Talk:Mount Rushmore Fireworks Celebration

Why I believe this article gives undue weight
To start, I am well-aware that NPOV doesn't mean every side has to be given equal weight. However, I believe this article was written with an agenda (which may or may not be noble, but that is irrelevant here) and selectively chooses sources to fit that agenda.

This article has made the choice to contextualize this speech in the context of indigenous land disputes. In doing so, it cites sources that not only not have to deal with the speech but predate it. Even with the sources that do specifically tie the speech to indigenous land disputes, it doesn't justify contextualizing the speech as part of this grandiose narrative. The background to the speech is, of course, the George Floyd protests. Trump viewed (still does, probably) the George Floyd protests as representing a dangerous, anti-American movement. The merits of that worldview aside, the background section should be written with that mind.

The speech section is arguably even worse. For example, it says that Donald Trump "largely ignored the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in the United States". The source it cites is a transcript of the speech itself. Nowhere is it justified that the omission of the COVID-19 pandemic in the speech is relevant. After one sentence summarizing the speech (and a previous sentence about Mary Hart and Kristi Noem speaking at the event), the section quotes one person's opinion essentially verbatim and then somebody alleging that Trump wants to be on Mount Rushmore itself.

Then the protests sections is actually mostly fine in isolation. I do think it should rely less on direct quotes, though. However, it describes the protests, the charges the protesters received, and the worldview that motivates their protest. However, in the context of the rest of this article, it is clear that the section continues to further the POV of the rest of the article.

After reading this article, I know little about the speech itself. I didn't even learn anything I didn't already know about indigenous rights and the history of land disputes in the United States. However, I did essentially get lectured to view the speech and the Black Hills in a specific way with certain facts being more relevant than others. Whether or not that worldview is right or not, I believe it is not appropriate for this encyclopedia. 2013creek (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)