Talk:Devils Tower/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Devils Tower. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Odd erosion pattern

Can anyone explain why the top third of the tower is visibly much more eroded than the relatively-pristine lower two-thirds? If the tower was exposed by erosion of surrounding soft material, wouldn't there be a gradual change in the amount of erosion from the most-eroded top to the least-eroded bottom? And, can I justifiably eroded put any more erosions in this paragraph? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.31.127.7 (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Origin

Devil's Tower has, indeed, a volcanic origin. It was most likely, a "caldera" similar to Kilauea's, without having an external flow and, therefore, without any volcanic material around its crater. Most "calderas" have little gases and hot lava may erupt to a certain altitude, but always falling inside the crater. This process explains absence of volcanic debris around Devil's Tower. --Fev 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the National Park Service's "Devils Tower" site, on the Frequently Asked Questions page, the answer as to whether the tower is of volcanic origin is that it's not. "(Is Devils Tower an old volcano?- No.)" They go on to explain the magma intrusion. See http://www.nps.gov/deto/faqs.htm Yours, Wordreader (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Formation theory dissent, or original research?

The following two sentences require citation:

"The current popular theory, that the tower is an intrusive feature, does not really hold up under scrutiny. If the tower formed as an intrusion, then the columns should radiate out from the center instead of rising steeply."

These statements are preceded by:

"Geologists agree that Devils Tower was formed by the intrusion of igneous material."

They are then followed by:

"Geologists agree that the igneous material intruded and then cooled..."

This seeems contradictory. If geologists generally agree on a theory of formation which includes intrusion, then that "current popular theory" does indeed "hold up under scrutiny". There is room here for dissent, of course, but unless a dissenting theory has been published by geologists in a scientific journal, it would seem to violate WP:NOR. -Tobogganoggin talk 04:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Falling Rocks?

This article reads, "Rocks are continually breaking off and falling from the steep walls. Seldom do entire columns fall, but on rare occasions they do."

My family and I were out at the tower just today and one of the Park Rangers told us that the last rock to fall on the north side was about 10,000 years ago. Given the freeze-thaw attack that almost certainly occurs in the Wyoming climate, I didn't quite believe him.

He also said there was a column on the south side that leans about 1 cm. per year and will someday break off.

Can someone verify the frequency of spall from this monolith? Jeffcityjoe 05:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On the National Parks Service "Devils Tower" website, on the "Frequently Asked Questions" page, the NPS states that there have been no major column falls in the history they have, 200 years. That wording would seem to leave room for minor fall events, though. See: http://www.nps.gov/deto/faqs.htm Yours, Wordreader (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I just came across one of "Did You Know?" highlights on the "Devils Tower" website that states "[. . .] Some geologists believe the last column fell 10,000 years ago." So, your Ranger was correct in providing this Park Service information. Perhaps they are considering a whole column loss and not just pieces. See: http://www.nps.gov/deto/parkmgmt/centennial-initiative-2016.htm Yours, Wordreader (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Similar structures

I removed the section "Similar structures" (see below) because the lead sentence is clearly wrong. Devils Tower is phonolite porphyry, not basalt. The rock was intruded far below the surface and cooled very slowly. Some of the content after the second sentence may be useable, but as written, it is an invitation to add a long list of superficially similar features that are unrelated geologically.

Although the basaltic columns are impressive, they are not unique. Basalt columns are a common volcanic feature, and they occur on many scales (faster cooling produces smaller columns). Other notable sites include Fingal's Cave in Scotland, the Garni gorge in Armenia, the Cyclopean Isles near Sicily, Giant's Causeway in Ireland, Devils Postpile National Monument in California, Basalt Prisms in Hidalgo, Mexico, Organ Pipes National Park in Victoria (Australia), the "Organ Pipes" formation on Mount Cargill in New Zealand, Castellfollit de la roca in Catalonia, Spain and the "Columnar Cape" (Russian: Mis Stolbchaty) on Kunashir, the southernmost of the Kurile Islands in Russia.

Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I support your removal of this section. Cheers Geologyguy 16:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Name

The article says

If Colonel Dodge intended the name "Devils Tower" to refer to a single devil, then proper grammar would indicate that the monument be called "Devil's Tower". It has been said that the apostrophe was omitted due to a clerical error on early governmental papers, and the version without the apostrophe became its legal, and therefore official, name.

My understanding is that very, very few official geographical names in the United States take the possessive apostrophe, and those few (such as Martha's Vinyard) are grandfathered in; otherwise the possessive apostrophe is not permitted. So all this seems like groundless speculation. Herostratus (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it and added sourcing to the USGS for the policy of apostrophe elimination. It has been standard for over a century, even though the original reason for adopting the policy is unclear (there are several obvious practical reasons). In general, speculating like this on Wikipedia is discouraged. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit looks good to me.[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your deletion was too quick. According to one of "Did You Know?" highlights at the National Park Service's "Devils Tower" website, Herostratus is correct about the apostrophe being omitted due to "a clerical error" that was never corrected. In spite of what the USGS site says, the NPS says differently and I would think that they are the go-to site for Devils Tower information. See the highlights here: http://www.nps.gov/deto/forteachers/self-guided.htm ; http://www.nps.gov/deto/parkmgmt/firemanagement.htm ; http://www.nps.gov/deto/planyourvisit/trafficandtraveltips.htm If the "Did You Know?" highlights vary from page to page (though they aren't doing so tonight), just search the site for them and it will pop up. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a point Wordreader, since (according to the article) the entity was named in 1875 and the U.S. Board on Geographic Names was established only in 1890. However, they don't grandfather in previously named entities unless they make a specific decision to do so, which (the ref says) they have done only five times, for a specific reason such as to avoid name confusion or in response to a popular campaign. So, clerical error or no, the entity would be named "Devils Tower" and would have taken that name as soon after 1890 as the Board got around to so specifying. So it is possibly true that, except for a clerical error, the entity would have been named "Devil's Tower" in the period 1875-1890. But, the ref notwithstanding, and even though it's a government website, I consider that not proven, and just as likely to be a story that got passed down, possibly after being made up. (If it's really known and proven that it was a clerical error, when was this discovered, and why wasn't it corrected then? The error would have had to have been made and discovered before 1890 (otherwise it wouldn't have been an error but just someone following Board guidelines).) And even if true, what the name might have been (but wasn't) in the period 1875-1890, when there were few if any signs and probably not that many maps showing the feature, is not really very important. So I'd leave it out. Herostratus (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"But, the ref notwithstanding, and even though it's a government website, I consider that not proven" -- if an official government Web site is not considered a reliable source, then what is, if I may ask? More and more it seems I come to Wikipedia looking for pertinent details about a subject only to find what I'm looking for on the article's talk page where it was quashed from the actual article by the very zealous editorial community here. I don't understand why information cannot simply be left in place with its sourcing, along with potential alternative theories, and left to the reader to make up their own mind. In this case, the NPS site can be cited along with the USGS site.184.97.225.211 (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, the DYK says "When the proclamation establishing Devils Tower was published, the apostrophe was unintentionally dropped from "Devil’s"..." What proclamation was that? If it was Roosevelt's September 24, 1906 proclamation establishing Devil Tower National Monument, then it was not an error at all. I can't imagine what earlier proclamation "establishing Devils Tower" there could have been -- unless there was a formal proclamation establishing its discovery and existence, which I kind of doubt. Sounds like the National Park Service needs to get its facts right. Herostratus (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In the film "In the Light Of Reverence", the Lakota "Matotipila" is translated as "Bear Lodge" not "Bear Tower". Also, the page here about famous Lakota theologian/historian Vine Deloria Jr., is further evidence of "tipi" meaning "lodge", as his father's name was Tipi Sapa, translated as Black Lodge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.192.151 (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Climbing?

Article says

"...about 1% of the Monument's 400,000 annual visitors climb Devils Tower..."

That's 11 people EVERY single day. I've been there and it seems like a lot. If we figure that people don't do much climbing in the dead of winter or during bad weather, that figure shoots up to 15 or more... every day. Either way, it would be good to know where that number comes from.

Jbarta (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and this is completely OR, the day I climbed the tower I counted at least 16 climbers including my own group. This was also in early May which is the early season and supposedly a slower time. Climbing groups are supposed to sign in with the rangers so they have fairly accurate statistics but I have no idea where to find them. sdgjake (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Append {{fact}} to the statement which needs a citation. -- SEWilco (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Added citation from National Park Service. here under "CURRENT CLIMBING USE AND MANAGEMENT" section about 1/5 of the way down. --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 20:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The bigger question is how do they know how many total visitors they have since there isn't always some one at the gate and I they doubt the count the number of people in every car or the folks who walk in from the KOA.--OMCV (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in reading how climbers register (not with the gate keeper), see this page: http://www.nps.gov/deto/planyourvisit/climbing.htm Yours, Wordreader (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Close encouters

Why has no one included the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind by Stephen Speilberg, 1977? The drawings by the character portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss and the mutual magnetic object that all are drawn to is Devil's Tower in South Dakota. Lastgoldeneagle (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The movie is, in fact, briefly mentioned in the article. Going in to details of the film would be more appropriate in the movie's article. SpinningSpark 14:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's Steven Spielberg (note spelling), and second, it is untrue that the image of the tower was featured on the movie poster. I attempted to change this in the article, but wikiidiots reverted it to the incorrect information because I offered no "verification." You want verification, wikiidiots, Google an image of the frigging poster! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.189.193 (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if you don't provide verification how do we know it is not you who is the wikidiot? Did you mean google this frigging poster by the way? You might also be interested in reading our policy WP:CIVIL, I am afraid it is compulsory if you want to continue editing Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 11:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the burden of proof is on the one adding the uncited assertion, not the one removing it. 69.181.189.193 is right - Devils Tower didn't actually appear in any of the movie posters for the original release. Thats not to say it wasn't ever used for marketing, in fact the picture you posted is for the 30th anniversary release - but Wikipedia isn't for documenting such trivial things. It is enough to say that the tower featured prominently in the movie and let the reader consult Close Encounters of the Third Kind for details. Based on this, I removed the movie poster sentence. PS: if wikidiiot is the worst thing any of us get called today, we can consider ourselves lucky. CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYO^Help!) 22:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging Wyoming Highway 110

I would say that it would make sense to merge WY 110 here since it is simply the driveway to the national monument. It is kind of similar to how some Virginia state routes redirect to the article of an institution that they serve, like Virginia State Route 350 redirects to Tidewater Community College. ---Dough 48 72 01:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it connect to Entrance Road (Devils Tower National Monument)? If so they could be merged. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. Merging to the Entrance Road is the better option here. --Fredddie ™ 05:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. ---Dough 48 72 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that probably is a better option. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be too, especially as the highway was created specifically to lead to the monument User:David Gabriel Sforza —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC).

I know I'm kind of late for this, but merging this into Devil's Tower would be like merging New York State Route 431 into Whiteface Mountain. Doesn't seem like that good of an idea to me. ----DanTD (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am going to remove the merge templates, this has been running since 11 December and there are no supporters besides the proposer - who has never returned to comment on the alternative merge target so they may not even be aware that that article exists. SpinningSpark 06:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Phonolite and trachyte

I removed the word "trachyte" from the sentence "Geologists classify the igneous material as phonolite porphyry, a light to dark-gray or greenish-gray igneous trachyte rock with conspicuous crystals of white feldspar."

Phonolite and trachyte are two different rock types. Two other, transitional, rock types exist between phonolite and trachyte compositions, namely trachytic phonolite and phonolitic trachyte.

Devil's Tower is composed of phonolite. (reference: Kiver, E. P. and Harris D.V. (1999) Geology of U.S. Parklands, 5th edition, John Wiley, page 692). Therefore, to refer to it as "trachyte" would appear to be incorrect.

I'd be interested to see details of other reference sources that describe the composition of Devil's Tower.

--GeoWriter (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

On the widely used "total alkalis versus silica" classification diagram, the most widely used classification scheme used by geologists to describe rocks that are aphanitic or porphyritic with an aphanitic groundmass, trachyte and phonolite are adjacent fields. The chemical composition of Devils Tower (from www.navdat.org) shows minimal variability, but it does span the border between trachyte and phonolite, so it should most properly be referred to as "trachyte to phonolite" (Sd rockdoc (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

monolith?

I think the term monolith is incorrect in the first paragraph, because it is contradicted by the second paragraph, where it corractly stated that the tower consists of "igneous rocks", in other words, precisely NOT a monolith (q.v.). --174.119.145.37 (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the use of "rocks" here refers to more than one rock type, not it being multiple distinct bodies of rock. (Sd rockdoc (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Devils Tower National Monument → Devils Tower — The article is about the feature, Devils Tower, not the park that it is in, Devils Tower National Monument.--Sd rockdoc (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Devils Tower currently refirects to Devil's Tower, a disambiguation page which will give you a disambiguation problem. Either you will have to make the name a disambiguated name such as Devils Tower, Wyoming (currently a redirect) or else you will have Devils Tower and Devil's Tower going to two different places. The second solution is bad and will require messy disambiguation hatnotes. There was probably a good reason this article was called Devils Tower National Monument in the first place. SpinningSpark 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

do not rename As with many/all such National Monuments, there is only one article describing the feature with a little information about park. There is not enough info to describe the park alone--the park only exists because of the feature. What would one describe about the park? The roads and parking lots? Not even. Hmains (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are already at least two articles on the roads, Entrance Road (Devils Tower National Monument) and Wyoming Highway 110. I also seem to recall that there was once an article on the visitor's center, but probably now merged. SpinningSpark 10:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

My inclination is to leave it as it is, per SpinningSpark. I'd like to see a little material about the park itself in the article. And a case could be made for changing Devils Tower to be a redirect to Devils Tower National Monument, with a "see also" type hatnote there pointing to Devils Tower (disambiguation), since the Wyoming feature is probably by far what most people are looking for. But it probably works OK as it is now. Either way - leaving it as it is, or making the proposed move with some futzing around to make it all work - would be OK, but all in all I would tend not to support the proposed move. Herostratus (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above posters that the article should stay as is. sdgjake (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Do not rename. Leaflet (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Devils Tower) Mike Cline (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

– I know there was a previous discussion, but I think its result was clearly and obviously wrong. By titling this with "national monument", we essentially have created a coatrack for Devils Tower in an article that's supposed to be about a national monument. And, no it's not the same thing - see Mount St. Helens, which is about the mountain, and Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument which is only about the park around it. I also am proposing the current disambiguation page to get a (disambiguation) at the end of its name, and redirecting Devil's Tower and all minor variants to the feature in Wyoming. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - It should be like Statue of Liberty National Monument and Statue of Liberty. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Support both aspects of the nomination per nom. Almost the entire article is about the rock formation. If a separate article on the monument is needed, so be it. But this is not it. Furthermore, this is the primary meaning of "Devil's Tower" (Google results). — AjaxSmack 09:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox

I replaced the infobox protection area with infobox mountain, which is more appropriate. When someone wishes to make an article on the national monument, the infobox is still in the article, just commented out. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

B class review ?

This article appears to be ready for a B-class review. Djembayz (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Unattributed text

I cannot help but notice that the early, uncited parts of the "Theories of formation" section are extremely close in wording and order to the National Park Service's "Devils Tower" webpage, "Geologic Formations", under the "The Tower is Formed: An Ongoing Debate" section (http://www.nps.gov/deto/naturescience/geologicformations.htm). Unless otherwise indicated, the material on the National Park Service's website is considered to be in the public domain (http://www.nps.gov/disclaimer.htm) and can be used by the public without prior written permission. Even so, on the WP:Plagiarism page, we see that the material must be attributed and are given several methods how to do so. WP:Plagiarism defines the act as: "Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes", then implying that the work is one's own by not attributing it.

Writer: please rewrite those paragraphs into your own words or quote exactly and attribute the text. Either way, attach citations to verify your points. I haven't looked through other parts of the article to see if they, too, need fixing. Please fix any other places where you may have done the same thing.

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Devils Tower. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110629022806/http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/nps/nps/part2.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/nps/nps/part2.htm#deto

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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} 09:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Butte

Is the term butte used just for eroded mountains with horizontal strata or is it also applied to volcanic formations such as Devils tower? In other words, has it a broad meaning or a precise geological and geomorphological meaning? The first sentence says Devils tower is a butte.--Miguelferig (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

National Monument

Shouldn't this page be titled "Devils Tower National Monument" or at least include "National Monument" in the lead paragraph? This is, after all, the very first NM ever established. What's more, all other NM pages are designated this way. Pistongrinder (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

See the two previous discussions on this above. They were both formally closed. You can open a new RFC if you want, but please read the previous discussions first to understand the decision that was made. SpinningSpark 14:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, I removed the words "National Monument" from the beginning of the Climbing section, since climbers technically ascend the tower, and not the monument.Pistongrinder (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

An editor removed this passage as trivia:

The 1977 movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind used the formation as a plot element and as a location for its alien contact scene and climactic scenes.

Is it trivia? Close Encounters of the Third Kind was a very popular movie and remains well-known today - probably one of the 200 or even 100 long-term best-known Hollywood movies. And Devils Tower was an important and recurring theme in the movie - not just as a location, but as a destination because of the way it was implanted in Richard Dryfus's mind and how this came out. Speaking for myself, the movie is the first thing I think of when I think of Devils Tower, and I'm probably not the only one. I think this deserves a mention in the article. Herostratus (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. The CEOTTK/Tower association is EXTREMELY well known. I don't think it would be stretching it to say that if not for the movie featuring the peak as one of the main plot devices, at least 1/3d of people, perhaps even a significantly larger percentage of us, who currently are aware of Devils Tower ..... would not be. No matter how many people dislike associating real fact with science fiction movies, this is one association which has cemented itself within mankind's memory, and will most likely stay that way til the end of forever.

But due to much past experience of WikiCops reverting and/or deleting new content added by interested & knowledgeable parties, evidently just because the content IS new, and quite often when the specific WikiCop had never once showed any prior interest in the specific article ..... I quit editing for the most part years ago. So while I 100% agree there needs to be at least a few sentences devoted to the CEOTTK/Tower connection, I'll let other editors add that part to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.69.146 (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be straightforward to find a couple of reliable sources that demonstrate that CEOTTK is a notable and significant source of awareness and tourism of Devils Tower. Without those references, an editor may be justified in removing the content as trivia. Attacking your fellow editors is unhelpful. Please follow the guidance of Wikipedia:Handling trivia. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's trivial. Stuff like "Devil's Tower was mentioned in the song List of Cool Stuff by the Obscure Headbangers" might be trivial. But:

Close Encounters of the Third Kind is one of the most notable films of all time. It was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry.[2] and was selected in 1998 by the American Film Institute as #64 on their list of 100 top movies using criteria such as cultural impact, popularity over time, and historical significance. (Quality is not important to Wikipedia, but FWIW it's also generally considered to be of high artistic quality for a work of this type [3] e.g. "One of the great moviegoing experiences" -- Roger Ebert.)
And Devil's Tower plays a central role in the film. It's not a just a random location but the theme driving the protagonist's journey.

I understand that all this could be seen by editors as an impingement on the story of an entity mainly of geologic and historical importance, but this can't be helped. The move is 35 years old and it's part of the cultural and historical landscape and is the main thing that many people associate with the tower. So to not include some mention of it would a failure on our part, I think. Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree this deserves a mention in the article and I think the current entry has the balance about right. However, I do not think such a tangential factoid should be in the lede (the fact that it is seems to have been missed by everyone in this discussion including the deleter).

I am not sure that it is correct to say that most people know of this formation through the film. I certainly didn't; I came to this article by an entirely different route. My recollection of the film is that "Devil's Tower" was never mentioned by name and I never realised that it was actually a real location until I found this article. Spinning Spark 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The current ref simply states the location was used. To stay we need a ref that explains the significance of the movie to the landmark. Just that it was used in the movie is trivial. The rock may be significant to the film - don't know, never saw it - but, is the film significant to the rock? And yes, I too missed that bit in the lead which seems ref'd to a book; does anyone have access to it to check the content re: the significance to the rock? Vsmith (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, did not see the duplicate mention in the lede -- I was responding the removal of another editor's recent addition of the file (his version was arguably a bit too detailed). I removed it from the lede since we don't need it twice, and I guess it doesn't belong in the lede, although it might.

@Vsmith, well the ref I used (Filmsite, currently ref #14) gives a very detailed description of the plot so yes, this describes the whole thing in detail (The basic deal is, the bug-men have a huge saucer buried near Devils Tower (I think) and for whatever reason they want to leave subtle clues to the location. They plant an image of the tower in the protagonist's mind, but its vague and he doesn't know what it is -- he just knows that he has something in his mind. He become obsessed and kind of crazy. There's a famous scene where he's sculpting his mashed potatoes into a mound that looks like the tower -- he doesn't know why but he's driven to do this. His wife decides he's crazy and leaves him and yadda yadda, then (as I recall) he sees a picture of the tower and he's like OMG that's it, he takes off for the tower, he has to fight through the government men to get there (they've caught other clues) and the climactic scenes take place there, the bug-man spaceship emerges and takes him on board and Bob's your uncle. Good movie!. So as you can see it's not just a random location but the object of the protagonist's quest, which drives the whole movie.)

As to the film being significant to the rock, I'd say yes. As noted above it's an extremely notable film. If it was just some random obscure film that'd be different. In fact it'd be arguably justified to include more in the article, describe the mashed potato scene or whatever. I haven't done that because I'm sensitive to not overdoing it. Herostratus (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, the mashed potato scene is all of 30 seconds and is not exactly crucial even to the film plot, let alone this article. After his wife leaves him and he is free to follow his model mountain building fetish, Dreyfuss spends much more time building a model out of mud which fills the living room. Or it might have been the kitchen, I don't remember. Anyway, while I have some sympathy that its significance to such a notable film deserves a mention, we are still waiting a year and a half later for a reliable source, as requested by some editors above, to verify that Close Encounters has some significance to the rock (rather than vice versa). Could it be they don't exist? Spinning Spark 08:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I found a source myself, first page of results on gbooks. Obviously much to difficult for the poor loves of the film world. Relax, you can go back to "resting" now. Spinning Spark 07:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Every time I think Wikipedia editors can't get any stupider, I am proven wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8104:730:696E:F2C4:4F48:DF64 (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sub articles

I see several "sub articles" are linked to in the article. These just don't seem notable to me. An entire article about the road that goes to the monument? Same thing for the entrance station (yes, that's where you pay to get in) and the ladder. Are these really deserving of their own articles? These seem like things that should be rolled into the main article and should be discussed as part of the history of the natural feature or the history of the national monument. I see the original name of the article was Devils Tower National Monument but that it was redirected to just Devils Tower. It seems to me if one were to have a separate article for Devils Tower National Monument, the CCC infrastructure would be something you might discuss in such an article. Any thoughts? MDuchek (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It does makes sense to create an article on the national monument (this article never was about the monument and has always been about the geographic feature). It would make sense to roll those articles into a national monument article. I know that several of the buildings are national historic landmarks, which is why they have articles, and the entrance road should have an article as it is a state highway. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See also #Merging Wyoming Highway 110 discussion above. Spinning Spark 23:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)