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 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 6, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 25, 2006 Good article nominee Listed April 1, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted May 8, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted July 12, 2010 Featured article review Demoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 31, 2004, October 31, 2005, October 31, 2006, October 31, 2007, October 31, 2008, October 31, 2012, October 31, 2018, and October 31, 2021. Current status: Former featured article

This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

South Dakota High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. National Register of Historic Places High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Visual arts: Public art 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 supported by the public art task force. Sculpture 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 Protected areas High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Old West High‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: June 28 to July 4, 2020

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

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

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 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

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

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) 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

(moved from Randy Kryn's talk page)

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) 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

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