Jump to content

Talk:Lincoln Memorial/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

On the National Mall?

The opening sentence says, "The Lincoln Memorial, on the National Mall in Washington, DC...". According to the National Mall article, the Mall is officially only the area from the Washington Monument to the Capitol building. Can someone more knowledgable clarify? TheCoffee 04:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh, that statement sounds VERY fishy. Every map I've ever seen includes the lincoln, jefferson, and roosevelt memorials as being on the mall, as well as the vietnam, korea, and WWII memorials. →Raul654 05:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Howzat now? --Wetman 05:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Apparently the area east of the Washington Monument is called the Constitution Gardens, adjacent to the National Mall (though popularly understood to be part of it). *shrug* TheCoffee 03:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
No no no no no no. The constition gardens are a little strip of water and gardening next to the reflecting pool - they're so nondescript, unless you are looking for them, you could easily pass right by them. →Raul654 03:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you should edit the articles accordingly. Everything else I find on the internet suggests that you're right and the National Mall and Constitution Gardens articles are wrong (they even have satellite maps..). TheCoffee 04:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Officially, the whole area bounded by 17th st on the East, 23rd. st. on the West, Constitution Ave. on the North and the Reflecting Pool on the South is the Constitution Garden. The little "strip of water" is a lake, over half the size of the Reflecting Pool --user:Grumpyoldman 17:38 12 Feb. 2006

new picture

The new picture isn't as good as the old one. Why was it changed? The new one crops off the edges of the building and shows distortion in the angles. Wetman 09:53, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Images

I changed out one of the images in the interior section with a new image I created which is higher resolution, shows the text above, and has a more accurate perspective. I'm not sure if we can go ahead and remove the inscription above Lincoln from our text, it's readable in the 180px wide version of this new image.

I've also uploaded the image on the right, should a tighter cropped and more dramatic image be desired. I do not prefer this image because it is less accurate, however most pictures I've seen of the statue are similarly contrast enhanced. The marble has very subtle tones, the environment is somber and subdued but enormous and engulfing. It's hard to capture in a little picture, and people are used to photos that pop....

I also have some other captures... the south wall I'm quite proud of even though Mediawiki's thumbnailing makes it look blurry on the image page, the north wall is mostly just a snapshot though even it required shift to get the perspective right. I also have some interior perspective shots showing the columns and giving a better sense to the scale of the interior, and a side shot which is sharper and correctly colorbalanced, but like the north wall these are tainted by tourists. I will go back on a low traffic day and retake those if we find room for them in the article. --Gmaxwell 00:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the photos. Make sure to put them in commons:Category:Lincoln Memorial, so they are easy to find. I like the interior shots, but right now, the number of images in this article is overkill in relation to the amount of text. Until the article is expanded, I suggest removing a few, (e.g. Lincoln Memorial viewed from the WWII memorial, and maybe the side view of the Lincoln statue). These can be moved to the commons gallery, if not already there. Thoughts? -Kmf164 (talk contribs) 01:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly! :) I've revised the commons gallery completely and put a higher resolution version of the aerial shot there.... I'll make sure all the images are in the commons gallery and prune some out. Side view would be better if we had more text. Thoughts on the inscription text above Lincoln? --Gmaxwell 01:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a preference on the inscription. Whichever way you prefer is fine with me. -Kmf164 (talk contribs) 01:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts on the infobox and map? I think the article would look better with the building in the infobox and the map smaller someplace else. I don't want to be inconsistent with other monument articles, but right now the top is still very image crowded even though the lower part is now okay.--Gmaxwell 00:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I just moved the image above the infobox, as done with Statue of Liberty. I don't entirely like the map either, but it's something consistently done for all "protected" sites. Coming up with a better infobox map is beyond the scope of this article, and should be done for all protected sites. -Kmf164 (talk contribs) 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Inscription

"In the first column of this speech the word "future" is actually misspelled and engraved into the stone of this architectural marvel. The word, instead, reads "euture."" Is this actually true? --Wetman 01:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. It is at the end of the sixteenth line up from the bottom. It doesn't stand out as much, now that the lettering in the memorial has been cleaned up and highlighted but you can still see it. --user:Grumpyoldman 17:20 12 Feb. 2006

Yep. Here's a low quality image of it: File:Lincolnerror.JPG--Weatherman1126 (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, now....

I've removed the following few sentences:

On the back of Lincoln's head is rumored to be the faint outline of the face of Robert E. Lee. Close inspection shows that the outline does not exist. One hand is clenched, the other open. It is said that French, who had a hearing-impaired daughter, carved Lincoln's hands to sign the letters "A" and "L" in American Sign Language.

I don't think it's necessary for WP to propegate rumors, only to deny them in the next sentence. The fourth sentence is weasely, and, upon a cursory inspection of the statue, is easily disproved. While his right hand, it could be argued, is forming a vague ASL "A" -- indistinguishable from a resting fist, his left hand is NOT forming an "L" -- the fingers other than the index would have to be curled under the rest of his hand for this to be true.
I noticed I removed a sentence I didn't intend and will be restoring it. —  MusicMaker 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Charlotte Scott

Two different Charlotte Scotts, wondering which to attach a ( ) suffix to- one (the mathematician) receives more links at present. Schissel | Sound the Note! 05:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The architect of a building generally appears in the opening paragraph. I have added the architect, sculptor and painter reponsible for the Memorial.--Wetman 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Other memorials to Lincoln

I am wondering if this section should be here, connected to this article? There are many, many other memorials to Lincoln and I'd love to list the dozen or two closest to my heart, but think that a spot (and there could well already be one) on the Abe Lincoln page would be a better place to do it. Carptrash 17:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln's Hands and Sign Language

It might be worthwhile to mention that Lincoln's hands were unintentionally sculpted to be the letters "A" and "L" in sign language. Ejschro 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

Gallaudet University, the world's only university in which all programs and services are specifically designed to accommodate deaf and hard of hearing students, was founded in 1864 by an Act of Congress, and its charter was signed by President Abraham Lincoln. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.52.23 (talk • contribs) 22:25 6 July 2008

Mischaracterization of Anderson D.A.R. Incident

The article states "In 1939, the Daughters of the American Revolution refused to allow the African-American contralto Marian Anderson to perform before an integrated audience at the organization's Constitution Hall." That is not what happened. The D.A.R. was unwilling to allow black performers in its hall. In the 1930's, it was not customary to have integrated audiences anywhere. Also, if the audience had been integrated, why would anyone have objected to having Ms. Anderson perform in front of it? John Paul Parks (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Date

This sentence is in the content:

"the first stone of the Lincoln Memorial was not put into place until Lincoln's birthday, February 30, 1945."

Am I missing something?

The entry has been changed to 1914, but that is still problematic. The box at the right indictes that construction began in 1912. How could it begin until the first stone was put into place? Further, I seriously doubt that construction would have begun in 1914, because Woodrow Wilson was President then. He was a Southern-born racist who wrote a glowing review of "Birth of a Nation" (he also cheated on his wife and needlessly involved us in a European war, but that is for another talk page). Therefore, I find it highly unlikely that any monument to Abraham Lincoln would have been started while he was President. In any event, the accuracy of all this needs to be investigated and any necessary correction made. John Paul Parks (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Library of Congress maintains the following page with architectural information. Should it be added? http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hh:@field(NUMBER+@band(DC0472)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.119.37 (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Coding Errors

This page was full of coding errors. I reverted to the last best version. There is still an error in the coordinates. I have seen this error all over wikipedia lately. The seconds need to be input in the coordinates. I'll fix it tomorrow if no one else has. --MathewBrooks (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

sentence ahead of reality

currently reads "On January 18, 2009, the memorial provided the backdrop for the inaugural-celebration concert "We Are One: The Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial" for President Barack Obama. "

at occasion of concert, obama was "president-elect." sentence should reflect his status at time of event being reported and read: "On January 18, 2009, the memorial provided the backdrop for the preinaugural-celebration concert "We Are One: The Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial" for then President-elect Barack Obama. " --98.116.115.220 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Images

Why are six of the eleven images the exact same picture? I don't know what pictures are supposed to go there so I couldn't fix it.--BurtAlert (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

suggestions

I think the article should mention how the head is weirdly out of proportion with the body. Also, there was talk this week of a government shutdown and the possibility of all the national monuments being closed to the public, but what does that really mean? Would they rope them off? Would security guards still be there? The Lincoln Memorial was symbolic during the debate, so it seems like it would fit here. KannD86 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


The significance of the statue of Lincoln sculpted by French

2 ZILMAR // Oct 22, 2008 at 2:13 pm

I’ve known the subtle significance of Lincoln’s grandiose statue since 1956. I have searched hundreds of sites on the Monument and found nothing more on the symbolic features laid on the marble by sculptor French’s work than a mistaken reference to the hands depicting the letters A and L. Imagine if you will, a line dividing Lincoln in two and observe carefully the details on each side, right and left: hair, eyebrows, lips, collar tips, coat collar, neatness of the coat, coat covering leg, hands, position of foot, and you will realize that Lincoln is divided in the statue as he was in spirit because of the Civil War. The left side is tense, disheveled, clothes ruffled, hand clenched and foot pulled back as if on the ready to spring out of the chair. The right side is serene, in repose in every detail . You will see more as you carefully dwell observing the statue and finally capture the notion, in amazemenmt, that the sculptor was an artist in more ways than one. He showed talent and skill to work the marble, but more profoundly a genious to lay on the stone Lincoln’s tormented soul and mind faced with a divided nation. I am a Brazilian, living in São Paulo and I have related the above to every American I have become acquainted with, and they didn’t know. May I ask of you: Did you know? I am a retired Full Professor of the University of São Paulo and I am presently preparing a presentation on two works in which the artist used the sculpture work to convey a message that the layman dos not see. The second artist is the Brazilian Antonio Lisboa and his famous soapstone sculptures of the 12 prophets. Of all the sites I have visited I chose this to register my comment. And if you have come this far I thank you sincerely

3 ExplorerMan // Oct 22, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Thank you for the great insight and comments, I have added some a few more photos for all to admire and see for themselves what you so eloquently describe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.39.128.225 (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Memorial dimensions in conflict

The reference to Memorial length of 187 feet, is this the temple area? On page 1 of the 28 page Memorial drawing set made by the National Parks Service, in 1993, the length is 204 feet and a width of 134 feet. The drawings are linked to at the bottom of the article

Also wondering about the Article height of 99 feet. From what point is the height measured? In the 1993 drawings, if the distance is measured from the bottom of the 14 foot tall terrace wall, the height is 103ft-7 7/8in.

Both sources have the terrace wall height as being 14 feet.

The terrace dimensions is different but by only one foot on each side with the 1993 data being 256ft x 186ft

The column height has some difference with the 1993 data of 44ft-2 1/2in

How about including both dimensions?OneHistoryGuy (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

statue sculpted in about 2 1/2 years not 4 years

October 1917, Bacon and French realize the original 10 feet high statue was too small, page 1 of 28 drawing set of 1993 National Park Service drawings.

Library of Congress has a November 1917 sketch of the statue after the height increase from 10 feet to 19 feet so the carving could not have been started before the sketch.

28 blocks of statue marble arrived at the Piccirilli Brothers studio in Brooklyn, New York on 18 November 1918, per order form in the possession of Bill Carroll
15 November 1919, French wrote to Colonel Ridley (govt overseer of the project) that the carving was finished and the blocks were ready for shipment to the Memorial site. Letter in the possession of Bill Carroll. Chronology matches with the Thomas bookOneHistoryGuy (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC) OneHistoryGuy (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Memorial section of the National Parks Service website has two photos dated winter and spring 1920 with the spring 1920 photo showing all parts in place.

"Lincoln Memorial & American Life", Christorpher A. Thomas, Princeton University Press, 2002, page 123 states the finished marble arrived November 1919 and was assembled over the next couple of months. Followed is a May 1920 French quote of "The Lincoln statue, with its pedestal, is an accomplished fact...as nearly perfect technically as I can make it. OneHistoryGuy (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

columns were to be 9 drums and one cap

On Bacon's Memorial drawing of 1 June 1913, sheet 1 of 28, the columns were to have 9 drums and 1 cap (11 drums and 1 cap as built). The height of the top and drum and bottom is a difference of 1.4 feet. The other 7 drums increased in width from the top down. The inward incline at the top of the column is 3.5inches from the bottom on a vertical centerline. I obtained the drawing from the National Parks Service who acquired it from the Architectural and Cartographic Branch of the National Archives, in CollegePark, Maryland.

The same widening (but different amount) from top to bottom is shown in the 1993 NPS drawings with a width increase of the top and bottom drums being 1.1 feet.

I obtained drum height by measuring the drawings. The 3.5 inch incline is on the drawing

Can I place the above in the article without violating Wiki guidelines? OneHistoryGuy (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

should delete 'Sculptural features' as non-verifiable, tangential and frivolous

The entire section titled 'Sculptural features' is non-verifiable, tangential and frivolous. Why is an article about the Lincoln Memorial talking about Michaelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Virgin Mary? The original, objectionable text is quoted below

76.191.19.80 (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)krbolson

The material you removed is sourced, which is why I restored it. Do not delete sourced information without discussion first to establish a consensus for deletion.

From what I can see, the material is relevant and sourced, and hardly tangential. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed your quotation of the text, since it is in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Lincoln Memorial is an American national monument"

The first sentence of the article read, "The Lincoln Memorial is an American memorial". It is never acceptable for a definition to use the word/name of itself in its definition. Therefore, I changed it to, "The Lincoln Memorial is an American national monument". - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Where the statue stands is 60 feet wide, 74 feet long, and 60 feet high."

I added, "Where the statue stands is 60 feet wide, 74 feet long, and 60 feet high." The Lincoln Memorial p.8 by U. S. Office of Public Buildings and Public Parks - Electronic Library - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

'The Day The Earth Stood Still' movie includes a scene at Lincoln Memorial

Under the topic American Pop Culture, I added... *In the 1951 science fiction classic The Day the Earth Stood Still, Klatu/Mr. Carpenter and Billy visit the Lincoln Memorial, "Those are great words, he must have been a great man?" "Sure!" - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Notable Events: Restoring Honor?

I think Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally is noteworthy enough for a mention under the "notable events" header. The non-political rally was based on the words and character of both Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr., and should be put up for consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.126.57 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck's rally was a right-wing propaganda, made for FOX TV event and is NOT worthy of inclusion. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Quotations from the Lincoln Memorial

I saw very nice quotations in the memorial, can anyone upload it on the web please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.204.180 (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions the Gettysburg Address and his 1865 second inaugural address. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am Ravi Samuel from India. I saw some great quotations of Lincoln in the memorial. Can someone upload those quotations in this website please. Probably someone living nearby would help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.204.180 (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As I just said above, the article mentions the Gettysburg Address and his 1865 second inaugural address. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes reference.

It would be good if the Planet of the Apes reference would be completed. 200.120.173.136 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC) (I'm wikiman at http://www.wikia.com)

Done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

House Votes To Help Family Of Lincoln Memorial Worker

House Votes $38,400 for Family of Lincoln Memorial Caretaker

July 16, 1993 - KENT JENKINS JR., THE WASHINGTON POST

The House of Representatives, touched by the plight of a federal worker who died caring for the Lincoln Memorial but had no job benefits, Thursday voted to give the family of James Hudson almost $40,000. Hudson, 43, spent eight years maintaining the memorial but was classified as a temporary employee ineligible for benefits granted permanent workers, including life insurance.

71.191.96.38 (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposition to remove misspelling photo

My argument: This image adds no value to the article and should be removed immediately.

My most recent edit was reverted and I was asked to discuss removing the image at right. There are a number of reasons:

  1. Trivial (adj.) – Ignorable; of little significance or value.
  2. This article is already overpacked with photos and this adds no value. (Maybe the article could use a gallery for photos like this, and the Lee profile? Though galleries were taboo back in the day. Not sure if that sentiment has changed.)
  3. In a section that discusses the interior, which is dominated by a large statue, two rows of columns, arguably two of the most notable spoken word examples in Western history, impressive translucent skylights, and a one-of-a-kind view of the National Mall, the content of this image is not of the same caliber as the content that is included elsewhere in this section; it inappropriately equates a spelling error to French's most notable work in one of the most recognizable structures in Washington, DC.
  4. The misspelling is not covered in prose and the only mention of it comes without citations or references explaining the backstory.
  5. Seriously, big deal. It's the early 20th century's version of a typo. Would we call that out in any other government publication?

If anything, I'd maybe include a footnote after the reference to the speech and include a link to the image in that, but nothing more.

Long story short, give me some more appropriate and meaningful content and maybe this could fit in prose, but definitely not a photo taking valuable space from other, more useful photos or longer, more descriptive prose.

For reference I authored or revised much of the content in this article back in 2010 (admittedly never finished, but it was a major improvement over what was there). I spent a lot of time formatting and choosing just the right images that were freely available. I've done a lot of work in the NRHP world and thought the product I rolled out was of generally high quality. Point being: I'm not a n00b to its content. That said, this is our article, and I didn't expect anyone to think this image wasn't trivial, so please discuss. upstateNYer 02:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Gee, telling editors who have worked on the article "this article has totally gone to crap in four years" is hardly the way to begin a discussion about the changes you want to make. How about you stop with the superior attitude (which, looking at older versions of the article, I don't think is merited in any case), and start over again with a more collegial point of view. I, for one, won't be considering your substantive suggestions until it's clear that you are interested in building a WP:CONSENSUS and not in bludgeoning other editors. BMK (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Scratched overly negative remarks. So, how is the image not trivial? upstateNYer 03:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I haven't stopped beating my wife ... I mean I never stopped ... I mean, I never 'started' beating my wife.

Your question contains the answer you want, by your use of using the perjorative term "trivial". You want me to prove to you that it's not what you have already decided it is. I'm not going to deal with rhetoric, you want to talk, please be straight-forward, 'cause you're not starting out very well. BMK (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that "I authored or revised] much of the content in this article back in 2010" turns out not to be the case. There was nothing bad about your edits, they were all helpful to the article, but you added almost nothing substantive to it - so please stop trying to throw around your weight. You're an editor here like any other, your contribution to the evolution of the article is appreciated, I'm sure, by everyone, but you did nothing that would allow you to take upon yourself the mantle of one of the article's primary authors. BMK (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Given the attitude you've presented here, and your obviously strong feelings of ownership towards this article, I suggest that you not make any more edits to it without first discussing them here. BMK (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Ball's in your court. Why should the image stay? What value does it add? I've provided a list of legitimate reasons why the image should go. I'm waiting for something similar from your viewpoint and have yet to see it. You clearly feel ownership as well I and respect that; we're in the same boat. Can we move forward and discuss the merits of this image? upstateNYer 04:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I added an "In popular culture" tag because I believe this article has a textbook case of a violation of the expectation of WP:IPC. While some of the bullets do indicate the relevance to the various films or media, many do not, and zero of the bullets have references.

At best, this section should be summarized with three or four major references and the rest should be broken off into a separate article per the suggestions in WP:IPC in an effort to "keep the main article focused on the most essential aspects of its subject." I would suggest including Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Nixon and Forrest Gump (surprisingly not already included).

Comments? upstateNYer 04:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have concerns about any specific item in the popcult section, please discuss them here so a consensus can be formed, per WP:BRD. BMK (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I've stated that I have an issue with all of them but two that currently exist, potentially three that could exist. I already opened it up for discussion here. I'm waiting for discussion on the content of my argument, not the process, which, based on your initial rollback, is what you are looking for "discuss please". upstateNYer 04:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, you should read BRD, especially the linked essay at WP:ROWN, which generally states that the onus is on you to discuss the merits of not including my legitimate edit, which based on the discussion I started and backed up with a referenced argument, improves the article because it calls attention to the issue at hand, brings potential parties in for discussion, and lets readers know there could be a change coming soon. (Right now, nobody knows this is even up for discussion because the tag is gone; I can easily argue that your revert made the article worse because it stifled discussion on a topic that an editor wanted to have discussed.) Look at section 1: this (a) wasn't vandalism, (b) was in good faith and didn't make the article worse, [c] was not an example of a misinformed editor (otherwise I won't be making a referenced argument about it above), and (d) was not an incidental edit. I won't revert your revert, but please take my edits in good faith and don't auto-revert in the future. It's pretty clear that's what you did on the tag even though I'm doing exactly what you asked after you reverted my removal of the image discussed in the section above. upstateNYer 04:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No discussion since I posted this a number of days ago, so I reapplied the tag. Maybe we'll get some input from visitors. upstateNYer 00:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a discussion, and there is no consensus within the discussion for the tag, so I've removed it again - please don't replace it until you have a consensus to do so. According to WP:BRD, the article stays in the status quo ante until a consensus is reached. BMK (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:IPC offers a useful test for popular culture section content:
  1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
  2. Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference?
  3. Did any real-world event occur because of the cultural element covered by the reference?
The section is currently entirely unsourced as to the notability of any of the references. Now the use of the Lincoln Memorial is clearly significant in some works (as in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) because the building itself is important to the plot, so the works act as a primary source. Other than that I think secondary sources should be expected, and any entry for which they cannot be provided should be removed. Moreover, the section should probably be retitled "In fiction," because the cultural significance of the Lincoln Memorial is also discussed in sections like "Sacred space."Knight of Truth (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The IPC tag is remnant of the anti-popcult movement, which failed some time ago to push across its agenda. Popcult items are sourced by the item itself, just as "plot" sections are sourced by the plot of the item. As long as they are stright-forward description, without any interpretation or analysis, they do not require any additional sourcing. BMK (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we have different focuses. In my mind, the question is not, factually, whether a work mentions or features the Lincoln Memorial. In discussing these works on the Lincoln Memorial article, the question is whether mentioning these works says something useful about the Lincoln Memorial. This will tend to include some works but not others. I think it's a separate question whether a list of works featuring the Lincoln Memorial meets WP:LISTN. In short, I think it is useful to distinguish between the discussion works that have a notable dialog with the Lincoln Memorial (because the Memorial is important to the work, or because the work affects the Memorial in some way) and a mere list of works in which the Lincoln Memorial is featured. How do you feel about splitting the "In popular culture" section (titles to be determined), with one section discussing notable works in prose form and another mentioning works featuring the Lincoln Memorial in list form? For sourcing, the latter section really needs just primary sources, while the former should have secondary sources as well. Opinions differ about notability, but I think the split would be useful as a compromise if nothing else because by definition the first section includes notable information.Knight of Truth (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Image clutter

There are currently too many images cluttering the article. I removed some of the images, but was reverted with the edit summary "restoring layout." One of the images I removed is low quality (File:Lincoln Memorial at Sunrise.jpg; "Poor quality images (too dark, blurry, etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used." per WP:IMGSYN) while one I added (File:Lincoln Memorial east side.JPG) is a featured picture on Commons. We should display the best images on articles when available. Many of the current photos are unnecessarily large. From WP:IMGSYN - "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." APK whisper in my ear 05:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The layout is fine, it's not cluttered, the sizes are chosen to enhance each image in the position it is in. Please be aware that MOS is a guideline and is not mandatory, and that ArbCom has specifically warned against edit-warring in support of MOS. BMK (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The layout is not fine. For instance, the text is sandwiched in the "Exterior" section. ("avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other" per WP:IMGLOC) We should follow MoS guidelines unless there's a good reason not to. I haven't even reverted your edit, so the edit warring comment is odd. You haven't addressed the fact you restored a low-quality image and took out a featured picture from Commons. APK whisper in my ear 06:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
"Lo-rez" is a red herring, the image is being presented at a size that its resolution is more than sufficient for.

Your layout was extremely duil and boring, and looks like the work of someone who just doesn't like images in our articles. As for sizing - no image should be presented at a size that requires the reader to have to click on it to see the contents properly, it should be at the size in which the reader can click or not click, depending on whether they want to see it better or not. "Postage stamp" images make our articles look cheap and make it harder for the reader to see what we're trying to show them.

Incidentally, your notices to the three Wikiprojects were borderline canvassing, since all you needed to do is ask for input about images in the article. By specifying your concerns about the images (the number and the size), you've poisoned the well, making it more difficult to get unbiased comments. Please don't do that again in future notifications, it can lead to sanctions. BMK (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is tagged with the three projects I notified. Therefore, the editors there have an interest in the article. My comment was "For anyone interested, please give your input at Talk:Lincoln Memorial regarding the number and size of images in the article. Thanks." I didn't say "someone has added too many images, help me out." It was a simple statement for possibly interested editors that said what the issue is regarding (the number and size of images). Are you going to comment on restoring the low-quality image or the sandwiching issue? Also, your assumption "looks like the work of someone who just doesn't like images in our articles" is false and unnecessary. APK whisper in my ear 06:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Why did you revert these two edits? APK whisper in my ear 06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Two edits: The first, the addition of "western end" I should not have reverted, and I have restored it. The second: it works better as two paragraphs, one general, and one about a specific incident.

Your specification of "number and sizes" is the non-neutral part. In the future just write "More input needed at [[Talk:Lincoln Memorial#Image clutter|Talk:Lincoln Memorial]] or the equivalent. Do not write anything that indicates what position you are interested in them taking.

There is no sandwiching issue, there's plenty of space between. Remember, again, that MOS is a guideline and is not mandatory. We do not follow it like a commandment handed down from on high.

I've already commented on the so-called "lo rez" image. BMK (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, I didn't indicate any position on the project talk pages. That's a red herring. You've accused me of canvassing and being an editor that doesn't like pictures in articles, as well as mentioned ArbCom and possible sanctions. Please stick to the topic, assume good faith and not issue veiled threats. I'll wait for other editors to comment and if no one shows up, I'll file a RfC. APK whisper in my ear 07:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Leaving aside the issue of the amount of images, I should note that the size of the images in this article is handled poorly. The use of absolute pixel values instead of upright factors is deprecated, see WP:Extended image syntax. Upright factors (in the format upright=xx) modify image size based on the user's preferred default image size, which is more accessible for those with non-standard screen sizes. This includes phones, but is also helpful for e.g. those with poor eyesight. This discussion, however it ends, seems like a prime opportunity to convert the syntax of whatever images make the cut. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Comments: I actually came her to look at the images concerning the number and size of images on an article. This has sort of headed south before I could consider the reasons I came here. Although things do change there were two references concerning MOS that concern me as well as WP:ArbCom. Specifically the first includes "ArbCom and specifically warns against edit-warring in support of MOS." The second that "MOS is a guideline and is not mandatory".
The entire concept of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (a policy) and WP:BOLD (a guideline) is to allow for the "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Another is Wikipedia:Consensus (a policy). There is a limited amount of things that can not be changed on Wikipedia by consensus (not a vote) and that is where WP:policies and guidelines come into play. The entire realm of policies, guidelines, and even essays, revolve around consensus. WP:BRD is one such essay that has a relationship to "WP:BOLD", and has been seen by a very large consensus to be accepted as a "solution of diplomacy". WP:AGF and WP:Disruptive editing are behavioral guidelines and violation of these can lead to sanctions. Wikipedia:Civility is also a policy as is Wikipedia:Harassment, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Edit warring and the related [[WP:3RR]. What does all this have to do with the price of tea in China?:WP:ArbCom is a final resolution of Arbitration usually concerning serious conduct disputes;where all other routes to resolve the conduct issues have failed. This means that a case brought before them concerning MOS most likely was not just about MOS but some violation "related" to MOS issues. Tossing that "out there" as some sort of "pre-warning" might scare of the new editor but as the bad dog chained to the post. I hold to the principles of a need for policies and guidelines only below consensus concerning improving Wikipedia. I can assure any editor that sanctions can come from far more places before they make it to ArbCom and needlessly tossing around what can be perceived as threats can be a beginning. WHEW! End of lessons on why we should NOT be uncivil.
Concerning the pictures: I hit an edit conflict with Knight of Truth and will only add that an editor has a concern, one editor has opposing views (if we can get pass all the above), and two editors have joined to agree there are valid concerns. A VERY good suggestion is for the two involved editors to start over and work it out together for the betterment of Wikipedia. There may be a too many and maybe this can be resolved with the "opportunity to convert the syntax of whatever images make the cut". Can we do that? Why not a goal of gaining a B-Class Article in the process? Maybe two of us can go about our rat killing. Otr500 (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I've attempted to change the images and to make a few other edits to this article, and been reverted by User:Beyond My Ken on the grounds of "no consensus for these changes on talk page". The following comments concern this version of the article, which appears to be BMK's preferred version.
No good reason is offered on this talk page for enlarging pictures beyond the default size. BMK asserts that "'postage stamp' images make our articles look cheap", which is (1) purely subjective, with no grounding in Wikipolicy, and (2) applies with equal validity to every other WP article, so should be discussed at the highest Wikipedia level, and not at the talk page of a single article.
Likewise, no reason is offered for the deviation from the default right placement of any of the images. Indeed, the only image for which I can see such a reason is the photo of the French statue, which faces slightly rightward—and that's placed right. I replaced it with a left-facing image; BMK reverted.
No reason is offered for boxing the Cortissoz inscription; it can easily be incorporated into the text. In its box, it squeezes text between itself and the French-statue image, contra MOS:IMAGELOCATION. It's also described in the text as "the engraved epitaph... shown in the box to the left", contrary to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Vertical_placement, which states "Avoid referring to images as being on the left or right".
Several photos are located well away from the relevant passages of text, again contra the "Vertical placement" section. For instance, the photo of the March on Washington is placed in a section on French's sculpture. I tried to change this, but was reverted.
Several photos don't add much to the article, notably that of the typo in the inscribed Gettysburg Address (which looks like OR, and is fairly trivial even if it can be sourced) and that of the inscription on the site of MLK's speech. Removing the latter and moving the March on Washington photo to the appropriate section allowed placement of a photo of one of the hands of the French sculpture in the paragraph discussing the ASL legend re. the statue. However, reverted.
I'd suggest that all photos be reduced to default size and moved to the relevant sections. I began this work and had reached this point when reverted by BMK. I had not yet reduced the $5-and-penny photo or the last two photos in the article, but intended to do so, and think that it should be done. — Ammodramus (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Our purpose here on Wikipedia is to serve our readers, and we fail to do that when we do not properly size photographs. The argument is often made that the default size of thumbs can be set in preferences, but this is only the case for editors who have an account. The vast majority of people who come to Wikipedia to get some information do not have an account, which means they are forced to see postage-stamp sized images, which, for the most part, obscure the information the image is trying to present rather than present it in a reader-friendly fashion. Yes, of course, the reader can click on the photo, but we should never force the reader to click on an image just to be able to see its contents. That means that every image in an article should be presented at the size which makes its contents accessible to the reader, who, if he or she wishes to examine it more closely, can then click through to do so. We are here to serve the reader, not to blindly follow rules -- that's why we have WP:IAR as one of the core principles of the project.

I am more than willing to discuss specifics about image sizes, it's certainly possible that the sizes that have been chosen are not the best and most appropriate ones to present the image to the reader, so adjustments can be made after discussion, but I reject the false idea that all images on Wikipedia must' not be sized. Not only is that counter to our most basic purpose -- to serve the user of the encyclopedia -- it is not even what the guidelines say. BMK (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, there is not "default right" placement of images. Article layout can be complex, and choices have to be made. It's certainly best when an image is close to the text it refers to, but -- as anyone who has ever read a magazine can tell you -- that's not always possible, given the length of the text involved, the section layout, the ideal size of the image, etc. etc. It's certainly not mandatory (in fact, nothing in MoS is mandatory) for images to be "inside" the sections they refer to, close by is good enough. BMK (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid the remainder of your comments just point out that you really have no conception about how to best layout an article in order to service our readers. We are editors, not robots blindly following rules, and that's a good thing, as it means that choices can be made for specific circumstance without having to distort the best possible presentation just to fulfill a "rule" which is not even a rule, just a suggestion. BMK (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
"Close by" only makes sense for your particular display, they may not at all appear "close by" for other users. Consider that default behavior on phones and the like is to collapse the sections, so that readers which have uncollapsed only a particular section will not see any "close by" images but only those actually placed in that section in the wikimarkup. As for the image sizes, in some instances it may be wise to crop images so they focus on the detail that is to be displayed in the article, which tends to make the thumbnail more useful.Knight of Truth (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do that constantly, but there's no reason to do it here. BMK (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The extraneous photograph

Extraneous image

An editor whose usual M.O. is to fight tooth and nail to insert his own photos in to articles, whether or not they add anything, or are good images, is attempting to add the image at right to the article. As far as I can see it adds nothing at all. We already have the infobox image and the three "beauty shots" at the end, the photograph adds nothing. In an edit summary, the editor argues that it's the most recent photo of the Memorial, but since there hasn't been any major change to the building, there's no particular need to include an image simply because it's new. I'm removed it, but the past history of the editor indicates that he will edit war over it. (Some here may have experienced that on the White House article.) BMK (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment and reasoning. The photo is not of high quality (it was a grey December day) and adds nothing - JohnInDC (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree as well. APK whisper in my ear 02:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed; I see no reason to add it. The general principle I apply to articles is that pictures should be of high quality; varied in time, place, subject or medium; related to the text; and preferably freely licensed. The image in question is of good resolution but otherwise unremarkable in quality and does not provide anything not already represented in the article, is not related to any particular part of the text, nor does it replace an unfree image. Knight of Truth (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Though I agree the weather isn't flattering, I wouldn't be the first to complain if the image was added to the column of images at the bottom of the article. It is a view from ground level, at a different oblique angle and in normal daylight. Not all images need to be beautiful and flattering ...I expect there are occasions and angles when the memorial looks pretty unremarkable and we're not in the business here of recreating a tourism brochure! One thing I would strongly advise is for the image to be cropped to focus closer to the memorial (the acres of sky do nothing for the image). Sionk (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for visible templates on this page

Hi. I would like to request that all four templates at the bottom of the page be visible to the readers. There are only four of them, and they, visible and collapsed, take up approximately the same amount of room as do the "Bibliography", the "External links", and the "Categories". These templates consist of a total map to the life, thoughts, and work of Abraham Lincoln, as well as a very good listing of the major memorials within Washington D.C. This page details the premier honoring of Abraham Lincoln in the world. Presenting the four templates hidden seems to diminish the interest or the curiosity of the causal reader to explore further. If present on the page (yet collapsed) they provide easy access to a virtual map of Abraham Lincoln and his contributions to American and world society to the lucky casual reader, the serious student, or topic researchers alike. On this page the template section would have the same space consideration that the Bibliography, External links, or category section already have - there are only four of them, collapsed - which seems, to me, appropriate for this page and these particular templates. Randy Kryn 23:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Seems fine, as long as the main Lincoln template is visible. I like the 'Memorials' label too. Good job Montanabw. Although I wouldn't mind four score and twenty templates on the page. Randy Kryn 00:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert E Lee in Lincoln's Hair

File:Robert E Lee Memorial.JPG

Calling it an "Urban Legend" is something of a Point of View itself. The facts are shown in this image.

Statements like "close inspection reveal it does not exist" are NOT fact. They are complete POV. Who inspected? Where? HOW??? All these require acceptance of someone else's point of view. The picture shows the facts. Please let the facts be presented.

Thanks KitemanSA (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's hilarious. You ramble about POV and then post a picture of the statues tufts of hair as "fact" when interpreting an image out of abstract shapes is entirely subjective POV! One could see just about anything in those whispy tufts of hair, just like a cloud. Personally, I don't see Robert E. Lee's face at all, only a very distorted generic "face" if any. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.239.232.139 (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The National Park Service calls Lee & sign language on the sculpture an urban legend. [1] Given that, I'd be very interested to know what the two books listed (Did Lincoln Own Slaves? pointed to http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375425417 but that's just aprofile for the book, with no info on the cited sentence) disputing that say. Galatee (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Penny

Why does the picture caption say "penny". Last I heard the U.S. does not mint pennies. It mints cents. It should be called the US Cent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtflood1976 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 October 2006

question: Was the lincoln memorial hit by an anti-aircraft round in WWII?

a number of years ago while in Washington on a school trip, we were told by a Washington Guide that during WWII the Lincoln Memorial was hit by an errant anti-aircraft round fired in panic from the naval Observatory.

I have not been able to verify this anywhere. Does anyone have information on this or are we simply looking at the fertile imagination of a tour guide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildbillmedlakes (talk • contribs) 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is true. The memorial was hit by a few anti-aircraft rounds accidentally fired from an installation that was mounted on top of the Department of the Interior in 1942. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/battered-by-time-nature-and-antiaircraft-fire-lincoln-memorial-gets-facelift/2018/06/14/4838b00a-6ff2-11e8-bf86-a2351b5ece99_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.94.149 (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Photo

Status quo image
Suggested replacement
Cropped version of above, added, not replacing

The article has had the first photo in it for quite a long time, and an editor wants to change it for the second photo, which is their own image. Opinions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've done some tinkering to create some space, cropped the suggested photo to make it less sky-heavy (one of my ojections to it: too much sky to no great effect), and added it to the article, instead of replacing the long-standing image. We now have a series: at dawn, during the day, at dusk. Let's see if that flies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The latter image is the highest resolution image of the building, definitely worthwhile. Good adjustments. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It was brought up at WP:ERRORS that the "In popular culture" section was entirely unreferenced and that it "should probably just be removed". As it stands currently, the article is ineligible for inclusion in WP:Selected anniversaries/February 12. If editors care to have it reinstated (although it's probably too late for this year now), please add the appropriate references. The list also appeared fairly long to me, so I also added the {{in popular culture}} tag on it. Personally, I don't particularly care, so I leave the decision about what should be included (even if it's all of them) to the editors of this page. Regards, —howcheng {chat} 23:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


Every item in the list is referenced by the item itself, which is the best possible source for the content of the item. It satisfies WP:V completely, as well as WP:RS. If there is an opinion that some of the items are trivial, that is a matter for editorial discussion, which is why the article talk page exists, so please bring those items up here. Long-time editors should be well aware that there is no consensus -- and never has been -- for the wholesale removal of popcult lists, so whoever said that the list "should probably just be removed" was suggesting an edit completely against community consensus. That battle was fought, and the anti-popcult people lost, but continue to try to fight the battle article by article.

On the other hand, the summary paragraph that you substituted was actually a policy-violating problem, as it went against WP:OR, offering analysis and interpretation without any sourcing, whereas the list offers only straight-forward descriptions, similar to those found in the plot sections of film and novel articles, which are implicitly sourced directly to the film or the novel.

Again, any specific problem with specific entries should be brought up here for consensus discussion, and reasonable editors can come to reasonable conclusions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I came in from ERRORS and I have re-added {{in popular culture}}. That template perfectly sums up what is wrong with the section. It should not be a list of random appearances. It needs to have third party sources describing its impact on popular culture (much like the section added by Howcheng did). A list of appearances is not useful to anyone. A third party reference needs to be added to each one, a wikipedia article does not count. Please don't remove the tag until the section isn't a list and actually tries to meet the concerns here and the guidelines at MOS:POPCULT. Woody (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you are completely incorrect. In the first place, MOS is not a policy, it is an editing guideline, and is not mandatory. In the second place, the purpose of a tag is not to stamp a scarlet letter of shame on the section, but to clean it up. How does one clean it up, by initiating a discussion, which has already been done, therefore the tag is superfluous. Next, third paqrty sources are not necessary, as each item sources itself, as explained abouve, just as in every "Plot" section in every film and novel article. Are you planning on tagging all of those as well because they are unsourced? Fourth, a list of appearances is extremely useful, because it shows the extent to which the subject (in this case the Lincoln Memorial) had permeated our culture. The section is called "In popular culture", and the list does precisely that, show how the Lincoln Memorial is used in popular culture. Fifth, there is no policy that forbids lists. I know some people like to convert lists into text, but they are then simply hard-to-read lists laid out in text form, which is a disservice to our readers.
Given all these factors, I ask you to please remove the tag from the section as superfluous and unnecessary, and also ask you to actually discuss those trivial entries you see in it, which is, after all, the reason upon which putting the list there is based. Then we can discuss those items and come to a consensus, and stop speaking in generalities. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Once again, the tag says that this article appears to have "trivial, minor, or unrelated" references to popular culture. Could we please have a list of those entries which are deemed to be trivial, minor or unrelated? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
the summary paragraph that you substituted was actually a policy-violating problem, as it went against WP:OR, offering analysis and interpretation without any sourcing This must be an example of "alternative facts", for as you can see, I included references to reliable sources in my edit. —howcheng {chat} 09:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I could take great offense at being included with the "alternative facts" folks, if it weren't for the fact that you are absolutely correct. My apologies for my mischaracerizing your paragraph. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
BMK, if you're OK with this article not making an appearance in OTD, that's fine, you can keep the status quo. No skin off my back. —howcheng {chat} 09:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, my dear admin, I don't give a damn about OTD. I'm about the encyclopedia and its articles, not about the Main Page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The {{in popular culture}} tag is completely acceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

tag requires the tagger to specify which of the many examples is trivial. Rjensen (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Every single one. (but particularly the unreferenced ones after the film subsection). There is no discussion about how they have an impact on popular culture or on how it has influenced perceptions. The Washington Post articles are perfect for it and Howcheng's paragraph was the perfect example of the kind of text that this should be.
From MOS:POPCULT Unfortunately, these sections are frequently just lists of appearances and mentions, many of them unencyclopedically trivial: and If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. Couldn't say it better myself. Woody (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Once again, all of MOS, including POPCULT, is an editing guideline, and not mandatory policy. For the Main Page crown to change the article because of MOS issues is the tail wagging the dog. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Every single one?? you surely do not mean: 1939: Frank Capra film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the statue and its inscription provide inspiration to freshman Senator Jefferson Smith, played by James Stewart.[footnoted 27] Rjensen (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The footnote for that one is what this section should be. e.g. The Lincoln Memorial and the wider mall have formed key scenes in a wide variety of cultural media. The Washington Post has stated that But when it comes to the movies, the Mall — and especially the Lincoln Memorial — often plays a critical part. In the Frank Capra film Mr Smith goes to Washington the statue and its inscription provide inspiration to freshman Senator Jefferson Smith, played by James Stewart. and so on. The list of mentions in every movie serves no purpose other than that it is in a lot of movies.
Take the X-Men First Class quote, they could have played chess anywhere, how does it being played there have any impact? etc. Woody (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Great! Thank you for finally making a specific complaint about a specific enrtry, as I've been asking for since the beginning of this dispute.
I think I would agree with you. Unlike the National Treasure entry, where the irony of discussing the stealing of the Declaration of Independence while sitting at the Memorial is too evident, there does not apppear to be a themtic connection for the X-Men First Class instance, so I'd be in favor of removing it.
However, let me go a step farther. Since it's been pointed out to me how badly I misread and mischaracterized Howcheng's paragraph, and since the consensus here is clearly (although I still believe mistakenly) against the list version of the section, primarily for reasons that appear to me to be totally extrinsic to the quality of the list itself) I'm going to restore Howcheng's paragraph with the addition of the items that I've sourced since then. That, it seems to be would represent the ongoing consensus at this moment. I will move the list here, for possible future use should the consensus change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, this article has been massively improved. Well done to all involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree strongly. You've allowed preference for a non-mandatory form to overwhelm functionality, and thus, in my opinion, done a considerable disservice to the readers of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh well. An arbitrary list of pop culture one-hit-wonders has been replaced with a slightly more analytical prose version. Much more encyclopedic and better for our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

List removed from article

Films

Television

  • 1991: In The Simpsons episode "Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington", Lisa Simpson goes to the Memorial hoping to be inspired by the spirit of Lincoln. She arrives to find a crush of tourists ahead of her, and detours to the Jefferson Memorial. The spirit of Thomas Jefferson speaks to her there, but is annoyed that she came to him only as a second choice.[3]
  • 1993: In the Ren & Stimpy Show episode "An Abe Divided", Ren and Stimpy get jobs working at the Lincoln Memorial where Ren overhears about treasure inside the memorial's head. Ren and Stimpy then saw off Lincoln's head only to find caramel corn inside, but are left with a headless-Lincoln. They spend the episode trying to fix their mess with disastrous results.
  • 2004: In the "The Stormy Present" episode of the TV series The West Wing, President Josiah Bartlet (Martin Sheen) visits the Lincoln Memorial after being prompted by a letter to "Go see Lincoln and listen."
  • 2015: In "Reunion", the penultimate episode of Falling Skies, it is determined that the alien queen is located at the Lincoln Memorial and this is where they must go to win the war. In the series finale "Reborn", resistance leader Tom Mason confronts the queen face to face in the ruins of the Lincoln Memorial and kills her, destroying the alien invaders. Months later, the Memorial has been rebuilt and is where a united humanity gathers to choose a new leader.

Video games

  • 2000: In the video game Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2, the Lincoln Memorial can be seen in missions that take place in Washington, D.C. In the Allied Campaign Lincolns head was replaced by a head of Stalin before America was liberated. In the Soviet Campaign, it was destroyed for a cash bounty.
  • 2008: In the video game Fallout 3, 200 years after a nuclear war set in 2077, the Lincoln Memorial has been badly damaged, including Lincoln's head having gone missing from the statue. The head is later found in the possession of several escaped slaves who want to return it to the memorial and restore it to its original condition.[6]

Music videos

  • 1985: The music video for "We Built This City (On Rock and Roll)" by Starship features a still shot of the Memorial interior. A view has the group and onlookers singing the refrain upwards to Lincoln's statue. The view then switches to the statue coming to life, standing up, and singing along.

Novels

  • 1978: In the Clive Cussler novel Vixen 03, the memorial is destroyed by a shell fired from the USS Iowa, however, the statue of Lincoln remains intact.

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Toney, Veronica (September 17, 2015). "It's not just 'Forrest Gump.' The National Mall has had an iconic role in many movies". Washington Post. Retrieved 12 February 2017.
  2. ^ The Day the Earth Stood Still at the AFI Catalog of Feature Films
  3. ^ a b c d Sacher, Jay (May 6, 2014). Lincoln Memorial: The Story and Design of an American Monument. Chronicle Books. pp. 83–85. ISBN 9781452131986. Retrieved February 12, 2017.
  4. ^ a b "Lincoln Memorial's role in U.S. history, pop culture". Washington Post. July 26, 2013. Retrieved February 11, 2017.
  5. ^ Kim, Kristen Yoonsoo (June 30, 2016) "'The Purge: Election Year' Hits the Upgrade Button in Literally Every Way" Complex: Pop Culture"
  6. ^ GamesRadarTylerWilde, "Fallout 3 vs. Reality: Photo Comparison" (GamesRadar+ December 5, 2008)

Further discussion

I believe I have integrated Howcheng's original paragraph with the two provided by rjensen, and the majority of the sourced material from the list, as well as some new sources I found myself, all in text form. To me, it's not nearly as easy to read and comprehend as rjensen's choice of some introductory paragraphs followed by the list, but all text is what appears to be the consensus here, so as much as I disagree with it... Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken did a very good job here. thanks. Rjensen (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. And I actually think the use of the list format may be warranted here, as I agree with BMK that the wall of text there is not very easy to read. I believe our primary objection was that the list was simply a list of mentions without any further analysis. The formatting is not as important as the content itself. —howcheng {chat} 21:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
No, the rest of the article is in prose, so I don't see why our readers can't manage another prose section. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lincoln Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lincoln Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Why no picture of the interior?

Interior of the Memorial

Hi, I was reading a book that featured a short scene set in the interior of the Lincoln Memorial, so I came to Wikipedia to find what it was like inside. Sure enough, there are 2 or 3 paragraphs describing the interior, but surprisingly, no picture. So in the spirit of "Be Bold" I went and found one on Wikimedia, and added it. 31 minutes later, my change got reverted as "not necessary".

There are currently 5 or 6 different images of the Memorial's exterior, but no photo at all of the overall interior. I think that a deficiency in the article. If it's a case of too many images, surely one of the exteriors could be cut - I suggest that having at least one interior shot is more helpful in describing the memorial than having 3 separate "at sunrise", "during the day" and "at dusk" photos (among others). The photo I tried to add is on the right. What do you think? Twirlip (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems a good idea to add a couple interior images, but the one you present seems fisheyed (or taken after one of those film monsters knocked the Memorial around a bit). A better image, and maybe well placed on the page, should do it. Thanks for thinking about what's lacking on the page (and those massive almost useless semi-infoboxed maps at the start of the page, how did those start and can we remove them from individual pages like this one?). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
It's technically not accurate to say there is no picture of the interior - we have the picture of the statue of Lincoln, which is in the interior, and which is, in fact, the only recognizable part of the image at the right. Unless an image of the interior was to present a good take on what's around the statue, it would be duplicative, and not in a good way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, and former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton walk past the statue of President Lincoln to participate in the ceremony on the 50th anniversary of the historic March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech
I don't think the "Interior of the Memorial" photo I added was fisheyed, as all the straight lines are still straight, but the perspective is certainly very strong. Personally I didn't like the unnatural lighting, but the few pictures that I could find with suitable licenses appear to be long exposure photos taken at night.
I did find this one, with 3 former Presidents walking out to commemorate MLK's I Have a Dream speech. It's a bit dark (I wish it had been HDR), it does make Abe look huge, and it doesn't convey the size of the side chambers, but it is natural light, and I think historically interesting.
This is a work the US government, so in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twirlip (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Good find, it both shows the interior of the memorial from a nice perspective and has the historical presidential connections you mention. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I made some adjustments for visibility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
And I've added it to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Adjustments? You are a magician. Turns a dark foreboding but interesting picture into a potentially iconic image. Nice. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lincoln Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lincoln_Memorial/Archive_1&oldid=1111955464"