"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)
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
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.
Redirect Lady Liberty To here (most used slang) -- MJKubba| talk| contributions 23:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"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.
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
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)
I think we need a scheme like this one [1]. -- Taraborn ( talk) 09:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
So I assume a volcano throw up the Statue of Liberty and placed it there? → Aza Toth 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)).
There is a picture of a vagina in this article. How did this get there?
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)
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)
(...) 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
It appears clearly that the inspiration for the face is Appolo the Light Bearer, which can be found at the Museum of Corinth.
How can I add this photo to the citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esparcadia ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
" 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)
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.
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)
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)
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 box Djflem ( talk) 22:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
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:
Djflem ( talk) 11:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
{{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
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
~~ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
What does the tiny flag in the infobox add to the article? -- John ( talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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:
If you put a gun to my head (please don't), I'd !vote for #4.— DCGeist ( talk) 03:42, 19 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)
I've put in:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1] pictured the torso, head and torch in its logo [2] and is the symbol of its former mainline, now New Jersey Transit's Raritan Valley Line. [3] [4]
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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)
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)
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)
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, .
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)
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. [1] [2] New Jersey issues a special Liberty State Park plate which highlights the statue. [3] 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. [4] The New York Rangers of the National Hockey League depicted the statue's head on their third jersey, beginning in 1997. [5] 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. [6] After 1965 the Central Railroad of New Jersey pictured the torso, head and torch in its logo [7] A reminiscent image now is the symbol of New Jersey Transit's Raritan Valley Line. [8] [9]
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. [10] [11] 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. [12] The New York Rangers of the National Hockey League depicted the statue's head on their third jersey, beginning in 1997. [13] 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. [14]
(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 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...
...to redirect the reader rapidly to these more detailed articles.
Cricobr ( talk) 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? :)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
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'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)
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)
Was the statue at the Jardin du Luxembourg the original model of the statue used by the artist to create the real statue? SpeakFree (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [15] 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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 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)
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)
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)
It's in the FAC, here. Just search on the word.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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?
Moose hadley 06:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
moneytalks
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page)."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)
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
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.
Redirect Lady Liberty To here (most used slang) -- MJKubba| talk| contributions 23:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"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.
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
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)
I think we need a scheme like this one [1]. -- Taraborn ( talk) 09:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
So I assume a volcano throw up the Statue of Liberty and placed it there? → Aza Toth 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)).
There is a picture of a vagina in this article. How did this get there?
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)
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)
(...) 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
It appears clearly that the inspiration for the face is Appolo the Light Bearer, which can be found at the Museum of Corinth.
How can I add this photo to the citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esparcadia ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
" 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)
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.
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)
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)
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 box Djflem ( talk) 22:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
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:
Djflem ( talk) 11:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
{{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
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
~~ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
What does the tiny flag in the infobox add to the article? -- John ( talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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:
If you put a gun to my head (please don't), I'd !vote for #4.— DCGeist ( talk) 03:42, 19 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)
I've put in:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1] pictured the torso, head and torch in its logo [2] and is the symbol of its former mainline, now New Jersey Transit's Raritan Valley Line. [3] [4]
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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)
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)
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)
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, .
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)
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. [1] [2] New Jersey issues a special Liberty State Park plate which highlights the statue. [3] 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. [4] The New York Rangers of the National Hockey League depicted the statue's head on their third jersey, beginning in 1997. [5] 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. [6] After 1965 the Central Railroad of New Jersey pictured the torso, head and torch in its logo [7] A reminiscent image now is the symbol of New Jersey Transit's Raritan Valley Line. [8] [9]
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. [10] [11] 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. [12] The New York Rangers of the National Hockey League depicted the statue's head on their third jersey, beginning in 1997. [13] 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. [14]
(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 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...
...to redirect the reader rapidly to these more detailed articles.
Cricobr ( talk) 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? :)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
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'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)
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)
Was the statue at the Jardin du Luxembourg the original model of the statue used by the artist to create the real statue? SpeakFree (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [15] 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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 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)
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)
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)
It's in the FAC, here. Just search on the word.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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?
Moose hadley 06:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
moneytalks
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).