —ADavidB06:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg)
