Talk:Stone Mountain

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.

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 seperate 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)

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)

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 carillion 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.