Talk:Stone Mountain

Panoramic image

Could it be put somewhere else on the page? I don't feel the very top is an appropriate place. Spartan198 (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Better still, could that panorama simply be removed? It's a very poor-quality image. Whoever made it didn't know how to get things to line up properly (you really need to use a tripod), nor how to compensate for vignetting (the darker regions around the edges of the individual photos), and the blurriness near the edges of the individual photos suggests that a poor-quality lens was used. Craig418 (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It was taken over 8-1/2 years ago, when the technology ordinary people had to do this was not as good as it is now. It should not be at the top of the article, but I think it is OK where it is now, until there is a better one. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the carving depicts leaders of the evil Confederacy and its war to preserve the enslavement of human beings, is it not appropriate that the image shown be unattractive?

Natural history

This article could use a section on the geological and natural history of Stone Mountain. Under "Park" I added a blurb about the Georgia oak that should be moved to such a section whenever someone with the knowledge decides to add it. —Eoghanacht 16:17, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Plane crash

I noticed this comment added to the article, so I moved it here. --Eoghanacht 2005 June 29 12:51 (UTC)

As a witness to the crash of the single engine airplane. I find it very hard to believe that the pilot had engine trouble. When the airplane flew across my neighborhood (that directly borders the rear side of the park) it was so low that we could not see it because of the trees. The airplane was moving fast, and the engine was strong and loud up to the moment of impact. The impact with the mountain was extremely loud and followed by a large fire that could be easily seen. Additionally, the private airport that was next to Stone Mountain Park had been closed for 3 years and had a line of telephone poles was installed down the runway by the new owners.

This could be an interesting anecdote, but would have to be supported by published, secondary sources to be an acceptable part of the encyclopedia. The park, itself might be interested in your conclusions, based on your memories. I, personally, find them interesting, but they are more appropriate for a blog, unless there is at least one notable source. As is, would be classified as WP:OR, original research. rags (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

1929 photo

I have a photo of the monument in a 1929 US history textbook. The book is public domain (copyright never renewed). The photo credit is "Stone Mountain Association," and I think it's safe to assume that the photo's copyright was not renewed either. (Renewal records for photos for 1929+28=1957 are not online.) I haven't gotten around to scanning the photo yet. It shows a Greek-style temple in the foreground, with a rectangular pool of water. In the background is the mountain, with a carving in it, but the carving is not the same one as in the modern photo!?!? It appears to show a larger group of horsemen, and the carving goes all the way down to the horses' feet. Are there two carvings? Or was the older carving destroyed and replaced with the new one? I'm curious about whether any of this was there in 1915, when the second Klan was founded, or whether it was just a plain old mountain at that time. It's also interesting that the park's web site never mentions the mountain's, er, colorful history in any way.--Bcrowell 1 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)

Are you sure that it is an actual photo and not retouched? I'm not positive, but I think the original plan for the carving was as you describe. It may have been retouched to show what it was planned to look like. (Mount Rushmore was not doe as orignally planned either.) There are not two carvings now, and I'm pretty sure there wasn't an older carving, and I'm pretty sure that none of it was there in 1915. Bubba73 04:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

There were two separate carvings by different sculptors at different times. The first, by Gutzon Borglum, was started in the 1920s and never completed. The second was started in the 1960s and is the one currently seen. From my recollection of a book I don't have to hand right now, I believe the second completely replaced the first; and the article says it was dynamited three years after 1925. -- Chris j wood 10:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Could this be the picture (a model of the plan)

• model

Bubba73 18:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

laser show started when?

Does anyone know when the laser show started? The reason is that "a laser show has been projected on the carving nightly for 20 years." will soon become obsolete, so it would be better to list the year it started.

I searched on Google and couldn't find it. I've emailed to try to find out. (I think it started in the med or late 1970s.) Bubba73 04:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I got email back and they said that the first full season of the laser show was in 1983, so I'll put that date in the article. I think there might have been some sort of laser show earlier than that. I didn't go but I remember a friend telling me about it. Bubba73 16:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I know from personal experience that the current laser light show began in the spring of 1987 because I lived about 3 miles from the park at the time and went that first season. It was considered a great novelty of modern times. Thus the statement that "it has been projected on the carving nightly for 20 years" is an accurate one. I still live very close and go to the park once every 3 weeks. I will do a double check on the years and other research at the parks excellent museum. SMARTKiddy 01:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know from personal experience that I took dates to the laser show during high school, and I graduated in 1984. Neither of our personal experiences count for evidence here, but the 25th Anniversary reference below does. Shawn D. (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember going to the laser show as a kid and seeing the songs "Ghostbusters" and "Footloose". Both of those movies came out in 1984 so I doubt they would have had them in the show if it premiered in 87. I actually used to work at the Laser Show (doing pyro) but don't work there anymore so I don't have access to the info about it. Akubhai 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Stone Mountain Park website says that this year they're celebrating the laser show's 25th aniversary which puts the start at 1983. I lived in Stone Mountain from 1984 to 1986 and understood 1983 to be the starting year, (apparently the tone of the show had to modified for 1984 because it upset a lot of Northerers, it being a tad too much pro-South). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.175.151 (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

more history

Under "history", how about adding:

• when it was bought by the state
• when it was opend as a park
• when the skylift was built
• when the carving was started and finished
• when the laser show started

Things like that. Now the history contains only 3 items. Bubba73 03:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Most of what you listed is already in the article, just not in the history section. The organization is kind of a mess, though.--Bcrowell 03:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

earlier discussion about focus of article

I moved the following material from the top of the talk page down to here.--Bcrowell 17:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed some links that were too trivial to help a reader. User:Wetman.

Does Jefferson Davis really count among the generals of the Confederacy? And if the present-day population of Stone Mountain is 70% black, isn't that quite normal in an urban Georgia setting? Why "ironically?" Wetman 01:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

It's ironic because the place is basically a holy site of the Ku Klux Klan.--Bcrowell 03:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the place is basically a fantastic piece of geology, and has been so for millenia. Difficult to see that fact through all the Ku Klux Klan related info in this article though. Surely most of that belongs in a different article. -- Chris j wood 16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

The volume of information in this article about the relationship between the carving and the Ku Klux Klan seems inappropriate in this article, which if its title means anything, is actually about a mountain. Clearly there are a number of editors who care deeply about the carving and its cultural history, but I'm not one of them. I'm sure there are many readers who are put off by this when they really want to find out about the place and its geology, flora and fauna, etc.

My proposal is therefore that we create a new article, say Confederate Memorial Carving at Stone Mountain, and move most of the carving/kkk stuff into that. Link both ways. Both articles to contain a short (1-2 paras) summary of the other. -- Chris j wood 16:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think a better solution is simply to expand the information about the site's natural history. I object strongly to the idea of spinning off the memorial into a separate article, which would play into the current private management's efforts to rewrite history. I actually like the edits you've been doing, such as moving the detailed statistics about the monument out of the lead --- I only put them there as a side-effect of trying to make the article's organization make more sense, and you're right, it wasn't a good place to put them.--Bcrowell 17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I've got some source material for that somewhere. I'll dig it out and give it a go. -- Chris j wood 19:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think something along those lines would be good. Perhaps Stone Mountain should be about the mountain and a Stone Mountain Park article should be about the park, including the carving. On the other hand, that would probably leave very little for the Mountin article proper.

One thing I'm wondering about is the line "and the Klan was intimately involved at all stages of the monument's construction. " Was the KKK intimately involved after the State of GA bought it for a state park? I don't know one way or the other. Bubba73 17:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

"and the Klan was intimately involved at all stages of the monument's construction." See the history section of the article. The Klan was involved from the beginning. On the other hand, that would probably leave very little for the Mountin article proper. I think this just points up the fact that nobody has written the necessary natural history material.--Bcrowell 17:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The article says that it was involve at all stages, but mentions only the early part. Was the KKK intimately involved all of the way to the completion in 1970? Bubba73 18:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean, good point. I've reworded the lead appropriately.--Bcrowell 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Question on carving history

The first bit of the section 'History of the memorial and the Ku Klux Klan' confuses me. Until you read it in detail, and especially with the lead Ku Klux Klan activities at Stone Mountain are deep-rooted, it sounds like it is saying that the KKK played a major part in instigating the carving. But if you then look at the dates, you find that the original conception of the project predates the revival of the Klan by some 6 years, perhaps suggesting it was more a case of them being attracted to the mountain by the carving, rather than the other way around.

On the basis that wikipedia history sections are generally written in chronological order, shouldn't the second paragraph come before the first?. -- Chris j wood 19:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've resorted the first two paragraphs. -- Chris j wood 10:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Good edits.--Bcrowell 15:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Another question on carving history.

The history contains the following statement:

The Klan held a major meeting at Stone Mountain in 1975, and at Venable's invitation, the Klan held annual Labor Day meetings on Venable's property, where 60-foot crosses were burned.

It isn't clear if the Venable's property referred to here is Stone Mountain or not. If it isn't, then the second part of the above sentence is not relevant to the article. If it is, then this must have been prior to 1958 (when the State acquired the mountain) and it is misleading to lump it together with a reference to something happening more than 17 years later in 1975; the statement should be moved up the chronology.

Anybody know which it is?. -- Chris j wood 19:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As I read it, the first clause refers to something at Stone Mountain itself, and the rest discusses a continuing series of Klan meetings next door to the park or something. I could be wrong, though. You might want to figure out who initially wrote it, and ask that person for clarification. I googled, but didn't figure out a sufficiently finetuned google search to figure out any more than this.--Bcrowell 21:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Birth of a Nation

Chris deleted the words "KKK propaganda" describing Birth of a Nation, with the following explanation:

History of the memorial and the Ku Klux Klan - 'KKK Propaganda' is arguably POV, not asserted by our own article on the film, and causality challenged (predates KKK revival)

If you feel it's POVish, I don't have any problem with changing it to something else, but the film is mainly about the Klan (see the poster), and the article needs to explain that, because otherwise the reader can't understand the logic. I've changed the adjectival phrase to "Klan-glorifying." No, there is no causality problem. There was a first Klan, which was pretty much defunct by 1915. The film was glorifying the original Klan, and the film was a major factor leading to the creation of the second Klan in that year. I honestly don't think there's any dispute that the film is pro-Klan propaganda. I think the real debate would be that some people, e.g., Woodrow Wilson and D.W. Griffith, saw the first Klan, depicted in the film, as a good thing, a positive response to the excesses of Republican Reconstruction. Griffith did claim that people had misinterpreted the film (that's why he made Intolerance), but he never claimed that it wasn't glorifying the Klan.-Bcrowell 15:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with those words, although I have changed the wording from 'film Klan-glorifying' to 'Klan-glorifying film', which I hope you agree reads better. -- Chris j wood 16:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the proofreading! I'm glad we could work that out. It's a pleasure working with you.--Bcrowell 16:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

natural history photos?

Is there anyone working on the article who is currently living in Atlanta, and could provide some photos to illustrate the natural history? I'm sure the park is beautiful this time of year. I added a photo of some Georgia oak leaves, but it's not exactly the most exciting image :-) It might be interesting to have a photo of the wooded landscape at the bottom, and maybe of the rock pools at the top as well.--Bcrowell 15:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

monolith envy

An anon recently edited the article's claim that Stone Mountain was the third-largest monolith in the world --- Haystack Rock's article lists it as the third tallest. "Tallest" clearly defines the criterion for measurement, while "largest" could refer to height, girth, mass, or volume. I've added some weasel language. Does anyone have a source for the "third-largest" claim that clearly defines what "large" means?--Bcrowell 01:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The claim is patently false. El Capitan in Yosemite is solid granite and rises 3,000 feet from the valley floor! The article itself says that Stone Mountain only rises some 800 feet above the surrounding terrain. I'm deleting the silliness about it being the largest granite monolith. By height AND girth El Capitan is far larger. Tmangray 05:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracy

"The Klan held a major meeting at Stone Mountain in 1975, and at Venable's invitation, the Klan held annual Labor Day meetings on Venable's property, where 60-foot crosses were burned. In reaction to this history, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech includes the line "let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.""

How could MLK Jr. have given a speech about an event in 1975 considering he'd been dead since 1968?

I think you are confused, the speech was not referring to the 1975 event, the speech was referring to the November 1915 meeting which allegedly occurred at the base of the mountain.

Re-read the article it should become apparent to you. Overhere2000 03:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)overhere2000

Local info

I used to work at the Laser Show and still have friends who do. Is anyone actively maintaining this article that would like more info? It looks like someone wants pictures. I'll try to see if I can get a picture of the yellow (confederate) daisy.

Akubhai 21:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Aviation and Navigation

Perhaps this is worth mentioning since the article contains information on airplane accidents. The FAA Atlanta Sectional Chart has a note that states: "Magnetic disturbance of as much as 10° exists at 4000 [feet] elevation in the vicinty of Stone Mountain." --Boone 05:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting information

This article says that the carillion has 732(!) bells, while the carillon article says that the carillion holding the record for most bells has only 77. I don't know how many bells the Stone Mountain carillion actually has, but I doubt that it's 732! -- Jack 22:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Numerous official and semi-official websites give the figure "732-bell carillon". Try Googling "Stone Mountain carillon" for samples. (It still may be wrong in fact!)--Wetman 22:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This site indicates is not a real carillion: http://www.hinsonrisher.com/Stone%20Mountain%20Carillon/default.aspx --Akubhai 15:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks. I just updated the article with a better description (732 bell-tone rods, electronically amplified through 60 speakers) and a newspaper ref. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Granite?

The article also currently states in the beginning "Stone Mountain is also a quartz monzonite rock when described in geologic terms and is therefore not technically granite. " Yet throughout the article it frequently mentions it's composition being granite. This is quite confusing to the visitor like myself trying to read about the geology of Stone Mountain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.182.6 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

laser show info

Shouldn't there be a little bit more info on the laser show?? Samphex 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Rock climbing history

Stone Mountain is currently closed to rock climbing. Is there a history of any rock climbing on Stone Mountain prior to its closure?--64.178.27.65 00:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

The list of ext links was drastically cut back. Done on purpose? n2xjk 13:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

References

The Memorial Association confirms many of the points about the carving and history: http://www.stonemountainpark.org/Stone%20Mountain%20History.htm

Not sure if that is a valid reference, if so, someone can add it since I don't know all the syntax for that. Akubhai 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Amusment Park?

Why is Stone Mountain tagged as an "Amuesment Park (in Georgia)"? I wouldn't consider it an amusement park at all. If it is to be tagged as such then it needs a tag as "Amusement Park in the United States" as well. But I believe the amusement park tag should just be removed. Others? --Mjrmtg 13:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been there; it's more than just the carving, they have a train, a bike trail, fairgrounds, historical re-ennactments, a riverboat, fireworks, a laser show, small rides for kids, camping, fishing, etc. However, it doesn't have the quantity of rollercoasters that more popular parks have... what are the Wiki standards for Amusement parks? --Anon, 6/26/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.69.212.113 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

amsl?

The elevation is stated with the suffix "amsl" (above mean sea level). Is this necessary? I thought that was the default when speaking about elevation of geologic structures.James A. Stewart 00:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The world's largest exposed piece of granite?

I suspect that El Capitan is much larger! If a source can't be found to back up that statement, it should be removed, or it should be reworded. Right now it's quite open to interpretation. "Largest" in what way? Stone Mountain might make it among the top 200 or so, but nowhere near the top. It can at least claim to be the largest in Georgia....;-) -- Fyslee/talk 19:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always heard largest in the world. I'll look for a source. Akubhai 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's one [1] Akubhai 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why the precise wording is important. Right now it's not good enough, and my comments are intended to point that out. The reference you cite states:

"freestanding piece of exposed granite"

which is not the same as

"largest exposed piece of granite"

which is the current wording. The article has that statement immediately before another one mentioning a monolith. Those two need to be merged to make it more accurate. -- Fyslee/talk 00:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Fyslee, you're WRONG. Stone Mountain IS the largest exposes granite monolith in the world. First, El Capitan isn't really a monolith (i.e. Stone Mountain is really one large stone, formed at the same time). Second, El Capitan may be taller but Stone Mountain is more than just the face; it is several miles long. I suggest you do some research before making groundless claims.R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from my original comment and now following comments, I was not dealing with the "monolith" claim at all. The first claim is fuzzy. -- Fyslee/talk 00:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The article states that it is "the third-largest monolith in the world," but you claim it's the "largest exposes [sic] granite monolith in the world." I have nothing against Stone Mountain. It's been quite a few years since I was last on it, but the article needs to be more specific, that's all. -- Fyslee/talk 00:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have always heard largest piece of exposed granite. I found the saying in passing in a few press releases from the park. But if the source says largest freestanding then the article should be changed to reflect the source, not OR. Amazingracer 03:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also as Ryoung pointed out El Capitan is really just a rock face made of granite. In theory there are mountains bigger than El Capitan made of granite, so it would lose its claim. I think why people argue for Stone Mountain, is the fact that is not a mountain at all (wasnt formed like mountains), it is basically just a giant rock lying outside of Atlanta (only part of the entire rock is exposed, as Stone Mountain has veins running under the city of Atlanta and even as far south as Macon). The same way Ayers Rock is just a giant rock laying in the outback. Im trying to see if I can find a more valid source that home made climbing pages and obscure press release about an easter egg hunt. Amazingracer 16:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source:

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Multimedia.jsp?id=m-2099&adv=y R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all a matter of what wording to use. There are of course many granite mountains larger than both El Capitan and Stone Mountain, so just what is a good way to describe Stone Mountain? It is indeed a remarkable formation, of that we can agree. El Capitan is just the name of the portion of the mountain with that exposed granite face, not even of a "mountain". It's actually a wall of the Yosemite Valley in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. -- Fyslee/talk 12:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Added the reference and reworded according to the reference. Amazingracer 04:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read the El Capitan article, you'll note that it is made of several different types of granite. Stone Mountain, on the other hand, is a single igneous pluton that was formed at the same time of the same material. Also, El Capitan may be the 'highest' but 'highest' and 'largest' aren't the same thing:

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Multimedia.jsp?id=m-2099&adv=y

As others have stated, Stone Mountain isn't really a 'mountain,' it's a single giant stone.Ryoung122 07:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Posh and nonsense. El Capitan and two other exposed granite monoliths in Yosemite are the three largest granite monoliths known on earth. El Capitan's exposure, although mainly on the Valley side is nonetheless more extensive than Stone Mountain's all-around exposure. Stone Mountain isn't even in the top 100 worldwide. And they're all "plutons". There are "sugar loafs" in tropical areas that are larger. C'mon guys, fess up. What's really going on here is diehard Confederate boosterism. This isn't even a debate among serious geologists. Tmangray 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I must add, if you were to actually see both El Capitan and Stone Mountain, any doubt would be negated. El Capitan is huge. Next to it, Stone Mountain is a mere hill. Tmangray 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Small Wooded Trail

This was in the Description section.

Beginning at the top of the mountain is a small wooded trail. It starts of to the side of the main trail and leads down to the road and railroad tracks. The only acknowledgement of the trail is a hard to find carving on the edge of the mountain.

Can anyone explain what bearing this information has?Amazingracer 21:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

KKK and the carving

This article has a significant amount of unsourced discussion about the role of the KKK and the carving on the mountain. It seemed plausible to me at first but now I am beginning to suspect it is urban legend. I propose to remove the material from the article altogether unless someone can properly source the information. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 18:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the only "urban legend" is a comment like yours. You are spreading misinformation. It should be EASILY sourceable. For example,

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2145

Do you realize WHY this is called a "Confederate memorial"? Who do you think paid for it?Ryoung122 10:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove it all together. I would instead shorten it down to just a few(1-2) sentences. Amazingracer 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So can you offer any factual support? That's the problem - it is unsourced. If its true it can sure be there I just haven't found anything that's reliable. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 04:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. I guess you could take it all out. My thoughts, is that even it was true, it's a little long as it is. I'll see if I can dig up something, though it may be doubtful. This article is the first time ever I have seen KKK reference to the mountain. Amazingracer 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected a simple google search revealed a few articles. like this one [2], we may have to rewrite that section around the factual information. Amazingracer 20:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is some remarkable research in this area: David B. Freeman Carved in Stone: The History of Stone Mountain Mercer University Press, 1997 Nancy MacLean, Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan (New York: Oxford University Press I would also recommend Ball State University Archives American Radicalism section which have actual tape recordings of William Chaney talking about his support of the project.

You might be able to adjust the article so that it emphasizes the KKK and other private segregationist movements from that era during the 1916-1958 period (Lost Cause era). These organizations did not have the financial means to complete such a large scale construction project (in addition to the limitation of Pre-WWII technology)

The major push in funding came as a reaction to African-American activism during the 1950's. Segregationists hoped that the memorial would serve as a reminder of white supremacy. (esp after the 1954 Brown versus Board of Education). Herman Talmadge and SMMA supported the plans to emphasize Confederate imagery during this time. (additional advances in technology also allowed the project to proceed).

So I'd recommend breaking the origins section into two parts: 1. "Lost Cause" era (KKK, et al) and 2. State Segrationist/White Supremacy reactionary movement of 1950's --Overhere2000 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Note on "Carving" section

Text says it is recessed 42 feet into the mountain, then the deepest point of the carving is at Lee's elbow, which is 12 feet to the mountain's surface. What does this mean? That it's actually 54 feet deep? Very ambiguous.

This confused me too. Can anyone clarify? cmadler (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Landmark

I added it to the "natural landmarks" on the page Landmark page. -Walkingwith08 (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"granite" vs granite

Why is granite in quotes over and over. It really is granite isn't it? If not then maybe that should be explained. Granite is not in quotes on the page describing what granite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peatmanb (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the quotations around granite are inappropriate. The paper cited from 1954 does talk of Stone Mountain being a composite including quartz monzonite, but does not say that it is NOT granite. This bulletin of 1976 clearly marks Stone Mountain as Granite.

The statement "This misnomer is most likely a result of advertisement by granite companies and early park administration." Is clearly not a neutral statement. All sources, including those stated in the article, all claim Stone Mountain to be the largest piece of exposed granite. If the author of this article is going to claim this is a misnomer, then sources should be cited and disputes should be given on all Georgia government and geological papers stating so. (Snamuh (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

References

Size of Carving

Based on calculations carried out using Google Earth and other research I question the claimed size of the carving, which is said to be 190' x 90'. No source is provided. Whilst no indication is given as to what those measurements represent, one can assume that the width represents the distance from Davis' horse's nose to the RH tip of Jackson's cape.

The cape has two "RH tips". The upper one is clearly defined, the lower one fades into the rock. I am using the lower one to be generous.

The height is far less well defined since there is no clear-cut boundary at the bottom edge, where it simply fades into the rock.

I emailed Stonemountainpark.com and put my doubts. They claimed categorically that their measurements and Wikipedia's were correct.

The first discrepancy is this (Georgia Government?) web page, which claims the size is 180' x 69' (a completely different ratio also).

The second discrepancy is this web page from the American Studies section of the University of Virginia. It claims in paragraph 11 that the size of the overall cut-out area is 305' x 190'. Photos of the carving show that the carving is around 45% of the width of the overall cut-out which would make the carving 138' wide.

Based on measurements from Google Earth I believe the carving is closer to 167' x 77' and that the overall cut-out is around 374' wide and around 1.7 acres. Pmolsen (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Pmolsen (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional information: http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2011/08/just_how_big_is_the_stone_mountain.html --seav (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Panoramic View

Is this a suitable graphic? I believe that it is, while Ryan Vesey believes that it is not. I would ask others to offer their opinions, so that we can get a better idea of the community view on this. Gulbenk (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "suitable", but I do think that it's just sort of stuck in at the top of the page and doesn't really fit there from a layout point of view. 63.239.35.194 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal

After reviewing this article, I believe that it may be time to consider restoring the separate articles that once existed regarding Stone Mountain. Currently, Stone Mountain Park is a redirect here, where at one time it was a separate article, although based on this diff, it looks like it was merged unilaterally into this article. I can't find a discussion thread where consensus was established to merge the two.

This current version is loaded with pictures detailing the attractions associated with Stone Mountain Park, and it kind of overwhelms the rest of the article, which details the history of the mountain itself. In my opinion, this article should be just about the physical mountain, its place in history, its geology, ecology, etc. Of course, a link should be provided to the attraction article, where readers would learn about the history of the various attractions that have been added to the mountain over the years. Discussion and opinions are welcome. --McDoobAU93 18:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. However, an article about the park would have to contain nearly the same details presented in the current article, since the mountain is at the very heart of the attraction. Rather than a separate geologically-based article solely on Stone Mountain, why not consider an article about Stone Mountain, Panola Mountain, Arabia Mountain and other similar (related) features in Georgia. Something with the (somewhat unappealing) title of "Georgia Monadnocks"? Gulbenk (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a very small amount of crossover would be expected. Many articles use the {{main}} template to head up a summary about the associated subject. In the case of Stone Mountain Park, it should be almost exclusively about the use of the park as an attraction - details about the skyride, train, Crossroads, etc. Some history about why attractions were installed would be helpful, as well, if it could be found. For example, this is a rough idea of what I'd recommend:

Park features

{{main|Stone Mountain}}

The centerpiece of Stone Mountain Park is Stone Mountain itself, a [[quartz monzonite]] dome [[monadnock]] that rises 825 feet (251 m) above the surrounding terrain and bears upon its north face the world's largest [[bas-relief sculpture]], depicting three figures from Georgia's Confederate period, [[Stonewall Jackson]], [[Robert E. Lee]] and [[Jefferson Davis]]. The mountain and its environs also host a variety of rare flora and fauna.

Conversely, the mountain article would have a brief mention of the park, like so:

Stone Mountain Park

{{main|Stone Mountain Park}}

Stone Mountain is surrounded by Stone Mountain Park, which is owned by the State of Georgia and managed by the Stone Mountain Memorial Association. Stone Mountain Park includes a number of historical exhibits and attractions which are operated by Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation through a lease agreement with the Memorial Association.

I do see your point, but I think my main goal is to provide some distinction between the mountain, a physical formation with its own importance in history (and thus deserving of its own article), and the park that surrounds it, a combination historical park and recreational complex that borders on being considered an amusement park (although I'm sure the SMMA would have issues with that description). I will take a look at the articles you mentioned and see what I can make of them. Thanks! --McDoobAU93 20:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I think you have touched on the main sticking point. I doubt your idea would encounter much success if the proposal were viewed as advancing the concept of Six-Flags-Over-Stone-Mountain. Gulbenk (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Which it wouldn't, because it isn't. In fact, I'd love to find the AJC articles from the late 1990s describing SMMA's disdain for amusement attractions and Herschend's work to convince them that they would do them properly. Such a proposal would have similarities to the amusement park articles, yes, but like the facility itself, it would be an entity unto itself. It would show no bias towards the facility's components that have been there for decades or just the last few years. --McDoobAU93 23:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Lift and separate, separate but equal, whatever you want to call it, sounds, to me, like a good idea. Carptrash (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any significant material that could be split off to form a new article. By all means, create a new article when you have appropiate material, but there is no need for a split tag on this article at this time. Op47 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Confederate Memorial Carving

Is "Confederate Memorial" or "Confederate Memorial Carving" an official name? If not, "memorial" and "carving" should not be capitalized. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

File:John Young Apollo 16-Stone Mountain Confederate Flag.jpg

Stone Mountain on the Moon
(flag photoshopped).

I don't know what the proper capitalization is.

But with all the heat that has happened, especially in the last year, over the Confederacy being honored and memorialized, it will be interesting to see if in the aftermath of astronaut John Young's death whether NASA will make an official statement regarding how they left a pro-slavery tribute up on the Moon.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stone Mountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070310191059/http://www.stonemountainpark.com:80/images/maps/hiking/smp_map_hiking_map.gif to http://stonemountainpark.com/images/maps/hiking/smp_map_hiking_map.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stone Mountain. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080422013135/http://www.georgia.gov/00/photo_article/0%2C2091%2C4802_16275282_27560837_13713914%2C00.html to http://www.georgia.gov/00/photo_article/0,2091,4802_16275282_27560837_13713914,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stonemountainpark.org/ecosystem.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430040725/http://www.gaudc.org/founding.htm to http://www.gaudc.org/founding.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.damonledet.com/photos/stonemountainpark/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Order of sections

To have Geology - Natural History - Confederate Memorial - History is not a very logical sequence. I suggest putting Confederate Memorial first, as that’s what 99% of the people coming to the article will be looking for. Anyone have any problem with that? deisenbe (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to have it in chronological order? Most of the time when you read a biography you're interested what the person did later on in life, but most Wikipedia biographies start with "Early life". I would suggest:

• Geology
• History
• Confederate memorial
• The section entitled "Natural history" doesn't mention history at all, so rename it to "Wildlife" and move it below the chronologically ordered sections.

--ChiveFungi (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

ions

Natural history is biology, never history as we understand it. deisenbe (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Natural history is the history of biology. But the natural history section only talks in the present tense, so it's not really about natural history. --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Natural history is not the history of biology. It’s biology. “History” used to have a broader meaning than now. deisenbe (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Start of construction

So, when did initial construction on the project start?

That is not mentioned anywhere.

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• This has a pretty complete history. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"Carving begins June 23, 1923". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

History question

Did Lee and Davis ever physically meet? Were they ever in the same room together? I have done some research to this effect in the past, and I haven't been able to find any evidence that they ever did but I also haven't been able to find any authoritative statements to the effect that they did not. This bas-relief is described as the last meeting between Lee and Jackson, and Davis also happens to be in the depiction. It's possible that his inclusion is historically misleading and nonsensical on the face of it, but I would need something more solid on this.

173.118.54.119 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing misleading, mislabeled, unsourced image

A user keeps re-adding an (unsourced) image whose caption claims that …

Black Lives Matter, Anonymous, and 3%er's march in solidarity against the KKK at Stone Mountain, GA.

The image is dated 10 July 2015, when Black Lives Matter did not yet exist. Another editor changed the caption to something that seems to make more sense, but that alone doesn’t authenticate the image. I am once again removing image and caption. Please carefully consider the veracity of the image before reverting. —ThorstenNY (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Wording out of context turns offensive

... was seen from the outset "as a memorial to the Confederacy."[5]... The outset of what? As the history section explains there were people at Stone Mountain long before any war or Confederacy. I'm not sure how to rephrase it, but as it is this phrase ignores use by Native Americans and early European settlers and makes it seem like the Memorial debate started when the mountain was first seen by human eyes. Which is misleading and IMHO offensive. This rock is much older and has many more peoples pass than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1C60:45E0:B531:4DBA:1E06:66F7 (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

AJC - Black bridgebuilder honored at Stone Mountain Park

Here is an article from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution about Black bridgebuilder honored at Stone Mountain Park (subscription required). Rjluna2 (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)