Talk:Mount Rushmore

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)

Just adding a note that I've continued this topic below. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2025 (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)

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)

It should be pointed out that there's already an article - Seizure of the Black Hills - on the Black Hills land dispute and most of that topic is not specific to Mount Rushmore. The Lakota and many other Native Americans do have specific issues with what they see as the desecration of the Six Grandfathers mountain, though it's worth pointing out that that issue didn't emerge until about 1971, as part of the modern Native civil rights movement. That controversy does belong in this article, albeit, with due weight given to the topic in relation to all of the other relevant topics about this area. For what it's worth, I do think the 1971 AIM occupation should get some mention in the "History" section. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Claims about early native opposition and Cora Babbitt Johnson, redux

I've replaced the following block of text from one of the paragraphs on the planning of the memorial:

The Lakota and other local indigenous communities objected to the overall plan as constituting desecration of their sacred lands, and to the racist and sometimes violent anti-indigenous policies of the four presidents depicted. For the Lakota and other tribes, the monument "came to epitomize the loss of their sacred lands and the injustices they've suffered under the U.S. government."

I've replace the above text block with the following:

Although many Lakota and other Native Americans would come to oppose the Mount Rushmore statues as a desecration of their sacred land during the modern era of Native American civil rights movement, they did not openly protest the monument during at the time of its planning and construction. Indeed, Black Elk would visit the site during its construction in 1936.

In short, there is no good evidence that there was any stated opposition from the Lakota to the Mount Rushmore sculptures during the time when the memorial was planned and carved, nor anything prior to the modern (early 1970s onward) era of the Native American civil rights movement. There was a larger court case on the Pine Ridge Lakota's land claims on the Black Hills at that time, however, none of that case was specific to the Mount Rushmore project. I've looked in vain in secondary scholarly works and even primary news articles for any evidence of Native opposition during that time and have found nothing. On the other hand, in Ostler's book, there's a very clear statement that there was no open opposition to the project on the part of the Lakota during that era, and that book is a solid scholarly source on the history of the Black Hills land dispute.

As for PBS and Eos, those are news sources, and while those might be generally considered reliable sources, they are essentially tertiary sources and not as reliable on historical questions as scholarly books or journal articles that represent solid WP:Secondary sources on a topic. (Even though Eos carries a DOI number and is published by a professional body, it is not a peer-reviewed journal, but rather a newsletter.) While I do not wish to source-lawyer away a solid piece of historical research, it's pretty clear that these articles aren't solid pieces of research and pay fast-and-loose with anachronistically conflating contemporary Native opposition to the Mount Rushmore sculptures with those groups attitudes at the time.

Also on the topic of early opposition to the Mount Rushmore project, that brings up the topic of Cora Babbitt Johnson once again. When I do a Google Scholar search for work about her, it stands out how few good sources there are. Basically, it's almost entirely student research papers, including one PhD-level dissertation, none of which are quoted in any later scholarly writing. The only published sources that I could find on Cora Johnson were brief mentions in a very few books, Rex Alan Smith (1985) The Carving of Mount Rushmore and John Taliaferro (2002) Great White Fathers: The Story of the Obsessive Quest to Create Mount Rushmore, and maybe two other sources. I do see there's a Wikipedia article on her, largely based on a single Master's Thesis about her. By most objective standards, she's a figure of limited notability, and I'm surprised that those authors who have done graduate-level work about her never followed up with a book or at least a journal article. In any event, while I do think that there are historical figures who are unjustly overlooked and Cora Johnson might even be one of them, it's not the proper role of Wikipedia to re-establish historical notability - that's the role of secondary scholarship, which Wikipedia merely reflects.

Nonetheless, it would be good to have a paragraph or so on early opposition to the Mount Rushmore project, as can be gleaned from the above-mentioned books and perhaps a few other sources. Smith's Carving of Mount Rushmore mentions local "environmentalists" who opposed the project of whom Cora Johnson was merely the most vocal, and that the opposition was enough to potentially stall the project in its early stages. This is worth including.

Peter G Werner (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Relevance of Borglum's KKK affiliation?

I'm considering a change to this passage that might be controversial, so I wanted to get commentary on it first:

Borglum, who had involved himself with the Ku Klux Klan, one of the Stone Mountain memorial's funders, had been having disagreements with the Stone Mountain Memorial Association, and on September 24, 1924, travelled to South Dakota to meet Robinson.

I'm wondering about the relevance of the clause "who had involved himself with the Ku Klux Klan". Borglum's involvement (and possibly membership in) with the KKK for several years is an issue that's relevant to the Gutzon Borglum article (if anything, I'd expand the treatment there to include more sources) and to the article on Stone Mountain, but his Klan involvement was something that played no role in support or opposition to the Mount Rushmore project. Borglum's falling out with the Stone Mountain Association and their accusations against him as being unreliable did play some part in opposition to the Mount Rushmore project, but the entire issue of his Klan affiliation or Stone Mountain as a Klan project was simply a non-issue with regard to then-contemporary views about the memorials.

On the other hand, I know that Borglum's often-racist views and Klan affiliation is quite important in modern and revisionist evaluations of the Mount Rushmore memorial and would be appropriate in a section on that topic. I don't want to seem like I'm trying to whitewash Borglum's historical reputation, but the sentence in question seems like a mere swipe and not appropriate to the topic of the section in which it appears. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph on the Mount Rushmore (Six Grandfathers) Wikipedia article I personally believe highlights why mentioning his affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan is important to highlight.

"The carving was the idea of Doane Robinson, South Dakota's state historian. Robinson originally wanted the sculpture to feature American West heroes, such as Lewis and Clark, their expedition guide Sacagawea, Oglala Lakota chief Red Cloud, Buffalo Bill Cody, and Oglala Lakota chief Crazy Horse. Borglum chose the four presidents instead."

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand why a someone who affiliates himself with a hateful group wouldn't go with the original plan of having important Native Americans men and woman depicted within the carving, and rather opting to go with four American men; furthermore, paired with the fact that the land was taken illegally from the Sioux Tribe. I haven't seen anyone insinuating that Mount Rushmore is solely the outcome of a project by the KKK, but the mention of his affiliation is very important to this article and to understand why certain, poor choices were made. To say that racist ideologies and affiliations didn't affect the support for the carving of the statues I think is a misguided statement, as inherently Mount Rushmore was built off of racism, xenophobia, and genocide towards the Indigenous Peoples of the area, as the land was stolen and a sacred location was desecrated with no disregard. Meatball45 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

All of which is an expressly ideological and WP:POV reason. That's not a good argument for including that statement where it's located. That might be an argument for discussing that issue under "Legacy" if an outside and notable source making that argument can be found, though. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This statement about his KKK affiliation is included directly after Borglum is noted as the sculptor of "Shrine to the Confederacy". Attempting to decouple the Confederacy from its racist reverberations is absolutely revisionist. ~2026-10614-26 (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but I think the clause could be added to paragraph 6 of that sectionwhen discussing Borglum's decision to depict presidents "for Americans by Americans". Perhaps: "Borglum, who had previously involved himself with the Ku Klux Klan and the Stone Mountain project, rejected Robinson's original plan..." Petoskeystones (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree. It seems entirely out of place and doesn’t add any information pertinent to understanding the history of Mt. Rushmore. The argument that it’s relevant to understanding how Mt. Rushmore “was built off racism” deserves to either not be mentioned in the descriptive part of the wikipedia page or should be placed in a separate page. I’m glad someone questioned the relevance because the flow of the page is definitely interrupted by it. ~2026-88779-5 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for all the feedback. In the next section, I discuss how I want to treat this and other 'controversy' topics and a new book that could work as a source. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

New book that I think would be good source material

Last year, I took it upon myself to do a pretty substantial cleanup and expansion of this article, which had accumulated a lot of small, disconnected contributions while missing some pretty important topics. I then kind of left the topic of Mt. Rushmore behind, and was unaware that only a few months later, a pretty important book on the topic, Matthew Davis's "A Biography of a Mountain: The Making and Meaning of Mount Rushmore". Not only was it a well-received book on the general topic of Mt. Rushmore, but it takes on the controversies around the legacy of the monument. Which had been a topic I didn't really take on, as I didn't really know of any work that took on this topic in a comprehensive way, even if there's plenty of partisan writing all over the internet. This book would be a very good source to expand the "Legacy" section to cover those issues. Of course, I would not want to treat Davis as the last word on this. He has a strong point of view, and is someone more or less in the "decolonialist" camp. But that said, there's still plenty there to build on without falling into advocacy of his views on the topic.

One of the questions he takes on is Gutzon Berglom's relationship with the Klan and the Stone Mountain project, and how this affects the legacy of Rushmore. That's worth covering in the legacy section. I believe that topic is far better covered in appropriate depth there rather than just he inappropriate place the topic is breached now. The fact that a section on this topic doesn't exist and the fact that I don't want to be accused of whitewashing an important topic is the reason I haven't removed it already. But I hope to introduce at least a short section on the topic soon and restore the proper flow of writing in the earlier section. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

New section and coverage of historical topics more generally

I've started a new article section provisionally titled "Current issues", in which I've placed the existing subsections about the Black Hills Land Dispute and "Proposed Additional Faces", as well as a much-needed subsection discussing Gutzon Borglum's racial and political views (including how the NPS has treated this topic). The "Current issues" section should probably be expanded further to include other topics, in particular Native American views and the proposed Mount Rushmore Protection Act (H.R. 386). There are a couple of good books with good coverage of these topics to draw from: the above-mentioned recent book A Biography of a Mountain (Matthew Davis), as well as the older Great White Fathers (John Taliaferro).

I've called the section "Current issues", but I'm not really sure what to title it. The issues at hand are much discussed currently, but many of them are long-standing. In the case of Borglum, he is actually long-deceased, but his Klan association and often-racist views are the subject of renewed attention. I'm trying not to make it a "Controversy" section, though it kind of is in practice. I think having a single section for viewpoints and controversies about Mount Rushmore is a good place to have evenhanded treatment of those issues (and avoid whitewashing them), which if incorporated wholesale under "History" would very quickly weigh that section down and create undue weight for presentist concerns.

I think the "History" section also needs to be expanded in a comprehensive way. Much of it was written in kind of a piecemeal way (like many Wikipedia articles), and while it has good coverage for some historical topics, in many places, doesn't seem to cover the topic in as much depth as an old PBS American Experience episode (s14e6) on the creation of Mount Rushmore that I viewed recently. That's certainly something that needs to be remedied, especially given that there's no shortage of high-quality secondary source historical books on the topic. ~~~~ Peter G Werner (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

No comment on if the section should be kept or not, haven't read it for neutrality, and you've made a lot of edits today. But at a minimum it should be moved to just before "In popular culture", as the page up to that point describes the actual site and physical commemorations. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I really do think I've made a strong effort to stick to NPOV, and in fact, far more so than some of the drive-by comments about Borglum that I was replacing. If there are POV concerns with my additions, please let me know. (And yes, I have made a lot of edits - pardon me putting in some work to try and improve the quality of the article. :-)

I also disagree that this is a section that should be relegated to the end of the article along the lines of the "In popular culture" section. Some of these sections were previously included under "History", and while they didn't really seem to belong there, they probably should be in an adjacent section. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

No, not like "In popular culture", it would go above that. Your preferred placement is far above much of the descriptions and other major topics about the actual physical site and notable statues, the subjects of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

After the section on commemorative stamps? I don't think so. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Controversy sections are usually placed after the text describes the page topic on Wikipedia articles. What I've pointed out here is not unusual, and not personally critical of your work. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, it's not meant to be a "controversy" section per se. The topics are of enough importance that I really don't think they should be an end topic, along the lines of "In popular culture...." and "miscellaneous" type sections. I have nevertheless moved the placement down the page and put it after more basic topics like the site description. Peter G Werner (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it. But it is a controversy section, and relatively long (almost to the point of forking if to its own page?), so placing it after 'Tourism' would be the typical way to handle a section like this. Donald Trump wanting his face placed on the statue or the personal interests and views of the sculptor have little to do with the actual site, the topic and creation of the statues, or Mount Rushmore's physical surroundings. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Putting these topics as an end section opens the article once again to accusations of "whitewashing" the topic, which creation of this section was meant to avoid. And not every article on a geographic location must present topics in the same rigid order - order of topics is a guideline. Basically, there's no way of treating these topics that's going to make everyone happy. I've done my best. Peter G Werner (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I doubt if anyone would complain about "whitewashing", unless they misunderstand the scope of the article. This is a page about both a mountain and a work of art, and controversies about the sculptor and a narcissistic president have little to do with it. Criticism of the sculptor's views and interests are best presented at his stand-alone page and relate here only tangentially. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

On the contrary, the sculptors views and associations are a key part of at two very important books on the topic of Mount Rushmore, as I've explained here and in the prior section. Wikipedia should follow the lead of scholarly WP:SECONDARY historical sources on the topic, which treat the subject as non-trivial. Peter G Werner (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe "separating the art from the artist" is a too tired view. Someone looking into the creation of Mt. Rushmore would start at this page rather than the sculptors, so I believe the artists views are important to include in the main works article. Just my two cents (someone who has never edited this page haha)! UnburntEdit (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Mount Rushmore → Mount Rushmore National MemorialMount Rushmore National Memorial – Quite simply, this article is about the statues on the face of Mount Rushmore and the larger National Memorial. Mount Rushmore, the peak itself, has only secondary notability. In fact, it was a peak that hardly had any mention at all in historical sources prior to Gutzon Borglum choosing it as the site for his memorial project.

Having the article name as the name of the peak also creates the problem that the article doesn't really discuss the mountain as a geographical feature until about three paragraphs in. If "Mount Rushmore" really is the primary topic, that should be discussed in the first few sentences.

Changing the title far better aligns the title with the actual subject of the article. So I propose moving the article to Mount Rushmore National Memorial and that Mount Rushmore redirect to that, the reverse of the current situation. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose – In considering the criteria for article naming, the addition of "National Memorial" would go along with the 'Precision' factor, though I believe this is outweighed by 'Naturalness'. Most people call the memorial simply "Mount Rushmore", also supporting the 'Concision' and 'Recognizability' naming factors. There was a discussion on potentially splitting the article (based on the name) in 2022/2023. —ADavidB 00:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose In addition to what ADavidB said, the WP:COMMONNAME of the statues is "Mount Rushmore", even if that technically is the name of the peak. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, per common name and brevity. 'Mount Rushmore' is the well-known shorthand description of the artwork. Would like to take this opportunity to thank Peter G. Werner for his very good recent editing of this page, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment The previous discussion on splitting the page is kind of irrelevant. This is not a proposal to split the page, it's a discussion of what title best fits the subject. There really hasn't been any previous consensus on this topic before now, which is why I'm brining it up. Oppose or support the proposal on its merits and the best interpretation of MOS, not because of a presumption that this has been discussed already. I respect the stated reasoning so far, though I would weight title specificity more highly. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.