Talk:Statue of Liberty/Archive 2

Spoiler

"Half submerged in the sand, the Statue provided the apocalyptic revelation at the end of 1968's Planet of the Apes. "

This gives away an important plot element. Perhaps this reference could be turned into a link, with a warning that it contains a movie spoiler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.68.24 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. ✍ (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Censorship has nothing to do with it, the reference is about a fictional movie, and it was not even the real statue in the movie so it should be removed rather than giving away an important plot element to a movie. And yes Wikipedia is very heavily censored, if you want to be factual, it is the most censored "open source" project on the internet. Opinions are not allowed, unverified information is sometimes not allowed, (although rarely enforced as over half of the Statue of Liberty article is not verified), graphical language is not allowed, and a host of other things are not allowed. So don't be flipantly throwing out the Wikipedia is not censored line for an excuse on why an ending to a movie should be allowed to remain here.75.17.210.153 (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Jeffrey

Tablet Inscription

The inscription is mentioned multiple times. It should just be mentioned once. 58.173.113.74 (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)The entire article is fraught with repeated information, the dates of fund raising, the completion date the delivery date, the designer of the statue is listed as the designer three times... This article is an embarrassment to the statue in my opinion. It is poorly referenced, many unverified trivia is included some highly inaccurate myth included as facts. Unfortunately it is in need of a complete overhaul.75.17.210.153 (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC) the concerned Patriot.

It is not a tablet it is a keystone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.96.151 (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

again here is an image of a keystone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Keystone_state_symbol_Pennsylvania.svg and not as it says a tabula ansata tablet. Why a keystone because it is the apex the most important aspect and the most important aspect of it is the date. as well as the fact that it orginally was going to be placed in PA the keystone state.

Lady Liberty

Redirect Lady Liberty To here (most used slang) --MJKubba|talk|contributions 23:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

"Worldwide, the Statue of Liberty is one of the most recognizable icons of the United States,[2] and, more generally, represents liberty and escape from oppression."

Should there be commas around the and inthe article? -- 141.153.222.173 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed quackofathousandsuns inappropriate remark.

New Jersey-New York conflicts.

We should just leave it at New Jersey/New York as the location.

That way, New Jerseyians are happy and New Yorkers are happy. 05:57, 23 November 2007

• Except that there isn't any serious question about its location. See Liberty Island for history and details. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC) P. S. Anyone with relevant facts bearing on the matter, that are not already properly presented in the Liberty Island article, should discuss this issue at Talk:Liberty Island. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is to simply not say on the Status of Liberty page that Liberty Island is in New York. It is in New York, but clearly saying so has resulted in dozens of mis-edits, moving it to New Jersey. RussNelson (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot use a Wikipedia article as a reference for another Wikipedia article. Thus the "See Liberty Island" is no more relevant than not having a link. And being there are already all kinds of errors on the Statue in it's own article, some of which I have corrected i.e. the statue of liberty was not the first lighted by electricity, perhaps it was the first in the USA but certainly not in the world (Dungeness, England, in 1862),. Along with several hundred unverified claims, dates, and folklore that this entire article needs a thorough examination for accuracy, documentation, and verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.210.153 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Measures scheme

I think we need a scheme like this one [1]. --Taraborn (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

I noticed that this section had accumulated some garbled Wiki formatting and other problems (e.g. a bullet item stating "The Statue has really been Enlighting[sic] the World."

In cleaning it up, I have restored the narrative paragraph format. In addition to being compact, a bullet-list format is inappropriate for a section that is not intended to be a comprehensive list, but merely to indicate the scope of its appearances in popular culture.

Bullet-list format invites drive-by additions of poorly chosen material, e.g. a expected appearance in an as-yet-unreleased video game. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Liberty Island part of New York city?

See User_talk:Dpbsmith#Statue_of_Liberty_location. Station1 makes the interesting argument that Liberty Island is part of New York City, making New York City, rather than Jersey City, the closest city. I admit that makes sense, provided it is really true that Liberty Island is part of New York City. It's certainly part of New York State, but I don't know about New York City.

I don't think we have any material or references that address that point, either in Statue of Liberty or Liberty Island.

So, let's discuss.

1) Is Liberty Island part of New York city? Station1 says that it not only is, it's part of Manhattan.

2) If it is, what's the best way to phrase an accurate statement about the "closest city?"

Please discuss before making changes to either article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course Liberty Island is legally a part of New York County, i.e. the Borough of Manhattan. There are no sections of New York State that are not a part of one of the counties. You can say, "Legally, Liberty Island is a part of the Borough of Manhattan. However, it is geographically closer to Jersey City than it is to the Island of Manhattan", or something like that.--Pharos (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Natural Monument

So I assume a volcano throw up the Statue of Liberty and placed it there? _→AzaToth 16:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a mistake all right.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/307 Criteria (i)(vi) are both Cultural, not natural.

The issue seem to be in the infobox. Maybe it's using the old guidelines? I really don't know how to change that :-(

http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/

(Diego bf109 (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)).

Picture

There is a picture of a vagina in this article. How did this get there?

Just some common vandalism. Looking at the page's history, it was taken care of two minutes after it was added. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Black" statue of liberty rumor

I was surprised to see that there was no mention of the "black Statue of Liberty" rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreammaker182 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There was, check the archive for this discussion. ArdClose (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Natural Monument?

In the info box it says it's a natural monument. As the statue was obviously created by man, is this an error? Perhaps it should read "national monument"?Kevin Borland, Esq. (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

On the natural monument article, it says it can also be used for cultural features, so I'm not sure that the 'Natural' is solely meant to mean 'nature', as in non-manmade, in this case. Also, the IUCN is an international organization, so I don't think it would be considered a 'National' Monument by them. I think it just means it is a protected area. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my post above this one may be wrong. The links in the other thread that was started on this seems to split the monuments into natural and cultural, as it would make sense to do, so maybe the natural monument article is wrong as well. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like an obvious error, as noted above. I took it out. IUCN is concerned with protecting natural areas. Natural monument notes an area may contain "associated cultural features ... cave dwellings ... archaeological sites, or natural sites which have heritage significance to indigenous peoples." Maybe something like Devil's Tower. Station1 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

represents...

(...) and, more generally, represents liberty and escape from oppression.

This doesn't seem to be a fact to me, as the statue can very well represent different things to different people. People who are opposed to the US for example might see it represent different moral values. Or for others it might be more like a symbol of hope. It's all in the eyes of the spectator. What you could say however, is that the the designer meant it to represent liberty and escape from oppression. 83.83.52.7 (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of talk in the article about how it represents this, and it embodies that. All of it the totally subjective and unsourced opinion of the authors. It needs to be removed or qualified in some fashion. 91.135.0.64 (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, what it represents has been repeatedly changed without documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.210.153 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

?

Who decieded to actually count the steps? QuackOfaThousandSuns (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the people who built and designed the steps. --haha169 (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I never thought of that. QuackOfaThousandSuns (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Botched grammar - please change

From section "History": "The French Third Republic was still considered as a "temporary" arrangement by many, who wished a return to monarchism, or to some form of representation of republican virtues to a "sister" republic across the sea served as a focus for the republican cause against other politicians."

This doesn't really make any sense. Please correct the grammar if you are allowed to edit the page. Thanks! -- 212.63.43.180 (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

An other status

What about the other smaller one in Vietnam? Newone (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What about it? You mean it ought to be removed, as the ideal it represents does not go well with the current regime in Vietnam? 65.89.68.24 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty in Brazil? Statue proposed to Egypt?

The reference that is listed makes no mention of a statue located in Brazil??? Or a proposal of the statue first in Egypt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TED80 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[[Media:[Example.ogg]]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.216.96.186 (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Very minor typo

As of 4 March 00:31 GMT the article needs an extra space in the sequence "... donated by Boy Scout troops to local communities.During the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989, ..." but article is locked unfortunately. (90.204.187.26 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

 Done The article is locked so only autoconfirmed users may edit it (due to excessive vandalism). I added the space. Killiondude (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

New Infobox that will combine the NRHP/World Heritage Site infobox

The new(ish) wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites has developed an infobox that may be suitable for this article. It is able to combine the NRHP infobox and the World Heritage Site infobox at the top of this article into one continuous infobox. No information will be lost by changing to the new infobox, and an example can be found at Template:Infobox Historic Site/doc. If no one objects, I'll replace the infoboxes on this page with the new one. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is now on the page. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comma

Could the typo be corrected, or would the spacing be off? Because I'd be willing to make a giant copper comma for the government. ✍ (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's just a little bronze plaque? Why not just fix the fucking thing? ✍ (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

inspiration for face

It appears clearly that the inspiration for the face is Appolo the Light Bearer, which can be found at the Museum of Corinth.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bJTEfe0pb-Q/R21SbNrnh1I/AAAAAAAAAH8/gpFUr_Aakjg/s320/%CE%A6%CF%89%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85+%CE%91%CF%80%CF%8C%CE%BB%CE%BB%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%822.jpg

How can I add this photo to the citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esparcadia (talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dec.of Ind. signed date WRONG

Wrong date! The article says it was given in 1886 to commemorate the centennial(100 years) of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence was signed in 17 seventy 6 , not 86. 1776 not 1786. If someone has time to correct it in the article that would be great! I don't know how, but I do know history. THANKS! 69.135.210.57 (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It actually was given to celebrate the centennial of American independence. It just took an extra 10 years to complete! The torch was at the 1876 exhibition in Philadelphia. For details see the History section of the article. Station1 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Inspirations for Statue gone?

It seems like there have been omissions from the article since the first time I viewed it, and I can't put my finger on what happened. There were more facts on the actual inspirations for the Statue, as well as images of paintings, etc. If anyone knows what happened, I'd love to know. The aforementioned section was very informational.--24.58.254.142 (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What direction does the Statue Face?

" This provides a view of New York Harbor (the orientation of the statue faces Brooklyn)" What direction does the statue face? Does it face East? or South? Or perhaps provide direction orientation of statue as degrees True orientation. 74.214.40.18 (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It faces south east. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

the statues official title is "Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World" not Liberty Enlightening the World

It is not a radiant crown it is from the roman pileus which was given to slaves when they became free it was the symbol of liberty.

1919 threat

I have removed the image File:Come unto me, ye opprest.jpg (captioned here "A “European Anarchist” attempting to destroy the Statue of Liberty in a Red Scare cartoon (1919)") as well as the "As well as the intention implied in 1919" phrase in the Statue of Liberty# Aftermath of 9/11 section as there is no indication that this is what the cartoon is alluding to. It could as likely be interpreted as a comment on immigration policy (represented by the SoL) allowing anarchists into the U.S. Is there any reference either to a threat against the SoL in 1919 or to the intended interpretation of the cartoon? The other 6 article uses of this image have similar captions that are neither referenced nor discussed in the articles, and the image's Commons page does not provide anything to support their interpretation. -- ToE^T 05:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Occupations and protests

I was surprised to find no mention of the many politically-motivated occupations and protests that have occurred at the Statue of Liberty, especially since the 1970s. A good source for information about them is this National Park Service site: http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/stli/adhi1.htm 66.32.177.198 (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Location=Upper New York Bay

Both Ellis Island and Liberty Island are owned by the federal government. Both are located within NJ territorial waters. Jurisdiction over both islands is split between New York and New Jersey. Upper New York Bay seems to be the best direct short description of location for an info boxDjflem (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox-Location

Liberty Island - Upper New York Bay is the location of the Statue of Liberty and most appropriate choice for the info box. It is clear, direct, neutral description that neither incorrect or misleading. The rationale for doing so is based the three following references:

• Statue of Liberty National Monument NPS which uses both New York and New Jersey as location
• Frequently Asked Questions NPS which expressly avoids the use of the word location
• NEW JERSEY v. NEW YORK 523 U.S. 767 The Supreme Court decision expresses the fact that both Ellis Island and Liberty Island are islands located in New Jersey under the jurisdiction of New York

Djflem (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, I put the following on your talk page, but I'll post it here too:

I do not understand why you keep wanting to insert inaccurate information about the location of Liberty Island in the articles on the island and the Statue of Liberty. The island has never been a part of New Jersey, at any time in it's history.

In 1664 the boundary of the Colony of New York was set at the shore of the Hudson River (not in the middle of the river as is normal) this designation caused all of the islands in the river and bay to belong to the colony of New York, not New Jersey.

Later when the border between the two colonies was changed to be in the middle of the river it did not effect the jurisdiction of the islands that now found themselves on the other side of the line (namely Ellis and Liberty). While all of the submerged land underwater now belonged to New Jersey all of the dry land above water remained the territory of New York.

Ellis Island, at some point in it's history, was enlarged by drugging up dirt from the bottom of the river and adding it to the island to make it larger so it would be easier to build on. This caused the jurisdiction of the island to fall to BOTH New York and New Jersey but ONLY because it used dirt that belong to New Jersey to enlarge it.

Liberty Island, on the other hand, has never been enlarged and so has remained firmly in the jurisdiction of the City and State of New York.

Now because the Statue of Liberty National Monument contains both Ellis and Liberty Islands it spans two states, but Liberty Island itself is still, and has been for the past 346 years, part of New York.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

As per your sources...

The first I've covered as Ellis Island is part of New Jersey but Liberty Island isn't the site would have to list both states because the National Monument covers both islands.

The second does cover the location stating, "Is the Statue in New York or New Jersey? The Statue of Liberty is on Liberty Island, federal property administered by the National Park Service, located within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New York. A pact between New York and New Jersey, ratified by Congress in 1834, declared this issue."

The third is the case I referred to talking about how the jurisdiction of Ellis Island is shared by NY and NJ. If you actually read your own source Liberty Island isn't covered by that case, it only talks about the filled land on Ellis Island and only Ellis Island. You can find an easier to read copy of the case file here. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Typo in history Paragraph

in the paragraph , " Built into the pedestal's massive masonry are two sets of four iron girders, connected by iron tie beams that are carried up to become part of Eiffel's framework for the statue itself. Thus, Liberty is integral with her pedestal. "

The paragraph mention's 'Eiffel's framework" , I assume this means that Eiffel designed the skeleton of the Iron, however, the paragraph reads as if it was the "tower Eifel" that was enclosed in the framework.

Are there any internal Frame diagrams that have survived the construction or are there alternate means to verify the structure? Richard416282 (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} It seems that the idea that the arm was closed to the public because it was damaged by an explosion doesn't hold:

"The platform around the torch could accommodate just 12 people, and was reachable only by a single 54-rung ladder.

By 1917 crowding had gotten to be such a problem that the authorities decided to end public access."

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/612/could-visitors-once-go-into-the-statue-of-libertys-arm 190.113.150.238 (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

194.199.142.58 (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC) jhygfr

Empty request  Chzz  ►  09:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Trivial info

I've been trying to rearrange some of the ten thousand images in this article for better flow. In trying to determine what images to keep, it seems a recently added pic of west point cadets testing a medical extraction device is wholly unnecessary in illustrating what the Statue of Liberty is. What's more, a rather lengthy passage detailing the device's operation has been included. Unless the device is involved in some significant incident, info about it doesn't do this article much good. It reads like a 'breaking news' piece...but even in proper encyclopedic format, there would be little justification for its inclusion here. The point I'm trying to make is, I'm removing it. While I don't see any sensible way for that image to be included, if an editor wants to write up a more succinct summary of the info (and it would really need to be brief), its inclusion could be re-evaluated.
--K10wnsta (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Copy and pasted, word for word lifting of the writing from books is not allowed. Current copy protected material may be used as a reference for the information, but must be used as an inline citation only and not for the use of the authors work. The section on Symbolism is a complete lift fro the book "The Statue of Liberty for Know-It-Alls", including the section heading. I am re-writing that section per MOS and will add the actual citation.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty is in NEW JERSEY

Liberty Island is located completely within the boundaries of Jersey City, New Jersey, but its built portions and docks fall under the jurisdiction of the City of New York,[2][3][4] of which they wholly are part. The historical developments which led to this construction created the rare situation of an exclave of one state, New York, being situated in another, New Jersey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.248.102.247 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.255.169.74, 2 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the spelling of my last name from Kahn to Khan in Further reading (my book is Enlightening the World: The Creation of the Statue of Liberty). Thank you! 71.255.169.74 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done —fetch·comms 00:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad book, but too much not about the statue and the margins are wide.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty is in NEW JERSEY!!!!!

Liberty Island is located completely within the boundaries of Jersey City, New Jersey, but its built portions and docks fall under the jurisdiction of the City of New York,[2][3][4] of which they wholly are part. The historical developments which led to this construction created the rare situation of an exclave of one state, New York, being situated in another, New Jersey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.248.102.247 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To some this up it is in nj, but is juverned by ny in the ny harbor. If you don't belive me then look up america the beautiful quarter program nj, its national park for it is the Statue of Liberty. Just wait till it comes out in 2017 nj people out there and ny will have stolen one less thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.219.83 (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Liberty Island belongs to New York; it was granted to New York although it was entirely surrounded by New Jersey waters. Unlike Ellis Island, which was expanded into New Jersey through landfill, Bedloe's Island was never expanded and remains at its original size. It belongs entirely to New York, but if you go swimming from there (unlikely) you will swim in Jersey City, NJ.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Article improvement project

This article has hit the top of my list for article improvement. I don't know how many talk page watchers there are here, but I'd like to see if we can move this towards FA with a view to having it on the main page on October 28, 2011, the 125th anniversary of dedication. I recently did the same for Hoover Dam in advance of the 75th anniversary in September, and hopefully there are people who can give me a lot of assistance with this one. It's worth doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The major portion of the work is done, although a lot of fine tuning needs to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

date misspell

~~ hi please check the renovation year, it would be 1983. thanks ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.75.74.137 (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It was announced in '82 and at least some work happened then, though it did not get into high gear until later.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Please do not insert a picture, or replace one, unless it is a very good picture. If it is fuzzy, or due to shadows doesn't show the face clearly, we are doing the reader no favors.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

FAC

With GAN and PR hopelessly backlogged, if my current FAC clears tonight as I hope it will, I intend to nominate this article and see how it goes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. I've only scarcely edited this article but I'm be more than willing to help in the FAC.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 14:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. As Ernest has passed his FAC, I've nominated this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Striding

Although from a side view it is clear that the right leg of the statue is much further back than the left, and rests on the toes, she is not in the act of "striding". She is in the act of putting all her bodyweight on the chain, and using her right leg to balance. It is a symbolic act of "crushing slavery" rather than "striding forward". (She has nowhere to go.) The fact that she is not moving forward rapidly is made clear by the folds of her garment which hang vertically at the front in an undisturbed manner. The momentum of the figure goes downward, with the weight of law, countering the upthrust arm with the torch of enlightenment. Amandajm (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you support this with sources? Agreed, the pedestal makes it appear Liberty has no place to go unless she jumps off, but Bartholdi had to raise the statue to make it visible from a distance somehow (besides, he had a "thing" for monumental sculpture).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the statue carefully, Liberty's left foot is flat on the pedestal. The right foot has the toes on the ground, the back of the foot elevated. Neither foot is in contact with the shackle, which has already been broken. A google search picks up a lot of uninformed drivel on both sides of this point, Moreno (who is the Statue's historian) says in his work "The statue's right foot is raised, as if in movement". I will continue to research the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. The part of the left sole that is visible does appear to be flat. It the foot is resting on it, then neither that part of the foot or the chain can be seen. In a photo of the statue under construction there appears to be another bit of shackle coming from under the garment on the right side of the figure.

I also found an image of the clay modello in which she is clearly treading upon the chain. In that image she has the shackle in her hand. It is badly described in the article as "around her hand" suggesting that she is actuallay chained, rather than holding it. Amandajm (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Moreno mentions that the shackle is near both feet, but they don't appear to be touching. There is a school of thought that the statue was in part a triumphal column to abolitionism. As for the modello, that's discussed in the article; Bartholdi decided it would be too divisive (and I bet would have presented significant engineering problems).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy edits.

I have made a number of copy edits. Please check them over to make sure that there are no unintended changes of meaning. Michael Glass (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I will. Thank your for helping out.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fundraising from the wealthy and powerful or from the elite.

There is a difference in meaning between seeking funds from the elite of society or from the wealthy and powerful. While wealthy and powerful is a fair and non-judgmental description of the movers and shakers in French society, elite carries an implicit value judgment that those at the top of French society were "elect: selected as the best." To prevent the repetition of wealthy and powerful in a couple of sentences while avoiding the value judgment implicit in using the word elite,I think we must look for a different word or phrase. Michael Glass (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually went with the plural term elites, which has a less value-laden connotation than simply "the elite", particularly in this context. Appearing as it does a mere two sentences after "the rich and powerful", I believe it's quite clear that "the elites" is serving as a straight synonym for that phrase. But if you can conjure up a synonym that's even more fitting, by all means...—DCGeist (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any one word that would serve as a synonym for rich and powerful but a phrase might do it. The first one that springs to mind is to describe them as those with wealth and influence but someone else might think of something that is better. Michael Glass (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me read through the sources; perhaps Ms. Khan has some splendid word for it. Laboulaye was after money, of course, but he also wanted support which could lead to more money.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Governor of New York, President of the United States

Should the words "governor" and "president" in these phrases be capitalized? After all, those are the full titles of offices ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Good American English style capitalizes such titles only when they appear directly before the name of the officeholder and are used grammatically as part of the name. You can confirm this by looking at any major newspaper or at most mainstream books published in the past couple decades or at the Chicago Manual of Style. Even in a construction where the title precedes the name of the officeholder but is used in apposition, proper style calls for the title to be lowercased, though we sometimes let that through (an example of this would be: "President Barack Obama's Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, announced...").—DCGeist (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the widely followed Associated Press style guidance is not readily available online, but the North Carolina State University Writing Lab does inform us that the AP concurs, as well. Here's the link: [2]; scroll down a quarter of the way, or just do a word search on "capitalize a formal title".—DCGeist (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Here, from the University of Colorado, is a style guideline with a slew of helpful examples under the header "Job and Position Titles". Both the Chicago Manual and the AP would concur with the style in every example.—DCGeist (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

However...

I know I'll never hear the end of it from Tony if he comes across this and finds I didn't address it, so...

There doesn't appear to be a strong reason to change the second sentence in this passage in the lede

Bartholdi was inspired by French law professor and politician Édouard René de Laboulaye, who commented in 1865 that any monument raised to American independence would properly be a joint project of the French and American peoples. Work on the statue commenced in the early 1870s.

to

Bartholdi was inspired by French law professor and politician Édouard René de Laboulaye, who commented in 1865 that any monument raised to American independence would properly be a joint project of the French and American peoples. However, work on the statue did not commence until the early 1870s.

When considering the addition of words to a sentence, we want to ask first if we're solving an evident problem of fact, grammar, clarity, or euphony. That's not the case here. Next we want to ask if we're adding to the information we're giving the reader. After reading the first version of the sentence, the reader knows that work on the statue commenced in the early 1870s. After reading the second version, the reader knows...that work on the statue commenced in the early 1870s. No actual information has been added with those three additional words (plus the added syllable from the "in"/"until" exchange). When the answer to those two basic questions is both no, most all of the time we do best not to add those words we were considering.

Does this case constitute an exception? It's hard to see how. Webster's gives as its relevant definitions for "however": "in spite of that" and "on the other hand". Try testing either of those in place of "however" in the sentence: "In spite of that, work on the statue did not commence until the early 1870s." In spite of what? Nothing in Laboulaye's preceding comment suggests that work should have begun immediately. "On the other hand, work on the statue did not commence until the early 1870s." Obviously doesn't work—there's no sense of opposition between the first and second sentences. Again, as there's no sense of immediacy in the first sentence, the five-year gap we derive from the second sentence doesn't stand opposed to it.

In terms of tone, the addition of "however" suggests that there is something unusual about the fact that work on a major, expensive artistic endeavor started five or more years after the germ of the idea was planted, but that's not unusual at all. Artists of every kind report beginning work on projects many years after the initial inspiration, especially difficult, large-sacle ones.

According to the explanation of the edit, "Without a contrast, that sentence seems very appropos of nothing." It's difficult to see how a sentence describing when work began on a statue could seem "apropos of nothing" when the inspiration for the statue is the topic of the preceding sentence and the entire paragraph focuses on the creation of the statue.

Now I've written almost 500 words—oops, I think I just went over—on the addition of three. But at least I won't have nightmares about Tony...—DCGeist (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a good point. I feel it is best to acknowledge in some way the five year gap there. You mentioned in your kind support statement the good storytelling of the article. I feel continuity is very important, and we have to throw a nod in the direction of that five years. However, I would rather not see the lede lengthened by a discussion of French politics. If you feel some other turn of phrase is more grammatically proper, yet conveys the same thing (in other words, tacitly acknowledging the gap to the reader and so more or less promising it will be accounted for later), feel free to propose it. I know Tony is strict, but I find he is generally content with my writing style. As you and I play again the ancient struggle between writer and copyeditor ...--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The recent solution works well, I think. It easily passes the second test—adding to the information we're giving the reader—without belaboring what is ultimately a side point.—DCGeist (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Flag

What does the tiny flag in the infobox add to the article? --John (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Beats me. I rarely mess with the infobox, I assume it to be consistent with other similar articles until shown otherwise. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Location and visiting

I have restored and copyedited info in this section for the following reason: The opening statement was vague and without explanaion raises rather than answers questions. The location in Upper New York Bay is specific and appropriate. If mentioning the 1834 compact is worthwhile then explaning is also important. The fact that Ellis Island is part of the national monument is also of importance, since it and the statue are complimentery, and ferry service and ticketing involves the second component of the historic site. The reduced use of the word visitor, and tightened up of other sentences is matter of grammar. Since a photo of the Circle Line is used, then mention of it being replaced warrants mention. Which references seem questionable?Djflem (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not the article on S of L National Monument. As for your citiation to NJ v. NY, since it did not address the question of Liberty Island, I think your edit was possibly not for the best.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, regarding Ellis Island, I am afraid you are confusing the reader. Since Ellis Island was hugely increased in size, the Supreme Court ruled that the filled area belonged to New Jersey. You make it sound like Ellis Island was entirely part of NY which is not the case. Those are my main quarrels.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the edit gives too much emphasis to Ellis Island. In addition, I looked at both the court case and the existing "faq" cite and neither confirms that Liberty Island has been federal property "since 1800."—DCGeist (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your care. I will look for a source that does.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is actually here. Remember about a week ago there was some confusion between this page and the faq page you pointed out? It is a little late here, and I don't feel like working with citations, I will clean this up tomorrow. Nice catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the NPS enigma...resolved!—DCGeist (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I will finish that later today. I have played around with the visiting section; wrong information was creeping in. Keep in mind we do mention Ellis island in the Early NPS years section and both the national monument and Ellis island have their own articles. On balance, I agree it is best to leave in the Supreme Court case, even though it had nothing to do with Liberty Island, there is a myth that it did.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Name

The lead, by saying "originally called Liberty Enlightening the World", implies that the statue was renamed. Isn't that still the statue's official title? Powers ^T 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's what the artist called it. I see no indication that this is has any official status today. However, if you have a better idea, please feel free to post it on talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's no different from, say, Guernica, is it? A work of art usually goes by the title the artist gave it, does it not? Had this article not been recently promoted to FA, I would have likely changed it to "formally" rather than "originally called". Powers ^T 01:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Statue of Liberty seems to follow its own rules. For example, it is certainly not italicized, although most works of art are. Can you find contemporary references that refer to it as LEtW? That is, recent ones that call it that? The name "Statue of Liberty" seems to have entirely taken over, leaving LEtW as a historical curiosity.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Not only has the statue "jumped categories", but it's not entirely clear that Bartholdi even gave it that name. It is easiest to infer from the source that it was, in fact, Laboulaye. Yes, that would still mean it was the statue's "formal" name back then, but it's yet another reason not to consider it authoritative now.—DCGeist (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The name on the 1884 deed of gift from the Union Franco Americaine to the U.S. Minister is "La Liberté éclairant le Monde" so that could be viewed as both original and formal, but certainly no longer very common. Station1 (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No longer common at all.

There is no dispute that Liberty Enlightening the World/La Liberté éclairant le monde was the work's original name and, yes, its original formal name. The question is whether it remains the formal name. I believe the evidence from recent high-quality sources suggests that it does not. I believe that in this opinion I concur with Wehwalt, the Wikipedia editor who brought this well-researched entry to Featured Article status. The fact that a certain name was originally formal does not mean that it remains formal eternally. A formal name may change by virtue of a specific legal declaration, a general regulatory decision, or common custom of the sovereign authority as evidenced (for our purposes) by verifiable high-quality sources. In this case, many official documents and declarations of the U.S. government (the sovereign in this jurisdiction) call this work the Statue of Liberty.—DCGeist (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that. On the other hand, it is fairly prominent at http://www.nps.gov/stli/index.htm - Station1 (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

True, on a page that talks about the origin of the bellstatue. Let's face it, no matter what was intended, the name "Statue of Liberty" has taken over. As for the "name the artist gave it", if you read the book by Bartholdi in 1885 about the Statue, (it is in the references and available full view), even uses the title "Liberty Enlightening the World", but more often than not, calls it the Statue of Liberty. Is there any showing that the original name has any currency today except when mentioning what went on in 1886? .--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the bell? The link is the NPS home page for the Statue. Station1 (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, it seems much influence has been exerted by the name of the national monument -- the Statue of Liberty National Monument. But the statue herself is only a part of those protected structures and lands. It seems to me that the proper name of the artwork is still Liberty Enlightening the World, with "Statue of Liberty" a convenient shorthand. Powers ^T 12:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you assume too much without contemporary evidence. Do you have suggested language? I do not think we can justify "officially".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I made a suggestion above. I don't see where I'm assuming anything; it's the article that seems to be assuming that the name has changed. Powers ^T 18:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I recognize your argument, but I think the present language is better. "Formally" implies that LEtW is today, the proper name and SoL merely a nickname, and I just can't go along with that. Still open to other language.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

How about simply: The Statue of Liberty, or Liberty Enlightening the World (French: La Liberté éclairant le Monde),...? Explanations can come later, in the body of the article. In any case the double parentheses need to go; the outside ones should be replaced by commas. Station1 (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I simply do not agree that the two are equivalent. No one at FAC had any objection to the double parens (generated by the foreign language template). It would be simpler just to say "The Statue of Liberty (originally, Liberty Enlightening the World, in French, La Liberté éclairant le Monde)" were we to make any changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's better. Or, come to think of it, why do we need it in the lede at all. It's an alternative name ("original", "real", "official", or "full" according to various pages on the NPS site) but it's not common, so maybe it's better to just mention it briefly later in the article. It may not rise to the level of being mentioned in the first sentence. Station1 (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a redirect so it really should be mentioned in the lede. As the original, full name, I think it's very important. Powers ^T 02:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be mentioned in the lede, preferably (as it is) in the lead sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, you're both probably right. But do we really need the French? How about "The Statue of Liberty (sometimes known as Liberty Enlightening the World)..."? Station1 (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need the French. Without question. The original name was in French and the artist was French.—DCGeist (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact an argument could be made that "Liberty Enlightening the World" is merely the translation of the name.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So "The Statue of Liberty (sometimes called Liberty Enlightening the World, in French La Liberté éclairant le Monde)..."? Station1 (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either "sometimes known" or "sometimes called" would constitute an improvement. Either the current "originally called" or "originally," (as Wehwalt proposed a posts above) are fine. The former is perhaps a bit more reader-friendly; the latter, definitely more concise (a virtue). I would lean to the latter.

I have had a (hitherto silent) problem with the double parentheses. Properly, square brackets should go within parentheses (i.e., curved brackets). But our template is inflexible, and it's hardly a major issue. What we have now is both good and acceptable, though any of the following are equally acceptable and might be considered improvements:

• (1) (originally, Liberty Enlightening the World (French: La Liberté éclairant le monde))
• (2) (originally, Liberty Enlightening the World; in French, La Liberté éclairant le monde)
• (3) (originally called Liberty Enlightening the World; in French, La Liberté éclairant le monde)
• (4) (originally, Liberty Enlightening the World [French: La Liberté éclairant le monde])
• (5) (originally called Liberty Enlightening the World [French: La Liberté éclairant le monde])

If you put a gun to my head (please don't), I'd !vote for #4.—DCGeist (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

But the whole point of this section is that "originally" is the wrong word. Powers pointed out, I think correctly, that the implication is that it was once called something else and the name changed at some point. When in fact it appears from references provided that it was referred to as "Statue of Liberty" as early as 1885 and as "Liberty Enlightening the World" (less frequently but more formally) still today by entities such as the National Park Service, UNESCO and others. Possible alternative words are "formally", "full name", "more fully", "officially", "real name", "sometimes", "occasionally", or nothing at all. Station1 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And I disagree with the presumption that "originally" is the wrong word, understand? For reasons Wehwalt and I have articulated, I believe it is the best word among the many, many possible words. It (a) is undeniably accurate (that was, by all available evidence, the first name given to the work in 1875) and (b) neither affirms nor nullifies the other possible, but arguable, possibilities like "officially", "formally", etc. I understand cases can be made for other words...for any of many other words (though "real", "sometimes", and "occasionally" are all seriously deficient). I believe none of those cases are as good as the case for "originally". You believe that the word which happened to pass the communal Featured Article vetting process is wrong. OK. And I believe that the "whole point of this section" is wrong. The well-established status quo is "originally". So it stands, unless and until consensus changes.—DCGeist (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I think "nothing at all", if that means "or", is a reasonably close second: (or Liberty Enlightening the World [French: La Liberté éclairant le monde]).

Why second and not first? Because "Statue of Liberty" is so vastly more common. "Or", while concise and undeniably accurate (virtues!), implies a rough balance that simply does not exist.—DCGeist (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Then how about: (or, much less commonly, Liberty Enlightening the World [French: La Liberté éclairant le Monde])...? Station1 (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How awkward. "Originally" is much better prose.—DCGeist (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me try an analogy: It's like saying "The United States (originally United States of America)..." It's literally correct, it fits your reasons (a) and (b) above, but the implication is that the name has changed when it hasn't. By contrast "New York (originally New Amsterdam)..." would carry the intended implication: it was New Amsterdam (not New York) but now it's New York (not New Amsterdam). Station1 (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. There was a formal name change to New Yorke or New York. Here, we have a situation where an originally acceptable name has fallen away through disuse. As for United States of America, it is very often used, "I pledge allegiance ..." Is this discussion going anywhere? Plainly we don't agree, but as DCGeist points out it is your burden to obtain consensus. And you operate under a heavier burden as this is a recently passed FA, which was reviewed by the community and there was no objection to this point.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree this isn't going anywhere unless some other editors want to give their opinions. But I disagree that the "well-established status quo is "originally"." That is quite new. The word "officially" was used for a long time, and before that "formally" and before that it was "Liberty Enlightening the World, more commonly known as the Statue of Liberty". And I don't see this point ever being discussed at the review. But no one wants an edit war, of course, so let's see what others think. Station1 (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree it wasn't discussed at the review, but that means that no one found it objectionable.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You realize that by bolding LEtW, we are telling the reader that it is an alternative title.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Both of these points are well made. I'd like to follow up on the first. I've heard this kind of "case" made before: "I don't see this point ever being discussed at the review." Well...exactly. The community review process did not raise a single exception to the current language of the lede sentence. That is significant. I should hope you don't expect reviewers, during the FAC process, to state, "I approve of the phrasing of the first sentence. I approve of the phrasing of the second sentence. I approve of the phrasing of the third sentence. There's a misplaced comma in the fourth sentence. I approve of the phrasing of the fifth sentence. I approve of the phrasing of the sixth sentence...". Please. The review process is designed to identify problems, and succeeds fairly admirably at that task. The fact that you "don't see this point ever being discussed at the review" is definite evidence in favor of the current language.—DCGeist (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So as a member of the committee that parsed every last word of the article, you silently assented to the word "originally" while simultaneously silently having a problem with the double parentheses in that same sentence, as you say above. Then after the review is complete many other words are edited in the article that the committee has silently approved, but this particular word should not be changed because the reviewers silently approved it. Station1 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There are changes by consent of the 293 people who watch this article, and changes that are disputed. If the latter, the fact that no one objected at FAC is a factor. And I doubt if many people skip over the first words of the article!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be okay with simply "or", letting the relative prominence be made clear by usage within the article, and the exact nature of the names clarified in the prose. Powers ^T 13:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Which both DCGeist and I have said we are not OK with.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. DCGeist specifically said "or" "is a reasonably close second". Compromise demands both sides give a little. Powers ^T 17:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the rest of what he said. He feels it is a lot worse than we have now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. I would rather DCGeist be allowed to speak for him/herself. Powers ^T 17:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Have I blocked him or something?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've put in:

Liberty Enlightening the World (French: La Liberté éclairant le monde), generally called the Statue of Liberty, is a ...

It is perfectly accurate. It respects the author's right to name his work. And it makes clear that just about everybody calls it the Statue of Liberty. "Formerly called", "originally called", "officially called" all suggest that people do not call the work by its original name, but of course, they do, even the official folks at the NPS and UNESCO. Smallbones (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not the common name though, look at WP:NAME. As far as I can tell, it was Laboulaye who called it LEtW, Bartholdi uses the two names interchangably in his 1885 book cited as a source. In fact, if you look at the book, SoL appears 18 times, LEtW appears 8 times.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias

I've been trying to check other encyclopedias to see how they treat it, but I'm having trouble tracking them down in my local libraries. World Book, for what it's worth, uses "official" and "full" to describe the original title. Powers ^T 17:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I did three Google Book Searches to see if I could get a sense of how often the phrases that strike me as best and most accurate—"originally called", "originally", and "or"—show up in high-quality sources.

• "statue of liberty, originally called liberty enlightening": "about 14 results"; eliminating duplicated text, about 10 results
• "statue of liberty, originally liberty enlightening": "1 result"
• "statue of liberty, or liberty enlightening": "about 11 results"; eliminating duplicated text, about 10 results (I further note that 2 of the 10 follow "or Liberty Enlightening the World" with "as it was originally called")

On the basis of this imperfect test, I will drop my promotion of "originally" as an alternative, and maintain the remainder of my position: the current "originally called", preferable; "or", second choice.—DCGeist (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the present language is far superior, my objection to "or" is that it implies equal status. Since 1981, the NY Times has used the phrase "Statue of Liberty" 5,359 times and "Liberty Enlightening the World" 34. Even allowng for duplications (I saw a mention of the cantata for Liberty Enlightening the World, while Statue of Liberty no doubt includes some references to Boise State), they should not be mentioned in any way that implies coequality of status--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

While there are reasonable concerns here other than what would be a misleading implication of equal or near-equal status, my conclusion is pretty much the same: "originally called" is the substantially superior choice.—DCGeist (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that it also makes a misleading implication, namely that the name was changed or obsoleted. Powers ^T 11:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The name is, in common practice, obsolete. I find Wehwalt's New York Times evidence very convincing. LEtW is important enough, historically, to have in the lede, but clearly not important enough to grant it roughly equivalent weight.—DCGeist (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's disused, not obsolete. No one is incorrect for calling it by its formal name. That's why I prefer something like "formally" or "fully". Powers ^T 17:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe "originally called" suggests the usage would be "incorrect". At any rate, my Google Book test shows "formally", "formally called", and "fully" are all much rarer than "originally called": just 1 or 2 results in each case.—DCGeist (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It suggests that the formal name has changed, which it hasn't. And in common usage, it's been the "Statue of Liberty" almost from the start. "originally called" doesn't distinguish between the two domains, implying instead that the distinction is one of time rather than of formal name versus common name. Powers ^T 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Britannica (15th ed) uses "formally"; The World Almanac uses "formally known as"; Funk & Wagnall's uses "also called"; and the Encyclopedia of Ellis Island by Barry Moreno uses "officially called". Station1 (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What page is that in Moreno?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

P. 222. Station1 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ellis

Perhaps against my better judgment, we added a limited amount of info about Ellis Island to this article. An editor who seems to be confusing "jurisdiction" and "ownership" insists on separating out the date that the Feds got jurisdiction over Ellis to 1808 and sourcing it to a military museum. While I dislike former Justice Souter, his opinion in New Jersey v. New York is undoubtedly authoritative and correct in saying that NY ceded jurisdiction over Bedloe's, Ellis, and Governors Island to the Feds in 1800. By a separate act which as near as I can tell did not affect Bedloe's Island, ownership of Ellis Island passed to the Feds in 1808. I see no reason to mention something that did not affect Bedloe's Island. Also, we seem to have a slow burning edit war over whether the statistics table should say "English" or "Imperial" units. After looking at the article United States customary units, "English" seems the better of the two.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the word jurisdiction. Each of the states has certain amount of jurisdiction over the acres which are sovereign to them. The serving of subpoenas and the collection of sales tax falls to the appropriate city or state agency's jurisdiction. The prosecutuion of a crime committed within the national monument would likely be heard in a federal court, but in different jurisdictions depending on the location of its occurence. By not specifying which jurisdiction (as in Dept of Navy) the sentence remains ambiguous; by specifying ownership the problem is avoided.Djflem (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide high-quality evidence that New York State ceded "ownership" of Bedloe's/Liberty Island to the federal government. I have yet to such evidence. I have seen evidence that New York ceded "jurisdiction." Show us what you got.—DCGeist (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

While we're in this thread. Wehwalt, I agree "English" for the units is probably better here than "Imperial". But why not "U.S." or "American"? Equally proper and more apropos, wouldn't you say?—DCGeist (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly a common term, is it?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's fairly common at this point. Our own article is titled United States customary units. My Merriam-Webster's dictionary refers to "U.S. units". The CIA's World Factbook refers to the "US Customary System".—DCGeist (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Just following up: Any continuing issue with change to "U.S." here?—DCGeist (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is fine. BTW, bought a climbing ticket for the statue for November 19.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Location and visiting" image

While the present Circle Line image is charming—as a born-and-bred New Yorker, it makes me quite nostalgic—I feel that either of two free images that formerly appeared in the article would clearly provide more informational value here: File:Statue of Liberty interior.jpg, showing some of the statue's interior structure and the staircase one must climb, or File:Lower Manhattan 1999 New York City.gif, showing the island's location relative to Manhattan, Ellis, and New Jersey.—DCGeist (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I found the interior one cluttered and confusing. We can ask Elcobbola if he's got a better one, he recently visited the statue and did the climb, and took images. As for the aerial shot, I feel it is nice, but would provide the reader with little actual information that isn't already in the map image in the infobox. I am certainly open to replacing the infobox map image with that. I am myself planning to visit the statue sometime this fall, but I won't know my schedule for a while yet and am reluctant to buy crown tickets on spec, because you can only buy them every six months. Ah, the Circle Line, I was taken on it at the age of five and I knew all the bridges, my intellectual high point I think!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I love the aerial shot, but it does require, I think, a caption that identifies the major items—I'm not sure if that's appropriate for an infobox (and, as you suggest, it is essentially redundant of what's currently there). As for the interior shot, as a great American once said, "It is what it is." The interior structure of the statue is remarkably intricate, and I'm sure it's boggling to a lot of people who climb up. Why not represent the fact? Of course, if Elcobbola has something more classically aesthetic, that would be a great alternative. But I don't find the existing one off-putting at all. It reminds me a bit of an Escher. And, again, it tells us way more about the article topic than does the ferry shot.—DCGeist (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There are people who can put captions on photos on Wiki but I wonder if it would be large enough to be useful. I will not argue against the interior shot too much (though I wish it showed the interior of the skin), but I am sorry to lose the Circle Line shot. First, it is from an era when we usually don't get many photographs, and second, when I do an article about a tourist attraction, I like to have a shot showing—tourists.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's see if anyone else cares to weigh in on ferry vs. staircase.—DCGeist (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Name compromise:

How about we start the article:

The Statue of Liberty (Liberty Enlightening the World (French: La Liberté éclairant le monde))) is a... ? It avoids all the questions.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd hate to say you're right - so I won't! WP:NAME is basically about article titles. But following through on examples given (e.g. Bill Clinton and especially Venus de Milo) leads me to suggest the following lede.

"Aphrodite of Milos' (Greek: Ἀφροδίτη τῆς Μήλου, Aphroditē tēs Mēlou), better known as the Venus de Milo, is an .. "

Or I might just pretend that it's not worth arguing over, and go to bed! Smallbones (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bed may be good for everyone. I will confess to a soft spot for the long name, it was the winning answer in our first round College Bowl match at the 1987 nationals. I knew it, our captain, who was from Atlanta, did not, and actually said "The Liberty Enlightening the World" when I gave him the answer. Good for a 265-255 win.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Smallbones's idea of leading with Liberty Enlightening the World is entirely good faith, but not so good. As discussed above, the subject has jumped categories and is now almost universally regarded and discussed as a monument, not an artwork; in addition, many legal documents and other official references to it by its sovereign authority, the federal government of the United States of America, call it the Statue of Liberty. By contrast, William Jefferson Clinton has not jumped categories—he remains a person and that indisputably remains his legal and formal name. The mediocre-at-best Venus de Milo article is an unworthy stylistic example—that article can't even decide if "Venus de Milo" is to be presented as roman (lede) or italic (main text).

Wehwalt's latest proposal is intriguing—it certainly wins the concision contest. While we're at it, we could correct the double parens problem thus: The Statue of Liberty (Liberty Enlightening the World [French: La Liberté éclairant le monde]) is a...—DCGeist (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. (As a minor point, I would continue to link "French" to French language as in Wehwalt's version.) Station1 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On that minor point—which relates to the general point of overlinking—I would not. It's simply not a high-quality link in the context of an article on the Statue of Liberty. No one is likely to come to this article mystified by what the French language is. And the fact that a flawed template includes the link is not much of an argument for retaining it once the template is replaced (not that you explicitly make such an argument).—DCGeist (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. My thought was that without the link someone will eventually come along and put the template back, thus eliminating the brackets. But I would be happy with the change with or without the link. Station1 (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an acceptable compromise. Powers ^T 17:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Implemented. Peace and harmony reign once more.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Anbody know why France and United States aren't wikilinked (e.g., in the lead)? I'd guess it has something to do with WP:OVERLINK, which does say to avoid linking "major geographic features and locations". However, the exception to this rule occurs when these features or locations "are particularly relevant to the topic of the article". Aren't the USA and France "particularly relevant" to the Statue of Liberty? Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that is why. It would be a low value link, few will be inspired to click it. I would not revert if someone linked them, but I suspect they would be reversed by someone eventually.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

An IP keeps adding a section entitled "criticism" but really a plug for an unbuilt statue called the "Statue of Responsibility", as well as a see also link to it. This really has nothing to do with the Statue of LIberty, but I guess by entitling it "criticism", he attracts more interest than if it was entitled "Proposal to build another statue". I suggest it really has no place in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, he's back. Somebody kept trying to mention the Statue of Responsibility a long time ago, and I tried to accommodate them by working the idea into what turned out to be a relatively longstanding paragraph about symbolism and inspiration. I don't know what happened to that paragraph, and I'm not really bothered enough to check, but I suspect that the persistence sans discussion might qualify as WP:DE by now. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a See also when I did a bit of work updating the article so it could get to FA ... I did some research and also read the Stat of Resp article, and I felt that it was just too far afield to qualify for mention here. It is only a proposal and no one has spent any serious money on it. If it, so to speak, ever gets legs, then let's talk about it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We are getting vandalism too. I have no objection to semiprotection, which would force the IP either to get an account or engage here on talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section speaks in itself and refers to the symbolic and philosophical aspects of the Statue of Liberty as an American icon. Criticism of the symbolic and philosophical aspects of the Statue of Liberty as an American icon was expressed by a well known scholar, and stresses the proper moral values of the nation: Freedom as represented by the Statue of Liberty, and Responsibility as represented by the proposed Statue of Responsibility. Freedom lived in terms of responsibleness. As Frankl wrote: "In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness." Frankel's criticism of the values the Statue of Liberty represents certainly has a place in this article.--188.120.128.82 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. At all. It's an entirely idiosyncratic view—one among hundreds, thousands, of idiosyncratic views that glance on the Statue of Liberty—that happens to bear much more on the topic of psychotherapy than it does on the actual statue. The vast majority of mainstream sources on the statue entirely ignore it. While it might have a place in an article on Frankl himself, it obviously does not merit a place here.—DCGeist (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not even truly criticism of the statue herself, it is just saying, "Hey, this is great, let's have another one, representing another concept, somewhere else." To include it would be to give WP:UNDUE weight to the views of a person whose views, given the lack of progress in 65 years, obviously are not widely shared.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are the Statue of Liberty's concrete pedestal and copper sheets, more relevant than the values it represents for the American people, and the image of American values all over the world? --188.120.128.82 (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of the Statue of Responsibility to the views of the American people can be judged by the lack of progress in building.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The lack of progress in building the Statue of Responsibility just reflects the fact that people are investing their time and their money in something else. It doesn't mean the Statue of Liberty, or the Statue of Responsibility, or any other statue is lacking relevance to the views of the American people.--188.120.128.82 (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I will grant you that, but the fact is, it remains an unfunded idea. Should that change, let's revisit this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Funding, or lack of funding, is not the issue here. As I wrote, criticism section refers to the sphere of ideas: to the symbolic and philosophical aspects of the Statue of Liberty as an American icon. It is an issue concerning intellectual content, not a funding issue. Frankel's criticism of the values the Statue of Liberty represents to Americans, and to the world, should be part of this article. --188.120.128.82 (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry; we are repeating ourselves here. You have the burden of building consensus; that is of persuading myself and DCGeist and other editors on the article that it is appropriate to have this information. You have not done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither you have done the opposite; that is persuading myself and other editors on the article that it is not appropriate to have this information. What you did, is just revert my edits.--188.120.128.82 (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Too bad you can't be persuaded that this 65-year old, personal, idiosyncratic view about a notional statue that has attracted little interest from anyone else belongs in an article about the Statue of Liberty, because it obviously doesn't. Status quo: It is not included. Prevailing opinion: It should not be included. Conclusion: Unless you can convince either Wehwalt, myself—and you seem to have exhausted all of your arguments a while ago—or a couple of heretofore involved editors of the merit of your position, it will not be included.—DCGeist (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not mentioning in this article the fact that criticism at the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty was expressed, is adopting an "ostrich policy:" Not including criticism in this article, does not mean criticism at the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty hasn't been expressed at all.--188.120.128.82 (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE: "the views of tiny minorities should not be mentioned at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You meant to say that the views of tiny minorities are mentioned only when they make use of force -- or terror, and then they listen to them, and they become important?--188.120.128.82 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jersey plate

Having examined the source for this other recent addition to Depictions, and edited our text accordingly, I wonder if it merits inclusion at all. This "Liberty State Park" plate is one of 17 different special interest plates New Jersey makes available—is that really a significant emphasis on the the statue? And, once again, we see no evidence of major media attention to it, unlike that given the standard New York plate that featured Liberty. Sorry, but this looks relatively trivial to me. (And I better not hear how I have something against New Jersey: my dear, departed father was born in Paterson; I spent many happy summers as a child in Ship Bottom; my favorite American poet is Rutherford's William Carlos Williams; and I held my grandmother's hand as she died in Manahawkin.)—DCGeist (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I lived in NJ until I was 24. No objection. It is to honor Liberty State Park, and unsurprisingly has the Statue in the background. I'm OK with axing it. By the way, I noticed that page views for this article spiked very high on September 30, see here. Do we have any idea why?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Seeing no cogent case for retaining this addition, I'm therefore eliminating it.—DCGeist (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Depictions

Why would a logo that is 45 years old which has the honor of being passed from one rail line (whose main terminal is in the shadow of the statue) to another and is still very much in use, be less significant than an image used by a hockey team for one season 13 years ago or a college basketball series played 14 years ago? I am including the information and adding the year. As the previous the edit is self-described as an opinion, a request for comment would be appropriate should there be strong wish to not include the mention of the CNJ symbol. The very relevent impact of the statue and its shared location on the bay, clearly influenced railway's use of the imagery to create recognition for it's facilities. The current use by a rail line, and its subsequent continued reproduction in print and online relates to this history and is a living, ongoing example of a institution using statue depictions in NY/NJ that belongs in this paragragh.Djflem (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As I stated in edit summary, I believe this matter is of very narrow interest and does not belong in an overview article on the Statue of Liberty. The Depictions section where you want to add this used to contain descriptions of about a dozen physical statue homages around the world. A wise editorial judgment was made (by other parties) that such information was not of sufficient significance or popular interest for inclusion in this general-interest article. For similar reasons, I remain opposed to the inclusion of this item. We do have a topical article, Statue of Liberty in popular culture, that is a more appropriate repository for your item. Editors will observe that that article has many dozens of similar items that are not prominent enough for inclusion in this overview article.—DCGeist (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DCGeist. The rail use is marginally relevant, but we are better served by having it in the other article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that logos used for one sport season 13 and 14 years ago are more relevent than a logo in current use inherited from a company which created it 45 years ago are more significant and warrant inclusion while this does not. A POV that sports events that once used a depiction some time ago is valid while one currently in use is not needs to be addressed.Djflem (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you show that the S of L logo has been in use for the Raritan Valley Line for 45 years? I'd be greatly surprised. A train map is not a reliable source for anything except where you can catch the 4:38 to Hoboken.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore...

• The public profile of an NHL team and focus on its visual branding is much greater than the analogous attention paid to a local commuter rail line's marketing.
• As our source indicates, the third jersey was launched 13 years ago. It was in use for longer than just one season.
• While it appears that the Rangers are not currently using a third jersey, the Liberty logo remains on their practice jersey, for what it's worth, the first featured item in the team's online shop.—DCGeist (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As clearly stated and referenced:Djflem (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Starting in 1965, the Central Railroad of New Jersey, its main terminal at the waterfront opposite the statue pictured the torso, head and torch in its logo and is the symbol of its former mainline, now New Jersey Transit's Raritan Valley Line.

references

The New York Times devoted an article to the Rangers' Liberty jersey. Has any major media outlet ever noted this marketing factoid about NJT's Raritan Valley Line?—DCGeist (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And do you have anything that shows that it is "used" on the Raritan Valley Line, that is, that it is more than a logo of recent vintage on a NJ Transit map?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times can devote articles on whatever subject it wishes, including wedding dresses, body odor, and the price of avocado dip. And the jersey might even win a popularity contest. But can the jersey logo claim the historical relationship of a sharef home on the bay and the impact of the synergy of that relationship on the railroad's decision to use the imagery in its marketing? The meaning implied here gives context to a depiction section, while the jersey is another item on a list Djflem (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for an answer to my question.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

While I believe I've got an answer to mine: there's precious little evidence that anybody, aside from Djflem, cares much about this local rail logo. As to why a local sports team's uniform is not an example of "synergistic impact" and to how the rail logo provides some transcendentally "meaningful context" that the present items do not, well, we can leave that to the philosophers to parse.—DCGeist (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ref (PDF version of printed schedule produced annually) added above as ref#4. I am also waiting for a answer to my question, clearly misread by above editor (who apparently likes hockey better than trains) and doesn't wish to address the historical significance and regular (as opposed to infrequent) use of the logo.Djflem (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. That shows logos next to some of the NJ Transit rail lines. I rode NJ Transit extensively as a student a twenty or so years ago, I never saw that. I still ride it every now and then, most recently in 2009 (Secaucus Junction is damn convenient for someone who hates driving in Manhattan) I've never seen it on maps. Can you show some NJ Transit sources that show it is something more than a very recent map logo?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

One good reason to focus our attention on content, rather than contributors, DJflem, is that our assumptions are often dead wrong. While I respect the athleticism of hockey players, I'm hardly a fan of the sport. On the other hand, I love trains. But our personal fancies are of little relevance to sound editorial judgments about what belongs in a given encyclopedia article and what doesn't. The fact that the Raritan Valley Line and its predecessor have employed the Liberty image in some way—today, in some evidently very, very minor way—for many years is, undoubtedly, a historical fact, but the lack of public notice of this fact is a prima facie indication that it is of little historical significance.—DCGeist (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference:PDF of current printed version of schedule has been added (#4). Data lost in edit conflict on this very volatile page, which I will leave now, unconvinced that an infrequently used jersey has more significance than a venerable train logo.Djflem (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My question is unanswered. BTW, I enjoy trains and have ridden most of the well-known high speed trains. And volatile my left tuchis, given the high number of views this article gets, we get surprisingly few edits. We must have something going for us.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

By volatile, I meant THIS talk page, so no offense, I appreciate workdone on article page. Can you please explain your question? The phrase is now symbol of, if the problem is the used, as NJT, is actually using it. I doubt there any statistical evidence on the number of people who see one image in comparison to another so quantity in pop culture value cannot be established, IF that is relevent (as is implied here. One editor's lack of notice, and expressed "belief" that it is of minor interest can not be taken to mean the public's). Incidently, saying that djflem and only djflem cares about this issue is certainly focusing on one contributor specifically (the above comment snide spiced w/ ridicule) and all the others in general and not the content. Djflem (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Djflem, I was not being snide—I was acknowledging that you, at least, do sincerely care about this train line and its logo.

Now that we've got that settled, let's get this straight: "one editor's"—that'd be your—notice of this commuter rail line is no more worthy than my supposed "lack of notice" of it. This is a featured article. We rely on high-quality sources here. You've had endless chances to deliver us one high-quality source demonstrating that mainstream public attention has been paid to this particular use of the Liberty image, elevating it above the many hundreds of other similarly trivial uses of said image. You have failed. Utterly. And you've been personally inconsiderate and cynical on top of it. Proud of yourself?—DCGeist (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find any place in Wikipedia which states that "mainstream public attention" is a requirement for inclusion on its pages. Please see:Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 5, and drop uninteresting personal commentary.Djflem (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've responded there.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The article does not give due credit to the Parisian company, Gaget, Gauthier et Cie., which actually built the statue.

Everything that was erected on the plinth in New York was constructed in France. According to the site http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/liberty/libertyfacts/solconstructiongallery.htm this was a 3 year process. That it was also no simple process is made clear from the photos of the workshops at various stages of the construction.

Strangely the article barely mentions the Parisian company, Gaget, Gauthier et Cie., which was responsible for this long, extremely complex, and crucial phase in the creation of the statue. As the article stands the only mention of the company is a passing, indirect, reference in the sub-section 'Inscriptions, plaques, and dedications' near the end of the article.

Yesterday I attempted to remedy this situation by making this civilised, if not editorially perfect, edit.

Imagine my surprise, then, when this edit was pounced upon and reverted as if it had no value whatsoever. It may not have been perfect, but it should not have been summarily reverted. If the reverter felt it could have been better the Wikipedianly correct thing to do would have been to improve the edit, or, retaining the edit, suggest how the editor might improve it.

The reverter's argument, that the edit was invalidated by the fact that the construction company was already mentioned in the Plaque sub-section, makes no sense, for by the same logic the name of Bartholdi should not be mentioned above that point. The reverter and I subsequently had a brief exchange of views on his talk page. As stated in our exchange of views, and with the intention of giving the reverter a chance to rethink his action, I duly replaced my edit. Almost immediately the reverter duly, and as predicted, reverted again.

My intention at that point was to let the matter rest. Today, however, I decided to learn a little more about the reverter. When I discovered that he has certain administrator privileges, and has a special interest in the article, I decided that the matter should be brought to a wider public for a review of both my edit, and the decision to revert it.

Cricobr (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the addition of a brief mention of Gaget, Gauthier et Cie in the Construction in France subsection is appropriate. I'm happy to make a provisional edit that we can refine through discussion. I'll do that within the next hour.—DCGeist (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Perusing Khan, it's clear that GG&C played a crucial role not only in the statue's construction, but in its conceptualization as well. The addition of its name at two points—one in Design, style, and symbolism, the other in Construction in France—did not require the addition of even a single sentence, merely the recasting of two existing ones. The addition of its name at a third—in Announcement and early work—called for the addition of a very brief sentence. I used the nomenclature, Gaget, Gauthier & Co., given in our source, so an additional edit (perhaps desirable in any case) was required to the mention in Inscriptions, plaques, and dedications, glossing Cie, which I gather is what appears on the plaque (I cannot access Moreno to verify). There are other ways, of course, of addressing the Cie/Co. issue if this one seems unsatisfactory.

Here are the edits, in one bundled diff: [3].—DCGeist (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Credit has been given where credit was due. Franco-US relations are reinvigorated by this gesture!

I still feel that the arduous and fascinating process of constructing the statue merits more emphasis and detail. Both these should be on a par with those afforded the politico-fundraising efforts, and the task of reconstructing the statue at the destination site. Perhaps the article's weakness in this respect can be explained both by something of a language barrier with respect to access to ample information about the construction process in France, and a certain US-centred point of view to the article in general.

Still, now that GG&C is more appropriately mentioned, perhaps others more knowledgeable about their role will provide the missing emphasis and detail.

Cricobr (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to make appropriate suggestions. Perhaps there was an error in communication as I was editing from my iPhone, which is difficult, and I meant to say, in two different edits, that there were a total of three difficulties, first with length, second with the poor quality of the source you were using, and third with the citation format. A featured article, like this, has exacting citation formatting, and we ask that anyone editing follow it. It is possible that if we fail to enforce standards, this article could lose its featured article status. I am content with the edit that DCGeist has made. I would welcome suggestions about the process of building the statue. Please feel free to join with us in the continuing improvement of this article. It gets seven or eight thousand hits a day and it is important that it be comprehensive and accurate.

Incidentally, the fact that I am an administrator has nothing to do with my editing at the article. Administrators do not make decisions about content in their adminly capacity. I alway edit with my admin hat off, and do not mention it in content discussions, although I am embarrassed to admit there are admins who throw their weight around. My status as an admin does not mean I am a better editor, or entitled to deference in any way. It simply means I was approved by a community vote to have access to certain functions the use of which is limited to admins.

DCGeist, I am on the road and cannot check Moreno. I will be home in a week and will see what he has to day about the company.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

POV masquerading as editorial concern and subsequent arbitrary editing

As seen above and at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 5 two editors continue to justify the removal of referenced material based on non-criteria and personal perspective. With what appears insuinated right to do so based on knowing better (as they are the major contributors to articles FA status), they continue to edit (striking ref'd material) w/o clarification why they prefer the second of the two paragraghs below.

Depictions of the statue have been used by many regional institutions, as well. Between 1986 and 2000, New York State issued license plates featuring the statue. New Jersey issues a special Liberty State Park plate which highlights the statue. The Women's National Basketball Association's New York Liberty use both the statue's name and its image in their logo, in which the torch's flame doubles as a basketball. The New York Rangers of the National Hockey League depicted the statue's head on their third jersey, beginning in 1997. The National Collegiate Athletic Association's 1996 Men's Basketball Final Four, played at New Jersey's Meadowlands Sports Complex, featured the statue in its logo. After 1965 the Central Railroad of New Jersey pictured the torso, head and torch in its logo A reminiscent image now is the symbol of New Jersey Transit's Raritan Valley Line.

Depictions of the statue have been used by many regional institutions, as well. Between 1986 and 2000, New York State issued license plates featuring the statue. The Women's National Basketball Association's New York Liberty use both the statue's name and its image in their logo, in which the torch's flame doubles as a basketball. The New York Rangers of the National Hockey League depicted the statue's head on their third jersey, beginning in 1997. The National Collegiate Athletic Association's 1996 Men's Basketball Final Four, played at New Jersey's Meadowlands Sports Complex, featured the statue in its logo.

We've been more than patient in explaining our reasons to you. If you WP:ICANTHEARYOU:can't hear us, well, the fault's on your side.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Djflem, you appear to believe that noting that "material" is "referenced" endows it with some God-given right to be included. Keep in mind, it is possible to "reference" the entire contents of every book that has ever been published concerning the Statue of Liberty that remains extant in either physical or electronic form, as well as every mention of the statue in every other such book, magazine, newspaper, or scholarly journal. By the logic of your apparent standard, this article would be as long as the entire sum of verifiable statements ever made concerning the statue since it was conceived. That would be...impractical. That is why we must apply editorial judgment to decide what is to be included and what is not.

You also appear to believe that your own judgment, or "personal perspective" as you might call it, is somehow less "personal" and more objective than anyone else's. I'm afraid I must inform you that you are wrong. You have, for personal reasons, decided that out of the innumerable verifiable factoids that could hypothetically be added to the article, these two must be added. You have expressed your reasons for this personal—and, to date, unique—perspective. I have shared my reasons for my opposing perspective. Wehwalt has shared his reasons for his opposing perspective. Conclusion: In this debate over a matter of editorial judgment, which inevitably involves personal perspectives, your position, reflecting your perspective, has lost.—DCGeist (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(cricobr...) In for a penny in for a pound... Just before I made the edit which gave rise to the discussion in the following section I had made another edit which was also reverted. I let that one pass as I was, after all, altering the structure of the article. Now that I have read the discussion in this section I would like to propose that one way of resolving the issue of which depictions should be included in the article would be to create an article for 'Depictions of the Statue of Liberty' similar to the existing article Replicas of the Statue of Liberty.

This would seem a reasonable proposal as there must be many more depictions than replicas (my definition would be that replicas are three dimensional representations, whereas depictions could be used to cover anything from two-dimensional printed or painted representations, right up to two-plus-dimensional (bas relief) representations which are not full three dimensional representations).

I propose, therefore, that the section 'Depictions' (the word depictions does not, strictly speaking, include replicas or cultural references) be renamed 'Replicas, Depictions, and Cultural References' (in the order of their similarity to the original) and that the section be reduced to only two or three links or other references to some of the most famous replicas, depictions and cultural references. The header of the section would be immediately followed by...

Main articles: Replicas of the Statue of Liberty, Depictions of the Statue of Liberty, and Statue of Liberty in popular culture

...to redirect the reader rapidly to these more detailed articles.

Cricobr (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

While your suggestion is not unreasonable, "cultural references" is wikicode for trivia, which is not favored. If you want to write an article, then feel free. I am sorry if we seem unfriendly here, it is just that we are a bit of a target and people don't seem to understand that all we are trying to do is keep the article top level. Next year it will probably run on the main page, and I'd hate to have it run in a poor state (I asked Raul654, our Featured Article Director, not to run it until at least July 4 weekend, which is the 25th anniversary of Liberty Weekend). I'm trying to think of a better title, DCGeist, you got anything?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think Depictions and replicas—essentially what Cricobr offered a few days ago—offers a satisfactory middle ground.—DCGeist (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please check detail (and cite?)

(This could be useful for other little niggles)

Right at the end, the article attributes a quote to "Richard Holdstock", with the implication it's from the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. I'm wondering if this is an error for "Robert Holdstock", and in his Wikipedia entry there's a reference to another Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, not linked to here. It would surprise me if there were two people with such similar names active in the science fiction community, though I might not have heard of them. I think two distinct Encyclopedia projects have been published. There's certainly potential for confusion. If there can be a clear citation for the quote, that would settle it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.67.11 (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll make that correction after a check. --Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

One more Statue of Liberty

Dont forget the one at the State Capitol rose garden in Austin, Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of replicas, several thousand, actually. So that we do not get into a list of replicas when there is an article for that purpose, we are only listing a very few, and it is best not to add more.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Golden torch?

Is the torch covered in gold? The FAQ page on the NPS site says so but nothing is mentioned in this article. --Voyager (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the torch has always been covered in gold leaf. We had an image of the original torch which clearly shows it, but we dropped it because we had too many really good images. I will add something. Thank you for the feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Another question: "Due to the width of the pedestal, it was not possible to erect scaffolding..." Why? Was the pedestal too wide or too narrow? --Voyager (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Too narrow. They could not have put scaffolding above the pedestal because of the way the base of the copper statue itself runs leaves very little flat surface around it. Notably, when they renovated in the 1980s, the scaffolding was erected from the ground and extends in towards the statue on multiple levels, which was either not thought of in the 1880s or was impractical, I don't know which.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

terrorist attack

On the 'terrorism in the united states' wikipedia page it says there was a terror attack on June 3 1980 on the statue of liberty. Shouldn't this be mentioned in statue of liberty article article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a terrorist attack, personally. The statue and Liberty Island were the site of a number of demonstrations and now and then violence. I did not feel that they were significant enough to make it into a lengthy article which has to cover a long period of time. Editorial judgment, I guess. Thanks for the thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A bomb detonating and destroying the museum display in the base of the statue is not 'significant enough'? The Terrorism in the United States has the following information:

1980 June 3: Bombing of the Statue of Liberty. At 7:30 p.m., a time delayed explosive device detonated in the Statue of Liberty's Story Room. Detonated after business hours, the bomb did not injure anyone, but caused $18,000 in damage, destroying many of the exhibits. The room was sealed off and left unrepaired until the Statue of Liberty restoration project that began years later. FBI investigators believed the perpetrators were Croatian terrorists seeking independence for Croatia from Yugoslavia, though no arrests were made.

I think that's pretty significant... --121.45.211.141 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me look at my book sources on the statue and see how they view it. It did not get a huge amount of publicity at the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

ferralium is NOT a steel-aluminum alloy!

A minor point that is admittedly only tangential to the history of the Statue of Liberty, but this might confuse students... best as I can determine from references, ferralium is a stainless steel alloy, composed mostly of iron, nickel, and chromium, but NOT a steel-aluminum alloy. There is no aluminum in ferralium. Perhaps there is some aluminum in the structure of the Statue of Liberty. But not in the structural components made of ferralium. This article currently explains-- ...The puddled iron bars used by Eiffel were gradually removed. The new bars that attach to the pylon are made of low-carbon corrosion-resistant stainless steel. The bars that now hold the staples next to the skin are made of ferralium, a steel-aluminum alloy that bends slightly and returns to its original shape as the statue moves... 71.207.224.57 (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

God only knows. I'll see if I can dig up my book on the renovation. Do not expect instant action. In the meantime, I've taken out "steel-aluminum".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The quote, on page 74 of the Hayden book cited in the bibliography, is "Cliver, working with Norman Nielsen, a metallurgist consultant to the Park Service, recommended ferallium, a high-strength alloy of steel and alluminum used by the British Navy as a bronze substitute."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As far I as can work out, Ferralium is a trade mark applied to a range of superduplex (an approx. 50/50 mix of ferrite and austenite) stainless steels manufactured by Langley Alloys (a division of Meighs Ltd), both British companies. Typical composition is Fe (60%), Cr (26%), Ni (6%), Mo (3.5%), Cu (2%) Mn (1.5%), N (0.2%), C (0.04% max.). I fear that Hayden has it wrong; almost all references (including misspelled ones - e.g. Ferallium) appear to point to this material.

Ferralium 255 was developed commercially by Langley Alloys in the 1960s, who coined the term super duplex steel to refer to it and similar hi-chromium (25%+) stainless steels. Ferralium exhibits both high tensile strength and good corrosion/pitting resistance against the statue's maritime environment (it includes 2% copper).

The link Ferralium in the article merely redirects to Alloy steel, which isn't very helpful. I feel a link to Stainless steel#Types of stainless steel would be more informative, since Ferralium appears under Duplex stainless steels. >MinorProphet (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable suggestion. I've made that change. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparison image

I made this. I know it's not great. I'm not miffed that it was removed. I'm looking for another on commons because I think it would be nice in the article. There are so many international visitors to the page, I think they would like to see how it compares. Is anyone handy with SVG? :)

Approximate heights of various notable statues:

1. Spring Temple Buddha 153 m
2. Statue of Liberty 93 m
3. The Motherland Calls 91 m
4. Christ the Redeemer 39.6 m
5. Statue of David 5.17 m (sculpture 5.17 m + plinth = approximately 7.7 m)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that since at last two of the statues were erected in the copyright era, it might be hard to find a free equivalent. Really, there is nothing wrong with your work. I just feel that we have as many images as we can handle now, and if it is felt we could use more, I have a lot of very good PD (either through age or US government photography) images that would probably help the reader more. I'm not going to war on this, and if the community feels a comparison image would be useful, I'll accept it, though I'll probably keep moving it to obscure parts of the article to avoid text snadwiches.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There might also be a copyright issue ... The Motherland Calls is a copyrighted work of art, and Russia does not have freedom of panorama.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not a problem. Like I said on your talk, you are looking after an important article, and obviously care about it. That's a good thing.

I posted here to maybe spark some interest in such an image or related idea, not to garner support for its inclusion.

As for copyrights, A copyvio lawsuit over a silhouette would probably send a judge the way of Chrysippus. We can always say it was from memory. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but this is Wikipedia, where we solemnly pretend such things matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

True. If you imagine an image of The Motherland Calls really hard for five minutes, somebody from Commons will email you a huge red warning. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I recognize the absurdity. I was forced to prove that the Statue of Liberty is in the public domain, if you can believe this. It is, both under French and American law, at least since the 1970s (not that anyone paid Bartholdi's estate royalties).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

The article is about the statue--that is, Bartholdi's work of sculpture. As the article's content bears out, the pedestal is a relatively minor concern. I don't believe that Hunt's name should be added to the infobox, especially as the template appears to force his name above Bartholdi's, which is obviously unacceptable. I have reverted the recent good-faith addition.—DCGeist (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Hunt's role was certainly subservient to Bartholdi's. Given that the pedestal is designed to get people not to look at it, but focus on the statue itself, I can see no point in putting Hunt's name in. Not a huge deal either way though.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the intent of those edits was really to include Hunt, but to describe Bartholdi's role better—was he the "architect" as he is listed now? It kind of sucks that we are slaves to infobox functionality.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In a lot of ways no. He designed the skin of the statue and supervised its construction. He did not design the pedestal, or the armature, or anything else structural, those were Hunt, and Eiffel.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

TFA?

I'm planning to nom this for TFA on October 28, the 125th anniversary of dedication. It should carry 2 points for 25-year multiple anniversaries, 1 for age, 4 as a vital article. That should be plenty.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Blatent Contradictions Between Articles

The description of the replica Statue of Liberty in the Île aux Cygnes article directly contradicts the description of the replica in this article under the heading "Depictions". This article says that the replica in Île aux Cygnes is one-fifth the height, while that article says it is one-fourth scale. Also, that article (Île aux Cygnes) says that the replica "was given by the Parisian community living in the United States to the municipality of Paris..." while this Statue of Liberty article says that it "was given by the American community in Paris to that city."

Which is it: One-forth or one-fifth? Was the replica paid for by Americans living in Paris, or French people living in America?

I will copy and paste this concern in the Île aux Cygnes article discussion page as well. I'm sorry, but I don't know how to post links within this comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.212.12 (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not notice this comment. I am presently traveling but will be home next week and will research the matter in my sources. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. It was paid for by American people living in Paris. I was there in May, I was in Paris for three days, and even though I was ill with bronchitis I took a bus there from near the Ile St. Louis and went and looked at it. I forgot my measuring tape though!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It is roughly 1/4. According to Moreno, it is 10.97 metres high, which is not quite one fourth. Page 200.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Jardin du Luxembourg

Was the statue at the Jardin du Luxembourg the original model of the statue used by the artist to create the real statue? S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 13:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No the terra-cotta model is at the Musee Bartholdi in Colmar.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The one in the Jardin is the survivor of five that were made in 1900. One was in Hanoi and vanished in 1945, the other three were melted down by the Germans for ammunition (probably more to make a point than out of need for the copper). Moreno, p. 201.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Something it would be nice to see

I've finally identified something I really would like to see happen before the article's anticipated main page appearance. The map image in the infobox purports to show "Location of Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor", but it doesn't, really. It shows New York City and its environs. Liberty Island is certainly on there, but there's absolutely nothing to identify it among all the other little specks surrounded by blue on the map. A version of this map modified to identify Liberty Island (which could be done in various ways, even just a good old-fashioned arrow pointing at it) or an entirely different map that provides such identification would constitute a significant improvement, I think. If I had greater facility with images, I would undertake the former; lacking such skill, I'll scout around to see I can find a viable free substitute.—DCGeist (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. Someone had changed the latitude from 40 to 30 degrees, moving the statue considerably south of New York Harbor. Now safely returned to its traditional home. Station1 (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@Station1. Thanks. Someone was playing with the latitude and I clicked on it and it came up Statue of Liberty, so who knows. @DCGeist, there's bound to be a federal map someplace. I don't have a copy of the park brochure and don't see one online, but there are other federal materials.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What about this?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Very inaccurately drawn shoreline and not at all to scale. The illustration directly below it is kind of interesting though. Wonder if that can be used somewhere - maybe instead of the image at Physical Characteristics. Station1 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, take a look at the map on page 77 of this. It was scanned nicely and should blow up well, if we just take the area around Bedloe's Island.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because the numbers have been out of date since at least 1986. The museum was moved, as was the Lazarus plaque. That kinda thing. And God only knows what they will do when they renovate later this year. By the way, so we don't forget, we should add "2011–2012 (ongoing)" to the "Restored" field in the infobox on October 29.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that the dot is back, I would keep the current location map. It's pretty good, and standard in nrhp infoboxes - not reason by itself to keep it if there's something better, but it's better than a hundred year old map. Station1 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We could squeeze it further down the article for its interest in stating "Bedloe's Island".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, but no strong objection if you want to try. If anything, I'd rather see a close-up map showing placement of structures on the island, either current or historical, if you could find something like that - along the lines of the 1927 b&w photo. Station1 (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That would interest me too. What I think we need is a copy of the brochure for S of L National Monument, I hoped it would be online.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I just found this 1940 brochure. No good map but some interesting photos! Station1 (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they published that one for about thirty years, I think it sold for about a quarter on the island. I agree, the images are great. PD, too. We have so little space for images ...--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

There are architectural records at NARA in College Park. Its possible to put in a request for a scan, NARA is reasonably Wiki friendly. One of these days I'll go back over to College Park, but it is such a production. Or get it included in the scanathon on Saturday.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Webcams

Apparently tomorrow (that is, on the 28th in the US) they will turn on webcams that have been installed on the torch. I do not think that is significant enough to mention in the article, but I would advocate adding it as an EL. Also, I really don't think the 125th anniversary ceremonies are worth mentioning in an article of this scope. If Obama was there ... ah, maybe he will make an unannounced visit.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds spot on. Yes, if POTUS shows up, then a sentence could be in order.—DCGeist (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

They are swearing in 125 new citizens and reading some sonnet or other.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Alexandre-Gustave Eiffel in the lede?

Well into the article, it says

The following year, Bartholdi was able to obtain the services of the innovative designer and builder Alexandre-Gustave Eiffel. Eiffel and his structural engineer, Maurice Koechlin, decided to abandon the pier and instead build an iron truss tower.

The services of these two men were as crucial to the success of the statue as the efforts of Bartholdi, and I suggest that some mention of Eiffel should be in the lede. This is a very well done article, and I like how Philadelphia events like the Centennial are described. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion as to how to do it? I would not agree that they were as crucial, as the brick pier plan but they were obviously important. Thank you for the praise. Since none of us were at the Centennial, I tried to give some human flavor to what is now something found only in history books and dusty souvenirs. I tried to do something similar with Liberty Bell.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Remnants of the Centennial are still here in Philadelphia, and I see them regularly, and I have contributed photos. See Memorial Hall (Philadelphia), and Herman J. Schwarzmann, the architect for Memorial Hall. Perhaps I am such a fan of Eiffel that I rate his contribution higher than you and other editors may, but you are asking the hard question, how would Eiffel and Koechlin be mentioned in the lede? Nothing urgent about it, and for difficult questions, I find that sleeping on it is a good start. Perhaps some other editor will see this discussion and add something helpful. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to it so much as asking for a suggestion as to how to include it. Then I can see how it fits into the lede. The article can always be improved, but I'd like a suggestion of where to include it. I did go to school in Philly, btw, but was never very clear on where the exposition was. For some reason I envisioned it in South Philly somewhere, don't know why.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Baking soda powder

In the chapter "Renovation to present (since 1982)" it says: "Blasting with baking soda powder removed the tar without further damaging the copper." Is that technique the same as sodablasting? --Voyager (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems so. As the source, on the renovation, never refers to it that way, but seems the same. I'll do a pipe.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Image at Night

Much discussion is made of the various lighting systems over the years and when it was lit and for how long and so on. It would be nice to provide a picture showing the statue at night. -74.242.231.252 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously post 1986, when they finally got decent lighting on the statue. I don't have any. If anyone is aware of any that might be in the public domain (or can get one released from Flikr), let me know. Keep in mind that as you can see, we are only using very high quality modern images and night photography is hard. I seem to recall one on the cover of one of my books on the statue but I'm not home now.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 29 October 2011

Please change spelling error "ae" to "are". Error location: "Statue of Liberty"->"Access and attributes"->"Location and visiting"->paragraph 2->line 4->word 13 The Little King (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the catch.—DCGeist (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 8 November 2011

Frederic Auguste Bartholdi is listed as the designer of the statue of liberty. However, Alexander Gustave Eiffel whose notoriety is known for designing the Eiffel Tower is the designer of the statue of liberty. He did the armature for the framework of the statue of liberty, therefore being credited as the designer. I was watching a documentary and decided to read more about the statue of liberty when I noticed that he was not credited as the designer. I just think it should be corrected because it's a flaw in historical information that doesn't coincide with school texts, documentaries, and etc. Although Wikipedia should never be a primary source or credible source for a paper, it serves as a lead when doing research. Consequently, the information should be as accurate as possible. If you're a little apprehensive, I advise you do a little more research about the statue or Alexander Gustave Eiffel. Otherwise, it was a very interesting read and thank you for all the interesting information. Thank you!

http://www.biography.com/people/gustave-eiffel-9285294

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2PrSjGC7oc

Best,

JLW

JLwinston89 (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No, we did not get this fundamental fact wrong. Bartholdi is unquestionably the artist responsible for the visual design of the statue and thus is properly credited. Eiffel's central role in the design of the statue's internal structure, supportive of and secondary to Bartholdi's work, is appropriately discussed in the main text of the article. There is a case to be made that it should be mentioned in the lede.—DCGeist (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

JLwinston89, why not be bold? "Be bold" is official Wikipedia policy. It means if you think something in the article should be changed, go ahead and change it. In the case of an article as important and carefully watched as this, you are taking the risk that someone may not like your change and may change it back, in which case you'd come back here and discuss it.

As I understand it, you think Eiffel's structural work is so important that it deserves more mention. DCGeist says "there's a case to be made that it should be mentioned in the lead." If you 're not sure, you could propose a specific change here in Talk and see what people think before making it.

For example, perhaps the words "designed by Frédéric Bartholdi and dedicated on October 28, 1886" should be changed to "designed by Frédéric Bartholdi, engineered and built by Gustave Eiffel's firm, and dedicated on October 28, 1886."

You could just try something like that and see if it flies. It might not. If you want to improve your chances, you might look for a verifiable source that describes it that way. A documentary whose name you can't remember isn't good enough.

Also, you can't insert your own value judgement into a Wikipedia article--you couldn't just say "Eiffel's contribution deserves to be better known." However, if you could find a reliable source, like a book or an article in an important magazine, in which someone else says "Eiffel's contribution has been underrated," you could put that in quotes--"So and so says Eiffel's contribution has been underrated." and cite the source. Because "Eiffel's contribution has been underrated" is just an opinion, but "So and so SAYS thus-and-such" is a fact. "A said B about C" is the formula, and it will usually fly if A is someone recognized as an authority.

Other editors will be glad to help wordsmith your prose, correct spellings and grammatical errors, and so forth.

Thank you for asking about this. Wikipedia is the product of collaborative give-and-take. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I have no objection to inserting a mention of Eiffel in the lede, if it can be done without damaging the text. JLwinston89 might be wise to remember that the exterior appearance of the statue (at least the copper part) was determined long before M. Eiffel came on the scene.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

New York City Landmark # ?

Is this the 931st landmark in New York City, or is the New York City Landmark Preservation Committee # in citation 5 meaningless?66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain. Let me look at it. That was in the article, I think, before I started work on the improvement, and I most likely checked it, but don't actually remember doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the number, and it has something to do with the Commission. By running a google search on LP-0930 (that is, a different number), I saw other buildings designated in the LP series. Whether it means that the Statue of Liberty was the 931st in a series, or whether, since the decision (which I remember reading now) is seven pages, the next was LP-0938, I couldn't tell you. The info's somewhere, I'm sure. Perhaps on Wikipedia!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look for it and let you know if I find anything because I am primarily looking at w respect to the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, which I went out on a limb and labeled it as the 1133rd. 65.88.88.231 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be worth knowing. Have you called them?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I go there from day to day and will be there today when it opens. But it should be recorded in a book in the art and architecture reading room in the New York Public Library Main Branch, just have to find that unknown book. I am not going to the main branch today though. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, been years since I've been there. Don't get to NYC too often these days. I meant to climb the steps at the S of L before it closed, but missed out and will have to wait ... I think I did as a child, but am not sure if I am conflating it with memories of climbing the Bunker Hill Monument.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else has a bad memory. Now to the point, there were 424 landmarks in New York City sometime in 1974 according to a Mayor's report. In 1988, there were about 1000. So, IOW, the 9xx designation on the sheet means nothing. I checked 2 books. It's really a failure on whomever created the template. It's analogous to who was the first hall of famer in the NFL - no one really. Any NYC landmark is equal to any other NYC landmark, according to the NYCLPC. I will have to do some research on this because it confused the heck out of me, and with hundreds of landmarks in NYC, it's bound to cause other wikipedia editors headaches. I need to get proof that the number on that sheet means nothing and then go to the template owner and get him to remove the NYC landmark # from the template. When you think about it, the SOL being landmark # 9xx is completely ridiculous. And, from the sources I read, here's some shocking news, politics might have gotten involved with buildings being landmarked after 1980. What can you do :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Even original research or a professional author probably would not help, the NYCLPC probably released their findings that buildings certain certain buildings were given landmark status en masse every year. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There are probably wider issues involved. I did not put the landmark number in there, but it was probably done through some effort to put the NYC designation in all relevant articles. What happens then is if I mess with it, people get mad here or else on my talk page. I do not mind people getting mad at me, but not over this! Probably the New York City wikiproject, which is linked someplace in the project boxes near the top of the page. It might help if you established an account and a username, people who do are on average taken more seriously. YMMV.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

ZIP code

DCGeist's last edit did nothing, as far as I can tell, except remove the ZIP code for the statue, which I had felt was useful information and was substantiated by the source. I suggest we reinsert it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The recent edits look great.

I don't believe a postal code is a proper (or particularly helpful) encyclopedic location identifier. I did a brief survey to see if this view was borne out by other Featured Articles. I looked at the first ten FAs alphabetically in the "Art, architecture and archaeology" field that treat American monuments, buildings, or other sites where a ZIP code might potentially appear in the infobox (I skipped one or two that had no infobox--and thus, obviously, no ZIP code). Not a single one of the ten (7 World Trade Center, Chicago Board of Trade Building, Clemuel Ricketts Mansion, Exelon Pavilions, Fort Ticonderoga, Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois), Jay Pritzker Pavilion, McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink, Michigan State Capitol, Millennium Park) includes a ZIP code.—DCGeist (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The only quibble I would make to that most of those are by the same guy ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hah! There did seem to be a lot in Chicago...—DCGeist (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but you get to add the ZIP code when an IP posts a sarcastic screed about it :) I am looking for information on any special events on 10/28, there is a bit on the official NPS site but not that much.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

the zip code for the statue is 07305 Jersey City New Jersey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardnewjersey (talk • contribs) 13:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hudson County Community College

Djiflem has twice added the information that part of the statue forms part of the logo for Hudson County Community College. Given the relatively low level of community colleges on the higher education totem pole, I am unable to say that in a 91K article, which scratches the edge of "too long", we should add this information, which is of limited interest. The New York Rangers just played games across the world. What has HCCC done for us lately? This information is better suited to the depictions article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

More than a license plate decommissioned a dozen years ago or a one-off basketball game played 4 years ago. Djflem (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the "Depictions" section in general, but purely local use by a local community college falls under the inclusion bar in my opinion. I've removed the latest instance. Acroterion (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Wehwalt and Acroterion on this item. We've periodically seen such attempts to add trivial usages to the section—they invariably fail, just as they should.—DCGeist (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

While I can't disagree that a community college is pretty low on the totem pole (to borrow the excellent phrasing), there is a part of me that does have concerns regarding balance with the mentions of local usage. It's certainly important to mention such usage (which, as a native Jersey boy, I can assure you are quite common) but they're all either about license plates or sports. Just feels a bit too imbalanced for me. The Final Four part could probably go, and maybe the Ranger's now-retired third jersey.

And I do think mentioning the Central Railroad of NJ isn't a bad choice. It did appear on all their locomotives (so it wasn't just something that was only on maps), and the CNJ was a Class 1 railroad, that is a major railroad that had above a federally-recognized level of revenue during its time. So I'd say it's at least as important as the fairly trivial sports uses, while not being another sports item. I think it would make the paragraph more well-rounded. oknazevad (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If he could have shown the statue was used for something more than a railroad map, I'd be more sympathetic, but what he wanted included was far beyond the meager sources he profered. I personally know from riding the New Jersey commuter rails much between 1985 and 1987 that no use was made of the Statue at that time in NJ Transit materials. I wrote the Depictions section late and somewhat reluctantly; there is nothing magic about what went into it. However, quality control is still necessary. This part of the article is as close to a trivia section as we get--nothing in there has much to do with the history of the statue--and the way we have maintained quality is by insisting on importance and source.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Another SOL replica located a few miles from Harrisburg PA upstream on the Susquehanna River

It appears quite large on a small island in the river, and appears to be of cut stone base. You might want to have someone investigate, and update the article, in the part that lists replicas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.16.250 (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into it when I get the chance but given that there are hundreds of replicas, it would have to be very noteworthy on at least a regional level to merit inclusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I've looked into the matter, and the replica you refer to seems to be this one. While it is a very interesting story, and I will make a point of seeing it next time I am in the Harrisburg area, I do not believe it merits inclusion in this article. Possibly, you might want to look to Replicas of the Statue of Liberty. In this "top-level" article, we only mention the famous ones as we have limited space and if we mentioned that one, advocates of other replicas will seek to include them.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just Another Day on the Torch of Liberty.--GoShow (...............) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty has ties to Anti-Slavery

In a book called "The Journey of The Songhai People", according to Dr. Jim Haskins, a member of the National Education Advisory Committee of the Liberty-Ellis Island Committee,professor of English at the University of Florida, and prolific Black author, points out that what stimulated the original idea for that 151 foot statue in the harbor.

He says that what stimulated the idea for the creation of the statue initially was the part that Black soldiers played in the ending of Black African Bondage in the United States. It was created in the mind of the French historian Edourd de Laboulaye, chairman of the French Anti-Slavery Society, who, together with sculptor Frederic Auguste Bartholdi,proposed to the French government that the people of France present to the people of the United States through the American Abolitionist Society, the gift of a Statue of Liberty in recognition of the fact that Black soldiers won the Civil War in the United States.

It was widely known then that it was Black soldiers who played the pivotal role in winning the war, and this gift would be a tribute to their prowess. Suzanne Nakasian, director of the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island Foundations' National Ethnic Campaign said that the Black Americans' direct connection to Lady Liberty is unknown to the majority of Americans,BLACK or WHITE.

When the statue was presented to the U.S. Minister to France in 1884, it is said that he remonstrated that the dominant view of the broken hackles would be offensive to a U.S. South, because since the statue was a reminder of Blacks winning their freedom. It was a reminder to a beaten South of the ones who caused their defeat, their despised former captives.

Documents of Proof:

1.) You may go and see the original model of the Statue of Liberty, with the broken chains at her feet and in her left hand. Go to the Museum of the City of NY, Fifth Avenue and 103rd Street write to Peter Simmons and he can send you some documentation.

2.) Check with the N.Y. Times magazine, part II_May 18, 1986. Read the article by Laboulaye.

3.) The dark original face of the Statue of Liberty can be seen in the N.Y. Post, June 17, 1986, also the Post stated the reason for the broken chains at her feet.

4.) Finally, you may check with the French Mission or the French Embassy at the U.N. or in Washington, D.C. and ask for some original French material on the Statue of Liberty, including the Bartholdi original model. — with Carolyn Imakeeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.15.32.110 (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no question that Laboulaye and Bartholdi strongly opposed slavery. There is also no question that they sought to construct a figure that would not be a source of sectional division, if only for the reason that it would make fundraising difficult. Much of this is discussed in the article. It would not be fair to say that the statue was intended to be an explicit anti-slavery icon, at whatever stage of the design, and I hope you are not saying she was intended to be Black, which she was not. I suggest you consult a reputable book on the Statue, such as Moreno's Encyclopedia of the Statue of Liberty. I would opine that people have spent the last 126 years trying to retrofit what they want the statue to stand for into her history.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur completely with Wehwalt. The notion that the statue was designed as a specific "tribute" to the "prowess" of black Civil War soldiers is pure (however purely well-meaning) fantasy.—DCGeist (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a pretty thorough refuting of this notion at snopes.com (which incidentally inspired me to come here to find out more about the statue). Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"Huddled masses" sonnet

While I know this is a long article (and after reading through all of the talk page, I do realize that extending it is a concern), I'd like to offer the recommendation that the whole Emma Lazarus sonnet be included in the article. Yes, I know it has its own article, but it seems, at least to me, in terms of American iconography that the sonnet is one of the most important aspects of the Statue of Liberty. I came here today to read through the article before recommending it to students in one of my university classes, knowing that of course it would include the sonnet -- and assuming that just by scanning the article I could find where it was. It has now taken more than half-an-hour just to find the brief sentence that says there even is a sonnet and it includes only one line from it (in the fundraising section?!). There is not even a mention of it in the inscriptions section, which would seem the reasonable section for it (although honestly I expected to find it in the lead). It seems that there are several folks who maintain a special interest in this article so I didn't want to just make a bold change, but it seems to me that the reasonable first search for someone looking for the "huddled masses" sonnet would be the Wiki article on the "statue of liberty", especially as that seems to be THE message of the statue. Any thoughts on my plea?Cygnature (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much the length, it is where to put it and how to ensure that it doesn't detract from the existing article. That means a long break from prose and the individual lines of the sonnet are not long enough to avoid a considerable amount of whitespace to the right that can't be effectively filled with images. That's really why it's hard to include the sonnet. I believe we have some images of the plaque in Commons, but I didn't like them because they had glare on them. That would be one way of putting the lines in.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Here we have two of the plaque and both have glare on them. There's one of the manuscript.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with Cygnature as far as the importance of "The New Colossus", but also say that one of the beauties of the Statue is that it means so many different thing to different people and it is hard to include everything that anybody want in the article. For example, see the dual images on my user page!

There is a picture of the plaque in the article, way down in the plaques section, and I agree with Wewalt that the photos we have of it are terrible. We do have a photo of Lazarus's manuscript File:New Colossus manuscript Lazarus.jpg which I uploaded and perhaps that might temporarily replace the current pic until we can get a good one.

Short term fix: half a sentence at the end of the first paragraph mentioning it as a symbol of immigration and perhaps the New Colossus as well. Smallbones (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I put in the first bit, anyway. Agree on the replacement. When the statue reopens, I'll try to do something about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for considering this! This reference helps and I can see the potential for the image of the actual plaque, although I had more in mind inserting the text of the whole sonnet into the Inscriptions section (since it seems the most important inscription). If you really don't think the whole text of the sonnet could go here, what about at least including this part of the sonnet:"Give me your tired, your poor,/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore./Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" This is the most vital (and most quotable part) and one would hope that 5 lines of sonnet text wouldn't so use up the space -- it would function more like the other block quotes that are used and give a bit of white space amidst the heavy texting. Actually, I'd argue to move the info on The New Colossus down from the fundraising section to here as otherwise a general reader won't know what is being discussed here and then also have at least these 5 lines, but I'm looking at this with new eyes, not ones that have been working on this and have an image of the article as a whole. Cygnature (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would hate to lose that information from the fundraising session, because I think it is one of the things that brings a rather dry account of a difficult fundraising drive to life, the other being the account of Pulitzer's drive. I have two suggestions, one is put it in a collapsible box at the bottom of "inscriptions" possibly with some brief introductory text it would be no great trouble for me to compose, the second is by finding a pre-1923 image of the text and finding a way to put that in. However, that's not searchable. I would suggest the first one.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

"In the belief that the patina was evidence of corrosion, Congress authorized $62,800 to paint the statue both inside and out."

Reading that, I found it highly unlikely that no one in the entire Congress had ever seen or heard of copper patina. Upon reading the cited source, however, you can see that that's not the case at all. It doesn't say Congress thought it was corrosion, just that some "utilitarians" did (whoever they were) and beat out the other side of the argument who were vocal about the artistic merits of the patina. The source also states that the $62,800 was "to make the statue safe", including renovations to the grounds, the foundation, the electrical system, the lights in the torch, and the stairs. Not just paint.

The statement seems to be slanted to make the lawmakers of old seem outdated and ignorant, but that's not the case at all. I was tempted to boldly change it, but considering the overall quality of the article and how many people are currently working on it, I figured I'd post here first. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made it clearer. Thank you for checking.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request August 2012

I think a link to the Goddess of Democracy under See Also would be worthwhile. 184.7.112.136 (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is linked in the depictions section. If we use it in the article, we don't also have it as a see also.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Symbol of hope.

Can we please leave out any negative messages, symbols or events out of this page. The references to 9/11 should not be referenced to the statue of liberty. There are many sites to look up those events. I came to this page to view something positive to layer on some hope to the negativity I face. Please remove the references to anything negative from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryzler (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're not going to remove the parts that make you feel sad. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"colossal" wikt link

Please do not restore the wiktionary link for the word colossal. Wiktionary links are not usually a good idea, but might occasionally be justified for really unusual words that cannot easily be replaced. Neither condition applies to colossal; first of all, it's a perfectly ordinary word, but if you think there are readers who really don't understand it, any decent thesaurus will give you any number of equally apposite words to replace it with. --Trovatore (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That link was added after discussion; it should not be removed without consensus. Can you point me at any policies which disfavor Wiktionary? And no, colossal is not an ordinary word, it is literally a term of art.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Colossal is an ordinary word, meaning gigantic, extraordinary in size ect. It also refers to "Architecture, noting or pertaining to a classical order whose columns or pilasters span two or more stories of a building" (taken from the dictionary). I would agree with you if colossal was referring to the architecture of the statue, but its refering to its size, which is its common form, and quite common as it turns out.MilkStraw532 (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It does refer to the architecture. Note that Bartholdi, on the dedication plaque, uses the word colossal.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, a link to Colossal order might be in order, but reading that article it doesn't seem to apply to the statue. Still, in the context of this article "colossal" has an interesting etymology. A "colossus" is literally a large statue (e.g., the Colossus of Rhodes) and Emma Lazarus called her poem The New Colossus, so I don't think replacing the word with "gigantic" would carry the same nuance. A wiktionary link probably isn't out of place in this article, even if it might be unnecessary somewhere else. Station1 (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Colossal is clearly le mot juste; there can really be no question about that. We have no article titled Colossal order, and if you read giant order, you will see that is not especially pertinent. On the other hand, the Wiktionary page provides us the valuable information that the Greek source for colossal denotes giant statue. Perfect. A high quality link if there ever was one. Worthy status quo restored.—DCGeist (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that there is nowhere else appropriate to link it. I agree with that. What has not been explained is why it should be linked anywhere at all. --Trovatore (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Because if we do not, the reader does not know the artistic term and thinks we were just looking for a term that meant "really big" and we could just as easily (in his eyes) chosen the word "gigantic" or "titanic". This lets the reader know there's something behind the word, as indicated by the blue link, and thus that it was carefully chosen.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get that point across then you need to say it. Hiding it in a link is not effective; such a reader will just see it as silly overlinking and skip over the link. --Trovatore (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I consider it as effective as it needs to be. The lede phrase is not exactly the place where you can stop and go to an aside. Look, this followed a discussion and it seemed to satisfy everyone. You need to build consensus if you want a change and there doesn't seem to be any.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be no record of this discussion. Neither this page nor the archives mention 'colossal', or 'wiktionary'. The Manual of Style on links is pretty clear that this shouldn't be linked too: "Avoid linking plain English words.". 85.210.13.101 (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems an awful lot like an WP:EASTEREGG if the only reason for its inclusion is, "we hope people will follow the link and thereby infer that we are using this ordinary word in a specialiZed way as a term of art." I think either it should be explained (and then probably couldn't be in the lead) or removed entirely. AgnosticAphid talk 16:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, I expect that many people will understand it in the intended sense. It's to clear up ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you point me in the direction of the prior discussion? I can't seem to find it and I'd Iike to look into this. AgnosticAphid talk 16:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's in the FAC, here. Just search on the word.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 September 2012

Please note that the statue of liberty is located in New Jersey and not in New York.

Gretings 62.235.169.60 (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see the article, and the considerable amount of discussion of this point on this talk page. It is not in New Jersey. Liberty Island is owned by New York but is surrounded by New Jersey territorial waters.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Basic info - Height?

Jesus. I came here looking for one simple piece of information: how tall the statue is. It is nowhere to be seen in the entirely-too-detailed three paragraph intro or the sidebar, and required me to do a browser text search for 'tall' and then 'height' to locate it, as the sections are poorly conceived as well. For buildings and large monuments such as this, I feel that height is standard information and should be in at least the intro, or preferably the sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.152.49 (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

While the IP is inexcusably rude (and dull-witted, apparently unfamiliar with tables of contents), it might not be a bad idea to mention the statue's height in the front matter.—DCGeist (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I did it, though I'm not utterly happy, since "height" for the Statue of Liberty can mean at least three different things., depending on where you start the measuring tape. However, we aims to please.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not utterly happy with the placement in the infobox, but it is the best I can do in my thumb fingered sort of way. DCGeist, we're about 60 days from likely main page appearance. Is there anything you want to see done? I'm reasonably content with the present state of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the issue with the placement. Reading through the intro again, I think dropping it anywhere into the text there would only disrupt the flow—I assume you concluded the same. The one other possible spot in the infobox that might be considered is in the third position, directly below the physical data of "Location" and "Coordinates".

I felt the greater concern was the clarity of the measurement, just as you suggested. You certainly chose the right one—height of the statue itself—but would that be clear to all readers? Would some assume the measurement includes the pedestal? I edited the designation name to duplicate what we have in the Physical characteristics subsection: "Height of copper statue". A little clunky, perhaps, but probably best to eliminate that doubt.

As for anything else I want to see done... Nothing comes to mind. I think the article's in terrific shape. Looking forward to its well-deserved main page appearance.—DCGeist (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I will play with the placement later, but I think infoboxes won't accept moving fields, that is, even if you move it in the source, it will still wind up in the same position when you view it. If you can figure it out, go for it. Thanks for the praise. All I plan for TFA day is vigilence and be aware of what will need to be changed on October 29 once the statue closes. I've been checking and there doesn't seem to be any effects on the statue from earthquake or hurricane. And yes, I did play with the idea of putting the height in text but saw no suitable spot that would not look artificial. Thanks for staying on the article for the last year plus.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's what I did:

First, I added a new "height" parameter to Template:Infobox historic site, right next to where the existing parameters for "area" and "elevation" go in the top box. Given especially that "area" has been acceptable, this is a completely logical addition, naturally applicable to all statues and obelisks and potentially to buildings and other architectural structures.

Next, I edited the infobox here, employing the new parameter. I did this in two different styles—Wehwalt, go with which ever seems preferable to you.

• Style 1: One figure for height, no further specification. This yield a nice, clean look, but does raise the potential interpretive problem discussed above in this thread.
• Style 2: Two figures for height: one designated "Copper statue"; the other, "Ground to tip". Visually busier, but obviously clearer and more informative.—DCGeist (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I too was looking for statue height. Shows 151 feet here, but History Channel advised 151' 1". Verified this number at http://www.si-web.com/Statue.html (please amend, if possible, as article is locked) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.164.61 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry about the locking of the article, we have had a lot of vandalism on it so we closed it to unregistered users. You can certainly register an account and edit it fairly quickly (several days and 10 edits I think it the qualification).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Facts, not conspiracy theories.

I find it kind of disturbing that so much is missing from this article. The three men that designed that statue were all freemasons. Symbolism is one of the most important tools of the freemasons, yet nothing is mentioned in this article; with the exception of the cornerstone. The importance of the number seven plays a huge role in the dimensions and design of the statue. The number seven is very important symbol to freemasons. Also, there is only mention of a 'chain' at her feet. Go look at aerial shots of her feet, there is a shackle on the chains; but again, no mention in the wiki article. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/11/hh11e.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Freemasons --71.205.104.181 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think people will understand "broken chain" to be a destroyed restraint, and that is mentioned twice in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you looking for facts on Wikipedia? The staff continuously states that they are only interested in which information is most well-known and oft-repeated in the mainstream, public sphere. Facts have very little to do with it, and of course we are not allowed to discuss Freemasonry like adults without some clowns writing it off as conspiracy theory. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

In reply to top commenter, yes, this article does need more information about the origin of the symbol of a woman in robes (wearing a type of crown with points, carrying a raised torch) as an icon representing Freedom. This image is similar to the woman in the famous Delacroix painting, and is alleged to have origins in ancient Egyptian mythology, and the image was common in the blood-bath known as the French Revolution. The artist was a Freemason, and although I have not seen a reason to condemn Freemasons in general, despite the alleged actions of a few rogue members, I still think that the topic of the statue's symbolism is a valid point for discussion - not as a springboard to attack Freemasons, but simply for the completeness of information. It seems ironic to be denied the freedom to read the details about a statue representing Freedom itself. It is naive to think that this symbolic personification of Freedom as a robed woman with a crown and a raised torch just suddenly popped into the artist's head in a flash of unconnected inspiration. Explanation is needed. 77Mike77 (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

While we do not discuss Freemasonry very much, there is considerable detail on the design process, including the Delacroix matter (that Liberty is not robed), and what the statue owes to the Egyptian fellah is mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, your comment does not address my question. Details of how the statue was constructed are irrelevant to the question of the underlying symbolism. The fact is that Freedom was personified by a woman carrying a torch, and this was a common image in the French Revolution, and the fact that the woman in the Delacroix painting is not dressed identically to the Statue of Liberty is nitpicking. As I made clear, I have no desire to introduce Freemasony into it. I was looking for information about the symbolism, as might be found at a government site such as this: http://www.nps.gov/stli/historyculture/the-french-connection.htm There should be a separate section about the symbolism; the reader should not have to wade through rambling descriptions about he construction process in order to find a few scraps of incomplete info about the symbolism.77Mike77 (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The article contains a section on "Design, style, and symbolism". It has been thought to be an appropriate summary.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not bad, but it seems like an unorganized data dump. It may be deemed adequate, but there is room for improvement. Check the link I provided from the National Park Service. Their info is organized point by point, very clear. Just a suggestion. 77Mike77 (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks on that. However, we are an encyclopedia article so it's best to do it as prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you have an article that is, generously speaking, "fair", and you will vigorously defend it against any improvements, thus guaranteeing that it will never be elevated to medium quality.77Mike77 (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Gallery

Does anyone else think that it would be a good idea to add a gallery to the bottom of this article? Spindocter123 (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Showing what? (The Statue of Liberty's category on Commons contains several hundred images; a Gallery of Random Statue of Liberty Photos isn't going to work.) AlexiusHoratius 16:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I rv'd it. I didn't see what a gallery would add. We have ample images in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

can anyone check this one out?

Based on the broken shackles at its feet and the politics of its creator, it comes as little surprise that rumors have built up that the Statue of Liberty is a tribute to the end of slavery. Frederic Bartholdi's statue has given the National Office of Parks and Recreations second thoughts in the past couple of years, and the department has conducted a thorough investigation.

They found the rumor of slavery was based on a single marketing pamphlet by Bartholdi, which they deemed to be false, but they did find that it is most likely true that Lady Liberty was modeled from the body of an African woman. Bartholdi had studied African women for a prior commission on an Egyptian statue, but when that project was scrapped, the studies became the foundation for the green Lady. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.174.156 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you give us a link to this? You can see above that there have been several talk page discussions on similar matters.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy - Idea Conception

According to the National Park Service itself, the story of the statue being conceived at a dinner party in 1865 is false - rather they point to some time between 1870-71. See Claim 1 I don't have time to research further or edit this, but given how prominently the story features at the beginning of the article and that the story of the dinner party is apparently a fairly prevalent misconception, I do believe it would behoove us to right this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.6.50.15 (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll make an addition. --Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we remove the 1865 figure from the summary, if it's inaccurate? ~ booyabazooka 17:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't know that it's wrong. It's the NPS's opinion. I've toned down the lede to make it less definite.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

History of the Chains

I heard someone talking on the radio this morning about the chains, sorry, didn't catch her name. She said that originally the statue was supposed to be holding the broken chains in her left hand, representing Abolition, the statue being in commemoration, not just of US independence almost a century before, but of the recent Civil War and resulting Abolition. She said that the US refused to accept the statue with the chains, presumably because they wanted to forget about slavery and Abolition. The sculptor insisted, and the resulting compromise was that the broken chains are there, but under the feet where no one sees them. You won't likely find out about them on the tour either.

The discussion of the chains in the article as of today skips over this, in fact, if the above is true, the facts are misrepresented. It's made to sound as if the sculptor himself changed his mind. It's important, because, the argument goes, white people can see the statue and relate to it because their ancestors came through Ellis Island and saw the statue. Black people are left with the idea that they have no connection to it, whereas in fact, the whole idea, or a big part of the idea, was to commemorate Abolition.

I'll cite a reference if I can find it.

2620:0:5000:F5C:7449:D2F6:A5B9:7824 (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Jerry Larson

The reliable sources I worked from said what is in the article. I can't very well change it on the basis of a radio show, which (forgive me) my be wrong.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you are talking about [author] [Joy DeGruy, PhD] for whom this is a [recurring theme]. Note: the Blogspot page is 100% JavaScript-driven and is [useless without scripting enabled]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.225.36 (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2014

The base of the statue on the side that says height from base to tourch is 82 meters not 93 meters it's wrong when u read the full height of the statue is a more important piece of information then the height from the ground when I read it I was deceived for a whole I thought the tip of the statue of liberty to the bottom to top was 305 ft or 93 meters witch is wrong when unread it it confuses the reader the we just be leave its wright then we learn wrong facts plz fix ASAP 71.168.180.189 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where you are getting this information from. Can you explain further?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Technical 13 (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: I wanted to know what the po...

178.255.91.64 posted this comment on 3 January 2014 (view all feedback).

I wanted to know what the poem says on the statue : Give me your tired, your poor, etc.

I just saw this on the feedback page. Wanted to open a discussion before doing anything about it. To be honest, I don't think we need to add the poem, the poem has it's own page, which is linked to plenty of times in the article.

Thoughts?

Moosehadley 06:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. Remember, the poem is not "on the statue" anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ghostbusters 2 prominently features the statue of liberty as a force of good

This could be added to the current section on films featuring the statue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.72.215 (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We're trying to keep to the minimum here, it is a very long article and easy to get caught up in intricacies. I was reluctant to even go into the whole question of movies, but I think it's turned out well. But we simply cannot list every movie that has featured the Statue of Liberty. I really think we have listed the most famous representative films and anything further should be placed in the cultural depictions article, which is linked in a hatnote to that section. Thanks for your input.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Because Cloverfield and Day After Tomorrow are so much more famous than the Ghostbusters... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.178.53 (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If the statue was destroyed in G2, we might mention it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

The location is wrong. The statue is actually in New Jersey not New York.

The Statue of Liberty, Lady Liberty, Liberty Enlightening the World, Mother of Exiles - she has many names and is one of America's most recognizable and respected symbols throughout the world. Located within NJ waters off Liberty State Park on the 12 acre Liberty Island (formerly Bedloe's Island), the Statue of Liberty stands 305'1" from ground to the tip of the torch looking out over NY Harbor.

M8000 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: See Statue of Liberty#Location and visiting and the sources referenced in that section, and the previous discussion above at Talk:Statue of Liberty#Statue is not located in NY. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Small error

Hi, I cannot edit the article, so please someone can correct it (and delete this section): enginEer Joachim Goschen Giæver (two ee's) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigfootdz (talk • contribs) 16:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)